About robglennie000

Kia Ora This blog is my vent for releasing my frustrations with the state of New Zealand, the New Zealand Government and things going on in New Zealand society, as well as around the world. I post daily at 0900 New Zealand time. Please feel free to leave comments. Please also feel free to follow my blog. Best Regards, Rob

What is New Zealand Public Party doing with its finances?


It has emerged that $255,000 has been donated to the New Zealand Public Party, despite that party never actually registering. But whilst an academic says that this is unprecedented, due to a perceived loop hole in the law, it is entirely illegal.

N.Z.P.P. has been around since June. It was one of a flurry of little parties that started up in early and mid 2020, but unlike the other small parties – Real New Zealand, Prosperity and Hannah Tamaki’s Vision Party – N.Z.P.P. has flourished on the back of its view that COVID19 is a scam; the United Nations has a one world agenda and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is bent on taking away ones rights. Its leader Billy Te Kahika Jnr (not to be confused with his father, a known and respected musician) rose to prominence over lock down for how rapidly he went from embracing it to calling lock down a scam.

In that time its existence has been a wild ride. From leading street protests against lock down to having to answer questions about the state of its finances, policies and association with disgraced former National M.P. Jami-Lee Ross, it has been full on. But today’s announcement might be the biggest hurdle to over come yet, or possibly an embarrassing indictment on our electoral finance laws.

So, a question has to be asked as to whether this is a loop hole in New Zealand electoral law that New Zealand Public Party has taken unethical advantage of. Or is it a case of N.Z.P.P. actually – as Mr Te Kahika claims – not being able to register the party in time?

So, perhaps this is not as straight forward as people are making it out to be. A simple time line of N.Z.P.P.’s history shows that its first meeting was on 11 June. The New Zealand Electoral Commission advises an 8 week wait for a political party to be registered, meaning a party wanting to be registered by the Writ Day, would have to have submitted its registration by 21 June. Writ Day is when Parliament declares an election campaign period to be in progress, and the N.Z.P.P. database shows it would have had 1,200 members at point.

As this was a first registration, it actually IS possible that N.Z.P.P. did run out of time to submit its registration. Compiling the registration and donation details of the 500 members necessary to complete the Party’s application would be difficult enough, never mind another 700 on top of that. From the first meeting to 15 June, which is when Mr Te Kahika said he would have needed to put the application in the post to ensure it arrived in time is four days.

This said, I expect the public will be demanding to know answers about what is going on. There will now be a lot of public scrutiny on what N.Z.P.P. is doing with its finances. There will be pressure on the Electoral Commission to explain the loop hole in the law. As Parliament has dissolved, the 52nd edition of it will not be able to address the matter should a law change be required. Whoever wins will find themselves under pressure to look at appropriate amendments to the Electoral Finance Act to  ensure that no such loop hole exists.

I cannot pass judgement on whether something illegal has happened, but I think New Zealanders would be alarmed that this has managed to happen. Illegal or not, it does raise some interesting questions about the use of finances around election time.

My thoughts on electricity policy in 2020


New Zealand faces numerous environmental and economic challenges going forwards into the 2020’s and beyond. One those challenges is ensuring we have an adequate energy supply without being environmentally irresponsible. This article outlines my thoughts on electricity policy in 2020.

I will start with the most obvious one. Hydroelectric power. Most New Zealanders can probably name at least one hydroelectric power station in this country. I have added a significantly longer, but not complete list below:

  • Waikato River: Aratiatia, Atiamuri, Whakamaru, Waipapa, Maraetai, Ohakuri, Arapuni and Karapiro; Tongariro Power Scheme: Rangipo and Tokaanu
  • Upper Waitaki: Tekapo A and B, Ohau A, B and C, Benmore, Aviemore and Waitaki
  • Clutha River: Clyde and Roxburgh

The contribution of hydroelectric power is substantial with the power stations listed supplying about 3,400 megawatts of electricity and the total contribution being about 60% of our total generating capacity. Whilst there are calls to dam more rivers to supply clean energy, they come at great ecological cost to the rivers and not all of them are suitable for damming even if we did want to.

One possibility is that the out put of Manapouri power station, the largest hydroelectric power station in the country would be diverted to the national grid. This poses challenges as well as opportunities. In terms of challenges, could New Zealand’s grid take another 850 megawatts of electricity and if so, what would it mean for the market – the shares of shareholders in electricity companies would significantly weaken. A flip side would be the ability of thousands of New Zealanders who struggle with electricity bills each year to be able to pay them and stay warm.

Whilst I support the development of renewable energy sources, I am not so keen on the N.I.M.B.Y’ist politics that often go with such developments. The same people who talk about the need for green energy are often ones who grumble about a wind turbine when they see mangled birds on the ground or realize that these things are not altogether quiet. Would they rather another dam was built, thus depriving us of further unspoilt river?

Unlike others, I support the exploration of Waste-to-Energy as a potential source of energy. This is not to say I encourage the continuation of the waste stream just to power a W-t-E facility, but, I believe waste material that cannot be easily recycled should be sent to a W-t-E facility. In terms of where to locate such facilities, I believe the West Coast of the South Island is a good place to start. Whilst the West Coast has numerous rivers that the energy lobby would be interested in damming, there are several good reasons why we should not:

  1. Too many rivers are dammed or have been diverted in New Zealand for electricity generation already;
  2. The West Coast is seismically volatile and a major earthquake of up to magnitude 8 is likely in the working life of any dam built – it would have to be more robustly constructed than might be worth the cost
  3. The best candidates have unique natural characteristics that would be lost along with tourism operations that have been built up along side them

But there are two types of energy that I accept have no future. One is coal fired power. Coal is a sunset industry whose only hope of survival is to power a standby power station that is used when hydro-electric storage lakes are low due to dry conditions. Huntly power station which has four coal/gas units each capable of generating 250 megawatts has started replacing them, with its owner Genesis intending to completely remove coal by 2030.

The other is nuclear power. I have described in other other articles why there is no place for nuclear power in New Zealand, and why establishing such a power station would be prohibitively expensive and resource intensive.

There are other things New Zealand could be doing, which to the best of my knowledge it is not seriously considering. The first is solar energy. There are significant challenges facing solar energy, which include that the panels require rare earth minerals that are sourced from politically unstable parts of the world. The financial return from solar projects also raises questions about the viability of such a power source. Nonetheless that has not stopped a small scheme being established in south Auckland for industrial purposes.

The second we have actually given much political consideration to, for reasons of reducing the cost to householders to stay warm. However little practical thought as to HOW we do it – even though the answers are glaringly obvious – has been given. I am talking about the massive scale insulation of every state house in New Zealand and setting requirements for new houses. Politicians on the right will decry the regulations as red tape whilst politicians on the left will decry the social costs. Yet neither seem interested in a compromise. How, when – if at all – this ever takes place is anyone’s guess.

New Zealand politics: Steady as she goes


New Zealand politics are, for the most part a serious case of “Steady as she goes”. No wild swings across the political spectrum, left to right; libertarian to authoritarian.

How have we managed to keep such a steady ship for so long, one might ask. Over the years I have come to identify three key drivers of this which I describe below.

Part of the answer is that Mixed Member Proportional governance has never promoted this by way of encouraging coalition governments instead of single party ones with an outright majority. Coalition governments require deals to be cut with other parties that mean some bold policies that may have been acceptable have to be cast aside in order to secure the co-operation of a larger party (think Labour and the Greens; Labour and New Zealand First; National and New Zealand First). In 1996 for example when New Zealand First did a deal ending nine weeks of negotiations with National, the latter had to agree to give up the privatization of state assets.

A second aspect has been the li(n)es that are told. Politicians who say that they are working for the greater good of the country are often scared to implement changes that might be recommended by an inquiry or by the Ombudsman. Very often they will take the route that appears to be the shortest and easiest to get out of having to handle hot topic issues. In doing so, the legislative might offer up a half cooked solution that will not do the intended job. The politicians of the day will then say “It is the best solution available”, when they actually mean “it was the best solution that we thought was acceptable”. And being largely uncritical of the Government, most New Zealanders will swallow the story whole without thinking twice.

A third aspect is whether political parties are who they claim to be. In New Zealand we have the centre-left Labour and the centre-right National. New Zealand First claims to sit somewhere between the two, whilst the Greens and A.C.T. define the left and right field limits. At its heart, both Labour and National are not so much parties of the centre as their 21st century iterations are two shades of neoliberal. As is New Zealand First, despite its claims to not support trade agreements in their current format, or giving state owned assets to the private sector. Probably only the Greens and A.C.T. are true to their word. A.C.T. is an unashamedly neoliberal party who think market economics are the answer.

Last but not least, New Zealanders have an attitude in society, almost casual in nature to believe that wrongs will somehow come right in good time. It is a carefree attitude that has led to a toxic combination of lax safety at work, casual attitudes to socio-economic policies announced, which is unnecessarily coming to bite many people when and how they least expect it.

Our mediocre progress on economic, social and political changes as needed can be in large part put down to the above three factors and the dash of “she’ll be right”-ness that too many people believe in.

Why Advance N.Z./N.Z. Public Party are a danger to New Zealand


On Saturday afternoon,hundreds, possibly thousands of people marched into Auckland’s Aotea Square protesting. They were there because two politicians – an elected M.P. and a political wannabe – were going to speak about a perceived assault on New Zealand’s civil society.

New Zealand Public Party and Advance New Zealand are two political parties on the fringe that only formed in the last year. Yet in that time, whereas other parties would have struggled to gain any media traction, the A.N.Z./N.Z.P.P. alliance has become one of the most controversial features of the New Zealand political spectrum. Their message is one of fear: A Communist plot to take over New Zealand led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern; a bioengineered weapon is being spread by the new 5G telecommunications technology. The United Nations wants a New World Order and wealthy people like Bill Gates are trying to develop population control medicines.

Now, that sounds quite quack doesn’t it? I certainly believe it is bat crazy. But these two parties genuinely believe this stuff.

There are several aspects of their conduct that I find extremely thoroughly alarming:

  • Their willingness to spread known lies
  • Their deliberate targeting of vulnerable parts of the community, who have been disenfranchised by the Government in the past
  • Their leaders Jami-Lee Ross (Advance N.Z.) and Billy Te Kahika (N.Z. Public Party) genuinely believe what they are saying
  • They are exploiting the legitimate fear that is generated by the uncertainty of COVID19, the unprecedented safety measures that have had to be rolled out

As Martyn Bradbury notes, there are conspiracies that we should be concerned about. They are beyond the scope of this article, except to say a bioengineered virus being spread by the next generation of telecommunications equipment is not one of them.

Far more dangerous to society is the massive unsustainable consumption of resources that has seen human kind in the 1 minute of geological time it has been on the face of this planet wipe out at least half of the known flora and fauna. That is right. If you condense the entire geological history of planet Earth into a day, human kind has been around roughly one minute and at the current rate of resource consumption, the human race might not get out of this century alive.

Far more dangerous to society is the fact that since the Cold War ended, the Americans and Russians have abandoned nearly all of their nuclear weapon limitation treaties. Defence spending has continued to grow and this year the United States defence budget was U.S.$721.25 billion – about N.Z$1.07 TRILLION. The fact that there are no checks and balances in Pakistan or India to stop an accidental missile launch makes them probably the most dangerous countries in the world with regards to nuclear disarmament.

What is not dangerous to New Zealand society is the honest efforts of experts like Drs Siouxsie Wiles, Ayesha Verrall, Michelle Dickinson and others who have dedicated their professional lives to helping New Zealand understand science in a way that we can make meaningful good from. What is not dangerous is the fact that the New Zealand Government to its massive credit has brought the best knowledge and practitioners of epidemiological science to bear front and centre in our fight against COVID19.

What is not dangerous to society is getting a flu vaccination. There will be a few people who have reactions, but the very vast majority of people will just feel a slightly dead/heavy arm sensation which will go away. Its success in large part stems from the willingness of so many people to get innoculated

Interestingly enough, many of these people are also Donald Trump supporters. They support a United States President whose legacy is likely to be measured in the number of COVID19 body bags that have been used in the last 8 months, and the many thousands more that are likely to be needed in the near future. They support a President whose aim many of my American friends genuinely believe is to start a race war or – worse still – a second American Civil War, by stoking hatred and distrust between black and non-black communities to the point that they start openly fighting each other.

Are these the kind of people you want in New Zealand politics? rabble that incites protests where people genuinely think that the Bill of Rights Act 1990 has been repealed or is going to be repealed. I am an Amnesty International member and Amnesty keeps a close eye on legislation in Parliament. If there were a degree of even vague truth about it, Amnesty would be mobilizing its massive membership to bring to bear pressure that has never been applied in a New Zealand context.

Stop and think about that.

Just how taxing is Labour’s income tax announcement?


(Sung to the Telethon tune) “Thank you very much for your kind taxation. Thank you very very very much”

The above was a National Party advert criticizing the proposed tax policy of then Prime Minister Helen Clark’s government in 2005. Dr Don Brash was leading the National Party, which had finally found its voice to the delight of National’s conservative base.  As the 2020 election campaign begins to ramp up, the political parties are starting to release their major policies after a considerable concern that the 2020 contest was not going to be about ideas.

Interestingly enough, Dr Brash’s proposed tax policy in 2005, despite being leader of the National Party was actually steeper than the announcement yesterday by Treasurer Grant Robertson. Dr Brash had proposed the following brackets (but not as steep as those of Dr Michael Cullen (bold)):

  • Up to $12,500 = 15% ; Up to $9,500 = 15%
  • $12,501-50,000 = 19% ; $9,501-38,000 = 21%
  • $50,001-100,000 = 33% ; $38,001-60,000 = 33%
  • $100,000+ = 39% ; $60,001+ = 39%

In contrast, social activist John Minto once upon a time proposed a 100% income tax on income over $250,000. In other words if you earned that much money, you did not get to see a cent of it. For obvious reasons, aside from Mr Minto not standing for Parliament, his proposals never went ahead. But it was that kind of extremism that prevents me ever supporting a bid by him to stand for public office.

I mentioned my own thoughts about income tax rates in June.

Many on the right will grumble about wealth being taken away from successful, hard working New Zealanders. Wealth and income are quite different classifications. Income is the hard money that your bank account sees, whilst wealth is ones cumulative assets – house/s, car/s, luxury items like boats, expensive jewellery and so forth. One might not have a huge day to day income, many have a share portfolio, investments in gold and so forth.

National and A.C.T. will invariably grumble, as will the Taxpayers Union. What these parties and the T.U. will never admit is that even some prominent former New Zealand politicians, such as former Prime Minister Jim Bolger believe high income New Zealanders should be paying more tax. Which is why it will be all the more interesting to see what their tax policies are and how they will fund expenditure.

Some on the left will grumble too. For entirely different reasons, namely they do not think the changes go nearly far enough. This will include the left-wing of Labour, the Green Party and social activists. They will argue that the Government is not serious about using income taxation to reduce poverty.

Others like me, however, will argue there are other ways in which poverty can be reduced. Tax is certainly useful as a lever to encourage, discourage certain behaviours and to fund programmes, but anyone who has studied poverty in depth will know there is a lot more to it than just this.