Yes that is a lecturer promoting criminal attacks on the PMs office. Will there be any consequences for this? Of course not. It’s not as if he is defending science.

Emmy’s official academic profile states:

I am a critical Marxist scholar working in the activist-academic tradition. The goal of my work is to demonstrate how social problems originate in the structure of society itself, and to argue for organised class struggle as a means of changing that structure.

Sounds a very open minded person!

The Herald reports:

Wellington City Council has ended negotiations with Reading International over a controversial deal to reopen the closed cinema complex on Courtenay Place.

The council had planned to buy the land underneath the cinema for $32 million, money which the cinema would use to redevelop the building.

However, senior council staff now say they have not been able to reach the best possible outcomes for Wellingtonians and the decision was made this week not to pursue the proposal further.

What this means is that the details of the proposed deal were so bad and terrible for ratepayers, that the Council realised that the deal was unsellable.

It should have never got so far, no doubt wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in failed negotiations. But better late than never.

Newshub reports:

Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins has stood by increasing the public service workforce during his time in government, saying it’s been proportionate to the growth in population. 

The Coalition Government has directed the public services to cut costs by between 6.5 and 7.5 percent to help reduce annual public service spending by $1.5 billion. It’s resulted in thousands of jobs proposed to be axed across the sector. 

The National Party has said it is trying to restore “financial discipline” with its cuts to the public service because the number of staff has ballooned under the previous Labour Government.  

Since Labour came to power in 2017, the number of public servants has increased by roughly one-third, up just under 18,500 to a total of 65,699 full-time equivalent staff at the end of 2023. 

However, Hipkins said the increase in public sector jobs was in response to New Zealand’s rising population. According to Stats NZ, New Zealand’s population has increased from just over 4.76 million at the end of 2016 to 5.3 million at the end of 2023. 

That is a 33% increase in public service numbers compared to an 11% increase in population. So when Hipkins says the growth has been proportionate he is wrong, or you can use a term that rhymes with flying.

Hipkins said the increase in government spending over the last six years under Labour has been proportionate to the increase in population and increase in pressure the public services have been under. 

Government spending was $78 billion in 2017 and $140 billion in 2023. That is a massive 79% increase.

“The size of the public sector workforce relative to the overall size of the workforce is actually slightly less than it was when we first became the government,” he said. 

Again not true. The HLFS show the proportion of the workforce in public administration and safety went from 5.6% to 6.9% from 2017 to 2023. If he is talking about the entire public sector then he is not talking just public servants but also doctors, nurses, teachers etc. That is a red herring. Few if any say we don’t have enough of those.

“The country is not broke. We have actually got some of the lowest government debt levels in the OECD,” he told AM co-host Lloyd Burr.

Actually 15 OECD countries have lower gross debt. And for net debt, Michael Riddell shows us:

So we are not near the bottom at all.

He said New Zealand was in a “difficult part in the economic cycle” and now is not the time for tax cuts. 

A chocolate fish for a reader who can find anytime Chris Hipkins has said the time is right for tax cuts.

The Herald reports:

The End of Life Choice Act needs changes when it comes up for review later this year, say both the architect of New Zealand’s assisted dying laws and hospice leaders.

An area Seymour would like to see changed is the eligibility for assisted dying only being available to terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live.

That compromise was made during the parliamentary process to appease the Green Party to ensure Seymour got the votes he needed to pass the bill.

Seymour believes the six-month timeframe should be scrapped because “it’s a shame that some of the people who suffer the worst are still unable to access the law”.

I agree. The Greens were worried about the disability community, but it means the law can’t be used by someone who had Huntington’s disease or Alzheimers. You can end up unable to move or speak. But because you can never be assessed as likely to die within six months, you can’t avoid a terrible fate. Extending the law would give those who suffer from Huntington’s disease the option of an assisted death. Many kill themselves anyway as their disease progresses.

Totara Hospice chief executive Tina McCafferty agreed and would “at best like to see that timeframe removed, or extended to 12 months”.

“That’s because prognosis is both an art and science, and you can’t always get that right,” she told RNZ.

The criteria I would support are either a terminal prognosis if within 12 months on an incurable degenerative disease.

Another area where there was consensus for review were the rules that stopped doctors from being able to discuss assisted dying with their patients – with patients needing to raise the medical intervention with their doctor.

Totara Hospice in Auckland is currently the only one in the country that offered the act of assisted dying on its premises.

McCafferty said the “gag clause” on doctors was “at odds with the actual responsibilities of healthcare professionals, where there’s an obligation to inform patients of all choices they can have in their care”.

She wanted that clause removed because “there’s a bias in that it leaves it up to articulate patients to raise their needs in that way”.

“Not everyone is articulate when it comes to health literacy, and I want to see that potential bias or inequity mitigated.”

Hospice NZ chief executive Wayne Naylor said the so-called gag clause was challenging “because you don’t want to put that idea into someone’s head if they haven’t thought of it, but we’re also thinking about a person’s right to have all the options laid out in front of them before they make a decision”.

The gag clause was put in as a caution against doctors trying to push patients towards an assisted death. But we trust doctors in all other areas to lay out the pros and cons of various options without bias, and they generally do that.

I recall an obstetrician telling me after a caesarian elective that she was so so pleased that decision was made, as it was so obviously the right one for the mother. But she never said this before the birth – she just gave options and pros and cons.

Naylor said hospices’ approach to assisted dying had evolved a lot, but warned against changes being made to the laws based on a small number of complaints.

“In the beginning it was very challenging and unclear to some extent how some hospices should respond. Certainly over the last three years there’s been a change.”

He said the majority of hospices now allowed assessment for eligibility of assisted dying to take place on site and support services were extended to families who had a loved one use assisted dying.

This is great news. The hospice swore vehemently against the law, and it is good to see that they have a more nuanced position now.

Napier’s Glenn Marshall wants to see assisted dying made available to those who make their wishes clear in an advanced directive before their illness means they lose the option altogether.

Absolutely. I would do an advanced directive.

Graeme Edgeler wrote in 2017:

In the first five years after three strikes came into effect 5248 offenders received a ‘first strike’ (that is, a “stage-1 conviction” under the three strikes sentencing regime), and 68 offenders received a ‘second strike’.

In the five years prior to three strikes, 5517 people were convicted of an offence where that conviction would have been a ‘first strike’ had three strikes been in force at the time, and 103 were convicted of an offence that would have been a ‘second strike’.

In addition, no-one was convicted of a third strikes in three strikes’ first five years, while four people were convicted of what would have been third strikes in the preceding five years, and two of them also racked up what would have been fourth strikes.

So the number of second strikes fell from 103 to 68 and third strikes from six (or four) to zero.

You can argue about whether or not this was due to the three strikes law. Maybe it was chance. But it is solid evidence that there was less reoffending in the first five years of Three Strikes.

Now you might say, well what about since 2017. That is a good point. I’d love to see data comparing the number of recividist strike offences for the ten years after Three Strikes and the ten years before. The longer the time frame, the better the comparison.

But the Ministry of Justice has refused to release any further numbers. They have said it is too complex, even though they have done it before. My suspicion is they don’t want the data released, as it goes against their ideological beliefs.

A useful thing for the new Ministers would be to demand updated data to 2022, using the exact same criteria as Edgeler used. Then the debate over Three Strikes would be more informed, and people wouldn’t be able to say there is no evidence Three Strikes work. Because during the first five years of Three Strikes, second strikes were 34% lower than the previous five years.

Newshub reports:

He [Hipkins] said the government had only been in office for six months, and “the wheels are falling off already”.

This is beyond stupid. Hipkins claims taking two portfolios away from Ministers who were seen to be struggling is the wheels are falling off.

In the first few months of last year, we saw his Government have:

• The PM resign
• The Minister of Justice sacked/resigned after being charged with drink driving and not co-operating with Police after she crashed her car
• Stuart Nash sacked for leaking Cabinet discussions and multiple prior warnings
• Michael Wood sacked after being told 12 times to sell shares he had a ministerial conflict over
• A Minister defect to Te Pati Maori.
• Phil Twyford demoted
• Three Ministers dropped as they were retiring at the election

For Hipkins to talk about a wheels dropping off, is hilarious.

Opposition Leaders often fall into the trap of thinking they have to try and turn everything into a scandal, and make overly dramatise everything as the end of the world etc. This mainly works by turning the public off the Opposition Leader.

On Anzac Day I normally focus on the many New Zealanders who have died serving our country. I will be thinking of them today, but with significant conflicts overseas, I will also be thinking of:

• The 10,000+ civilians killed in Ukraine due to Putin’s invasion
• The 100,000+ Ukrainian soldiers killed due to Putin’s invasion
• The 180,000+ Russian soldiers killed due to Putin’s invasion
• The 764 civilians killed by Hamas on October 7
• The 373 Israeli soldiers killed by Hamas on October 7
• The 20,000+ Palestinian civilians killed by Israel in the war started by Hamas

These just seem like large impersonal numbers, but I reflect every death is a family that is mourning and has lost a loved one.

The Herald reports:

The High Court has ruled Children’s Minister Karen Chhour cannot be compelled to appear before the Waitangi Tribunal.

In a just-released decision, Justice Andru Isac granted the Crown’s application for judicial review, setting aside the summons issued by the tribunal.

This is a very good decision. The Waitangi Tribunal was basically making a power play that has failed.

An issue for the future is what to do with institutions that behave more like political activists than neutral bodies. The Human Rights Commission has many people wanting them to be scrapped as they often look like a hard left activist group.

I got to speak to a group of esteemed old boys from a NZ school today.

My starting point was a comment made by a Head of English at a boys school I was teaching at when she stated that the comparatively poor English results, compared to Science and Math were because; ” … they were boys”.

This was a part of my counter evidence:

Top 30 Books of BBC Readers

1. The LOTR, JRR Tolkien
2. Pride and Prejudice, J Austen
3. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman
4. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling
6. To Kill a Mocking Bird, Harper Lee
7. Winnie the Pooh, AA Milne
8. Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell
9. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, CS Lewis
10. Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte
11. Catch-22, Joseph Heller
12. Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte
13. Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks
14. Rebecca, Daphne du Maurier
15. The Catcher in the Rye, JD Salinger
16. The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame
17. Great Expectations, Charles Dickens
18. Little Women, Louisa May Alcott
19. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin. Louisa de Bernieres
20.  War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy
21. Gone with the Wind, Margaret Mitchell
22. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, JK Rowling
23. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, JK Rowling
24. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, JK Rowling
25. The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien
26. Tess of the D’Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy
27. Middlemarch, George Eliot
28.  A Prayer for Owen Meany, John Irving
29. The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck
30.  Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

Alwyn Poole
Innovative Education Consultants
www.innovativeeducation.co.nz
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/

As job losses have occurred in the media sector, the media have done story after story about how devastating this change is for journalists and their families, and the need for empathy.

And then after Melissa Lee loses the broadcasting portfolio, the NZ Herald runs the following:

Calling it insensitive is putting it lightly. And people wonder why not everyone is upset with media job losses.

Max Salmon writes:

Last week the Commerce Commission announced its concern with a proposed merger between Foodstuffs North Island and Foodstuffs South Island. Their concern is a decrease in competition in the market.

It sounds crazy when you first hear it, but it’s even weirder when you see what the Commerce Commission is actually worried about.

At first glance it’s ludicrous. It isn’t like there are vast numbers of inter-island shoppers, ferrying and flying between north and south to secure precious grocery bargains from the New World on the other side of the Strait. Price differences between Tauranga’s PAK’n’SAVE and Dunedin’s New World won’t lead to many shopping trips.

It does indeed seem ludicrous. I won’t travel to another suburb for cheaper prices, let alone another island!

But that isn’t what the Commerce Commission is worried about. They worry instead that the combined entity will be too efficient. It will be able to purchase in bulk for both islands, passing some savings along to consumers, and making life harder for their suppliers.

So the Commerce Commission is worried about a merger than might result in lower prices for consumers!

1 News reports:

Melissa Lee has been relieved of the role of Media and Communications Minister, while Penny Simmonds has also lost her disabilities portfolio.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has explained the change saying due to significant challenges in each portfolio they should be held by senior Cabinet ministers.

It follows controversies and pressure in both ministers’ portfolios in recent months.

Paul Goldsmith with take over from Lee, and Louise Upston will take over for Simmonds.

“It has become clear in recent months that there are significant challenges in the media sector. Similarly, we have discovered major financial issues with programmes run by the Ministry of Disabled People,” Luxon said in a statement.

“I have come to the view it is important to have senior Cabinet Ministers considering these issues.”

This is a level of performance management we have not seen before. To have Ministers lose portfolios after just six months for sub-par management.

This will send a (good) chill up other Ministers they they need to perform at a very high level, otherwise they may also lose challenging portfolios, or worse.

Makes a change from the last Government when woeful Ministers were kept on for years and year and years. Not saying that these two Ministers are woeful – far from it. Just that Luxon is holding a much much higher level of performance expectation than other PMs.

The World Tribune reports:

“EU DisinfoLab, which receives grants from George Soros’ controversial Open Society Foundations, is now testing the water regarding ‘repurposing’ of an ICANN security operation set up to combat malware, spam, phishing, etc., and turn it into a tool against ‘disinformation sites,’ ” Didi Rankovic reported for Reclaim the Net on April 9. …

And, according to EU DisinfoLab, Rankovic added, “who better to wipe out whatever domain name is deemed to belong to a ‘disinformation site’ than a DNS registrar – and ICANN is the top authority for them all.”

ICANN’s Domain Name System Threat Information Collection and Reporting (DNSTICR) was used during the pandemic to identify domain names that contained terms related to Covid, “but the goal was to find out if the sites abused the keyword(s) to mask phishing or malware proliferating operations, rather than to ‘moderate’ any type of Covid-related content,” Rankovic noted.

EU DisinfoLab is looking to use a system based on DNSTICR to allow for reporting of “genuinely open-and-shut (disinformation) cases” to registrars for removal.

What authority would decide what’s a “genuinely open-and-shut case”?

DisinfoLab’s idea: registries or registrars could “grant media trade associations ‘trusted notifier’ status.”

Give media organisations the power to have ICANN remove domain names from the Internet that the media organisations label disinformation. What a horrifying proposal.

Ranapera Taumata is a Third Striker.  He murdered his girlfriend in 2019 by beating her to death with his bare hands. The Judge summarised:

Over the next 17 minutes or so, inside the sleepout you inflicted a prolonged
and violent assault on Ms Hira, rendering her unconscious and injured. At about
1.15 am you dragged her outside; she appeared to be unconscious. You tossed her to
the ground. You then proceeded to throw items of clothing and bedding outside around
where her body lay. A few minutes later you again grabbed her and dragged her by
the hair back into the sleepout. …

A post-mortem examination the next day determined the cause of her death
was head injuries. They were described as a subdural haematoma from blunt force
trauma. She also had rib fractures, a number of bruises, and abrasions to her body.

He has over 20 criminal convictions as an adult including five family violence convictions, assault with a weapon and aggravated robbery.  He is believed to have multiple convictions as a Youth offender, including for aggravated robbery.

Under the Government’s proposed re-introduction of Three Strikes 2.0, he will be on a clean slate.  His prior strike offences count for nothing, and he is a zero striker.

Just as bad, under the Government’s proposed Three Strikes 2.0, Ranapera Taumata would not qualify as a Third Striker at all!

This is because it is proposed that a person would only be a third striker if they had been sentenced to more than 24 months imprisonment for both his first and second strike offences.

For Ranapera Taumata’s first strike offence – an aggravated robbery – he was sentenced to 8 months home detention.

For Ranapera Taumata’s second strike offence – a robbery (which he committed while on prison release conditions) – he was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment.Neither meet the Government’s threshold to be considered a striker AT ALL!

When the new Three Strikes law is released, we need to lobby Parliament to ensure it is an effective regime that doesn’t give third strikers a clean slate, and doesn’t make it that crimes such as aggravated robbery don’t qualify as strikes if the Judge gives a light sentence.

In Judge Geoff Rea’s sentencing of Taumata’s first strike, he said: “You have got an appalling Youth Court record. If you were being sentenced on that basis, quite frankly, the time would almost be there to throw the key away on you.”

Instead we’re wiping out his previous strikes, and making it easier for him to avoid future strikes.

This is the first of what will be a series of posts to highlight how lenient the proposed new Three Strikes Law will be and how it will result in many violent recidivist criminals not getting strikes at all.

Over the years I’ve had various Wellingtonians approach me about setting up, or getting Jordan and the Taxpayers’ Union to set up, a dedicated Wellington ratepayer pressure group to fight for more fiscal prudence and better governance in our city.  Jordan and I have always turned away the efforts as nine times out of ten, they are usually some sort of attempt of a council ‘ticket’ rather than an independent watch-dog type organisation.

Wellington has been in a funk before. In the 1970s and 80s it was arguably the least ‘cool’ city in New Zealand.  As Mark Blumsky used to quip, for him success was avoiding people’s heart sinking when they found out their Ansett “Mystery Weekend” was to Wellington.  And, to be fair, it was turned around.  A string of good mayors and Council leadership (think Fran Wilde, Kerry Prendergast, and Mark Blumsky) were able to develop what became branded as “Absolutely Positively Wellington”, “the coolest little capital”, and “the middle of middle earth” successively, by driving through sensible projects like the Cake Tin, a remodelled waterfront leveraging off the building of Te Papa, as well as attracting events that added to the culture and liveability of the city.

But we are back in the funk. Instead of leading, our City Council is squabbling, failing to deliver basic public services and infrastructure, and financially mismanaging itself. Our near-bankrupt Council can’t even keep the water flowing, and nearly half our water is lost to unattended leaks as residents of our capital city were asked to stockpile emergency rations over the summer.

A ‘right wing’ group or ticket isn’t necessary – just a return to sensible civic leadership and a half decent Council which is willing to make the tough calls we need to get Wellington’s financial health, transport, and cultural mojo back.

I was involved on the periphery of the formation of the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance (when I was on the board of the Taxpayers’ Union, we gave Jordan a leave of absence to set it up). Although the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance spun out of the Taxpayers’ Union it has never been particularly ideological and attracts considerable support even from Auckland’s most Labour-aligned suburbs.  It just goes to show that wanting to see increased transparency, less waste, and better quality governance at Wellington’s town hall isn’t an issue of left or right.

So, as a Wellington ratepayer, I’m putting the call out there for expressions of interest to help to set up a Wellington ratepayer group to:

1) Unite Wellingtonians against unaffordable double digit rate hikes year after year due to massive projects like the $330 million town hall redevelopment (costing over $4,000 per household).

2) Fight back against the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on pet projects such as corporate welfare for Reading Cinemas whilst basic infrastructure like roads and water pipes are left to crumble and rot.

3) Force back the curtains on our local democracy by giving ratepayers the tools you need to easily submit your views on the Council’s often cloak-and-dagger public consultations.

4) Hold Councillors to account for the decisions they vote for, so residents can make        informed choices at the ballot box in 2025.

I’m asking for expressions of financial support (to cover the set-up and the first few months of operating) and for volunteers.  After crunching the numbers, we think it’ll need $56,000 to properly get it off the ground (that includes initial invites for ratepayers to join-up) and are looking for that sort of level of support before we commit to taking on the challenge. None of that goes to me – I am a volunteer in this, because this is my home, and I want a better city.

If this is something you would be interested in, please drop me a line on team@wellingtonratepayers.nz or pledge an amount on the webpage (www.wellingtonratepayers.nz)

This is an all or nothing project. If not enough Wellingtonians are motivated to help right the ship and we don’t raise enough money to get this off the ground, then there is no point in starting a half-hearted project that is unlikely to be effective.  On the other hand, if successful, it could make a huge difference to smarten up the Council, and our City. And that would be good for more than just our rates bills!

Click here if you’d be willing to chip in to start the fight back

Newsroom has won in the Court of Appeal over whether it can make available its video exposing the then practice of reverse uplifts because the faster parents were the wrong ethnicity.

A key quote:

The story was unquestionably one of significant public interest, as evidenced by the impact it had on the Minister and the suspension of the practice of reverse uplifts. It is reasonable to assume that the suspension of Oranga Tamariki’s practice would not have happened — or at least would not have happened so quickly — had it not been for the powerful impact of the video. It was powerful precisely because it depicted the real life effects of the reverse uplift policy and the associated raw emotion. Clearly too, the foster parents’ concerns about the way they were treated by Oranga Tamariki were valid and worthy of ventilation. The right of freedom of expression must encompass not only the rights of the media but also the rights of the foster parents to tell their story and the right of the public to hear it.

This is a win for media, but also for the foster parents.

Nicole McKee announced:

The Government is delivering on its commitment to bring back the Three Strikes legislation, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced today.

The return is welcome in principle, but what is being proposed is actually pretty weak and even ineffective.

Cover the same 40 serious violent and sexual offences as the former legislation, with the addition of the new strangulation and suffocation offence;

They seem suitable offences to include, so that change is good.

Introduce a new requirement that the Three Strikes law will only apply to sentences above 24 months;

This will gut the law, and result in around 75% of violent and sexual offenders not getting strike offences. It will also incentivise judges to always do sentences of below 24 months where possible top avoid a strike.

There is an arguable case that the third strike (the one that gets you the maximum sentence without parole) should require a level of offending that is significant enough for a custodial sentence. But to apply that criteria to the first and second strikes will massively reduce the number of strikes, and hence the deterrent effect desired. Remember the first strike gets no extra penalty – it is the warning about future offending.

Extend the use of the “manifestly unjust” exception to allow some judicial discretion to avoid very harsh outcomes and address outlier cases;

This is going the wrong direction. Judges have already used the manifestly unjust provisions to undermine the law and avoid third strike sentences in the majority of third strike cases. If anything the judicial discretion should be restrained further by stating that use of manifestly unjust should be very very rare.

Also the new criteria to not have strikes for sentences of under two years, would remove the need for greater judicial discretion. So the combination will make the law pretty ineffectual.

Provide a limited benefit for guilty pleas to avoid re-traumatisation of victims, and to improve court delays; and

It is sensible to have this incentive, so a say 20% discount for guilty pleas would mean the sentence for a third strike rape would still be 16 years which would be significant.

See that people who commit murder at second or third strike receive an appropriately lengthy non-parole period.

Well the old law had life without parole, so this will reduce it – but we don’t know by how much.

The Minister intends to bring a draft bill and paper to Cabinet by the end of June, and to introduce the bill to the House soon after that.

The worst change hasn’t been mentioned at all. I understand the new Three Strikes law will reset all the serious violent and sexual offenders who got strikes under the old regime back to zero. This will send out an awful message, and also mean that it will take ages for any deterrent effect to take effect as everyone will be starting at zero again.

I would encourage everyone to engage with the legislative process to demand an effective Three Strikes law, not a weak one.

Stuff reports:

But another email noted the writer had received calls from Otago alumni “angry at the decision”. The response was likely to be worse than what the university received over Tuakiritaka, a reference to branding changes, the emailer said.

I had quite a few Otago alumni contact me, very upset also. Some even wanted to do a poll of alumni on the appointment, but there was no practical way to do this.

Meanwhile, another emailer wrote of the appointment: “They have made a very poor decision.”

Another emailer wrote: “As a former student I will not be donating another cent and will not be encouraging family to attend an institution that is seriously flawed from the top down.

“The university council should resign following this decision.”

The Council of course includes another former Labour Minister, and the Registrar is also a former Labour Minister.

But a former graduate was less forthcoming with praise, emailing: “I have left a significant amount of money to the university in my will. However I will be cancelling that.”

Ouch.

Another alumni, who had a history of sending offensive emails to the tertiary institution, wrote: “This must be one of the most gross and ridiculous decisions of the university to date.”

Some of that email was redacted, but the emailer added: “And to appoint such a failure of a politician to such an important post is ridiculous: a man who has virtually single handedly bankrupted our country, saddling every man, woman and child with crippling debt.”

Another former student emailed a list of questions under the OIA, including whether Robertson had been approached to put forward his candidacy.

One emailer expressed their concern, writing: “This is a continuation of the alarming trend of politicisation of the University of Otago, and is entirely inappropriate for an academic institution of your stature.”

The email noted Robertson’s lack of an academic background “reflects unbelievably poorly” on the university.

“Again, I am appalled by this appointment, which materially diminishes a once great academic institution.

“Shame on you.”

It is of course normal for a Vice-Chancellor to have a PhD and be an academic leader. A BA is not quite in the same league.

Another emailed to say they were rethinking their seven-figure bequest.

“However, my family especially, and I, would be very concerned indeed if this bequest were in any respect subject to any type or level of political influence, such as a person’s political identity, as opposed to benefiting individuals or groups solely on merit and academic excellence.”

That’s a lot of money being potentially lost.

Peter Dunne writes:

But Labour’s current woes do not lie at Hipkins’ door alone. He is being constantly embarrassed and let down by the ineptitude of those around him. His main role these days seems limited to tidying up the mess made by his colleagues.

In the last week alone, he has had to call out Peeni Henare, someone who really should know better, for reposting offensive cartoons about Act leader David Seymour on Instagram. Hipkins has also had to deal with more personally abusive comments about a political opponent, this time Melissa Lee, from Willie Jackson, someone who is clearly incapable of knowing better. Add to that the seemingly ingrained superciliousness and sourness of Ayesha Verrall every time she opens her mouth, and it is little wonder Labour still looks to be struggling to come to terms with why it was voted out so comprehensively at the election.

If my party suffered a 24% drop in their party vote, the largest in history, I’d be asking why.

Yet Labour is not without talent in its ranks who could be pushing its case far more effectively at present without the embittered baggage some are carrying. New finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds has been a shining performer. Her interventions so far have been positive, well informed, and largely constructive. Not only does she need to be seen more frequently as the modern face of Labour, but also she needs to be joined by other newer faces in the caucus.

Edmonds is good.

Hipkins’ major challenge is to rebuild the face of Labour so that it can present its message with integrity and credibility. Hanging on to negative and polarising figures such as Jackson and Verrall, and others who still believe the public had no right to boot them out of government, not only tarnishes Hipkins’ leadership but does little to persuade the public that Labour has indeed learned the lesson of its defeat.

Hipkins needs quickly to divest himself of such albatrosses if Labour is to shake off the failures of its recent past. They need to be moved on, at least to the distant backbenches, if not out the door and sooner rather than later. If he cannot or will not do that, Hipkins risks becoming today’s Bill Rowling – a genuine and well-liked nice guy who led the Labour Party nowhere for nearly nine years.

A fair comparison.