Radio NZ reports:

The draft secondary school English curriculum is ringing alarm bells for some teachers, with no reference to Te Mātaiaho – the framework that underpins every other curriculum area.

Teachers told RNZ the omission of Te Mātaiaho in the document published this week was bizarre, and they were worried it was part of a move to sideline the Treaty of Waitangi, which until recently had been a critical part of Te Mātaiaho.

This is the English curriculum.

Jepsen said the change was “educational violence” and it was not happening in isolation

Educational violence. How hysterical.

Abercrombie said curriculum areas grounded in the partnership principles of the treaty would always have better outcomes for students.

I’d love to see the peer reviewed evidence for that assertion.

Politico reported:

Marine Le Pen’s plans to run for the French presidency in 2027 were dealt a likely fatal blow Monday after she was found guilty of embezzling European Parliament funds and deemed ineligible to stand in elections for the next five years. 

Le Pen and 24 other codefendants were accused of illicitly siphoning European Parliament funds to pay for party employees who seldom or never dealt with affairs in Brussels or Strasbourg. The court estimated that the accused had over 12 years embezzled more than €4 million, €474,000 of which Le Pen was held personally responsible for as an MEP. 

I am no fan of Le Pen, but this is not good. What Le Pen was found guilty of is that basically parliamentary funds were used for purposes that were more about helping her party, than parliamentary duties.

Anyone remember Helen Clark’s pledge card that the Auditor-General ruled was illegally funded by the taxpayer. This is basically what Le Pen did. Helen didn’t go to jail, get fined or ruled ineligible to stand.

All around the world, politicians use parliamentary funding to try and help their political parties. Now you should certainly do so within the rules, and there should be consequences for breaking the rules. But being ruled ineligible to stand for office (especially when you are the leading contender for President) is un-democratic.

One of the major criticisms (which I share) is that Donald Trump has broken many of the norms of politics in the US, and he undermines institutional legacy.

In New Zealand, Te Pati Māori do the same. But their norm breaking is not called out to even a fraction of the scale Trump’s is.

Matua Kahurangi blogs:

Te Pāti Māori’s refusal to appear before the Privileges Committee over their disruptive haka in Parliament is a brazen display of arrogance and entitlement. Their decision to ignore a formal summons demonstrates a fundamental disregard for the rules of democratic governance and the very institution they are elected to serve. Rather than facing scrutiny like any other Member of Parliament would be expected to, they have chosen to hide behind claims of unfairness, painting themselves as perpetual victims while undermining parliamentary process.

The Privileges Committee exists to uphold the integrity of Parliament, ensuring that its members abide by the rules that govern them. If every MP who disagreed with the process simply refused to participate, the system would collapse into chaos. Te Pāti Māori’s rejection of the summons is not an act of principled resistance. It is political theatre, an opportunistic stunt designed to rally their base while shirking accountability.

One of the hidden success stories in New Zealand is how well Parliament, or the House of Representatives works. We could devolve into a system where the majority in the House can do whatever it wants with impunity, but over time we have developed a system which ensures opposition parties can be effective, but also the Government can govern. Some examples are:

1. A culture that Standing Orders are amended only by consensus, not simple majority vote – has lasted for many decades
2. An agreement that entrenched clauses are respected, and not got around by repealing the entrenchment clause (which is not entrenched) and then the clauses that were protected
3. Requirements for Ministers to face question time
4. Requirements for Ministers to front up to select committees
5. Agreement that one out of every six days is set aside for non-government bills allowing opposition parties to promote legislation
6. Agreement that the Privileges Committee is respected and MPs take part in its processes in good faith
7. A Business Committee that operates by consensus or near consensus

The antics of Te Pati Maori pose a huge challenge to the House. They think the rules do not apply to them. They think they’ll get more votes by refusing to abide by norms.

So what could the House do if Te Pati Maori refuse to abide by the rules everyone else does. Well this would be a last resort, but if TPM won’t recognise the value of abiding by the rules, then why should they benefit from them. The House could (this is very last resort):

• Remove TPM from the Business Committee
• Remove TPM from oral questions allocation
• Remove TPM from speaking slots on bills

Now don’t get me wrong. These would be terrible things to do. It would be the Government using its majority to amend standing orders in such a way to penalise a political party. This is something once done, can never be undone.

But if TPM continue on a path of thinking they are above the rules, then the only choices left are bad choices. So it is their choice.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP David Parker maintains tax policy disputes within the party are not behind his decision to leave politics.

Parker, an MP since 2002, today confirmed he would resign in early May after contemplating his future since Labour was kicked out of Government in the 2023 election. …

This will bring back Vanushi Walters, the former MP for Upper Harbour, as a List MP.

The Herald reports:

Former Labour leader Andrew Little has confirmed he is considering a tilt at the Wellington mayoralty.

This means he is standing. I have little doubt he would crush Whanau. Little would at least be a competent Mayor. However I’m not sure Little would bring the fiscal discipline to Council that is so badly needed. 20% rates increases are obscene.

But this is all part of a plan by Labour to cease back the capital from The Greens. They will be standing very high profile candidates in Rongotai and Wellington Central to try and knock off Julie Anne Genter and Tamatha Paul also.

1 News breathlessly reports:

1News can reveal that a National Party MP is part of a religious group embroiled in alleged child abuse being investigated in New Zealand, Australia, and the USA.

Ilam MP Hamish Campbell said while he’s been made aware of the historical allegations through the media, he has no personal knowledge of the individuals involved.

So the MP gets ambush journalism from TVNZ because he is involved in a religious group. He doesn’t know either the alleged victims or perpetrators or the alleged child abuse, but lets do guilt by association.

Compare that to the softly softly coverage by the media of a left leaning MP who posted photos of children to social media with sexualised terms.

Campbell said the church was “a non-denominational Christian group just trying to live the best way possible”.

“I have an association through my family. I’ve also been a scientist for the last 20 years, so I have quite a broad view socially liberal.”

Such a total beatup.

The Wold World blogs:

Instead of front-footing it with a bit of accountability or even a mild, “yeah, fair play, that was dumb,” the Greens doubled down. They framed the whole thing as a morality play about queer identity and societal intolerance — completely missing the wider point. This wasn’t a homophobia problem. It was a judgment problem. And more to the point: a pattern. 

Let’s take a quick look at the Greatest Hits of recent Green disasters: 

Ghahraman – shoplifting 

Tana – migrant exploitation 

Kerekere – bullying 

Genter – contempt of Parliament 

Doyle – BibleBeltBussy, as spokesperson for early childhood education 

That’s not a blip. That’s a cultural issue. 

Either the Greens are just the unluckiest party ever, or it is a cultural issue.

The report that Shane Jones and his wife was physically assailed at Auckland Airport had me reflect how much more serious it is to have someone abuse you in person, rather than merely online.

It led to this post, which I had been ruminating on for a while. It is my attempt to they and work out a sort of hierarchy from bad to worst of abuse against public figures.

1. Online
   • (A) Generally abusive language about an MP
   • (B) Says they wished an MP was harmed
   • (C) Says they will harm or the MP
2. Direct Electronic Message
   • (A) Generally abusive language about an MP
   • (B) Says they wished an MP was harmed
   • (C) Says they will harm the MP
3. Phone
   • (A) Generally abusive language about an MP
   • (B) Says they wished an MP was harmed
   • (C) Says they will harm the MP
4. In person
   • (A) Generally abusive language about an MP
   • (B) Says they wished an MP was harmed
   • (C) Says they will harm the MP
   • (D) Actually harms MP

Now I’m not an MP but I’ve had 3C (he phoned me multiple times threatening to kill me) and that was traumatic.

What happened to James Shaw and Shane Jones is very serious. Its one thing to have online abuse, but quite another when someone physically assaults you or your spouse.

There is quite a difference between a 1B and say a 2C. Someone saying you deserve to die (while abhorrent) is not a death threat. Saying you will kill them is a death threat. I have reported to authorities messages in category 1C.

And again while all of it is bad, there is a difference between someone mouthing off on social media, and someone actually directly sending the message to you through a DM or an e-mail etc.

There is not an MP above who hasn’t had a 1A or 2A and sadly most would have had a 1B or 2B. If they were all reported, the Police would need those 500 extra police officers. It’s really category C that needs intervention – when people say they will themselves cause harm.

Judith Collins announced:

The Coalition Government today released a multi-billion dollar plan for a modern, combat-capable New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) that pulls its weight internationally and domestically. 

“Global tensions are increasing rapidly, and New Zealand has stepped up on the world stage, but our current Defence spending is simply too low,” Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says.

“This new Defence Capability Plan contains $12 billion of funding over the next four years, which includes $9 billion of new spending. This will raise New Zealand’s defence spending from just over one per cent of GDP to more than two per cent in the next eight years.

This is perfectly timed, and much needed. As the United States withdraws from the world, we need to be prepared to work with allies to protect our values and territory. We can’t freeload off other countries and only spend 1% of GDP on defence, when everyone else is spending 2% or more.

This graph shows how massive the increase will be. We will get back to a level last seen 30 years ago. The world was a lot safer in the mid 1990s than it is today.

Lots of polls in the last week or so. The time and size weighted average of the last six polls has the Government on 63 seats and the Opposition on 57.

The final report of the Court of Inquiry into the sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui is here.

Key findings areL

• The direct cause of the grounding has been determined as a series of human errors in that the Ship was put on a heading towards land and the autopilot mode was not disengaged to enable the Ship to turn in an easterly direction.
• The correct initial actions for an azimuth thruster failure were not initiated upon realising that the Ship was not responding to the planned starboard turn, the first action being to take the Ship in hand, which means to take the Ship out of autopilot mode.
• The key Ship’s personnel involved in the incident on the bridge were found to have deficiencies in ship qualifications and platform endorsements

So neither of the officers on the bridge realised it was on autopilot. They did not follow the bridge card which would have alerted them to this. And two of the three main officers involved were not endorsed for the ship’s platform, and the other one was endorsed but basically shouldn’t have been!

Radio NZ reports:

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown says he will only re-work constitutional ties with New Zealand if the new agreement makes it clear his country is now “more independent” – risking a fresh brawl with Wellington.

Brown has been caught up in a bitter dispute with New Zealand over contentious agreements he’s signed with China, as well as his push to introduce a passport for Cook Islands.

New Zealand said both of those moves were in breach of long-standing constitutional agreements from 1965, 1973 and 2001, which made it clear Cook Islands must consult with it over foreign policy and security issues.

I agree the Cook Islands should be more independent. In fact they should be fully independent. But what Brown wants is all the perks of being part of the Realm of New Zealand, and none of the responsibilities.

So here’s what we should do:

• Referendum in Cooks on independence
• If they vote yes, we save $24 million a year in funding most of their Government
• We grandfather in existing Cooks residents as citizens, but anyone born after independence does not get NZ citizenship or residency

Paul Goldsmith announced the sentencing reforms passed third reading. While the revised three strikes law was so watered down to be almost useless, these law changes are much more meaningful and welcome. They include:

• Capping the sentence discounts that judges can apply at 40 per cent
• Preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse.
• Encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing for offences committed while on bail, in custody, or on parole
• Implementing a sliding scale for early guilty pleas with a maximum sentence discount of 25 per cent
• New aggravating factors of “Adults who exploit children and young people by aiding or abetting them to offend” and “Offenders who glorify their criminal activities by livestreaming or posting them online”

A guest post by Lucy Rogers:

Look, I understand entirely why I face such hostility on this blog for speaking Māori. It is perceived as “virtue signalling”, which is a perception that has arisen in the context of decades of fashionable Western self-loathing. Like you, I can’t stand insincerity. It is hypocritical that people who obsess over the every failing of Western culture cannot also acknowledge the good things about it: democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, habeas corpus and trial by jury, to name just a few.

We agree on a lot

I share your contempt for the likes of Jussie Smollett who faked a racist and homophobic hate crime on himself for attention, and your dislike of the sort of culture that incentivised that. I feel angry as a queer woman myself that people claiming to be my allies are silent about the oppression of women and LGBTQI+ in (say) Iran or Afghanistan, and I think that speaks volumes about the sincerity of their convictions.

Carrie Bourassa is a joke

I add in parenthesis that I was in fits of laughter when leading Canadian indigenous health researcher Carrie Bourassa pretended to have Métis ancestry and appeared in native dress at a public address to express her hurt at childhood racism and criticise settler-colonialism. She introduced herself as “Morning Star Bear” of Bear Clan, only to be outed later for having no indigenous ancestry whatsoever (she is Swiss, Hungarian, Polish and Czech).

The renaissance of Te Ao Māori is often pursued from a place of sincerity

However, at present thousands of Māori people are enthusiastically pursuing the renaissance of their language and their culture from a place of sincerity. Many white New Zealanders do not realise this and are mistaking them for the anti-Western virtue signalling camp, and are accordingly very hostile to anything Māori. This is met with bewilderment by Māori. They do not understand at all why some white people are so hostile to their culture.

Hostility to Te Reo is damaging race relations

Rather than realising the true source of the hostility to Te Reo (which is the intellectual dishonesty of postmodernism as a worldview) antipathy towards anything Māori is viewed in the light of historical suppression of Te Reo in schools as well as the devaluing of Māori culture generally. In short, it is perceived as racism. You need only read Māori media outlets to see the enormity of the bewilderment, hurt, rage and even hate this causes.

This will cause major social problems

There is trouble on the horizon for Aotearoa. Our response to Covid has destroyed this country’s future. It is now a matter of when, not if, we go bankrupt. Either that will happen with the next big natural disaster or it will happen when global economic depression hits. When people can’t afford food New Zealand will rip itself apart along racial lines. Your homes and shops will be attacked and looted on the grounds that “well their ancestors stole our stuff first and they’re racist anyway so they deserve it”.

We need a new political paradigm

We need a new political paradigm in which postmodernism does not harden people to indigenous issues. The key to this is the simple realisation that you can be pro-indigenous without being postmodern. I try to exemplify that principle by pouring scorn on postmodernism as a worldview (e.g. my stance on the Israel/ Palestine issue, where I have repeatedly called out postmodern hypocrisy) while on the other hand incorporating Māori words into my writing, especially (yes) in a public context. 

I do not judge people who see differently

I want to make very clear that I do not think I’m more enlightened or morally or intellectually or culturally superior to people who see things differently. I also try not to hold it against people who are hostile towards me for including Māori words in my writing. I understand the annoyance.

Can we compromise a little?

But can we agree to disagree? I, for my part, try to compromise by not using words like “Pākehā” on this blog, which I know some people find irksome. (I acknowledge that I do use that word sometimes in a Māori context, many of whom dislike the word “white” for reasons I shall not go into.) I’m not asking you to speak Te Reo yourselves necessarily, but just to leave space for those of us who do. Some of us are sincerely enthusiastic about the revitalisation of Māori language and seek to encourage and normalise its use by speaking it. 

ConclusionIf you’ll allow me the space to use a few Māori words in my writing, then that’s enough for me. But if you’ll go further and realise that there are a growing movement of others like me, and allow someone (especially someone Māori) who signs off an email with “Ngā mihi” the benefit of the doubt that they are not virtue signalling, then this post will have done more good 

The Albanese Government has announced a gradual lowering of the 16% tax rate to 14% for income between $18,200 and $45,000. This increases the gap between the NZ and Australia, where we get taxed far more.

• At $50,000 you pay $2,406 less tax in Australia
• At $100,000 you pay $2,626 less tax in Australia
• At $150,000 you pay $3,076 less tax in Australia
• At $200,000 you pay $1,476 less tax in Australia

If you take account of our higher GST and the proportion of after tax income spent on GST goods and services, then it is:

• At $50,000 you pay $4,176 less tax in Australia
• At $100,000 you pay $5,979 less tax in Australia
• At $150,000 you pay $7,940 less tax in Australia
• At $200,000 you pay $7,941 less tax in Australia

The Irish Times reports on how Trump attacking leaders increases their popularity back home. Examples include:

• Canada Government net approval has gone from -42% to +16%
• Mexico President net approval gone from +55% to +70%
• Ukraine President net approval gone from +20% to +38%
• Danish PM approval up from 31% to 45%

The change in the fortunes of the Canadian Liberal Party has been the most astonishing.

The Canadian Conservative Party have gone from two years of being 99% likely to form a majority Government to now 1% likely to form Government. And all since February 2025.

The Post reports:

The details, released under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, also reveal a car used by the mayor and mayoral office staff was recorded speeding 30 times over the same time period, most of them in 30kph areas.

Wait – are you telling me the Mayor who insisted on lowering the speed limits everywhere to 30 km/hr has had their Mayoral car break that speed limit no less than 30 times!

Chris Bishop and Simon Court announced principles for the RMA replacement, and they generally look very good (but not perfect). Some key aspects:

The new system will be based on the economic concept of “externalities”. Effects that are borne solely by the party undertaking the activity will not be controlled by the new system (for example, interior building layouts or exterior aspects of buildings that have no impact on neighbouring properties such as the size and configuration of apartments, the provision of balconies, and the configuration of outdoor open spaces for a private dwelling).

This is very good. However how externalities are defined will be crucial, and also making clear trivial externalities should be excluded.

Both Acts will include starting presumptions that a land use is enabled, unless there is a significant enough impact on either the ability of others to use their own land or on the natural environment. 

Great.

Nationally set standards, including standardised land use zones, will provide significant system benefits and efficiencies. The new legislation will provide for greater standardisation, while still maintaining local decision making over the things that matter.

This may be the most important aspect. We currently have 1,175 different planning zones. The idea behind this is you have say 12 – 15 zones (low density, medium density, commercial, industrial etc) and Councils just pick and choose a zone for different areas.