Labour made much of Bill English’s housing issues when he was snapped double-dipping.

Strangely, there isn’t a peep from the usual suspects about Jacinda Ardern’s and Winston Peters’ own double-dipping:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters were both mistakenly paid over $21,000 for accommodation they didn’t need.  

The pair put out a press release on Tuesday afternoon explaining the overpayment, which resulted from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) continuing to pay them an accommodation allowance despite each moving into an official residence.

Ardern received $12,205.49 while Peters received $9123. They have both repaid the amount in full and received an apology for the error.

“As soon as we were advised of the error, we both immediately took steps to reimburse the money.  That has now happened,” the pair said.

Good. At least they’ve paid it back.

“The error occurred when the DIA’s Ministerial Services continued to pay each of us a Member of Parliament’s Wellington accommodation allowance after they had moved us into official accommodation, at which point payments should have stopped.”

Neither had asked DIA for the payment.

“While mistakes happen, we have accepted the officials’ apology. Appropriate use of taxpayer money is something we both take extremely seriously, and we have set a high bar for ourselves and others.”

The mistake came to light as DIA prepared for their proactive release of ministerial expenses.

Non-Wellington based MPs receive an accommodation allowance in order to cover Wellington housing costs.

Outgoing National leader Bill English claimed $32,000 in accommodation allowance while living in a Karori home owned by a trust in the late 2000s.

He paid it all back when media uncovered the allowance in 2009.

I bet they both get a free pass. This will be a once-over-lightly story from the Media party.

I’d sure know if I had a stray $9k floating through my accounts.

frightening-passages-in-the-koran-that-can-be-linked-to-isis-behavior

We always said that it was not a matter of if but when. All the warning signs were there. We had seen it happen in Western country after Western country, including our neighbour Australia, but did our politicians do anything differently? No, they did not. Now New Zealand is paying the price because of weak leaders who put Twitter outrage and their personal popularity before the protection and safety of New Zealand’s citizens.

Kiwi teenager radicalised online planned mass killing in Christchurch ‘for Allah’

The teenager left school at 15, converted to Islam and became radicalised online. He was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court […] over a violent incident he later admitted he planned as a terror attack.

A Kiwi teenager radicalised online planned to ram a car into a group of people in Christchurch and then stab them.

The teenager wrote a goodbye note to his mother, then started a violent incident, but has since told a psychologist when it began he “decided not to hurt anybody because he did not have the means to kill enough people”,

“The reason no-one was hurt was that he did not have access to knives,” Lange said. But there was significant premeditation, and hostility towards non-Muslims.

The teen, who was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, harboured thoughts for five months of killing multiple people. He expected police to kill him once his rampage started.

After his arrest, the youth told police he was angry and had “done it for Allah”. He had left school at age 15, become socially isolated, and converted to Islam.

The court has adopted a rehabilitative approach to the teen’s sentencing, with Judge Stephen O’Driscoll releasing him on intensive supervision with a list of conditions and a warning that if he breaches the conditions or reoffends, he will likely be sent to prison.

Among the conditions – which will apply for two years while the judge monitors his progress – is counselling by a member of the local Muslim community.

 

The youth’s name is suppressed and the details of the offending cannot be published. He has admitted eight charges. People were frightened by his actions during the incident last year, and damage was done, but no-one was hurt before he was held until the police arrived.

Lange said even though the youth had been treated for months by the youth forensic psychiatric team, he was still seen as a high risk of reoffending, and a risk to family members and members of the public.

He said the primary consideration was the protection of the community, and the teenager’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

[…] He urged intensive supervision be imposed because prison would mean limited access to the rehabilitation and socialising programmes he needed. The strict conditions proposed for the intensive supervision were “almost unheard of”, he said.

In prison, he would be radicalised even further. Overseas in other Western countries, many violent and mentally ill criminals are converted to Islam. Some are even forced to join the Muslim gangs inside the prison in order to stay alive.

He urged the suppression orders be made. “His rehabilitation would be affected by his name being published and him becoming in any way a celebrity of sorts, or someone of note,” he said.

Judge O’Driscoll said the teen’s rehabilitation would benefit the community in the long run, but he said it was one of the most difficult sentencings he had ever been involved in. “There is a need to deter you, denounce your conduct, and protect the community.”

“There was a disinterest in what is seen as the moderate point of view. You had thoughts which most people who live in a civilised society would find unacceptable.”

If the judge was familiar with the Koran then he would realise that sending him to a member of the local Muslim community was 100% the wrong thing to do. It was Islamic ideology and the Koran that were used to radicalise him. He needs to be deprogrammed by the kind of person who works with cult members, not handed over to a so-called “moderate” Muslim who may be well meaning but who will not have the skills required.

In America, some Muslim citizens used to counsel terrorists like this boy have been later discovered to be doing completely the opposite. This is not a good precedent that the judge has set. This is not a problem for the Muslim community to solve. It is a problem that requires professionals specialised in deprogramming cult members because that is what Islamic terrorists are.

Pre-sentence reports indicated he had the potential to act more violently than what happened.

He was diagnosed as having post traumatic stress disorder and would need regular intensive community follow-up.

Judge O’Driscoll told the teenager police had contacted a person from the local Muslim community to meet him regularly for counselling.

“Everyone is really wanting to help and assist you, so you don’t engage in acts of violence and harm innocent members of the community.”

He released the youth under intensive supervision for two years, under GPS monitoring and living in supervised accommodation.

The conditions include assessment, counselling and treatment as directed by the probation officer or a psychologist. He will have to live at a particular address and be monitored by the judge with regular reports.

He has interim name suppression, but that would not be made a permanent order until he successfully completed the supervision sentence. Judge O’Driscoll will get regular monitoring reports on his progress, the first in a month’s time.[…]

At risk of being deafened by groans, let me say that much confusion still exists in the minds of New Zealanders over the content and relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi (Treaty).  Why are we still confused?

The short answer is that the Treaty has been hijacked and shoe-horned into places where it was not designed to go.  Concepts such as “taonga” (translated treasure, including water rights and airwaves) are recent additions.  The Treaty underpins the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal that was accused of corruption by Dr John Robinson, “The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Industry Overview.’ He makes the astonishing revelation that as a Waitangi Tribunal researcher he had to falsify evidence to get paid.” Ngapuhi leader David Rankin also fired a broadside at the Waitangi Tribunal, which he accused of being a bully, inventing history and delivering New Zealand into apartheid.”

We must circumvent the insidious creep into NZ statutes and law of this distorted Treaty.  An ominous statement is found on the Justice Department website:

At the moment, Treaty rights can only be enforced in a court of law when a statute or an Act explicitly refers to the Treaty.

Let’s keep it that way, but is this statement signalling a change in the wind?

The Treaty is very simple, the founding document for the establishment of New Zealand as a British colony and protectorate of the Queen of England.  That’s it.  No further use for it except for nefarious purposes.

The purpose of the Treaty was to recognize and uphold existing Maori and European ownership of land and property; address the lawlessness prevalent at the time, and protect Maori from being exploited in the sale of their land.  Put simply, the Treaty was to establish law and order where there was none.

Various drafts in English and the signed Maori versions (also with variations)  are paraphrased below, with main points highlighted. You don’t have to be a Treaty expert or historian to understand the original document.  It was simply written for good reason.  Clarity of its intent is easily achieved if you don’t have an axe to grind, r a financial advantage to be grasped by misconstruing it, as others have.

Introduction

Queen Victoria recognizes Maori Chiefs and tribes and the people of NZ’s ownership of their land which will be maintained with peace and order because many of her people have already emigrated to NZ and many more are expected to come.

Victoria will establish a NZ Government to put an end to the lawlessness prevalent among both Maori and European.  To this end Victoria appoints William Hobson as her representative and Governor of NZ.

The First Article

Maori give up entire governance of their property to the Queen of England.

The Second Article

The Queen of England gives to the Chiefs, tribes and all the people of NZ possession of their lands, dwellings and property.  

The Chiefs give the Queen and her representative the exclusive right to purchase their land at a price that is mutually agreeable.

The Third Article

The Queen will protect Maori and give them the same rights and privileges as British citizens.

Signed by the Chiefs on 6 February 1840.

The intent of the Treaty seems clear, so why the ongoing dissent?

Immediately after the Treaty took effect, problems arose regarding ownership and the sale of Maori land.  A number of “Native Acts” of Parliament were drafted, debated and referred back to the Crown with many eventually passed into law.   At the time, it was recognised that the Treaty was not designed to address these practical issues on ownership, so why should we expect it to nearly 180 years later?

Of significance was the Native Purposes Appropriation Act of 1862:

The Act created the Native Land Court (renamed the Māori Land Court in 1947) to identify ownership interests in Māori land and to create individual titles in place of customary communal ownership. This change made sales of Māori land easier and saw the beginning of fragmented ownership interests in Māori land. The Act also allowed for up to 5% of Crown-granted Māori land to be taken for public works without compensation.  

[…] The trend towards individual ownership created problems for retaining Māori land. By 1891, Māori had virtually no land in the South Island and less than 40% of the North Island. Much of the land still held by Māori was poor quality and hard to develop.

We must return the Treaty to its rightful place as an important historical document.

Which is not to say we should not address the wrongs inflicted over the years because we should, and have been doing so.

An examination of the current mechanisms in place is well overdue after recognizing wrongs were done to both Maori and European as a result of the distortion of the content and scope of the Treaty.   Many years later we have not reached the place where Hobson and the Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty expected us to be, which was “we are all one”.

No problem sonny, all sorted now, the science was wrong.

The climate change lies that the media have all led us to believe are being busted almost daily.

One of the lies is that sea level rises are threatening Tuvalu which will sink beneath the sea… except it isn’t… it is actually growing:

The Pacific nation of Tuvalu — long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels — is actually growing in size, new research shows.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period,lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

Oh dear. That narrative is now busted.

Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.

“We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing,” he said.

“The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.”

It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels.

The Auckland team says climate change remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.

But it argues the study should prompt a rethink on how such countries respond to the problem.

How about a rethink on telling lies?

Rather than accepting their homes are doomed and looking to migrate to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the researchers say they should start planning for a long-term future.

“On the basis of this research we project a markedly different trajectory for Tuvalu’s islands over the next century than is commonly envisaged,” Kench said.

“While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu.”

The study’s authors said island nations needed to find creative solutions to adapt to climate change that take into account their homeland’s evolving geography.

Suggestions included moving populations onto larger islands and atolls, which have proved the most stable and likely to grow as seas rise.

“Embracing such new adaptation pathways will present considerable national scale challenges to planning, development goals and land tenure systems,” they said.

“However, as the data on island change shows there is time (decades) to confront these challenges.”

So, we have been told that Tuvalu is sinking away and will be wiped out by climate change, and the opposite is happening – it is growing. Well, colour me surprised.

One day this fraud will be recognised for what it is: the world’s greatest fraud perpetrated by scientists who scream and claim they are experts and everyone else should shut up.

A post later today from WH explains some of the science.

-Breitbart

Caving in and aligning yourself with nasty bullies has consequences as Lorde Ella Yelich-O’Connor is finding out.

She is now the poster girl for BDS and in some places supporting them is illegal:

Florida Rep. Randy Fine is calling on venues in Miami and Tampa to cancel scheduled concerts in April by the singer Lorde.

Fine, R-Palm Bay, said, if the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority and the Tampa Sports Authority host the concerts at arenas they own in those cities, it would violate a Florida law passed in 2016.

Under that law, no state or local government can conduct business exceeding $1 million with any organization engaged in a boycott of Israel.  

Fine said that Lorde in December canceled a concert in Tel Aviv, Israel, in support of what’s known as the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement.

On its website, the BDS Movement says it “works to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.”

But Fine has another take on the movement.

“Florida has no tolerance for anti-Semitism and boycotts intended to destroy the state of Israel,” Fine said in a statement issued Thursday. “That’s why Florida passed groundbreaking anti-BDS legislation several years ago.”

Fine contends that “current statutes are clear. Local governments cannot do business with companies that participate in anti-Semitic boycotts of Israel. When Lorde joined the boycott in December, she and her companies became subject to that statute. The taxpayers of Miami and Tampa should not have to facilitate bigotry and anti-Semitism, and I look forward to the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority and the Tampa Sports Authority complying with the law, and canceling these concerts.”

Good job. Actions have consequences. By caving in to two anti-Semitic bullies she has aligned herself with the BDS movement. Now her lucrative US tour looks like it is going to get a haircut. She should compare how much she is going to lose now with how much she would have lost by going to a concert in Tel Aviv. My bet is she would have lost almost nothing by going to Israel, and now she stands to lose millions.

Lorde, a 21-year-old, New Zealand-born singer/songwriter, is best known for her 2013 hit single “Royals.”

Lorde is scheduled to perform April 11 at the Amalie Arena in Tampa, which is owned by the Tampa Sports Authority, and April 12 at American Airlines Arena in Miami, which is owned by the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority.

Fine said both authorities are governmental special districts subject to Florida’s anti-BDS legislation.

In separate letters to the chairmen of the two authorities, Fine wrote: “In late December, Ella Marija Lani Yelich-O’Connor, who goes by the professional name ‘Lorde,’ canceled her upcoming performance in Tel Aviv, amid pressure from BDS activists. While Ms. Yelich-O’Connor canceled her performance in Tel Aviv — a vibrant, progressive and modern city — she has not announced any plans to cancel her upcoming shows in Putin’s Russia. In joining the boycott of Israel, Ms. Yelich-O’Connor made her business enterprises subject to Florida anti-discrimination laws, and disqualified herself and her companies from entering into almost any contract with state and local government.”

“Under Florida law, no local government, including independent special districts, can conduct business exceeding $1 million with Ms. Yelich-O’Connor, and as a result, I must ask you to require the immediate termination of ‘Lorde’ by you or any intermediaries working on your behalf,” Fine wrote. “Should they refuse, I would note that, under Florida law, they will be considered supporting the BDS movement, and will themselves become unable to contract with Florida governments.”

In his letter, Fine wrote: “While I respect every American’s right to free speech — even when that speech is offensive and discriminatory — there is no right to use government to sponsor hate-based businesses. I look forward to the notice of the termination of this business agreement.”

Separately, Fine and Florida Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, in November introduced legislation to strengthen Florida’s existing anti-BDS law by removing the $1 million threshold.

The Florida House on Jan. 31 approved Fine’s House Bill 545 by a 109-3 vote. Brandes’ Senate Bill 780 has been approved by two Senate committees, but has not yet been voted on by the full Senate.

They mean business. Actions have consequences, even cowardly actions. I feel for poor Ella… I do… really: