Songwriter: Clint Ballard Jr.

Election year brings out the crazies, including the smaller parties you mostly forgot about, who optimistically put forward their policies and candidates every three years, with no realistic chance of election. I’m not talking about TOP, so hold the angry emails; there are parties far less likely to reach 5%.

It also poses a challenge for parties with more list positions available than quality candidates to fill them. This leaves them to recycle the dregs of other parties, resurrecting people whose careers ended for good reasons, and assorted weirdos with “fringe” views, to put it mildly. I’m looking at you, NZ First.

Subscriptions to Nick’s Kōrero have declined over the past couple of months, so it’s time to try something different, as requests for contributions haven’t worked. Below is a paywall. I appreciate that paywalled content is annoying, so starting with the next newsletter, I will only send these to paying subscribers.

If you want to read most of my work, you’ll need to become a paid subscriber. It costs about the same as a cup of coffee each month, and there will still be some free newsletters for everyone. I hope you enjoy Nick’s Kōrero and find it worth paying for. 🙂

Subscribe now

There is a discount for Gold Card holders, students or the unwaged:

Get 15% off for 1 year

Read more

Celebrate Matariki
Celebrate the lord of the heavens
Celebrate the beginning of the year

Writers: Tawaroa Kawana and Rangi-Ānehu Mātāmua.

Twas the night before Matariki, and all through the house
Coalition MPs cried, “There’s something else!”
We’ve challenged the treaty and Māori wards too
Prioritised English and said things that weren’t true.

Yet, surprisingly, after two and a half years of attacks on every Māori initiative, from recognising health outcomes to involving iwi in decisions to encouraging te Reo, tomorrow we celebrate Matariki, the Māori New Year that many New Zealanders have embraced. We take pride in our new public holiday, which is of this place, our Aotearoa at the bottom of the world, and that is symbolic of why the coalition will ultimately fail.

Not because Māori are never going to back down, have never ceded sovereignty, and have fought this government every step of the way, but that is true. Nor because others have joined Māori in recognising the injustices being committed.

But because of what is happening in our society, in our schools, at sporting events, and even overseas.

The child beaming inside as they perform kapa haka or sing, their te Reo pronunciation far better than their parents' ever will be. For example, this is the high school I went to, and I feel quite emotional hearing this beautiful waiata in a room where I used to loathe climbing ropes in PE.

The crowds at major events singing in te Reo, not just the anthem where we no longer mumble the Māori verses, but songs booming around the stadium in celebration. Who could ever forget this:

In foreign fields, where young Kiwis perform the haka bare-chested, not to mock but out of pride in their country, as nothing represents us more than that.

The small-minded bigots across the coalition can’t suppress a Māori renaissance they have only made more powerful, and, to be honest, I’m surprised they left us Matariki.

As you probably know, Matariki is the Māori name for the Pleiades star cluster, and its appearance in midwinter marks the Māori New Year, a time of celebration, remembrance, and looking to the future.

Where the Greeks referred to the cluster as the Seven Sisters, Māori astronomy recognises the following nine stars:

• Matariki: The mother star, signifying reflection, hope, and the connection to the environment.

• Pōhutukawa: Connects to those who have passed on.

• Waitī: Ties to bodies of fresh water and the food within them.

• Waitā: Ties to the ocean and saltwater foods.

• Waipuna-ā-rangi: Associated with the rain.

• Tupu-ā-nuku: Associated with food that grows in the ground.

• Tupu-ā-rangi: Associated with food that comes from the sky (birds, fruit).

• Ururangi: Associated with the winds.

• Hiwa-i-te-rangi: The wishing star, associated with granting our desires for the coming year.

Matariki has been celebrated with feasting, singing, and dancing long before Pākehā arrived on these shores. It is a very positive and human event, which makes it all the more surprising to me that the coalition hasn’t cancelled it. Especially considering the politician who made it a public holiday and an event for the wider Kiwi public.

At the 2020 election, Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party committed to creating a new public holiday to recognise Matariki. Following their victory, the first Matariki public holiday was announced on the 4th of February 2021 to take place in June 2022.

The Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Act 2022 passed its third reading in April 2022.

Not everybody was fully supportive of the move, and some argued that Matariki should replace an existing public holiday so that commerce wasn’t impacted, rather missing the point of the whole thing.

National said they supported the “cultural value” of Matariki but not if it meant introducing a new paid public holiday.

To be honest, given their current programme of austerity and whipping, I’m surprised that Nicola Willis hasn’t appeared on our screens to announce the cancellation of all our public holidays this year - for the good of the economy.

During the debate, then National MP Simon O’Connor suggested that we refer to the Pleiades, or Messier 45, rather than Matariki, which would presumably have had his constituents clutching their pearls in his seat of Tamaki, you know, the same electorate that gave us Brooke van Velden.

ACT opposed the bill, citing the costs to small businesses, consistent with their mantra that the non-wealthy should live to work, not the other way around.

Given the other things they have done, I’m genuinely surprised the coalition has not cancelled Matariki. Even those who have done all they can to disempower Māori and erase so much of the good work done over decades still don't want to be the party that cancelled a public holiday.

Matariki might be safe for now, but you know that if the coalition is re-elected, there will be more cuts, more anti-woke nonsense, and further erosion of Māori rights.

Even as laughing boy Luxon wishes people a Happy Matariki, despite having voted against the bill that gave us tomorrow’s holiday, there are things brewing, no doubt, as the coalition parties prepare to sprint to the election line.

Each party determined to show they are the one to crack down on all this woke nonsense. On crazy things like supporting the indigenous language of these shores or providing a seat at the table for our treaty partners to participate in decisions about the environment and resources.

It makes you want to scream in their faces, “Stop it! Can’t you see we are better together, that honouring commitments is something we should be proud of, not something to be legislated away - what the bloody hell are you so afraid of?”

If you’ve ever been moved by the generosity of people who’ve had so much taken from them, grateful that a marae has provided refuge for your community or others in times of disaster, or had the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end at the sound of the Pūrerehua whirring, you know this is all bullshit.

There is nothing to be afraid of; we know that. We’ve got eyes. The idea that Māori are privileged in this country on their land is beyond absurd. Every statistic shows that it’s a lie.

Matariki is a time for reflection, and I hope this year people reflect on the lies being told to us and the actions that are setting back progress in addressing real inequity, which the coalition prefers to pretend doesn’t exist.

The actions of this government make me ashamed, but the way NZers have embraced Matariki is something to be proud of. It points to a more united country in the years to come, where people will look back at this coalition government and ask, “What the hell were you thinking?”

Wishing you and your whanau a peaceful and happy Matariki. Let’s hope that by this time next year, those who divide us for political gain are gone, replaced by a government that recognises that the culture and role of the indigenous population of our land are what make this place special, and that we should embrace them rather than stoke fear, racism and distrust.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

Or if you have a gold card, you’re a student, or unwaged, there is a 15% discount:

Get 15% off for 1 year

To end today, here is Mānawa maiea Matariki ft. Stan Walker, Hone, HERA, Hops, Neps, Rani.

Songwriters: Roland Orzabal, Ian Stanley, Chris Hughes.

Looking at the headlines, I found it difficult to get very excited about local politics this morning, so I thought we’d take a small trip around the world, to look at some other politicians, beginning in…

The USA. 🇺🇸

Cheats never prosper, as we lefties tell our children, dreaming that it were true. But for once the adage was correct, and the US, including the player whose red card was “suspended” after interference by President Trump, were given a bit of a spanking, losing 4:1 to a Belgium team that looked as if they could’ve scored a few more.

I almost felt sorry for the American crowd, who, at a time when they’re hosting such an event and doing well, had practically everyone who wasn’t American wanting them to lose.

That was until I saw the US fans booing the Belgians, as if they were at a wrestling match on the White House lawn watching some comical baddie.

Poor form, guys. You don’t just boo; put a bit of effort into it and write a chant, as the Aussie fans did with their infamous lines: “Aussie boys are on a bender, Donald Trump is a sex offender”, which led US politicians to demand that visitors respect the President, clearly never having encountered Aussie banter before.

After the game, the Belgian team performed Trump’s trademark dance, mocking him in front of the world at his own tournament, prompting him to do something that caught many by surprise.

No, it wasn’t an apology for cheating; instead, he returned to a favourite distraction from earlier times and began talking about annexing Greenland again.

Read more

Songwriters: Cathy Dennis / Alex Callier / Paul Alexander Campbell.

Red Card Recinded

In this World Cup, if a player receives a red card, they must immediately leave the field, and they are banned from the next game.

It’s not ambiguous.

Sometimes it can seem unjust, especially if it happens to someone in the team you support, but those are the rules, and they’re the same for everybody. Or at least they were until Donald Trump picked up the phone to call FIFA to express his dissatisfaction with the ban imposed on US striker and standout player Folarin Balogun after a red card in their win over Bosnia-Herzegovina.

At a White House press conference, Trump confirmed his approach to FIFA, saying, “I asked for a review from FIFA,” because “it wasn’t a foul,” and adding, “All I did was ask for a review; I didn’t say you have to do this.”

Yeah right.

Realistically, the world has learned that if Trump doesn’t get his own way, bad things happen. By and large, world leaders and other powerful people choose to comply with his wishes rather than risk the wrath of the man-baby.

Trump continued, “We’re going to have a full team, and Belgium is going to have a full team, and you know what? If they beat us, then they can be really proud. The other way, if they beat us ... I say it was rigged, just like the election was rigged in 2020.” So no pressure, then; if the red card stands, it will be akin to electoral fraud that didn’t happen, but that led to an armed insurrection.

So Gianni Infantino, the head of FIFA, just rolled over. Which wasn’t exactly a surprise, given that it’s probably the most corrupt entity on the planet, whether awarding tournaments to Qatar and Russia or giving Donald Trump his preposterous and entirely unwarranted FIFA Peace Prize.

FIFA had said that US Soccer had no right of appeal, but then announced that Balogun’s ban had been lifted on a 12-month probationary period, meaning the US player was being treated differently from every other player in the tournament, leaving many in the football world with a very bitter taste.

UEFA, the European game’s governing body, accused FIFA of crossing “a red line” by making an “incomprehensible and unjustifiable” decision to rescind Balogun’s automatic one-match ban, which it claimed undermined “the integrity of the game and the credibility of the competition”. I posted:

Are there no limits to FIFA’s corruption, rescinding a US red card for Trump? What happens when America loses? Will they overturn that too?

Julie said, “Do you think the trophy has already been engraved?”

Jackie wrote, “'USA president getting a red card cancelled' was not an option on my 2026 bingo card. Hope whoever gets to the final game boos the shit out of Trump and the FIFA president.”

Alison commented, “Words fail me. It’s cheating, plain and simple. Go Belgium!” In fact, many people indicated they would be backing Belgium.

If the US team wanted to maintain any integrity in the eyes of the footballing world, they would not select Balogun to play or include him in the match-day squad. But I suppose their manager would then be labelled a traitor by Trump and forced to “resign”.

I imagine every neutral on the planet will be backing Belgium today, not for football reasons but because one team is representing bullying and corruption and the other, plucky little Belgium, will hopefully kick their butts.

It’ll be like watching the UK enter Eurovision a few years back, when it didn’t matter how well their representative performed; they got no points from any other countries and were ostracised for their behaviour.

Needless to say, Trump also attacked the referee, Brazilian Raphael Claus, calling him “very suspect” and saying he had made “a call that nobody could believe.”

He’s like that embarrassing dad who yells abuse at the referee from the sidelines, except he doesn’t stop there; he marches onto the field and stuffs money into the referee’s pockets until he gets the decision he wants.

The most depressing thing about this is that Trump thinks he has won. He has pulled the strings and given his country an unfair advantage. What sort of jerk celebrates a victory when everyone else knows they cheated?

Trump only wants to win, and playing by the rules is for losers - what a wonderful message at the world’s most-watched sporting event.

Have a good Tuesday, folks, and the game kicks off at midday NZT if you want to tune in and cheer for Belgium.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, Trump doesn’t deserve a song this good, but here is Hooverphonic from Belgium with The Last Thing I Need Is You.

Share

Songwriters: Jimmy Page / Robert Plant.

Monday morning means we find out who is playing the role of Prime Minister this week, as Christopher Luxon once again fails to front the nation. Who could it be? Perhaps Nicola or Erica, or maybe Chris Bishop. Who else wants the top job?

Surely they wouldn’t put forward Winston Peters; I can’t imagine National wanting him to represent them, apart from as Foreign Minister, obviously. But this week it’s the booby prize in the form of the wet blanket from Epsom, and I don’t mean Paul Goldsmith, but a man who is an even duller interviewee, should your imagination run that bland. A man wetter than last night was in Ōtepoti.

Before the interview, Chris Chang ran through the announcements from the various coalition parties over the weekend, which, in case you missed them, were:

NZ First wants to restrict voting to citizens only, as in many other countries, meaning residents would not be able to vote.

It seems outrageous to me that people can pay taxes to the government and not be allowed to cast a ballot. As far as I’m concerned, if people are living and working here, they are part of our society and should be allowed to vote. Besides, why is this a problem all of a sudden? Residents have been allowed to vote in NZ since 1975. Why make an issue of it now?

But we all know why Winston plays this card in the run-up to elections. It’s about targeting immigrants, some more than others. Regardless of what comes out of Winston’s mouth, we all know what his supporters think when he talks about immigrants, and it isn’t about people from the UK or Canada. His rhetoric might be better articulated than Brian Tamaki’s rants against people from across Asia, but the message is the same.

National announced that it would target a raft of countries for trade deals over the next five years if it were elected twice more. That raised the question of what our travelling salesman of a PM-without-portfolio was waiting for. Picking a bunch of country names you think we could do more trade with isn’t a policy; it’s more like a plan for Christopher Luxon’s next O.E and set of photo ops.

ACT announced quite an obscure policy, but one I agree with: stricter laws for those who abuse pets in order to control their partners. It’s repugnant, and there have been some awful cases over the years, but it does seem an odd thing to campaign on when they could have simply changed the law. I doubt many would have opposed this.

The interview began with Tova welcoming viewers to the weekly chat with the PM and introducing stand-in Deputy Dave, who was grinning moronically, perhaps still unable to believe that Christopher had given up his prime spot to sell his wares and that it was now available to him.

They began with Tova asking about ACT’s policy on granting security guards more powers, including the use of “reasonable and proportionate force”.

Seymour wants security guards to be trained with new powers to bridge the gap between the Police and what guards can currently do, citing the example of people walking out of supermarkets with unpaid-for food. Which isn’t a good situation, but will surely only get worse if guards are deployed to physically restrain them and wait for the police to arrive.

Maybe I’m a naive lefty, but surely the answer to that problem is ensuring people can afford food rather than tackling them and constraining them in the supermarket car park over some groceries. But ACT’s vision for NZ seems to be one of greater inequality, backed by stronger security arrangements.

They moved on to Narendra Modi’s upcoming visit to NZ, the first in 40 years by an Indian PM. Tova asked how problematic comments, such as those from Shane Jones about a tsunami of butter chicken, were ahead of the visit. Seymour didn’t seem too concerned; in fact, he mostly looked like he was enjoying the chance to put the boot into his rivals. Then he said, “For the adults in the room”, suggesting that Shane Jones didn’t meet that description, “this was an important time”.

David prattled on about the opportunities in the Indian market, which we’ve heard ad nauseam from Luxon. I don’t have an issue with people criticising the deal, the exclusion of dairy, or the commitment to invest billions in India, but I’ll say it again: the rhetoric against people of Indian origin from NZ First is essentially the same despicable message we’ve seen from Brian Tamaki.

Seymour’s largest concern, and he grew very serious, was that any future Trade Minister would include any referral whatsoever to the treaty. The Indian FTA affirms the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Seymour claimed is antithetical to what most people think, without any evidence of that.

For context, despite David’s assertions, all 193 UN member states have endorsed or support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In the 2007 vote on the declaration, we were one of just four countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States) to vote against it, all European colonies with poor records on the treatment of indigenous people. NZ later endorsed the declaration in 2010.

David went on for a while, attacking Winston Peters for not being part of the team and for talking out of school. To be fair, Seymour has conducted himself, at least in front of the cameras, as a loyal member of the coalition, but for the love of god, man, what the hell were you expecting from Winston? He’s been undermining his partners and breaking away from the pack in the lead-up to elections since Seymour was a schoolboy.

They moved to Michael Laws, who is running for NZ First and has declared that he wants to be the Minister of Broadcasting and to put RNZ on the chopping block. I thought this was preaching to the converted. David Seymour has long undermined our public broadcasters with threats of defunding and baseless accusations of bias, presumably due to less favourable coverage than they receive in Jim Grenon’s NZ Herald.

David said he’s made similar comments himself about RNZ and told us that trust in them has declined. This is despite the fact that, in the latest Trust in News in Aotearoa New Zealand report, RNZ has held its top spot as New Zealand's most trusted news brand.

But accurate facts were never much of a concern for Seymour, who seems to prefer alternative ones he has invented. For example, he said that most people would support his Treaty Principles Bill, claims the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is antithetical to most people, and states that RNZ has trust issues, even though it is the highest-rated media platform in the country.

The interview ended with Seymour grinning as if he still couldn’t believe how much media coverage his party was receiving despite their increasingly dismal polling.

If you’d like to join the conversation on Nick’s Kōrero and to access and support my work, please subscribe. I’d love to offer this for free, but I need to earn a living, so I will have to bring the paywall back if those reading for free aren’t going to contribute.

Subscribe now

Recently, I said there would be no further specials because readers felt they undervalued my work. However, I would like to offer a 15% discount to readers who have a gold card, are students, or are unwaged.

Get 15% off for 1 year

Have a good Monday, folks.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here are Jimmy Page and Robert Plant performing the magnificent "Rain Song”, one of my favourite Led Zeppelin songs.

Songwriters: Billie Joe Armstrong / Frank E III Wright / Michael Ryan Pritchard.

Before we start, if you’d like to join the conversation on Nick’s Kōrero, access all my work, and support my mahi, please subscribe. I’d love to do this for free, but I need to earn a living like everyone else.

Subscribe now

Recently, I said there would be no further major specials because readers felt it undervalued what I do. However, I would like to offer a 15% discount to readers who have a gold card, are students, or are unwaged.

Get 15% off for 1 year

Right, let’s get into it…

This morning, Andrea Vance, who called it correctly, if rather confrontingly, on Brooke van Velden, turned her critical pen on the NZ First candidates, and Winston Peters really didn’t like it.

I’m not sure how in touch with reality Peters is these days, as he seems to alternate between acting like a senior statesman and a snarling dog that is absolutely barking. Still, surely, even with Winston’s hatred of the media, he must have known that his recent recruits would attract attention.

The incumbents are bad enough, with Shane “Drill Baby Drill” Jones and Casey “Ciggies” Costello oozing corruption as they assist the mining and tobacco industries against NZ’s interests. But the newcomers are all kinds of special.

You’ve got:

• Elliot Ikilei, the former New Conservatives leader and Hobson’s Pledge’s token brown member, is joining Casey Costello in the Pledger contingent within NZ First. He opposes the existence of the Māori seats and has defended Israel Folau’s public opposition to homosexuality.

• Stuart Nash, a man kicked out of the Labour Party for his unscrupulous dealings, will find that sort of behaviour is not only accepted but expected in his new home. In time, he may take the champion corporate crony mantle from the Matua, but before you’re tempted to vote for him, check how he defines a woman - no other party would touch him with a barge pole after that.

• Alfred Ngaro, former National MP and a dull brute of a man who really takes the fun out of fundamentalist Christianity. As an MP, Alfred voted against same-sex marriage, against abortion law reform, against euthanasia, and he opposed the ban on so-called conversion therapy.

• Michael Laws, former National and NZ First MP, hosts a show on The Platform, a fringe platform where the partly cooked become ever more deluded as they are served disinformation and hate. A cultural vandal, Laws says he wants to be the broadcasting minister and that RNZ would be “first on the chopping list”.

So Winston should hardly have been surprised or angered by Andrea Vance’s article today, but perhaps it struck a bit close to the bone.

Vance starts by asking, “So, what’s up with the whole toxic NZ First manosphere?” and then answers herself, saying:

Winston Peters’ roll-call of candidates is basically a doomscroll through the darkest, most aggrieved corners of the internet.

It’s an algorithmic collection of outrage merchants, culture-war hobbyists, and men convinced Western society is on the brink of collapse, and they’re only one homemade podcast away from saving it.

With the party polling at a steady 11 or 12% and chasing its 1990s glory days, a cast of embittered political zombies has shuffled back onto the scene, looking to reanimate their dead careers.

Cheer up, Winston, at least the “undead” referred to in the headline was Michael Laws and not you. But Mr Peters, who would be our Prime Minister, was not happy and set about showing us how a leader adept in the arts of diplomacy responds.

Winston wrote, “Andrea Vance has written another pathetic butt-hurt ‘opinion piece’ attacking NZFirst.”

Which was ironic, given that there is little more pathetic than an octogenarian using the term “butt-hurt” like a teenage troll. What next from the elder statesman? Perhaps some snowflakes and safe places?

Winston: “No one cares what you think, Andrea. You might think they do in your little Wellington Bluesky bubble full of lanyard-wearing woke lefty losers, but there’s a reason NZFirst support is growing out in the real world.”

Classic Trump behaviour from Peters, attacking the journalist and trying to belittle them for daring to say something he disagreed with. As for “lanyard-wearing woke lefty losers”, I imagine MPs have to carry a fob or security card to get around parliament; what a bizarre thing to attack someone over - wearing a lanyard.

But Winston J Trump was just getting warmed up and also said, “We are the enemy of what you stand for and the enemy of your woke mind virus that has infected so much of our mainstream media that you can’t even figure out why no one trusts your industry anymore.”

I’m not sure what Winston meant by the “woke mind virus”, but I’m guessing he means empathy - either that or not yelling out derogatory insults like schoolchildren - is that woke? But be careful what you wish for, Winnie; Andrea is also quite good at insults, and few people would consider her use of that word as being particularly “woke”.

Winston: “Your loser ‘News of the World’ opinions do nothing but confirm we are directly over the target.” A curious insult comparing Vance’s work with a defunct tabloid that spread absolute nonsense to the poorly educated; perhaps he was thinking of his candidate Michael Laws, who has been doing just that.

Winston finishes, “It’s you, and people like you, that is the reason we are doing so well and why we will win in November - the poetic part is that you don’t even know it.”

Another odd thing to say: I seriously doubt that many of those who shuffle along to Winston’s meetings are avid readers of The Post's politics section. It’s also an incredibly strange way for someone with an insatiable appetite for respect to behave. Not so much a leader of people as the king of the deluded and the deplorable.

The unfortunate truth is that NZ First appears likely to do very well in this election, which presumably explains why these recycled old MPs are looking to get aboard, with the high likelihood of a list seat and the baubles that come with it. As for what these men will be able to achieve should they return to parliament, I’ll give the last words to Andrea, who finished her column thus:

The joke is on the resurrected candidates chasing Parliament’s spotlight.

It’s a classic manosphere hustle, lads. You buy into the brand expecting to be alpha disruptors, but as an NZ First backbencher, your only job is to be embalmed and keep the caucus seats warm.

Have a good Sunday, folks. If you find yourself at a loss, maybe put your hand up for NZ First; they’ll take anyone, but it would help if you were open to racism and to greasing the wheels of commerce with open palms.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here’s Green Day with "Basket Case”.

Songwriters: Robert William Lamm.

I’m sure you all know that evocative tune of America at relaxation…

People talking, people laughing
A man selling ice cream
Singing Italian songs…

Except that these days he’d probably be told by some MAGA Karen to speak English or go home, or, if he were more swarthy, he’d get pepper-sprayed in the face by I.C.E. before being dragged off, protesting that he’s a fifth-generation American, to some deportation hell hole in one of the southern states.

Such is the United States of Trump on this Fourth of July, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Many Americans may be reluctant to celebrate with Trump in charge, given the reversal of hard-won values and freedoms.

Where the US was a beacon to those who would be free or seek opportunity, the plaque on the Statue of Liberty reads:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

There is now a “No Vacancy” sign at arrivals, and a one-way trip to somewhere you really don’t want to go, with long-time residents who are no longer welcome either.

Laurie King, an anthropology professor in Washington, DC, told the Guardian, “I’m very anxious. The country is at a … tipping point. The worst characteristics and historical contradictions of the US are in ascendance; economically, socially and psychologically, the wheels are coming off, and civil war is not off the table.”

Well, Happy Birthday, America, and pass the ammunition…

Nick’s Kōrero is funded by readers like you. To receive new posts and access all my work, become a paid subscriber today. Thank you for your support and your consideration. 🙂

Subscribe now

Storianne, a 55-year-old children’s librarian in Connecticut, was even less in a celebratory mood, saying, “We are living in a dystopian hellscape of unfettered capitalism that is ruining the planet, pillaging our savings, our safety net and our freedoms. As a transgender American, I have seen our right to use a bathroom, the end of equal protection under the law and the rise of a toxic form of performative masculinity that makes everyone less safe. Add in the most corrupt administration in United States history, and one has to ask what we have to be proud of these days?”

Which is quite a downer, really, when you’ve got someone who encourages children to read talking about a dystopian hellscape. Sweet dreams, kiddies.

Read more

Songwriters: Henry Binns / Sam Hardaker / Sophie Alexandra Jessica Barker.

Waiting for healthcare.

There was something chilling in what the Prime Minister said on the news last night.

With the country still reeling from the death of a man in ED, Minister Simeon Brown’s statements suggested that the unacceptable failure to deliver healthcare when it was needed, which he calls targets, was down to Health NZ and not a result of the cuts that have been made by this government.

Imagine pointing the finger of blame at hospital workers, knowing somewhere deep inside, never to be revealed, that this is on you.

The coalition just doesn’t get it; they seem unwilling to entertain the idea that this death was a result of ongoing underinvestment. But at least someone seems to have recognised the possibility that targets and staffing numbers might be linked, as the following story, coincidentally, announced a halt to some of the cuts in the region.

The right loves a merger. I don’t know why they never seem to save any money, but in the absence of any other ideas, it is at least an option, even if it’s not a good one. To be fair, they did tell us that “back-office” staff would be let go, while those involved in essential patient care would not be cut.

The affected region, which includes Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki, and Tai Rāwhiti, would have seen a loss of 17 clinical roles.

Sorry, what now? By what stretch of the imagination are “clinical roles” not considered to be essential?

With so many delays in our health system, it is almost impossible to believe they would cut clinical staff. On top of that, according to the Public Services Association, “almost 100 frontline health workers would have needed to reapply for their jobs.”

The way our health workers are being treated is appalling.

Roles are cut, patients suffer, and they are blamed by a Minister who seems to lack empathy or self-awareness. Then they face further cuts or the stress of having to reapply for the jobs they are working far too hard in for not enough money.

It’s a bloody insult.

It’s almost as if the government wants the health system to fail so they can privatise it little by little. And if you think that sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory, it’s already happening.

I hate putting a paywall on my writing, but with subscriptions down, needs must. If you want to support Nick’s Kōrero and access the rest of my work, please become a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Read more

Songwriters: Bill Gould, Michael Bordin, Roddy Bottum, James Martin, Chuck Mosley.

Does Simeon Brown care?

Not for the first time this week, last night’s news left me feeling ill. A man in his mid-50s died in a toilet after waiting nine hours in Waikato’s Emergency Department (ED).

I thought back a couple of months to when I’d arrived at ED here in West Auckland, barely able to stand and needing to be put in a wheelchair. I’m in my mid-50s and wasn’t looking flash.

I was seen in no time at Waitakere, but it feels like the luck of the draw. How on earth has it come to this, where people in Emergency Departments in NZ are waiting that long? Some are being told to expect 14-hour delays. After watching the report I posted:

A man dies in a bathroom after waiting at an Emergency Department for nine hours, and Simeon Brown is emotionless. Chippy was right; this is not good enough – hire more staff, now!

Mary wrote, “I feel sorry for the hospital staff; they don't deserve to be working in these conditions. They want to help everyone.”

Mark said, “Terrible and sad, but it was bound to happen, and more will happen because of the harm this government has done to the whole sector. Bring on November; this craziness has to stop.”

Health Minister Brown said he would not comment on the incident out of respect for the family and to allow the review to “do its work properly”.

Simeon Brown is the answer to the question: What would happen if you took a mediocre man destined to become a bank branch manager, who would award himself Employee of the Month every month, and made him the Minister of Health?

We don’t need more inquiries; we already know what the problem is. There simply aren’t enough doctors and nurses to deliver the health service we expect. By all means, hold an inquiry to find out how on earth this happened, but you’ve got to address the cause right away, or this poor man won’t be the last to die waiting for help.

Brown said, “There is a significant amount of work to meet our targets. There has been improvement across the board; there is still more work to do.” Good lord, Simeon, this isn’t rocket science. It doesn’t matter how much you meddle with targets; this is about having enough staff in our hospitals to save lives.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said doctors and nurses “have been saying for some time now that the staffing shortages in emergency departments, the shortage of capacity in emergency departments, is a tragedy waiting to happen”.

Cuts, hiring freezes, and a seeming inability to hire replacements until long after critical staff have left are leading to the sort of service degradation everybody said would happen. Now that it has, Simeon wants to hold an Inquiry. For goodness sake, man, listen to the people in our health workforce and take action.

Fleur Fitzsimons of the Public Service Association said it well: “Our thoughts are with the whānau affected by this death, and I hope Minister Simeon Brown is thinking very carefully himself about how his Government can look to stop tragedies like these happening in future.”

Read more

Song: Stevie Wonder.

Tuesday traditionally means that the leader of the opposition will appear on Breakfast, following the PM’s appearance on Monday.

At least that’s how it was when our current leader thought he had more to gain from speaking to the public than to lose. However, a media adviser has since clarified that his best option is not to answer questions, and perhaps people will simply forget about him.

A sharp-dressed man.

Chris Hipkins looked good in his well-fitted suit, which is not something anyone would say about Luxon. He sported a highly presentable haircut and a classic red tie, which I’m sure will be ever-present until the election. He also sounded as if he had a head cold.

Tova began by asking Hipkins whether he’d ever come across P paraphernalia being sold in two-dollar shops. The Labour man said he had not, but was shocked to learn that such devices were available in those places for a couple of bucks.

Hipkins said he would support a law banning them and spoke seriously about P use having doubled in 18 months, a very black mark against a government that promotes itself as being all about law and order.

War is over.

With oil prices falling and hopes that the current peace will endure despite the resumption of military action by both sides, Tova asked what Hipkins thought of the government’s $50-a-week support package, which almost nobody receives and which might end in July. His response was essentially that it’s too soon to tell; we don’t know when petrol prices will come down, or even whether they won’t go up again if there are further setbacks.

Tova then went into campaign mode for the National Party, saying that the Aussies were reinstating their excise tax and suggesting that NZ had done well by not removing ours. Her flippancy about a matter that has left many struggling with the cost of living really grated.

I know it’s only Breakfast television, but surely a situation in which Kiwis are struggling with costs deserved a more serious response than O’Brien’s fantasy land, where the cost of living was addressed by a kind, benevolent government and now we can all go back to normal. And wasn’t the coalition clever not to overreact?

High and Dry.

Hipkins responded that the coalition has left the majority of Kiwis high and dry during the fuel crisis. That they basically said to people, “You’re on your own, and you’re just going to have to deal with it.”

He said that while everybody would be relieved to see fuel prices come down, Kiwis had done it hard, dipping into savings or going into overdraft in order to fund day-to-day basics.

Hipkins gets grief for not being as progressive as some on the left would like, or for lacking the charisma others might have, but I’ll say one thing: in a time of crisis, I cannot think of a better person to lead the country. He gets it; he cares about people rather than seeing helping NZers as a blot on the balance sheet. Given the rate of crises, that is no small thing; in fact, it might be the most important thing.

I remember when Chippy was PM and how hard he worked during Cyclone Gabrielle. In times of need, I’ll take him over the guy with a goofy grin who thinks he can fix everything by bringing buckets of fried chicken.

Honouring promises.

They moved to Bowel Cancer Screening, with both Luxon and Hipkins committing in 2023 to match Australia’s eligibility age if elected, when the age across the Tasman was 50.

Since then, National have lowered the age from 60 to 58, although for Māori and Pasifika the age has actually risen from 50 to 58. Australia has lowered its eligibility age further; it’s now down to 45. Hipkins said he had not decided on the new Australian threshold, but he would keep his commitment to lower the age to 50 in New Zealand.

It speaks to the man's integrity that he was quite clear he had committed to lowering the age to 50 and would do so. There is something to be said for a leader who stands by their commitments.

Morally and ethically bankrupt.

Next came the story about Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff being assessed on reducing emergency housing numbers. A horrendous situation that made me feel physically ill when I saw Jack Tame’s reports. I posted:

MSD gives warnings to staff who don’t reduce emergency housing placements at a time of increased hardship. This government is bloody disgusting!

Eli wrote, “This is coming from Minister Louise Upston, no doubt. Who has never experienced a day in her life of need or going without. Disgusting human who sets KPI's for chucking people out on the street while claiming 50k a year to live in her own house.”

Tova continued by quoting the Prime Minister, who said it was an operational matter, not one for his Minister. Hipkins looked angry and said, “It’s morally and ethically bankrupt. People shouldn’t be denied the support they need and are entitled to, and that they meet the criteria for, just because the government set the target and now the MSD are disincentivising their staff with performance measures.”

That’s the Chris Hipkins I want as Prime Minister, one who is passionate about ensuring people receive the support they need and are entitled to.

His interview conveyed that if you want someone to support you in your times of need, he was the one to vote for. Not by ramming it down people’s throats, but by making it clear through his words that people are his most important consideration.

Hipkins joined the dots for Tova, who looked a bit confused, or possibly just frustrated that someone else was talking. He explained that, with the push to reduce emergency housing, people end up on the streets, and now the government is taking on the role of the street-sweeper at the bottom of the cliff, moving them on.

He said we need a system that is fit for purpose and that there must be support for those on the street, but that he would never agree with criminalising homelessness.

Pay it back.

Tova said that David Seymour had appeared on the show yesterday and had suggested that Shane Jones ought to repay the $30k expense overspend, including an on-call limousine service for when he had to travel next door.

Hipkins said that having such a service available for a conference connected to his hotel required a bit more explanation. Shane Jones has started saying he can’t recall which hotel he stayed at, and Chippy quite rightly pointed out that this lacked credibility and that he should at least front up and explain things, given it was a lot of money. Raising the fact that his Business Class airfares were booked before Jones got budgetary sign-off and cost a lot more than was eventually approved.

Tova tried to make a ridiculous comparison between what some Labour MPs had spent on domestic travel, about $20k for a year, and the Matua’s sixty-thousand-dollar-plus luxury schmooze fest with lobbyists.

As Hipkins pointed out, given the price of domestic flights, it’s no wonder that MPs' travel expenses, especially for those representing large or remote electorates, have increased.

The interview ended abruptly as if Tova had received the signal to wrap things up.

A man for the people.

Chris Hipkins is not about to announce transformational policies. Labour is being cautious with its commitments to keep them realistic. He may not be as progressive as some of us would like, nor have the charm of some others, but I’ll give him this:

When it comes to recognising that people are the most important thing, Chris Hipkins has it in spades. Throw some Greens into the mix, and you have a government that would govern in the people's interests, and that would be a bloody good day for Aotearoa.

Have a great day, folks. Take care, and if you’re enjoying reading Nick’s Kōrero, then please consider subscribing or gifting a subscription. 🙂

Subscribe now

Give a gift subscription

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

A couple of unrelated things. I was so delighted to see the Black Caps win overnight, to win a test series in England after going behind in the first match is a remarkable achievement, we really punch above our weight. Well done, Black Caps!

In sad news, I was sorry to read of the passing of Dame Penelope Keith. I loved The Good Life as a kid, and I’m sure she will be sadly missed by all who knew her.

To end today, here are the Red Hot Chilli Peppers covering Stevie Wonder’s Higher Ground.

Song: John Lennon.

I wanted to see two things from Labour over the weekend: a bit of mongrel and some old-style socialism from a hero of the working people. Both were present.

Leader Chris Hipkins said, “Neoliberal trickle-down economics is a hoax”, and issued a rallying cry of “The fight is on!” to deliver “A Fair Go for everyone”.

Watching the highlights of Hipkins’ keynote speech at the Labour Party conference, my first thought was that it was bread-and-butter stuff and surely wouldn’t be too controversial. Yet the coalition representatives howled on 1 News as if he’d just announced that, under Labour, we were going to have one more Covid lockdown to knock the virus on its head before the worst of the winter.

Of course, Chippy didn’t do that; his announcement was classic Labour, supporting businesses in taking on young people as apprentices and setting them on their way in life. Something the coalition should have supported, yet they watered down the Labour initiative they inherited even as youth unemployment reached its highest level in decades.

The coalition’s message was “Don’t Vote Labour”, and in the absence of policies of their own, they sought to discourage voters from supporting an alternative by painting Labour as the bogeyman under the bed, even when proposing a policy whose need is as obvious as the diarrhoea of disinformation coming from Simeon Brown.

National’s campaign manager, Simeon, sought to cast doubt as to how Labour would pay for the scheme, which I find mind-boggling. In what world is it better to have young people languishing without opportunity than to get them into apprenticeships? But things were about to get worse, and I posted:

Watching 1 News, and I was just thinking what a creep Simeon Brown is, and then Stuart Nash came on.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said Labour was copying their apprenticeship policy, but Stuart Nash failed to get the memo, and the man who was kicked out of Labour, but apparently sees himself as the party’s true soul, had the cheek to say “this Labour Party does not represent the values of Michael Joseph Savage, Peter Fraser, and Walter Nash”.

I wondered what those three men would have made of Stuart Nash’s recent description of a woman, which I won’t repeat.

Dorothy wrote, “As I watched that clip, Stuart Nash talked about old Labour political values and mentioned Walter Nash as one of those holding those values. Personally, I think Walter Nash, as Stuart Nash's grandfather, would rise up from his grave and ask his grandson what the hell he thought he was talking about.”

Diana said, “Where do they find these people? They are like orc extras from LOTR.” Although I wasn’t clear whether she meant the NZ First candidates or their crowd.

David commented, “Just when you think they've reached the bottom of the barrel, someone says, ‘Hey! Where does that hatch go?”

Which brings us to ACT, which had two things to announce at its own conference:

1. They made the gun lady their new deputy leader, selected from an extremely modest talent pool.

2. For goodness sake, don’t vote Labour; they don’t even believe in neoliberal trickle-down as an economic approach

ACT appoints firearms spokesperson as deputy leader.

Dorothy wrote, “Nicole McKee said once she got involved in gun safety when she was teaching wahine to hunt for food. Wouldn't it be better to fight for a country where wahine don't need to go out hunting for food? Better jobs, better wages, better healthcare, better education chances. Aren't those better targets than hunting venison and pigs?”

Josephine said, “The ACT Party goes from bad to worse,” although it is difficult to compare the unsuitability of promoting a gun lobbyist in the wake of March 15 with someone who wanted to abolish Health and Safety regulations for workers and fair pay for women.

To be honest, my main concern about guns is having them anywhere near the basement-dwelling hate trolls that support ACT.

Things went from bad to worse as they delivered their 2026 platform, which was essentially “Don’t Vote Labour”. I posted:

ACT’s slogan is “Lock Labour Out”? How bereft of ideas must you be to campaign by saying “Don’t vote for the other guy”? They sounded like Trump saying “Lock Her Up.”

To be fair, ACT did announce some policies alongside their anti-Labour message, promising:

• All health and disability benefits would be issued independently by a Ministry of Social Development-approved pool of designated doctors; this is currently optional, but ACT would make it compulsory.

• Electronic money management for jobseeker recipients who remain on a benefit for more than four months, which would allow spending on groceries, rent, childcare and other essentials, with alcohol, gambling, tobacco and cash withdrawals all banned.

• The reduction of 43 government departments to 19 and cutting 28 ministers to just 18. The Public Service Commission would be abolished.

Seymour wasn’t only bagging Labour, he also said of Te Pāti Māori, “the best they could do for Māori is a haka on TikTok.”

Of the Greens, he said, “Then there’s Business Class Chloe from the Greens, who works with Labour. They’ve done about as much for the environment as the Māori Party has for Māori.”

Paddy wrote, “Seems like National’s and ACT’s election strategy is focused on another party. Imagine going into a job interview and focusing entirely on another candidate’s negative aspects.

Um. And what do you have to offer?”

Halina said, “They’re all very threatened by Labour, for good reason.”

So what do we have? An energised Labour Party that has been grinding in low gear but is really picking up momentum, or parties devoid of ideas whose only appeal to voters is to vote against the other guy, the one who is focused on getting this country working again.

If you’d like to read more of Nick’s Kōrero, please subscribe. Paid subscriptions are how I earn my living, and it means an awful lot to me that readers support this writing. Today’s edition is free, so you’re most welcome to share it. 🙂

Subscribe now

Share

Have a good Monday, folks, and take care, all you lovely people.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today is John Lennon’s great track “Working Class Hero”.

Songwriters: Neil Finn / Tim Finn.

Many of us across Aotearoa, and a few Aussies too, I’m sure, have a particular domain in mind when they hear that song. To me, it’s the one in Auckland, the museum, the cooling fountains and birds, the steamy exotica of the Wintergardens, and the most magical tree outside an Enid Blyton tale, though it could be anywhere.

Maybe Auckland is what I think of for the line about the seasons in one day, given our notoriously changeable weather? Still, the on-again, off-again rain in Tamaki Makaurau is small bikkies compared with what we’re seeing elsewhere.

Subscribe now

Frying in the north.

The weather in some places right now is a damn site more serious than a surprising downburst on a sunny day. We are reaching climate extremes that are bordering on the point where human life is no longer supported and will increasingly impact our economy and food production.

Over the past week, there have been record temperatures across Europe, affecting businesses and schools and leading to deaths among those who could not cope with the heat.

In France, four toddlers have died, and 55 people have drowned while seeking refuge from the heat.

Paris hit a June record of 40.9°C on Wednesday. The head of the Association of French Emergency Doctors said there had been 55 deaths in emergency health services in Paris in 24 hours. “Fifty-five is enormous,” Patrick Pelloux told Reuters. “Normally it’s three or four over 24 hours.”

In parts of Spain, the nighttime temperature was still above 30°C, offering no reprieve from the daytime heat.

Read more

Songwriters: Philip E. Galdston / Wendy Waldman-parker / Jon Lind.

“A fair society doesn’t command the vulnerable to swim behind the boat while their partners exhaust themselves rowing for two, a decent society places everybody in a boat and gives everyone an oar.”

Today’s edition is about two people and a petition. First, let’s meet Sarah, a reader of this newsletter who sent me a message last night:

I would like to make you aware of a very important petition to assist disabled people. It is fighting for the right of a permanently disabled or chronically ill person not to lose all their government support if they have or get a working partner, or if their partner starts working. It would give them a guaranteed minimum personal income. I have written about it in the attached letter.

It closes in 5 days, and I thought you might be prepared to share it if you agree it is important.

Kind regards,
Sarah.

She also wrote some lovely words about the work I do, which I’ve removed to spare my blushes. I suggested we put out a newsletter and asked for some information about who was organising the petition.

Sarah indicated that she had been writing to members of parliament about this exact same issue over the last few weeks, so she was very supportive of the petition when she saw it and introduced Ricky Andrews, the organiser.

Ricky said I was welcome to share anything about the petition, including a video he had produced. Adding, “It's not the best video, but it was the best of about 30 attempts. I struggle with my speaking due to Parkinson's.”

Here it is, and I encourage you to watch to put a face to this issue. Governments talk about numbers, rules and entitlements, but behind their decisions are people.

Over to Sarah now, and this is the letter she sent me:

I thought I should bring to your attention a petition that I came across on Sunday. It is regarding disabled people losing their Supported Living Payment when they start a relationship with a working partner (or when their existing partner increases their earnings). It closes on 30 June, so there are only 5 days left for people to sign it.

In the current situation, for a couple without children, once a working partner earns $64,587.00 annually, a disabled person’s Supported Living Payment is completely cut off (and, from an annual working income of $8,320, it starts to be reduced). Once it is cut off, it leaves the disabled person completely reliant on their partner for all their income.

Additionally, once the working partner earns more than $67,346 annually, the disabled person completely loses their Disability Allowance, which covers actual additional costs they incur due to their disability (up to $82.85 per week at this income level, depending on their costs).

The disabled person also loses their Community Services Card once their Supported Living Payments stop, and then they usually pay much more for their healthcare. The Community Services Card is more useful to a disabled person than an average person, because they usually have far higher health needs due to their disability, so this can be very costly too.

The petition seeks to change this so that a disabled person keeps a guaranteed 60% of the normal Supported Living Payment amount regardless of their partner’s income, and keeps their Disability Allowance and Community Services Card.

The existing system is discriminatory and a relic of days gone by, when a single household income was enough to cover typical household expenses. At current costs, a household often requires two incomes to cover its expenses. Single-income households pay more in taxes than two lower-income households with the same total income, due to our progressive tax rates.

In addition, and this is horrible, it prevents disabled people from their right to find a romantic partner, because if a healthy working person meets a disabled person and moves in with them, they will immediately have to support them completely and pay for all their disability needs too. So really, it is very unlikely that a disabled person will find someone who is willing to enter a relationship with them.

They will also usually be prevented from having children because they cannot find a partner. This becomes extremely discriminatory if you think of it this way. And this probably leads to a great deal of loneliness and isolation in the disabled community. A working partner should not be a disabled person’s life support just because they choose to be in a romantic relationship with them.

In my case, I have a disabled partner and two children, and I work. We receive Working for Families, so my situation is slightly different. However, it is similar because after I went back to work after having our children, we completely lost our Supported Living Payment and our Community Services Card, just as a couple with no children would.

While we do receive Working for Families, that payment is supposed to help support our children, not my disabled partner. And we do pay a lot more in taxes than a family with two lower incomes that add up to the same total income as ours. Working for Families is based on a family’s total before-tax income, and doesn’t take into account that we pay thousands of dollars more in tax than a family with their income split between two working partners.

However, because this is not about us and at least Working for Families does help our family a little, I am more concerned about other disabled people than us.

I am more concerned about the position of single disabled people who cannot find a partner who is willing to take on this burden, and they then remain isolated and unable to find love. I am more concerned about people who are already in a relationship and who suddenly find themselves with a permanent illness, which means that they suddenly find themselves going from two incomes to one and having to dip into both partners’ Kiwisaver balances just to cover their normal household expenses. These people are severely disadvantaged by the current system.

If this petition were passed, it would make a huge difference to these disabled people and their partners, if they have them too.

The petition is gaining momentum, with 1,100 signatures now, up from 300 a week ago. But they want to collect 10,000 signatures to make it more likely the select committee will take it seriously, and there are only 5 days left.

The petition can be found on the Parliament website here:

Petition of Ricky Andrews: Remove Community Services Card and disability supports from joint income testing

If you’d like to sign it, you only have until the 30th of June, so the best time to do it is right now.

If you would like more information, the petition's Facebook page, which has lots of related content, can be found here, and the decouple website explains it all here.

Right, I’m off to sign a petition. Have a good day, all you lovely people. I very much hope Ricky and everyone involved get the numbers they’re after, and thank you to Sarah for sharing this with me, and now with all of you.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

In choosing a song for today, I asked Ricky if he had any thoughts, and he suggested something from the soundtrack to Priscilla, which is also a favourite of mine.

Back in the 90s, when I was at Uni, and the Grunge gods ruled the airwaves, the soundtracks from the Aussie movies Priscilla and Muriel’s Wedding found their way onto the jukebox at the student bar and were on high rotation. The songs really remind me of the time, and here’s Vanessa Williams with Save The Best For Last.

Subscribe now

Songwriter: Paul Weller.

This morning on Breakfast, Tova was lighthearted, as she often is right before biting the head off her prey, and joked that the country was sick of Chrises.

That followed last night’s 1 News poll, which showed the two major parties on their lowest combined vote since our very first MMP election in 1996, a full thirty years ago. The year I finished Uni, started my first graduate role developing software to label blood tests, and met my wife Fi. John Major was the UK PM, and Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office. It feels like a long time ago.

Some of the leaders from that time are well known; others drift into history. There was Clark, of course, dear Helen, so strong and so human. I had no idea at the time what a remarkable person she was. Jim Bolger, the old spud who softened in later life, saw the wrongs of neoliberalism, but in the 90s oversaw a devastating attack on the country’s most vulnerable at the hands of Shipley and Richardson.

The late Jim Anderton, who had the courage to walk away from Douglas’s Labour Party, as Roger inspired Ruth with an all-out attack on egalitarian NZ. Richard Prebble, as mad then as his columns are now, and Clive Matthewson of United, an earlier attempt to create a centrist party that would work with either side, but which rapidly morphed into Peter Dunne providing an extra vote for National.

There was one more, of course, not departed nor lamented, who has anointed most of our Prime Ministers since.

At the 1996 election, National and Labour attracted a combined total of just 65%, with one in three Kiwis taking advantage of proportional representation to vote for a minor party. Not dissimilar to last night’s poll:

The poll was completed a week ago, prior to National’s KiwiSaver announcement or the release of the Green Party’s tax policies.

It showed a win to the left, although that was based on a fairly large assumption that Te Pāti Māori would win all of their current seats. Hardly a foregone conclusion, as tight competition is likely in a number of the Māori electorates from Labour as well as from the Greens, with the formidable Tania Waikato in Waiariki.

There were winners: the Greens and NZ First, and losers: ACT, but the big story was undeniably The Opportunity Party’s 4.6%. It was the first time TOP had polled above 3.5% in this election cycle with any polling organisation other than Roy Morgan, and they were on the cusp of entering parliament.

I’ve previously written about the risks of voting TOP, namely the possibility that they fall short of 5% and the uncertainty over whether a vote for them would lead to a softer coalition with TOP as a handbrake or to a progressive government with the opposition.

Part of me thinks it would be good to have TOP in parliament. As I’ve said all along, I really like their policies. But there is a lingering nervousness.

If TOP had made it above 5% in last night’s poll, they would have held the balance of power and had a major say in who our next government would be. I don’t much like the idea of introducing another Kingmaker, even though I like TOP’s policies. Leader Q has said they will announce bottom lines before the election, which is good, but I find it hard to imagine they’ve gone to all this trouble only to sit on the cross benches, voting on legislation on a case-by-case basis.

Here is a clip showing the responses of the other parties to the possibility of TOP joining them:

I did enjoy Marama Davidson saying, “Their policies are pretty awesome; they sort of look like Greens.” I can well imagine the two parties working productively together should such an arrangement eventuate.

Tova invited Q onto the Breakfast programme, saying that Mr Peters could be out of a job as a kingmaker, which probably earned TOP a few more votes, because, for the love of god, how many of us have had enough of Winston already? Q was warm, relaxed, and spoke clearly, a performance our PM can only dream of.

She was open about past near misses, with TOP coming close but people deciding at the last minute not to risk it. What was different this time, she said, was the membership numbers, the level of media coverage, and the donations.

I felt a bit of sympathy for her, firstly because it must be the hundredth time she’s been asked that question, and secondly because it’s really hard to get a new party into parliament, especially without an electorate seat to give it a foot in the door. In my view, that 5% threshold should be reduced to no more than 3%.

Asked about the two Chrises, Q said there was distrust in both our major parties' ability to fix the issues, which I think is a fair reflection of where we’re at. She said TOP were pragmatic and in the middle but also wanted to see bold change, which seemed contradictory to me.

She encouraged voters to look at the policies a party is putting on the table and the approach it's bringing to politics, and to vote based on that. Pretty simple really.

Tova indicated that that was all very nice, but the reality was that if TOP entered parliament, they would anoint either a left- or right-wing PM. Q shifted her answer to 2023 and said she thought it was a shame that National and the Greens had ruled each other out, and that things might have been different.

I was surprised by that, given that the two parties are diametrically opposed on almost every issue, and, besides, the way the Green Party works means that members must approve any coalition arrangement. It felt like Q was being positive, but also avoiding the question.

Asked about the possibility of a left-wing coalition and tax reform, Q indicated that it was important to have agreement from the public, which again sounds good, but there is so much misinformation on the topic that it seems unlikely to me. I also wondered whether those who have attacked the Green Party’s Wealth Tax would now have a go at TOP’s Land Tax as they stick their head above the parapet.

Q indicated that TOP was not interested in a pre-election deal, as it would run counter to their role in the centre and keeping either side honest.

They moved to quick-fire questions. TOP would not support the LNG facility, which makes no sense, so that was good to hear; on the other hand, she was not supportive of reinstating the oil and gas ban, although she somewhat preserved the party’s climate credentials by agreeing that agricultural emissions should be considered.

I was pleased to hear an unequivocal “yes” in response to the question of reinstating fair pay agreements.

It was a good interview, but there will be tougher ones ahead. TOP certainly have the ideas to bring to parliament; my remaining concern is that I really want to see this coalition go, and I’m not sure whether TOP getting there will make that more or less likely, or what impact they would have on the next government.

Still, if there is to be a Kingmaker, I would far rather it be a level-headed, polite, and liberal person like Q than Drunkle Winston once again.

Have a great day, folks; it’s pretty wet here in Tamaki Makaurau. I hope it’s not too bad where you are.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here is Paul Weller with Shout To The Top.

Share

Songwriters: Peter Hernandez / Ari Levine / Travis L. McCoy / Philip Ii.

Mōrena,

I hope you’re good. I’m still catching up on the weekend’s news after a day off yesterday, and it doesn’t seem like much has happened since then.

Except, oh yeah, the PM of the UK, Sir Keir Starmer, resigned in that very British style of coup, where there is no bloodletting but the leader is told they’re not popular and it’s time to go. He is to be replaced by Andy Burnham, probably in July, but Burnham can’t yet become the PM as he isn’t even an MP.

Burnham will be sworn in as an MP on Monday after winning a by-election in Makerfield, which was engineered entirely to enable him to replace poor old Keir, who has had a difficult, some might say impossible, role.

With the rapid rise of the far-right Reform Party, the related racial division we’ve seen play out in some communities in Britain, and the impossible task of keeping Donald Trump happy as he demonstrates the consistency of lumpy custard, or perhaps that’s just the President’s blood flow, it’s hard not to feel for Starmer.

It made me wonder whether certain National Party MPs, especially a few senior ones who, based on the party’s recent polling, look like they could lose their jobs.

Brownlee, Willis, Goldsmith, and first-term MP Nancy Lu lack the security of an electorate, and Chris Bishop may lose his Hutt South seat to Ginny Andersen. A few of them might regret not doing the same with Luxon when they wake up unemployed the day after the election.

If I may be so bold, Hutt South is one of those electorates where it really is a two-horse race. Either Bishop or Andersen will win, but it will be tight. I’d encourage all who are left-wing inclined to give your vote to Ginny and send Bishop packing, as she did here:

I still find it extraordinary that we have a man leading our country who decided he was no good at talking to people in uncontrolled environments, and so simply stopped doing so, almost as if he’d lost interest in being accountable to the public.

Subscribe now

National’s about-turn on KiwiSaver.

National has a poor history when it comes to retirement schemes, from Muldoon’s decision to cancel the New Zealand Superannuation Scheme, which some have called “probably the worst financial decision ever made”, to John Key chipping away at the incentives and support for KiwiSaver.

A brief history of KiwiSaver:

• In 2007, the Clark government introduced KiwiSaver with a $1000 kick-start paid on joining, an annual fees subsidy of $40, and up to $1040 matched by the government, dollar-for-dollar.

• In 2009, the Key government removed the $40 annual fee subsidy, capped the employer compulsory contribution at 2%, and discontinued the employer tax credit which had been introduced in 2008.

• Then, in 2012, they reduced the member tax credit to 50c per $1 contributed, meaning the government would match a maximum of $521 per year, down from $1,040.

• Finally, in 2015, the Key government abolished the $ 1,040 kickstart for new members.

As a result of National’s changes to KiwiSaver, New Zealanders have missed out on significant savings. Then, over the weekend, National announced that they would do what everybody knew needed to be done and help Kiwis save for their retirement, no doubt with one eye on means-testing Super.

Should National win, KiwiSaver will become compulsory next year, and there will be an automatic $1500 kickstart for newborns. I assume the reason they referred to newborns is not so much about the image of helping new parents, although that was laid on with a trowel, but because others who are not newborns won’t be eligible for the kickstart when they join the scheme.

I can’t argue with the policy; it should have been done years ago, but I think they have some cheek making it the cornerstone announcement of their conference over the weekend, given how they have degraded the scheme to date.

The thing is, they probably already have sufficient multi-party support to make the scheme compulsory now. The left would support it, and Winston Peters has been trying to do just that for decades, although maybe not ACT, which would probably address the issue of rising super costs by adding financial clauses to its euthanasia bill.

I suppose it’s better this way. Labour would have been blamed for taking money from the pockets of hard-working Kiwis if they had made it compulsory, whereas National are seen as investing in our future, even though they probably have the numbers to pass such legislation and there is no need for them to wait and make it an election promise.

Why not just do it? Again, if it were the left, people would be up in arms, saying “Why did you wait? You’ve cost Kiwis millions in retirement savings by doing so.” But instead of collaborating with their coalition partners, they chose to badmouth them at their conference, with Simeon Brown referring to National as the mummy and the daddy and implying that ACT and NZ First were the children.

I wrote after seeing that:

Holy heck, Simeon Brown was dire at the National Party convention; a charisma-free zone with one-liners that a Christmas cracker maker would reject.

Joss wrote, “I had the privilege of judging primary school speeches last Friday; honestly, these kids could run rings around Simeon Brown. His speech was a real shocker.”

Paula pointed out that “needlessly criticising NZ First is not a game for amateurs.”

Clearly National are concerned that their partners are eating their lunch, leading Campaign Manager Brown to say this of his coalition colleagues:

Which I thought might be their new campaign slogan, and imagined Nicola Willis and Louise Upston singing “Sharing isn’t caring” while shovelling loot to billionaires, adding, “they don’t want to share, and we just don’t care.”

Trevor saw a possible silver lining, writing, “I hope that National get so worried that they go all out to get Epsom to go with them rather than just giving it to ACT. It would be great to see the ACT party end.”

Asked yesterday about his statements on his coalition partners, Simeon wasn’t backing down and continued to call them “children”, which is a bit like being called “unkemp” by Chris Bishop.

National and ACT oppose the Greens’ Wealth Tax.

Well, colour me surprised. Who would have thought it? Parties that represent and are funded by the wealthy don’t want anything to happen to their preferred demographic.

For goodness sake, what sort of Prime Minister, in a country where charities cannot meet the demand from people who lack the basic necessities, focuses on the needs of billionaires?

ACT Party leader David Seymour said it was a "Hunger Games" vision, which is more than a little ironic for a party that follows the mantra of “Survival of the Fittest”.

Is there any limit that National or ACT would deem acceptable? $10,000,000 is quite a lot of wealth beyond the family home; it’s plenty for a bach and an investment property, just not a whole string of properties. But if $10m is too low, at what point should the super-wealthy chip in a bit more so we can live in a better society? $50m? How about $100m? It’s a trick question, of course, because there is no level of wealth that Luxon or Seymour think should be taxed.

I was disappointed to see Chris Hipkins immediately rule out a wealth tax or an inheritance tax. Firstly, I think we need more tax revenue to put our country right, and secondly, at a time of conflict within the coalition, people will look for co-operation between the opposition parties.

It made me think - why does the left allow themselves to be lumped together as if they have to make excuses for their potential partner’s policies or rule them out entirely?

National doesn’t do that with ACT or NZ First policies; they just say that’s not our policy and be done with it. The media shrug their shoulders as if to say, “oh, well, fair enough”, and move on to the next thing. I understand that Hipkins must play to the centre to win, but it would be good to see him at least leave the door open to more progressive policies while being clear that a Wealth Tax is not a Labour policy.

The usual suspects who oppose the Greens' Wealth Tax call it an envy tax, but I’m not envious and don’t want their money, not one red cent. What I do want is a health system with the resources it needs and more help for those who are struggling.

What’s so unreasonable about that?

Subscribe now

Have a great day, all you lovely people. 🙂

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here’s Travie McCoy with Billionaire ft. Bruno Mars.

Share

Songwriters: Glen Ballard / Siedah Garrett.

This week I received three emails from the Green Party regarding the announcement of their 2026 tax policy; by coincidence, I’d written earlier this week about the need for a Wealth Tax following the release of the NBR’s Rich List:

The first correspondence was an invitation to today's policy announcement; the second was a Press Release that arrived yesterday; and, after reading it, I requested the independent review of the party's costing and assumptions, which arrived soon after.

I had considered attending the event but decided to spend the time writing instead. The party co-leaders, Marama Davidson and Chlöe Swarbrick, were making the announcement. I’ve seen them speak a few times this election cycle and always find them inspiring.

Marama is the heart of the party, staunch and authentic. I can’t think of a politician less likely to seek personal advancement or reward; she is undoubtedly there for the people. Then there is Chlöe, who is simply phenomenal.

Since Jacinda Ardern left office, many on the left have asked whether we would see someone like her again. Well, if you’re after someone who is intelligent, driven, empathetic, and who oozes integrity, you could do a lot worse than Ms Swarbrick, although of course nobody joins the Green Party to become Prime Minister.

Why change?

The Press Release included the opening statements from the two co-leaders, explaining why they were announcing these policies. Beginning with Chlöe:

“All New Zealanders deserve the opportunity to thrive. Today we are proud to announce a tax policy that will tackle inequality and corporate greed to rebuild our country and put more money in the pockets of 96% of New Zealanders.

People aren’t dumb. They know that while their cost of living has gone through the roof, corporate profits have skyrocketed and the wealthiest 150 rich listers now own more than half of the country. The big rip-off ends here.

Current tax settings allow multi-millionaires to pay only $9 in tax out of every $100 they make, while a teacher pays $22 in tax out of every $100 they earn. This is grossly unfair and is robbing us all of the investment our communities, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure need.

Right now, Facebook, Google, Amazon and other multinational corporations are being allowed to make billions from New Zealanders and pay next to nothing in tax, while small, local businesses are chased by the IRD into liquidation. That’s not right, and the Green Party will fix it.”

While many Kiwis are doing it hard, rich listers, tech companies, and large corporations are making eye-watering amounts of money; the Greens' policy seeks to balance that out while providing the vast majority of Kiwis with a tax cut.

While Chlöe provides the indignation and there is much in our current system that is unfair, Marama brings things back to the reason for the changes:

“If everyone contributes fairly, Aotearoa has more than enough for everyone to receive good healthcare, pursue education and training, feed their children, and pay their power bill. Instead, homelessness, unemployment, and poverty are increasing – while banks, the supermarket duopoly, power companies, and big tech make massive profits.

New Zealand’s economy is the largest it’s ever been, with record profits for some. Yet the cost of living is through the roof for ordinary people, and our hospitals, schools, public transport, and environment are all starved of funding.

These are critical social services that all New Zealanders, including the super-rich, need. Essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure could be funded if the super-rich and mega-corporates, such as the supermarket duopoly, banks, and power companies, contribute fairly to the society they profit from.”

We know what the problems are; we see our health system struggling, more people unable to afford the cost of living, child deprivation worsening, with one in seven Kiwi kids living in poverty, yet at the same time other groups are making hay.

The Policies.

Addressing inequality

• Introduce a 2.5 percent tax on the net assets of the super-rich above $10 million. There will be an exemption for family homes.

• Implement a Capital Acquisitions Tax on assets and gifts received worth over $1 million, with family farms and family homes exempted.

Tackle corporate greed

• Return the corporate tax rate to 33 percent for the 0.7 percent biggest corporations, like the supermarket duopoly, energy companies, and banks.

• Keep the corporate tax rate at 28 percent for small and medium enterprises, levelling the playing field for local businesses.

• Introduce a Bank Levy of 0.06 percent on the liabilities of the four big banks, like Australia has.

• Make big tech companies pay their fair share by enforcing the 5 percent withholding tax rate on the profits they send offshore.

• Reverse Luxon’s landlord tax cuts and the changes to the bright-line test.

Create fair income tax rates for people earning wages or salaries

• Create a new tax-free threshold of $10,000, giving 96 percent of New Zealanders a tax cut.

• Create a new tax rate for income over $160,000.

In total, “‘A tax system for all of us’ will increase net revenue by $5.35 billion in 2027/28, rising to $5.94 billion by 2030/31.”

My thoughts.

Previously, the Greens had proposed a Wealth Tax on individuals with a net worth above $2m or on couples with a net worth above $4m. The fact that this limit has now been raised to $10m makes it very hard to argue that those affected are not wealthy, and scaremongering about this hitting everyday Kiwis looks a bit silly when we’re talking about those with over $10m in wealth, excluding the family home.

Should the Greens find themselves in coalition discussions, I could see this Wealth Tax complementing Labour’s modest Capital Gains Tax (CGT).

The downside of a CGT is that, as it is not retrospective, in a flat or falling market there will be little revenue from such a policy in the first few years. However, over time, it will bring in a substantial amount and make things fairer, with property investors no longer able to sell their properties for hundreds of thousands of tax-free profits that they did little to generate.

You know, like Mr Wealthy and Sorted did, not long before the real estate market headed south:

Whereas the Greens Wealth Tax will bring in money right away, as it is not dependent on the performance of the property market and is applied regardless of whether an asset is sold.

I think many people will support raising taxes on our supermarket duopoly, energy companies, and banks. There is little real competition in these sectors, and excessive profits are being made from low-risk business activities. We’ve seen a succession of governments threaten to act on the supermarkets, energy producers, and banks, but it’s good to see a solid policy that will at least return a small share of those profits to the community.

For context, the banking sector’s annual profits before tax are around $10 billion, which equates to about $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country; it is an obscene return.

I don’t think anyone will shed a tear over Big Tech companies having to pay a 5% tax on their large profits here, which they shift to other jurisdictions with lower tax rates.

Reversing the landlord Tax Cuts that have plunged NZ into more borrowing because they were so unaffordable is a no-brainer.

The changes to income tax, with a new higher rate for earnings over $160k but a tax cut for most, with the first $10k of earnings becoming tax-free, seem fair.

I could see most, if not all, of these policies on the table in a coalition discussion with the Labour Party. After National adopted so many ACT and NZ First policies at the last election, without telling anyone, I see no reason why the two parties of the left should not campaign on independent, if similar, tax policies that can be agreed in post-election negotiations.

An Independent Review.

The Greens’ announcement offers a detailed set of policies, and, what’s more, they have had them checked to avoid the “who has the biggest hole?” argument taking place between the major parties, which distracts us from the reasons we need a fairer tax system.

In his overview, Principal Economist Brad Olsen says:

“Infometrics has examined the high-level assumptions underpinning the policy costings, and can confirm that the costings appear to be reasonable assessments, conditional on the underpinning assumptions of each policy and commitment. Infometrics concurs with the numbers presented within the policies, conditional on these assumptions made.”

However, he does note that “The large number of changes means that not every variation or permutation of different policy interactions can be considered in totality.”

There was some uncertainty about how different tax changes might interact, but nothing concrete. As for reversing the bright-line test and the landlord tax changes, he didn’t see an issue with that.

On the income tax changes, Olsen writes:

“The income tax model utilised is a standard approach to examine changes in income tax take based on different income tax rate settings, and is a reasonable approach, based on the current distribution of income, and with allowances for changes in the population and earnings.”

Finally, he commented that the administrative costs the Greens had budgeted to implement these changes were reasonable.

As a Green Party supporter, I’m impressed; these are the policies I think we need to get our country back on track. As someone who wants to see a Labour/Greens coalition in November, I can't see anything that's a million miles from what Labour Party supporters and MPs would also want.

People should, of course, vote for whichever party they prefer, but in my view, a Labour/Greens coalition offers the best chance of delivering progressive policies like this.

Have a great Sunday, folks. If you are attending the announcement today, perhaps let us know how it went. Thanks very much to Joel from the Greens for being so helpful.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here’s The Main Squeeze with “Man in the Mirror”.

Subscribe now

With all my favourite colours, yes, sir
All my favourite colours, right on
My sisters and my brothers
See 'em like no other
All my favourite colours

Songwriter: Eric Burton.

Have you been inspired by the West’s latest crusade in the Middle East and by the fighting in the Holy Land? Did you wake up one day and say to yourself, “I want to be part of that; it’s what God wants”?

No?

Well, chances are your name is not Brian Tamaki, who has been pumping his flock with fantasies of purging non-believers from this Christian nation.

Hallelujah, and pass the donations plate.

There’s a lot Brian’s god doesn’t like. From people who want to love each other, to those who just want to be who they are, and even the scientists who want to protect us from dying; Mostly he doesn’t like the worship of other gods that fails to benefit him financially.

This week, the Bishop of Bigotry accused Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi of purging Christians and burning down church buildings.

To be fair, he wasn’t entirely wrong; there has long been religious conflict in India, and while most of those impacted have of course been Muslim or Hindu, there have been recent attacks on Christians and Sikhs from Hindu hardliners.

Open Doors International reported that “nearly 5,000 Christians globally were killed for their faith in 2025. Approximately 93% of these deaths occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa (with Nigeria being the focal point of militant Islamist attacks), alongside significant violence in Syria, Myanmar, and Mexico.”

So if the vast majority of Christians killed in religious conflict were elsewhere, why would Brian Tamaki specifically target India? That country isn’t even among the top ten nations that international groups are concerned about: North Korea, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea, Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, Libya, and Iran.

Mind you, none of those nationalities has a population in Aotearoa as large as India’s, and there is also the not insignificant matter of India’s leader visiting soon, an ideal time for media attention, whereas the leaders of those other nations are unlikely to send their leaders this way any time soon.

After his anti-Indian rant, Tamaki said, “I think we should reciprocate in kind. Let's purge New Zealand of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims.”

Sorry, what now?

Purge our country? Like Kristallnacht against Germany’s Jewish population, or the expulsion of Muslims and Jews in the Middle Ages? You want us to do that to our brothers and sisters of other faiths?

This is at the same time as we’re celebrating diversity with Sarpreet Singh, who is representing the All Whites at the World Cup as the first Sikh to appear in the tournament.

This sort of rhetoric, aimed at groups who may be involved in religious conflict overseas but are entirely peaceful members of our community here in NZ, makes me ashamed and angry. How dare he try to bring such hatred and division here?

Then it got worse.

Tamaki preached, “And, while we're at it, if they're burning churches down, why don't we burn mosques and their temples down? Tit for tat.”

Sheesh, it’s time to get the police involved. While the government might turn a blind eye to David Seymour threatening to blow up the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, we can’t have a hate preacher encouraging his followers to burn down mosques and temples.

Although it did occur to me that there was one temple that probably ought to be burned down. A place where the deluded and misinformed shower the self-appointed representative of God with donations while he froths with rage and bigotry.

The Federation of the Islamic Associations of New Zealand said:

“Hateful rhetoric and the normalisation of verbal bullets towards religious and ethnic minorities can create ... conditions for violent extremism. New Zealand cannot afford to ignore those lessons.

The March 15 terrorist used the same language, and we are seeing history repeating itself.”

Right-wing extremists can moan about free speech all they like, but as far as I’m concerned, if you start talking about burning mosques in post-March 15 New Zealand, the authorities should be involved.

We only have to consider how Tamaki’s army of brainwashed fools has acted after other provocations by the pastor, marching against all sorts of Kiwis who have never done them any harm, including here in Te Atatu, where I live, where they brought violence and anger to a child’s storytelling session at our lovely local library.

The New Zealand Central Sikh Association said:

“New Zealand is a nation built on diversity, mutual respect and peaceful coexistence.

The Sikh community firmly believes in respecting all faiths and all people. Hate has no place in New Zealand.”

Here are Tamaki’s mob of thugs last December, apparently spreading the word of the lord:

How can our Police stand back and see a group of New Zealanders intimidated and threatened by a gang in this way? Aren’t we supposed to be cracking down on that sort of thing? Let alone Tamaki’s latest threats of purging entire groups of people and burning their places of worship?

Race Relations Commissioner Melissa Derby said:

“Many religious and faith communities have shared with me their experiences of growing hatred, intolerance, abuse and harassment towards their community in recent years. The rhetoric in this video raises serious safety and wellbeing concerns for impacted communities,” she said.

Our diverse religious and faith communities have a long and rich history in this country. They have made and continue to make positive contributions to our society.”

So where was the Minister responsible, the person who has been appointed to champion the interests of our ethnic communities? Why, here he is, and I kid you not:

It’s Mr Plod, a man so white he looks like the village butcher in an Enid Blyton story; and he’s the Minister of Ethnic Communities.

The same Mr Plod who was also a mercenary in the Middle East, a private security contractor making money to protect the interests of the West, although, in better news, he’s not actually sure if he killed any of the locals while doing so.

Minister Mark Mitchell said Tamaki’s outpouring of hatred towards such communities in Aotearoa was the “actions of a scared bully”. Accurate words, but surely the situation warranted action against someone inciting religious hatred and violence before his threats were carried out.

The police issued a statement:

“We are actively monitoring the situation and will continue to engage with community leaders to understand and respond to any concerns.

The material has been referred for legal assessment, and any further action will be considered in line with legislation.”

If you were to believe a word that Tamaki says, which is probably not the flashest of ideas, his concern was the level of immigration taking place in Aotearoa, which he says nobody voted for.

For context, in the year ending April 2026, we had 134,500 new arrivals, but this was offset by 111,700 Kiwis leaving, presumably to escape Nicola Willis’ economy, with a net increase of just 22,800 people.

Quite why the Pastor of Muppets sees immigration policy within his remit is beyond me, not to mention how turning away and casting out peaceful people squares with supposedly Christian beliefs.

Tamaki has called for a protest on July 7 at Aotea Square to coincide with Modi's proposed visit, saying:

“20,000 plus Indians will be in Auckland at that time along with Khalistan anti-Modi protesters as well. If 20,000 Indians can stand and take Auckland, then 30,000 Kiwis should show [up] to fight for your country and children’s future.

“This is New Zealand, not India.”

This is New Zealand, and we’re a melting pot of all different races and religions, and most of us like it that way and would have it no other way.

Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs make their way to our shores with their skills and families to build a life here. They don’t deserve to come to this, to be told they are not welcome in the land they have made their home.

It is shameful that this hate preacher continues to spread this message and that our government seems so reluctant to take action against him and his supporters.

These peaceful people of other religions are us; they’re a valuable part of our society, unlike Brian Tamaki and his goons who most definitely are not us.

Have a good Saturday, folks, and take care, all of you lovely people who open your hearts and minds to others.

Subscribe now

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here’s Black Pumas with Colours.

It really, really, really could happen
Yes, it really, really, really could happen
If the days they seem to fall through you
Well, just let them go

Songwriters: Damon Albarn / Graham Leslie Coxon / Alexander Rowntree David / Alexander James Steven.

I really like what Labour has been doing over the last couple of weeks with good policies and even smarter politics.

While National wants government assistance to be temporary and targeted, the Labour Party has focused its policies on delivering services to all.

It’s got to be an easier sell if people can see they get something for their taxes and are part of society, rather than the government’s approach of begrudgingly providing the barest of safety nets to those at the bottom and leaving the rest to individuals who are often not even eligible for the services their taxes fund.

Not only that, but Labour have indicated they will pay for some of their apple pie policies through their Capital Gains Tax, so people don’t just see a tax grab but can see what they get for their money. It’s a good message that equates paying taxes with the provision of services.

It’s also smart politics given the cost of living, and these policies all add up. Paying less for public transport, not having to pay for maternity scans, and free prescriptions - these are the building blocks of a better society.

The standard response from the right is to throw their arms around like one of those inflatables they used to have outside second-hand car yards, howling about people who are not struggling benefiting, and saying it will cost too much. God forbid someone who is middle class also gets subsidised transport or a free prescription.

It’s odd when you think about it; we don’t do that with other things. Nobody complains that the health budget means rich people will also receive treatment, or that people who can afford private schools can send their children to the local public school. So why does the government get so worked up about things like free prescriptions, which are part of our health system and will help people?

During his announcement, Chris Hipkins said that the annual New Zealand Health Survey indicated that about 155,000 New Zealanders were issued prescriptions they did not collect in 2025.

The obvious question is: what is the cost to the NZ Health system of people not taking the medications they need? My first thought was that I wouldn’t be surprised if the policy paid for itself by reducing the costs of treating those whose conditions worsened as a result.

Health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall said, “I remember caring for a truck driver who came to hospital with a stroke merely because he missed out on picking up his prescription because of the cost - he had a costly hospital admission and a lifetime of disability because of that.”

True to form, Prime Minister Luxon said, “Do people like Chris Hipkins and me really need free prescriptions? It’s not as targeted as it needs to be.”

ACT leader David Seymour said, “This is not helping vulnerable people; it is just more reckless spending.” Which was a bit comical; I can hardly imagine the welfare of vulnerable people keeping him awake at night.

Winston Peters said he supported the policy, showing, for the umpteenth time, that aside from the party's insane anti-woke theatrics, NZ First actually has more in common with the left than the right.

I’ve seen suggestions from the right that hardly anyone will benefit from the policy, and that it will cost too much; well, which is it? You can’t have it both ways. If hardly anyone used it, it wouldn’t cost very much.

They also miss that point by having targeted rather than universal services; there is a cost in administering and ensuring that people who aren’t entitled don’t receive these free services. Saving on administrative costs is another good reason to opt for universal services.

Yes, those people from wealthy suburbs do receive reduced-cost bus, train, and ferry trips, but it is easier to deliver than a service that verifies eligibility for the fare cap. Better yet would be to make public transport free, as TOP propose, removing the need for payment collection altogether.

I posted:

Free prescriptions are a good way to help people, and I'm glad Labour is making their policies universal; it makes it easier to sell the need for taxes.

Alex wrote, “Universal free health care is simple and fair to everybody. There should be no co-payments for GPs. Primary health care prevents serious illness and the cost of hospital care.”

Another Alex said, “The University of Otago conducted research that considered the $5 copayment and its effect on the health system, and it concluded that for every dollar the government is spending on subsidising prescriptions, the resultant benefits to society are approximately $18. It’s really simply a no-brainer.”

Bernard Hickey wrote in the Spinoff, “A new report shows that for every $1 in prescription co-payments collected by the government, it effectively pays $18 in extra hospital costs.”

What sort of lunatic would oppose spending $1 to save $18? It really is a no-brainer. Everyone can access the medicines they need, people feel more connected because we're all eligible for the same services, and we reduce health spending by investing wisely.

Tell me again how it costs too much and isn’t needed - yeah, right.

Brett commented, “Making things universal makes them less vulnerable. Just look at the difference between the pension and benefits. Both are effectively similar, but increases in one are generally celebrated, while decreases in the other are celebrated by many.”

Christine said, “As a cancer survivor on medication for 5 years, this makes a big difference to me. Thx Labour.”

If we want to make our country great again, we need to move away from providing the bare minimum to everyone while those with money pay for private hospitals and schools, and return to a society where we’re all in it together. Some will need to pay a bit more in tax, based on their ability to pay, but at the end of the day, we’ll have first-world health care and other public services that should be available to all.

That’s the dream, the Universal. Whatever criticisms you might have of Labour, I think they are steering a smart course to take people with them at this election, and we don’t get anything if we don’t win.

Haere, haere, haere atu rā, Dame Jools.

Today is the farewell for Aotearoa’s beloved Dame Jools Topp, and RNZ will livestream the event from 2pm, you can find the details here.

Have a good Friday, folks, and take care, all of you lovely people. ❤️💚🤎

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, one of my favourite songs, Blur with The Universal:

Songwriters: Douglas Ian Carr / Meja Anna Pernilla Beckman.

This week, people lost their minds over a failed software project at Steven Joyce’s mega-ministry, MBIE. After spending 20 years in software delivery, I was less surprised, having delivered a number of projects in the public sector that show you how you have to operate.

The Minister must be kept happy is rule #1, but how that is achieved is an introduction to the dark arts and skullduggery of reporting on projects while still getting things done.

Silly things like having to break work into chunks that don’t mean anything in order to stay below financial thresholds that require business cases, which slow projects down in a morass of bureaucracy.

I once got a telling-off for delivering a series of seven or eight Statements of Work, essentially the documents that define what will be delivered, any exclusions, risks, etc. Someone at the Ministry thought it was a bit cute to see all these invoices just below the threshold, so I was told not to do that again by the very Ministry person who had suggested I do it in the first place.

At another company whose main client was MBIE, the relationship between the two was like a bad marriage. One party was unhappy and wanted a divorce; the other, who had them over a barrel, even asked them to pay invoices early so they could make payroll. One day I reached my limit and quit on the spot; I hadn’t even looked for another job; I just decided I could no longer be a party to what was going on, and blowing the whistle would have been career suicide.

My first reaction on seeing Erica Stanford so furious was to wonder whether she had asked the right questions. She seems to point fingers a lot, and the buck never seems to stop with her, despite her having been in charge for quite some time. Reading on, I found what had taken place was certainly unacceptable, but I still wasn’t surprised.

Back in 2023, Independent consultants told Immigration managers that the project would not meet its 'go live' date and that “we have doubts as to whether the project will in fact deliver at all, and we question its continuation”.

Their report spoke of a “poor delivery history” and an “inability to meet agreed milestones,” yet six months later MBIE described the project to Stanford, saying, “The latest IQA confirmed the project approach was sound and robust, the build is achievable, and the risk management practice is effective.”

They were lying, and the people involved should clearly lose their jobs. MBIE admitted it had been “incorrect and misleading” but maintained there was no intention to mislead. I have some sympathy for Stanford; she has been blatantly lied to, and it is mind-boggling that, in MBIE’s apology, they claimed there was no intent to deceive when there obviously was.

It turns out MBIE has also been shooting the messengers who spoke up, saying that some staff were replaced “because they raised concerns about the project's viability.” Which tends to discourage others from speaking up.

If you asked any member of a development team whether the reports going up the chain were a warts-and-all reflection of the way things are going, they would laugh their heads off and roll their eyes; you learn early in the sector that the bearer of bad news is not thanked.

Project Managers must tell the truth, even if it has dire consequences for them, but all too often we see reports that show a green light right up until the light slams to red without warning, and there is nothing you can do about it.

As for the level of media attention given to this debacle, it looks to me like this is a political move to make people lose sympathy for the public service rather than being about this project. Don’t get me wrong, $33 million is a lot of money, but to put it in perspective, the break fee to cancel the Interislander (iReX) ferry contracts was $144 million. So Nicola Willis wasted four times the cost of this seven-year project, with the single stroke of her petulant pen.

Not to mention the billion dollars National wants to waste on building a white elephant of an LNG facility in Taranaki, which we wouldn’t need if they invested in more sustainable capacity, and which experts have said would not help in an energy crisis such as the one that is theoretically ending.

Perhaps most bizarrely, Winston Peters has threatened to send those involved to prison for what he called a “conspiracy against the people”. No doubt he was after a headline, but so far as I’m aware, we’re not actually locking people up for negligence or poor performance.

Winston says the MBIE people should go to jail, even though there is no suggestion that individuals have benefited privately. By contrast, Shane Jones has taken $30,000 from taxpayers above what was approved, taking the piss with his expenses. Maybe Jones is the one who should go to jail?

Private limo on standby for 24 hours part of Shane Jones’ $63k travel bill

Last year, Jones attended a mining conference in Canada, no doubt to flog what lies beneath our conservation estate. He flew business class and kept a private limo on standby, spending a whopping $63,000, even though Cabinet had approved only $33,000.

In other words, Jones spent $30,000 on baubles of power he wasn’t entitled to, and there is a term we use when people spend money that isn’t theirs.

Winston rapidly dialled back his level of outrage at the wasting of government money, saying of the expenditure, “When I saw that, actually, I couldn't believe that it was so low. So, what you've got is normalcy in this case, and there's nothing for us to apologise here for.”

Chris Hipkins noted, “Christopher Luxon tells New Zealanders to tighten their belts, but when one of his senior ministers blows an extra $30,000 of taxpayer money on luxury travel, limousine rides and eye-watering accommodation costs, he signs it off without consequence. There seems to be one set of rules for ordinary families and another for Shane Jones.”

It reflects badly on the coalition that, at a time of austerity, they continue to set such a bad example.

Whether it be Louis Upston claiming a grand a week to live in a house she owns, Karen Chourr blowing $16,686 on parking at Auckland Airport in just eight and a half months, which is not something anyone using their own money would do, or Jones blowing $63,000, the amount a home care worker is paid for an entire year, to make himself available to mining lobbyists.

Many large IT projects fail, whether in the public or private sector. Either way, the taxpayer or consumer pays for the failure. I’m not suggesting that what has taken place at MBIE is acceptable; it’s not, and the heads of those who knew where the bodies were should roll, but let’s keep this project in perspective.

Most of all, let’s not allow a Minister who perhaps didn’t ask the right questions to create the impression that there is something wrong with the public sector.

Have a good Thursday, folks,

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end, here’s some classic 90s pop, Meja with All ‘Bout The Money.

Songwriter: Neil Finn.

What a time this is for sports and politics. From the announcement of a ceasefire in the US and Israel’s war against Iran, although Mr Netanyahu doesn’t look that keen on peace, to cage fights on the front lawn of the White House - surreal at best, a slippery slope to totalitarian idiocracy at worst.

The Emperor has provided a circus for the masses.

Locally, we have had the brilliant performance of the All Whites on the greatest sporting stage, and a poll that shows we really could change our government after a single awful term.

Read more