Songwriters: Doug Pettibone / Lucinda Williams / Tom Overby

Malia Motusaga is a cleaner at the Lower Hutt District Court. She’s been cleaning for many years. While working for poverty wages, putting in 75-hour weeks, she missed out on her family time. When she moved to the living wage, Malia says she got her life back. Now she just wants to keep the living wage, currently $29.90 an hour, for contract workers like her employed in the Ministry of Justice.

Gabby King is a mum of six and a kitchen hand at Hutt Hospital. Her team produces the healthy food so vital to helping people get well. The trouble is, on low wages, she can’t afford to put that healthy food on her own whānau table. Gabby thinks all our hospital workers should be paid the living wage.

Bill Hiku is a long-time caretaker at a Porirua primary school. Over the years his job has grown. Bill says being a caretaker means he is a jack of all trades, maintaining the property, fixing broken doors, mowing lawns, locking up the buildings, weeding, painting, doing plumbing, and anything else you can name around the school. He is an important member of his school’s staff — a friendly face, someone to talk to and a mentor, especially for young men. Bill thinks school caretakers and cleaners deserve the living wage.

Mikeilah Smith works in quality control at Pact Packaging in the Hutt Valley. The company recycles kerbside plastic into new products. Four generations of Mikeilah’s family have worked at that site, and she’s been employed there since she was 15. Most of the workers are Māori and Pasifika. They’re not paid the living wage, and she struggles to support her household, including her daughter and a grandchild on the way.

Margaret Jackson is a leading hand at Resene’s paint factory in Naenae. She’s given Resene 12 years of loyal service, but the company’s owners (a family of former rich listers) refuse to pay the living wage to their workers. Mikeilah and Margaret want the government to set an example for private sector employers like theirs.

On Wednesday night these workers shared their stories with the leaders of the Labour and Green parties and a representative of the Opportunity Party at a living wage election forum in the Hutt Valley.

Low-paid workers are vulnerable, and it takes guts to stand up and share your story with politicians, but their communities had their backs. Their workmates joined them on the stage, and the venue, Naenae College hall, was packed out with over 500 living wage supporters.

From the start the living wage election forum was unlike other election forums. It was joyful, loud, energised and powerful. It was a compelling demonstration of community power at work.

The Hutt Valley is home to thousands of low-paid workers, and they turned out in droves. The atmosphere was electrifying. A roll call revealed the depth and diversity of the crowd. Supporters sat in their organisation groups — faith groups like St David’s Anglican Church, St Joseph’s and St Mary of the Angels Catholic Parish, St Andrews on the Terrace; community organisations like ChangeMakers Resettlement Forum, community health services, Victoria University Students Association, and a raft of unions, including my union, E tū.

These organisations are united in the social movement Living Wage Movement Aotearoa NZ. A deep commitment to the living wage ensures their leaders can turn out their members to front up and challenge politicians to make their commitments to the living wage.

But this was no ordinary election meeting. The politicians didn’t set the agenda. They were there to hear the voices of workers and communities and witness a demonstration of the voting power of the community.

All main political parties were invited, and the organisers went to great lengths to get them there. Not all chose to come, but Labour, the Greens and Opportunity were there.

After clearly establishing who was in the room with a rowdy roll call of organisations, and after hearing the moving workers’ stories, asks were put to each of the politicians by Father Jeff Drane of St Joseph’s Catholic parish.

One by one, the party representatives were asked to make five living wage commitments. The first was to ensure that current Government Procurement Standards are protected so that all cleaning, catering and security workers employed by contractors to government departments and departmental agencies continue to be paid the living wage. This is about workers like Malia.

The second ask was a commitment to require the living wage to be paid, as a minimum, to all directly employed workers of government departments, something that was in place under the previous government but has slipped away.

Next was a commitment to extend the living wage to all state and state-integrated schools, for workers like Bill Hiku, and in our public hospitals, for workers like Gabby King.

The fourth ask was to make these commitments a priority in any post-election coalition agreement.

Finally, a commitment was sought to meet with the Living Wage Movement within three months of being elected and regularly afterwards to support the implementation of the commitments made.

Green Party leader, Marama Davidson, said “yes” to all five asks and signed a commitment form to that effect.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said “yes” to all five asks and signed a commitment form to that effect.

The Opportunity Party representative, Jessica Hammond, said “yes” to all but the fourth ask, to prioritise these commitments in any post-election coalition agreement. That was a “no”. Then she signed a commitment form to that effect.

Every “yes” from the politicians was greeted with thunderous applause. It is the Living Wage Movement’s practice to greet “no” with silence. Booing or heckling are not part of the Living Wage Movement’s forums.

The forums in local and central government elections have been a vital part of winning the living wage since the movement was formed in 2012. They demonstrate local democracy in action by empowering communities to tell politicians what they want. They unite local communities across diversity. They mobilise the power of people. And they get results.

Two months after the 2017 general elections, following commitments at election forums by Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens, the Labour-led government started the roll-out of the living wage in the core state sector. Those commitments led to establishing the living wage as the minimum rate of pay for directly employed workers in the core state sector in 2018 and the government’s procurement rules for contracting cleaning, catering and security work, established in 2021.

But, as Chris Hipkins, the minister responsible for ushering in the living wage in the core state sector in the 2017 and 2020 governments, said on Wednesday night, there is unfinished business.

New Zealanders back the call for the government to ensure the living wage is paid to the lowest-paid workers in our state sector. A new Talbot Mills poll has confirmed this, finding 73% of respondents strongly or somewhat supported paying the living wage to state sector workers.

The first steps towards completing that unfinished business were taken on Wednesday night at Naenae College in front of a courageous group of workers and 515 living wage supporters.

Here’s hoping the next steps will happen after 7 November.

Lyndy McIntyre has been actively involved in unions since the early 1980s. She is a life member of E tū. Lyndy is a former community organiser for Living Wage Movement Aotearoa NZ, and although she no longer holds a role in the movement, she is an active supporter.

Lyndy has written a book documenting Aotearoa’s living wage story. Power to Win was published in 2024 by Otago University Press. It is available at Unity Books and other good bookstores.

Lyndy called me yesterday to discuss this event and offered to write a guest column about it. Thank you so much for sharing this, Lyndy. I’m honoured that people with such passion and knowledge not only read my newsletter but also contribute.

Have a great Friday, all of you lovely people.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here is Lyndy’s selection: The World’s Gone Wrong by Lucinda Williams. The perfect choice.

Songwriters: Ian Stanley / Roland Orzabal / Immanuel Franklin Elias.

Raising the OCR.

Yesterday, the Reserve Bank raised the Official Cash Rate to 2.75% on the basis that “a recovering economy does not need the same stimulation of a low cash rate.”

I thought someone’s been listening to Nicola Willis, because if there is finally a recovery after so many false dawns, it appears to be a jobless one. Honestly, making it more expensive for firms to borrow at this point in our so-called “recovery” seems like mowing your freshly laid lawns with a chainsaw, and lopping off the heads of the green shoots before they’ve had time to grow into anything of substance.

We look at the claims of recovery and at our record unemployment and wonder whether some of that growth might trickle down to the majority in the form of job opportunities, because for most people, what is the point of a recovery if there still aren’t any jobs?

At present, the Reserve Bank has a single objective of keeping inflation in check, but Labour has pledged to restore the dual mandate established during the 2017-2020 Ardern government, which focuses not only on price stability but also on supporting maximum sustainable employment.

Because you can’t say the economy is going well if there aren’t any jobs for people.

NZ First is also open to restoring the dual mandate, and Winston Peters admitted it felt like swallowing a dead rat when he agreed during coalition negotiations with Luxon and Seymour to revert to a single objective and stop the Reserve Bank from considering employment.

Still, rising interest rates, with another increase foreshadowed before the end of the year and the next decision due shortly before the election, mean that Nicola Willis will be telling householders who are already struggling that their mortgage payments are increasing just before they vote.

Depending on just how independent the Reserve Bank is from the coalition, and no doubt there will be inappropriate pressure. Just yesterday David Seymour said, “let's see where the Reserve Bank gets to at Halloween, but hopefully they're not going to spook the markets or the election for that matter.”

Yeah, Nah. The Reserve Bank’s remit doesn’t include jobs; it certainly doesn’t include politicians' jobs.

Apprenticeships

One thing you’ve got to give the government credit for is its emphasis on trade training over woke university education. They’re all about building things, and to be honest, I’ve never seen a group of people so eager to put on hard hats and hi-vis vests. It’s as if people will think they’re actually doing something beyond a photo-op.

So how are the apprenticeships going, the ones that will keep the “nephs off the couch”, with the coalition’s focus on helping people into trades?

Not so well, it turns out. In fact, under the coalition’s watch, apprenticeship numbers are going really, really badly.

From RNZ: “Education Ministry figures showed there were 108,315 people in workplace-based learning last year, fewer than in any year since 2011 and down 32 percent from a 15-year high of 158,570 reached in 2022.”

That’s right, there are 50,000 fewer people in workplace training than there were under Labour in 2022, and National have the gall to suggest they’re the ones who know how to get things right, with their mythical 220,000 high-paying jobs they announced in this year's budget.

Our young people can’t work in your ghost jobs, Nicola, and now Louise says the young ones can no longer get jobseeker support.

Even compared with 2025, apprenticeships are down by 11%. This is at a time when many young people would love to learn a trade, perhaps aware that thousands of white-collar jobs will disappear over the next decade. That’s due to AI, not to Nicola Willis, I should hasten to add.

Agriculture and Environmental Studies were hit hardest, with enrolments in subjects where NZ needs that expertise dropping by half. Under National, who use the slogan “Building the Future”, building-related apprenticeships have dropped by 29%.

Energy and Infrastructure Industry Skills Board chief executive Philip Aldridge said, “We're going to struggle for labour, and that means we're going to have difficulty resourcing up for key initiatives, whether it's roading, water, extractive projects, and we'll be over-reliant on immigration to fill those gaps.”

Building and Construction ITO (BCITO) chief executive Jason Hungerford said, “At BCITO, for the trades we cover, we've got around 600 people ready and willing to start an apprenticeship right now. What we don't have is perhaps the confidence of some of those employers that are willing to take that next step and take them on.”

What use is this so-called economic “recovery” if employers lack the confidence to invest in training and young people?

Rethinking Public Service Cuts

There was better news on the employment front yesterday, with Chris Hipkins announcing that Labour would ensure the consequences of public service changes are fully understood. I thought that was a welcome change from you-know-who claiming they're all “back-office” cuts that won't affect services.

Chippy also said that Labour was “not committed to going ahead with the cuts” that National have included in the 2026 budget.

Speaking to the Public Service Association, Hipkins said, “Cuts will never be the way we secure a better future for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. We know better than most what cuts mean in practice, because a public service cut isn’t just something on a spreadsheet or reflected in the government accounts. Eventually those cuts affect people’s lives.”

Never a truer word; every day, from MSD to our health system, we are reminded of the consequences of the coalition's cuts.

On pay equity, the Labour leader said, “We will set out a more detailed pay equity plan in due course, but we are committed to getting the books back into balance within the timeframe we’ve set out. Our pay equity commitments, we believe we can do within that.”

Undoubtedly, people will want the details, but at a high level, Labour supports apprenticeships, will take a considered approach to changes in the Public Service, and supports pay equity. None of which the coalition can claim.

Have a great Thursday, folks. It looks like the spring weather has turned up, and it's a glorious day here in Tamaki Makaurau. Hope it’s nice where you are.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

If you can spare a little to support Nick’s Kōrero, it’s $80 a year or $8 a month.

Subscribe now

If you have a Gold Card, are a student, or are unwaged, there is a 15% discount, making it $68 for the year or $6.80 per month.

Gold Card discount.

Alternatively, if you’ve enjoyed this but aren’t comfortable subscribing, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

To end today, it’s Tears for Fears with Working Hour, such a good song.

Song: Radiohead.

Now that the wet season is over and behind us, it is time to head into the dry season, a period of drought and fire risk. This year, it is predicted to be even drier due to the effects of El Niño. At the same time, the Northern Hemisphere is going the other way…

It makes you wonder whether anyone still seriously doubts climate change, as we see tens of thousands of deaths in Europe from extreme heat and watch year after year as floods worsen, further exposing the fragility of our infrastructure.

For goodness sake, just look at what has happened high in the valleys of Nepal and Tibet, where over a thousand are now confirmed dead due to flooding caused by the melting of glaciers.

In addition to the thousands still missing, concerns are mounting that riverbanks, where more than a million people live, will become uninhabitable, given the dozens of glacial lakes in the region.

For decades, we have known about the looming problem that will plunge our world into unprecedented weather extremes, making our home less and less fit for human habitation, yet we’ve ignored it. Yes, there were small measures, like the Paris Agreement, but even now, as we see the results of this change growing year on year, there are those who say that even that small measure is too much, and they want to forget about all this wokeness and go back to burying our heads in the sand.

Whether the people promoting such idiocy think it is good for us or not, they have determined that there are more votes in protecting people from climate change measures than there are in taking steps to address the impending disaster.

NZ First, whose approach to the planet seems to be that it is there to be used and abused, has said it will withdraw from the Paris Accord. In fact, Winston Peters is currently in the Pacific, telling those small nations, which will be among the most affected by climate change, that it won’t work for them either.

He’s right that larger emitters cause the most damage, but it’s about everyone doing their bit, and we’re not really doing ours. Most countries include agricultural emissions in their climate contributions, but not us. Meanwhile, China is rapidly going green, and the US is eager to pillage the Pacific for minerals.

Of course, Pacific nations want action on climate change, and delegates in Palau for the Pacific Islands Forum made the following pledge: “Children of Palau, I take this pledge, as your guest, to preserve and protect your beautiful and unique island home.”

Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr said, “A fraction of a degree is not a decimal point to us: it is a shoreline, a freshwater lens, a coral reef, a crop, and a home. The Pacific must continue to carry one clear message to the world: keep 1.5 degrees within reach.”

Winston says the Paris Accord is “senselessly hamstringing our economy”, but you have to wonder what the cost to our economy will be if we fail to address climate change.

Peters is not the only Coalition party leader who wants to prioritise short-term financial gain, even if it means a catastrophic future. ACT leader David Seymour says we should renegotiate or withdraw from the accord. He says he wants a better methane deal and that we should otherwise walk away.

Methane accounts for 48% of NZ’s gross emissions, and agriculture is responsible for 91% of New Zealand’s methane emissions. It is absolute nonsense to continue ignoring our agricultural emissions, and Seymour is merely looking for votes among farmers, even though climate change threatens their future livelihoods.

Lobbyist and ACT Party Agricultural Spokesperson, Andrew Hoggard, said, “New Zealand's farmers are the most emissions-efficient in the world, yet they are treated like climate villains and punished by climate targets that ignore the difference between methane from livestock and carbon from fossil fuels.”

However, the unfortunate truth that ACT wants to avoid is that agricultural methane is by far the largest single contributor to New Zealand’s emissions. There’s no getting away from it, and all the pseudo-science in the world will not change the fact that if we want to address climate change, we must focus on, rather than ignore, our agricultural emissions.

To date, the only country to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is the United States, first in 2019 during the first Trump presidency and then again in 2025 during his second term, after Joe Biden rejoined the agreement in the interim. Is Donald Trump really the person we want to follow when it comes to climate change? This is a guy who is pro-coal but anti-windmill.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who is in Palau today, has said that remaining in the Paris Agreement would be non-negotiable for the National Party. But with both of his coalition partners wanting to scrap or water down the minimal climate change measures we’re already taking, and given his track record of negotiating coalition agreements, he would be at long odds of getting that across the line.

The coalition has undermined every effort to address climate change and has recently banned private prosecutions against companies for their contribution to the problem.

Marshall Islands climate envoy Tina Stege said, “We’ve seen recently, even in one of our own good neighbours, New Zealand, that there can be efforts to amend laws that then would prevent climate litigation from moving forward.”

Whether it’s our omission of agricultural emissions or moves to protect polluters, we are hardly the poster child for doing our bit on climate change. But this isn’t just about the valleys of Nepal or the low-lying Pacific Islands; it’s about us too.

Flooding, seaside communities being battered as their homes become uninsurable, and the risk of fires and droughts. We may not have enormous glaciers hanging over our heads, and we have higher ground to go to, but even from a purely economic perspective, it is madness to pull out of the Paris Accord.

Madness for the people of this country, madness for those in the Pacific, and madness for farmers who have much to lose from the effects of Climate Change.

The good news is that other parties are taking a much more mature and considered approach, as follows:

If Luxon were true to his word, attempts to remove Aotearoa from the Paris Agreement should be dead in the water. But that is a mighty big “If”.

That’s all for today. Hope it’s nice where you are and that you’re ideally well above sea level. Take care, all of you lovely people.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

If you’d like to subscribe to support Nick’s Kōrero, it’s $80 a year or $8 a month.

Subscribe now

If you have a Gold Card, are a student, or are unwaged, there is a 15% discount, making it $68 for the year or $6.80 per month.

Gold Card discount.

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation but aren’t comfortable subscribing, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

To end today, here are Vienna Teng and Alex Wong with an acoustic version of Radiohead’s Idioteque.

Share

Songwriters: Fran Landesman, Tommy Wolf.

Welcome to the first day of Spring, a season of new life and hope now that winter has passed. In this time of new beginnings, both major parties have announced policies to help young people.

The National Party have offered what Stuff weirdly called a “Sweetener”:

National offers student loan sweetener in new election policy

I say oddly because all they have offered is a slower repayment rate, which means graduates who remain in this country will take even longer to pay off their student loans. If graduates head overseas on an OE for better work opportunities, they will face a higher interest rate and be pursued for repayment.

There is far more stick than carrot, and struggling students, facing horrendous accommodation costs for often substandard housing, increased fees, and the removal of the fees-free policy, were less than excited.

Here is a quick summary of policies from the other parties:

• Labour, the party that brought in fees-free and, of course, made student loans interest-free back under Helen Clark, has yet to announce its policy.

• The Greens offer Fees-free tertiary education and universal student allowances as well as increased support for postgrads, part-time students, and those on long courses.

• ACT wants to make Student Services Fees voluntary, which would create real difficulties for those providing universal services if students can opt out.

• NZ First has previously supported universal allowances but emphasises trades over university; one can only assume it's due to the threat of wokeness, because we need both.

• Te Pāti Māori want universal student allowances. They would immediately write off the living cost components of student loans and write off loans entirely after a graduate works here for five years.

• TOP offer their non-universal UBI, the Citizen’s Income, which would be available to all students.

Interestingly, National and ACT are the only parties that definitely oppose universal student allowances. I’ve never understood a system in which the state pays you to sit on the dole but not to pursue education, yet National has a solution for that.

From November this year, the government will end Jobseeker payments to 18 and 19-year-olds whose parents earn more than $67,225.

I posted:

With youth unemployment at a record high, this is the last thing families need. It's so mean-spirited; good Lord, look at the look on Upston's face.

Minister Upston said the change reflected “the government's commitment to reduce benefit dependency and encourage people into work.” Yet again, I’m staggered by how out of touch and lacking in empathy this government is.

There are few jobs out there for young people; when the economy is struggling, as it is now, opportunities for entry-level positions dry up. Where companies are offering employment, we’ve seen thousands of hopeful young people eagerly looking for a chance; this isn’t a lack of motivation; it’s a lack of opportunities.

All this policy will achieve is to make life even harder for struggling families with adult sons and daughters who cannot find work and now have to be supported.

My post received over 500 comments, and Sandy wrote, “Please, please, please: To all impacted, whether youths or parents, make sure you're registered to vote and use that vote to kick this uncaring government out.”

Todd commented, “Not to be alarmist, but I'm pretty sure those two critters would smoke when sprinkled with holy water.” I’m not sure about smoking; steam, maybe, or perhaps Louise would melt. She certainly has inherited the cruel mantle of Paula Bennett, who should definitely avoid holy water.

Alex said, “The fact that they can take away survival money from ordinary families while taking massive entitlements for themselves is incredible. Even less believable is that their voters think it is OK and still support them. It seems that corrupt behaviour is just clever business in their eyes.”

Ell wrote, “It costs at least 20k a year to live as an adult. (that's based on $150pw rent) So how are BOTH parents AND at least one child supposed to eat, live, work, stay warm and own a vehicle or use public transport? This is from the minister who accepts 52,000 a year to live in her OWN HOUSE. What a disgrace.”

Reading about these negative policies aimed at a generation facing huge challenges in a rapidly evolving working world was awful, but then there was a bright light in the form of one of the best policies I’ve seen this election. A policy so good and such a no-brainer that you wonder why on earth we’re not doing it already.

Labour announced the following policy yesterday, and I still feel a bit overwhelmed by how good it is.

I posted:

Now that’s a bloody policy. Great stuff, Labour! I’m so sick of hearing that graduating nurses can’t find jobs when our healthcare system desperately needs more of them.

It’s a clear win-win: it gives people training to become nurses a clear path to guaranteed employment, and it helps us fill positions in our healthcare system so we never again end up with just 54 new nurses over a two-year period.

Here are the details:

• Every eligible New Zealand-trained graduate nurse will be offered a job in the health system

• Around 2,400 nurse graduates every year will get a job offer

• Roles will be offered on graduation rather than staggered throughout the year, starting in 2027, and will be at least 0.8 FTE

• Graduate nurses will be offered jobs through the existing Advanced Choice of Employment (ACE) and primary care employment schemes

• Registered and enrolled nurses are eligible

• Double funding for graduate nursing roles in primary and community healthcare

• Costed at $525 million. Funded from the Budget’s Vote Health cost-pressure funding

The National Party seems to think that its stick-heavy policy on student loan repayments will keep young Kiwis in the country, which is absolute nonsense if they’re heading to Australia for a significant pay rise.

Even Heather du Plessis-Allan agreed, saying, “Do I think that's actually going to work? No, I don't. I don't think raising interest on loans from 5.6 percent to 6.6 percent for people living overseas is going to stop someone from leaving when they can, in some cases, move to Australia and double their income. They're still going to go, aren't they?”

But this move by Labour will mean many young people will not think about heading overseas, given the uncertainty of trying to find a job.

Josephine commented, “This is such a fantastic policy from Labour. Once again, this is Labour getting their priorities right.”

This morning on Breakfast, Chippy said of National’s record:

“This is a ridiculous process by Simeon Brown, not employing the nurses we’ve already trained. We’ve already paid to train them, they’re not employing them, and they’re leaving, and then they recruit nurses from overseas.

Actually, we’ve got enough graduate nurses in NZ to build up the nursing workforce in our health system; the government is choosing not to employ them. I’m absolutely fed up with hearing from nurses who say I’m moving to Australia because I graduated three months ago, and I still haven’t been able to find a job in NZ.”

National’s approach, which includes failing to hire nurses and expecting people to work beyond capacity, punishing young Kiwis who are overseas with student loans, and ending state support for 18- and 19-year-olds, is mean-spirited and shows contempt for our young people.

Labour’s announcement must have been a ray of light for those young people training to be nurses, and I’d like to see them adopt a similar approach in other areas to help our young people get started in life - we owe them that.

Have a great day, all of you lovely people. Hopefully, some warmer spring weather is on the way.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

If you can spare a little to subscribe to Nick’s Kōrero, it’s $80 a year or $8 a month.

Subscribe now

If you have a Gold Card, are a student, or are unwaged, there is a 15% discount, making it $68 for the year or $6.80 per month.

Gold Card discount.

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation but aren’t comfortable subscribing, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

To end today, here is Samara Joy with “Spring Can Really Hang You Up the Most.”

Share

Songwriters: John Flansburgh / John Linnell.

My apologies. I’ve written quite a bit lately about the state of our healthcare system; it’s in the headlines every other day, and you would hope it would be a key factor when people cast their votes on or before the 7th of November.

I think back to the initial protests across the country, the placards highlighting what would happen and what has since eventuated. The people who knew the realities of the system were not listened to by a government that thought it knew better, and it simply looked away as conditions deteriorated.

Now, Simeon Brown spends his time lying about how many new taxes Labour would introduce: seven, eight, do I hear nine? He should be focused on a similar increase: the hours people have to wait in ED. Is it four, how about eight, do I hear twenty-four?

From the article yesterday, “An ED nurse said, on a recent Monday night shift, one man fell asleep and hit his head while waiting 12 hours to be seen.”

I posted:

It’s only a matter of time before someone else dies and Simeon Brown will have blood on his hands.

Whether it is people waiting too long to be seen in the ED or a lack of support for the homeless, the actions of this government are literally killing people.

Kerry said, “The thing which got me in that article was ‘Simeon Brown said the current situation in Wellington ED was unacceptable, as it continued to be one of the lowest-performing in the country’ - as if slashing budgets and hiring freezes is going to help anything be ‘better-performing’. This is not a business; it’s a hospital - for people - run by people who need support, and probably sick days themselves.”

Phil quoted Simeon Brown saying, “New Zealand’s health system is managing well through the severe winter flu season” and asked, “What does the death toll need to reach before we’re not ‘managing well’?”

In a typical year, 500 New Zealanders die as a result of the flu, two-thirds of whom are 85 or older, but this has been a particularly dangerous strain.

From Stuff:

“The most intense winter illness outbreak in over a decade has claimed lives and put a strained hospital system under extraordinary pressure.”

Epidemiologist Michael Baker said, “Influenza is responsible for well over 1% of all deaths in New Zealand, getting up towards 2%, depending on the modelling that you use: so it does need to be confronted.”

Take a look at that blue line, which is skyrocketing and indicating very high activity. With many EDs reporting that they are operating at 200% or 300% capacity, it is hard to reconcile the reality on the ground with the Minister of Health's claim that “New Zealand’s health system is managing well through the severe winter flu season”.

Last week Kerri Nuku from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation called that out, big time, saying:

“The Minister is delusional and completely out of touch with reality. He continues to ignore warnings from nurses on the frontline that patients are at risk. He fails to acknowledge that patients can’t get into their local doctors, or can’t afford to, and are arriving at EDs increasingly unwell. Once in ED, they can’t be moved because the hospital wards are full.

Instead, Simeon Brown continues to perpetuate untruths on social media about his Government hiring 2100 more nurses despite admitting in Parliament last week the net increase is just 54 full-time nurses. With a growing and ageing population, this means there are fewer nurses, not more.”

It is maddening that so many people are clearly identifying the problem, yet the Minister simply refuses to listen.

The feedback from patients in our public service always seems to be “the staff were great, so hardworking and caring, but there just aren’t enough of them or enough capacity to deal with the load on the system”. It’s not a left/right thing; it’s a pretty universal experience that we can all see. All of us, except Simeon Brown, who just doesn’t want to know about bad news.

For goodness sake, he doesn’t even want to listen to Senior Doctors and Specialists...

This coming Thursday, the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS) has its annual conference. Simeon Brown agreed to attend in April but has now said that he won’t, with no reason given. This is the first time since 2007 that a health minister or associate minister has not attended.

It’s so rude. You get used to coalition Ministers pulling out of media events at short notice because they lack the stomach for criticism, but this is a significant event in the sector he is responsible for. Let me guess: is he prioritising telling more campaign lies about other parties over listening to senior doctors' concerns? It sounds awful, but it’s probably true.

In his absence, Simeon has offered a pre-recorded message, but what is the point of recorded spin about how things are on track if he won’t actually listen or answer questions?

There is also a political panel with Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, ACT, and the Opportunity Party, but no one from National, the ruling party.

ASMS executive director Sarah Dalton said, “It’s a real shame that he’s not willing to take an hour out of his diary when he had previously agreed to come and face up and be accountable to his health workforce.”

So why has the Minister of Health pulled out of such an important event? Well, when he appeared last year, it was as if someone had given him a cup of coffee, and he launched an attack on the participants, telling doctors to call off strike action, which he said crossed an “ethical line”.

In response, the assembled medical professionals shook their heads; they booed, jeered, one person turned his back on Brown, and they laughed at him, which made him a very angry elf indeed.

Now I don’t know if Brown was so petty that he stamped his feet and refused to be humiliated again by his own words, or whether it is to do with the “Government's proposed overhaul of health professional regulation risks allowing political and workforce pressures to influence decisions about who is safe to practise,” which is greatly opposed by the Nursing Council.

Either way, Simeon should grow a pair, face the senior professionals in a sector he theoretically manages and open his bloody ears and listen.

But just remember he’s not a real Dr.; he’s just a worm. If you want real Doctors who understand the issues in our health system, Dr Ayesha Verrall and Dr Gary Payinda are the ones you want.

Have a good Monday, folks, and take care; it’s a bitter wind out there, up this way anyway.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

If you can spare a little to subscribe to Nick’s Kōrero, it’s $80 a year or $8 a month.

Subscribe now

If you have a Gold Card, are a student, or are unwaged, there is a 15% discount, making it $68 for the year or $6.80 per month.

Gold Card discount.

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation but aren’t comfortable subscribing, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

To end today, here are They Might Be Giants with Doctor Worm.

Songwriter: Jon Toogood.

I read the headline today, and it made me so angry. Could anything be more symbolic of the National Party’s attitude to the homeless and of chooks coming home to roost?

Whenever I’ve heard National MPs, especially Goldsmith, talk about moving the homeless on with seemingly no idea or plan for where they’re supposed to go, I’ve always got the impression that they’d prefer they just dropped dead, as long as the nice folks’ shopping experience wasn’t affected.

And now it has literally happened. It makes me want to yell in Goldsmith’s smug, condescending face, “Is this what you wanted?”

As reported by The Post, the person had been sleeping rough and was found near the entrance to the National Party regional office on Great South Road yesterday and pronounced dead.

Goldsmith said, “This will naturally be an extremely upsetting situation for anyone involved, and it would be inappropriate to politicise it, or to comment further.”

How is this not political, given a government that has seen homelessness rise to record levels and would rather that rough sleepers were out of sight and out of mind?

A staff member of the physio next door said that there were often rough sleepers in the area, adding that, “There used to be emergency housing on the street. That's not there any more.”

The death occurred three months after Goldsmith’s move-on law received its first reading in parliament. Ignoring concerns about “limited evidence of effectiveness, potential hardship for vulnerable people, displacement rather than reduction of the issue, and declining public-order offence data”.

Here’s the Green Party’s Tamatha Paul spelling out what she thought of that move:

Auckland City Missioner Helen Robinson said, “It's so distressing that anyone's died in these circumstances. But it's so incredibly distressing that this could have been avoided if we had adequate services to respond.”

Helen also said, “How will ministers ensure that rough sleepers have genuine access to the services that they need, so that no other people die? It’s a really important question.”

Through funding cuts and other measures, this government has removed the safety net for our most vulnerable, and this is the result. A human being dying on the ground outside Goldsmith’s office, with no one helping.

That’s not the Aotearoa I want. People need a home; they need mental health and addiction services, and they don’t need a government that just wants them to go away.

I’d say I don’t know how Goldsmith sleeps at night, but honestly, I don’t imagine this gives him a second thought.

Of course, both Māori and young people are overrepresented in our homelessness statistics. These are two groups that this government has badly let down. Youth unemployment is at a thirty-year high, with one in four young people now out of work, a far higher rate than in Australia.

No doubt Louise Upston has some great lectures on how young people can find work if they just try hard enough, but meanwhile she can’t even oversee payments being made on time.

I posted:

“These guys are either cruel, incompetent, or both.

First, they failed to pay Winter Energy payments; now it's the Supported Living Payment, Emergency Maintenance Allowance, Emergency Benefit, Accommodation Supplement, Disability Allowance, Unsupported Child’s Benefit, and Orphan’s Benefit.

Is it just me, or is Upston smirking?”

From Stuff:

“A law change made last year, which introduced a requirement for some beneficiaries to re-confirm their circumstances at least once every 52 weeks, led to an influx of responses that the Ministry was unable to keep up with.”

A backlog of unprocessed forms built up, leading to people having their payments suspended even though they had supplied all the required information. The government assures us that it’s all going to be sorted out so people receive their support payments, but that isn’t the point.

Pip Colgan from Auckland Action Against Poverty said, “This is actually playing with the lives of vulnerable people. It's not just a thing you can brush off and say you will get fixed; it's people's lives.”

Once again, the government shows it is completely out of touch with people who don’t have savings to tide them over during payment delays, and this sort of botch-up can mean the difference between someone eating and not.

Charmaine wrote, “Bloody hell! Incompetence alongside couldn't-give-a-damn.”

Josephine said, “This makes me so fucking angry. They knew cutting jobs from the back room would affect the frontline, but they just don't care, and now people who depend on that money have once again been shat upon.”

As for the politicians, Upston said, “I expect MSD to manage its operational workloads,” which is all well and good, but when you change the rules so that additional checks are required and don’t provide people to do the additional work, this is the inevitable result.

Luxon said, “I mean, you know, there’s clearly an issue. Our job is to fix it. That’s why I apologise for it. I’m sorry that it’s happened. What I’m focused on is always moving forward.” In other words, we completely stuffed up, but let's forget all that and focus on the future.

Menéndez March from the Greens said Upston had “consistently shown that she has no regard for the lives of people on the benefit, nor for good lawmaking, and is now hiding from accountability. Her inability to front up after her laws wrongfully cut people’s main benefits shows she’s not fit to be Minister and should resign alongside the whole of her Government.”

A homeless person dies outside Paul Goldsmith’s office, and Louise Upston fails to support those most in need. That is this government, and you know they want to go even further if given the chance.

Have a good Saturday, folks; it’s a mighty wet one in Tamaki Makaurau. Hope it’s better where you are.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

If you can spare a little to subscribe, it’s $80 a year or $8 a month.

Subscribe now

If you have a Gold Card, are a student, or are unwaged, there is a 15% discount, making it $68 for the year or $6.80 per month.

Gold Card discount.

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation but aren’t comfortable subscribing, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

To end today, here’s Jon Toogood, who released a book this week, with Lost In My Hometown:

Share

Songwriter: Vernon Reid.

Do you ever find yourself worrying about Simeon Brown’s reputation? Probably not, but the ambitious young fellow is at risk of damaging his credibility because whenever he opens his mouth lately, things that aren’t true come out.

One minute he’s responding to a crisis in our hospitals, telling us that his winter plan as Health Minister is working well; the next he’s the Campaign Manager, telling the nation that Labour will introduce nine new taxes, even though Chris Hipkins has ruled out all but one of them.

To be honest, this guy is starting to give weasels a bad name.

Thus far, Labour has focused on its own policies rather than bad-mouthing the National Party, perhaps because Labour has something to offer beyond more of the same. But what would happen if Labour took a leaf out of National’s book and accused National of all the things that they might do?

Yesterday we saw a degree of that. Labour didn’t say that a vote for National was a vote for David Seymour to privatise our health and education services, but it is.

They didn’t say that National might well support Seymour’s latest version of the Treaty Principles Bill, at least to a first reading, plunging the country into racial disharmony again. They didn’t need to; we all know Christopher Luxon would give away his own grandmother for the CEO job, as we saw last time.

Labour didn’t paint National with NZ First’s policies, but again, that’s what anyone voting for them will get. Buying back the BNZ, a referendum on the Māori seats, and, at the rate they’re going, Shane Jones checking passports outside public facilities to ensure that only citizens, not residents, piss upon the porcelain.

No, what Labour did was throw some heat back at National over taxation, suggesting that while they might not be adding “new” taxes per se, they might be planning to increase the existing ones or add new ones that they call “levies”.

And the Nats really didn’t like it up ‘em.

First, Labour went after National’s prized priority - roads - asking questions we seldom pause to consider, with the governing party’s assumption that we must build more roads, whatever the cost, no doubt emphasised by lobbyists with deep pockets.

Watching 1 News, I posted:

Bloody good call from Chippy ruling out an increase in petrol tax, saying we need to build roads within our means. Meanwhile, National’s claim that they won’t increase taxation looks stupider by the day.

From the Herald:

“Labour leader Chris Hipkins has signalled about $2 billion in cuts to transport projects to pay for his party’s election promise of scrapping a 12c-a-litre fuel tax hike planned for January next year.”

So, in other words, voters will pay more in fuel tax under National than they would under Labour, with Hipkins saying, “We have to scale our ambition in terms of what new roads we want and so on to fit within the budget that’s available.”

I was delighted; firstly, it’s about time someone questioned the amount we’re spending on the National Party’s Roads of Significance, and secondly, it was nice to see National squirm. As you can see from the following clip, most people seemed quite pleased at the idea of not facing further fuel tax increases:

Nicola Willis said National hadn’t yet decided on petrol taxes, while Chris Bishop stood behind her. They both acted as if Labour had betrayed the nation by questioning the enormous cost of roading.

Yes, we need roads, but in my view that is a lower priority than ensuring that all New Zealanders have a warm, dry home, nutritious food, affordable electricity and water, and access to well-funded healthcare. If there is money left after that, we can then look at things like new harbour crossings or multi-lane highways, which cost an arm and a leg for every metre delivered.

Nicola Willis declared that a cut in fuel taxes would cost jobs.

It was nice to hear that she cares about people losing their jobs. But rather than paying more to roading contractors, we could pay nurses the salary they deserve and hire enough of them to do the job required.

Rachel said, “We need to build rail, not roads.” I agree; NZ’s geography lends itself well to rail, and taking freight off our roads would not only speed traffic up but also reduce the deterioration our existing roads suffer from heavily laden trucks.

In addition to highlighting National’s planned fuel tax increases, there was also speculation about what else they might increase, including GST.

I wrote: “It seems the Nats don't like being accused of tax increases; maybe they should stop lying about other parties' tax policies? Is it a "conspiracy theory" when Simeon Brown accuses Labour of planning things they have no intention of doing? Or doth the lady protest too much?”

It’s hard to know. Realistically, they can tell us they aren’t going to do it, but as we learned under John Key, who raised GST despite saying his party wouldn’t, a National Party commitment on GST is about as reliable as Luxon ruling out TOP.

You’ve got to admire the cheek of National calling speculation about them increasing existing taxes a “conspiracy theory”, even as they proclaim to all and sundry that Labour are going to introduce a whole bunch of taxes that they have explicitly ruled out.

Nicola Willis told reporters that her party had “no plans” to increase existing taxes, but she wouldn’t unequivocally rule it out. She did, though, rule out increasing GST.

When one party offers nothing but lies to scare people away from the opposition and won’t come clean about tax increases or new levies they themselves will introduce, you would hope that people would see through them.

It might play well with the base, whose votes are already locked in, but for those on the fence - the voters, I mean, not TOP - you would hope they can see that, in a trade-off between better services and lower taxes, they may well lose on both counts if National are re-elected.

Have a great Friday, all you lovely people, and my apologies to any weasels maligned in this piece by comparison with Simeon Brown.

If you could spare a little to subscribe to my kōrero, it’s $80 a year or $8 a month. But please don’t leave yourself short:

Subscribe now

If you have a Gold Card, are a student, or are unwaged, there is a 15% discount, making it $68 for the year or $6.80 per month.

Gold Card discount.

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation but aren’t comfortable subscribing, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end, 36 years ago today, Living Colour released the album Time’s Up, one of my favourites of the time. Here’s the track Type from it.

Songwriters: Richard O'Brien, Richard Hartley.

This morning on Breakfast Tova really leant into introducing the political panel, announcing them as, “The political power duo, the princes of the parliament, the barons of the beltway, always the bridesmaids, never the party leaders.” You could hear Chris Bishop hocking up a furball off-screen out of mock outrage at that last one.

“Always kings in our hearts”, she continued as the camera panned to a bemused Kieran McAnulty and Chris Bishop, who looked as if he couldn’t decide whether to frown or smile, which made him look like a naughty schoolboy being admonished, unable to quite keep a straight face.

Bishop said there was a lot of alliteration going on there, while Kieran said, “Some of us are quite happy being the bridesmaid, thank you very much”, in his laidback manner.

McAnulty looked as well groomed as any man with a beard ever can: nice suit, slick haircut, tidy shirt. Bishop, on the other hand, looked like he’d screwed his shirt into a small ball before putting it on, and the wrinkles ran like rivulets down his chest. A most unkempt bridesmaid.

Subscribe now

Gold Card discount.

Tova replied, “That’s what bridesmaids always say, Kieran.” Bishop was laughing now, happy to have the attention off of him and his attempts to reach the altar. But McAnulty was brewing a zinger.

He said, “I don’t know about that. I know people who have been bridesmaids a number of times and are not very happy about that.” Bishop grinned, unaware of what was coming his way as Tova responded, “Did they also say they loved wearing the dress?” Then it came, Kieran said, “No, he’s sitting right next to me”.

To be fair to Bishop, he laughed along, and whatever else you think of the man, he can take a joke, which is probably just as well.

They moved to the National Party’s ban on kids using social media. You know the one they said they had to push through urgently, even though their coalition partners didn’t support it. When they backed Labour into a corner and demanded their support, they turned around when it was given and said there wasn’t time anyway.

Tova asked how the ruling overnight against Meta would change that:

Bishop said he thought it showed that you could take these guys on, which then raises the question: why not make them pay tax then? Instead of moving the money that Kiwis pay to other jurisdictions to avoid contributing to the country where they made the money.

In 2025, Facebook New Zealand Limited (Meta’s local subsidiary) reported gross advertising revenue of NZ$173m, yet it will pay only a pittance in tax here. Transferring the majority of its revenue, $167m, to Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is 12.5%, compared with New Zealand’s 28%.

Read more

Songwriters: David Bryson, Adam Duritz, Charlie Gillingham, Matt Malley, Ben Mize, Dan Vickrey.

On this day in 1942, in a small town called Chortkiv in western Ukraine, the Schutzpolizei, the state protection police of Nazi Germany, and the Ukrainian police deported 2,000 Jews to the Belzec extermination camp. A place where, over the course of the war, between 434,508–600,000 human beings were murdered on an industrial scale.

Five hundred of the sick and children were murdered on the spot. It is a stain upon humanity for all time, never to be forgotten. But the reason we do not forget must surely be so that we never stand back and allow such a loss of human life again.

Our government has changed the school curriculum to now include the holocaust:

Yes, at a time when our government is watering down our history and the treatment of Māori in the curriculum, and oopsie-daisy leaving climate change out altogether, we are adding coverage of the Holocaust. You’ve got to wonder what drove such a change.

Why now? At a time when the world’s eyes are on another genocide in Gaza, wouldn’t it make more sense to teach a fuller history? To tell of a people who suffered through the Holocaust only to repeat the mass murder of civilians inflicted on them.

ACT’s Simon Court has pushed for this addition to the curriculum, the same man who complained about the use of the word genocide in relation to Gaza. He called the inclusion “a vital step in equipping younger generations to recognise and reject antisemitism”. Apparently, there is no need to address the far greater issue of Islamophobia fostered by the most powerful.

There it is. It’s not about recognising man’s inhumanity to all men; it’s about addressing antisemitism, which, to people like Simon, includes criticism of Israel.

Just days ago I posted:

If you care about genocide and the people in Gaza, do not vote for ACT or Simon Court. They would resist any attempt to hold Israel to account.

This was after Turkey had issued a warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest, accusing him of “genocide”. France, Italy and Australia also launched judicial proceedings. I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you that we remained silent, complicit cowards.

Simon, who is also an expert in feminine hygiene products, said of the inclusion, “Young New Zealanders deserve an honest understanding of history, including its darkest chapters. Remembering the victims and learning from the past is one way we can help build a more tolerant and peaceful future.”

Remembering the past is important, but we do that memory a disservice if we ignore similar actions happening right now. Yes, we must never forget the horrors of the Holocaust, but neither should we ignore the approximately 73,400 Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza by Israel.

Last year Simon Court was asked by the Spinoff, “Which MP from across the aisle would you most like to share a drink with?” His response: “Steve Abel — I’ve heard he really likes craft beer, and I’d like to ask him how he kept his beers cold for the 240 days he spent in a tree in Avondale holding up a housing development.”

Don’t look now, Simon, but you might want to reconsider your choice of drinking buddy. I recommend someone like Chlöe Swarbrick - she’ll set you right.

Some of you might remember this speech, which stands in stark contrast to Simon Court’s sycophancy towards the Israeli murder machine:

As for Steve Abel, rather than having the temerity to suggest that Palestinian lives matter as much as Israeli ones, he spoke of an existential crisis. One that will lead to tens, if not hundreds, of millions of deaths as the world fails to act, as it did during the Holocaust and as it is doing during the genocide in Gaza.

From the Herald:

The Holocaust Centre has called on Green MP Steve Abel to apologise after he claimed potential deaths because of climate change will far exceed the Nazis’ war crimes.

Abel also said bosses of high-emitting companies and complicit politicians are a truer form of the concept of the “banality of evil”, which is based on Holocaust architect Adolf Eichmann.

I don’t see anything incorrect there; some like to pretend that Climate Change is something that is far off and not really real, but after the most recent northern summer, that is getting harder to do:

As for comparing “high-emitting companies and complicit politicians” with those who perpetrated mass murder, that doesn’t seem like much of a stretch either.

In parliament yesterday, Abel said, “It strikes me that those corporate bosses today – and, frankly, complicit politicians – are a truer form of the banality of evil, because though they will never personally come so close, as Eichmann did, to transporting human souls to the gas chambers, collectively their actions are far more consequential.”

It probably comes as no surprise that Simon Court raised a point of order, unhappy with what he was hearing. It’s worth noting that Court isn’t simply pro-Israel; he also doesn’t believe we should be concerned about climate change. As the Act Party’s climate change spokesman, he said: “There is no climate emergency”.

Abel continued, “Right now, our whole planet is being, effectively, gassed. The consequence of that is not six million deaths but tens of millions and hundreds of millions of deaths.” He has subsequently clarified that when he said “gassed”, he was referring to greenhouse gases, not Zyklon B.

The Holocaust Centre chairwoman, Deborah Hart, said of the “banality of evil” comments, “Invoking that concept, together with the imagery of the gas chambers, both risks misrepresenting Arendt and diminishing the historical enormity of the Holocaust, and it does nothing to shine a light on what is essentially a policy disagreement.”

Deborah is entitled to her opinion, but it is worth remembering that it's just an opinion. Personally, I think the climate crisis is a bit more serious than being “essentially a policy disagreement,” and I have no issue with Steve’s comments that emphasise the need to take this threat seriously.

You might remember when priests chained themselves to Finance Minister Nicola Willis’s office, saying they wouldn’t move until they met with her to discuss sanctioning Israel. RNZ asked Deborah, “If you drove past these priests wanting to sanction Israel, would you honk your horn for support?”

Now, some might think that someone from the Holocaust Centre would support the peaceful initiative of those priests to stop the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians, but her response was, “Ah, no. I would quickly write a great big placard, hang it out the side of my car, and it would say something like, ‘release the hostages, abolish Hamas, recognise Israel, stop teaching hatred and Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism in Palestinian schools, and then let’s talk about a Palestinian state.”

We must never forget the Nazis and the Holocaust, and we must also never forget the Israeli regime’s mass murder of Palestinians.

Climate Change is on an entirely different scale, and while Steve’s words may have received more exposure than they otherwise would have, he is entirely right that we cannot ignore the corporations and politicians responsible for it.

Subscribe now

Gold Card discount.

Buy Me A Coffee.

Have a good Wednesday, all you lovely people.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, it’s Counting Crows with Angels of Silences - did I mention I really like these guys?

Share

Songwriter: Bob Marley.

You might have seen on 1 News last night the following segment about Labour announcing their campaign slogan, “Better Starts Now”, and reviewing the slogans of the other parties:

I’ve got to say, when I first heard it, I thought it was something to do with Working for Families or early childhood education funding: “Better Starts, Now”.

It’s not a bad slogan, and I appreciate the sentiment that if you want relief from this coalition you should vote for Labour, but it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue; it’s no “Let’s Do This”.

Think of some of the memorable political slogans over the years. Now, I’m not suggesting they were successful, or saying anything about the people they advertised, but they have stuck in the memory, which must be one measure of success - surely you want people to remember your message.

In 1952, Eisenhower ran under the slogan “I Like Ike”, and it doesn’t get much simpler than that. But “I Like Chris” wouldn’t be much of a slogan here - Chris, who? Mind you, it’s a heck of a lot better than “I Like Seymour” would be.

In 2008, Barack Obama said, “Yes We Can”, and people believed him. This year, National is running the slogan “Fixing the Basics, Building the Future”, and you’ve got to ask yourself: what exactly are these basics that they’ve been fixing and just what sort of future do they have in mind?

Realistically, National have now changed their slogan to “No New Taxes”, and that’s the phrase we’ll be hearing ad nauseam throughout the election. Ironically, that commitment means they won’t, in fact, fix anything, basic or not.

Both Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump ran under the slogan “Make America Great Again”, and we all know what happened there - they won.

It’s catchy; you can put it on a baseball cap or even turn it into a religion. NZ First likes to say “Make New Zealand Great Again” at their rallies, and their website says “Putting New Zealand First.” They also use the phrase “Let’s Take Back Our Country.” To be honest, I’m surprised it’s not “Go Back Where You Came From”.

In 1979, Margaret Thatcher went negative with the slogan “Labour Isn’t Working” before winning and taking the UK to record unemployment levels.

ACT is running with “Party Vote ACT to Lock Labour Out and Unlock New Zealand’s Potential.” When party supporters chant “Lock Labour Out”, it reminds me of Trump imploring his rallies to “Lock Her Up” when he was standing against Hilary Clinton.

When they say “Unlock NZ’s Potential”, it makes me think of the movie Wall Street and asset stripping. But be honest, guys: you lost interest in the economy long ago; why not be honest about your primary objective and just use “Keeping Māori down” instead?

Along with other memorable slogans like Bill Clinton’s “It’s the economy, stupid” or “Get Brexit Done” from Boris Johnson, there have been some downright odd ones over the years.

Our own McGillicuddy Serious Party offered the “Great Leap Backwards”, which is essentially the same message as MAGA, desiring a return to the past, albeit the Middle Ages with the McGillicuddys rather than the 1950s. This clip might bring back a few memories:

In the US, Franklin Pierce ran in 1852 with “We Polked You in ’44, We Shall Pierce You in ’52”, referring to previous president James K. Polk. A double entendre that would even have Nicola Willis blushing.

I don’t know if it’s their official slogan, but the message on TOP’s website is not so different from Labour’s slogan, simply “Expect Better”. I quite like it, and it sums up their stated aim that we should expect better than we’ve seen under a succession of governments.

Te Pāti Māori have the words “Believe in you | Believe in me | Believe in Māori” on their webpage, but again I’m not sure if that’s their official slogan. They also have the message “Candidate Vote” alongside each candidate, a reminder of their voting strategy.

After the news segment I posted:

I might be biased, but of all the slogans, I like the Greens’ “For all of us”. Guess I’m a woke communist.

The comments were like a scene from Spartacus, with a number of people also declaring themselves to be “Woke Communists”, although what we really meant was “Woke Socialists”, which has been exaggerated to match the absurd rhetoric of Winston Peters.

Sian commented, “I’m woke radical leftist scum and damn proud of it. Calling people woke is not the flex Winnie thinks it is. People before profit. Land before Lamborghinis. Sea before swindles.”

Ricky wrote, “I like it too - for too long, life, health, housing and education opportunities have been for just some of us.”

Wendy said, “Yep! Me too! It reminds me of another slogan! ‘They are us...’” Whereas I couldn’t help thinking NZ First’s slogan ought to be “They aren’t us”.

Ivan preferred Labour’s slogan, saying, “' Better Starts Now' (I think) taps into emotion more… makes it personal. Sadly, a lot of voters don't care about the other person... just themselves. 'Better Starts Now' transcends across multiple mindsets. 'For all of us' works for people who care about others... but... there are a lot who only care about themselves... and they get to vote too.”

Alana had a great idea and said, “I like the blend of Labour and Greens slogans. ‘Better starts now, for all of us.” I’ve got to say I quite like that, so I put them together:

Marian wrote, “Perfect. My family split our votes between Labour and the Greens. To get enough votes from the centre but also because we really want the Greens in too. So that is, as I said, perfect.”

My family is the same, with a combination of Red and Green votes, and I reckon the two are better together. It will be good to see those billboards going up.

This morning on Breakfast, Chippy seemed to be living the message that Better Starts Now; he had a slick new haircut and a very nice suit. He said, “New Zealand cannot afford another three years of National’s cuts and misery; we do have a better future ahead as a country, and if you want that, you need to vote Labour.”

It’s not long to go now, and if we get this right on November 7th, then Better Starts Now For All Of Us. The alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.

Have a great Tuesday, all you lovely people.

If you can spare a little, please consider subscribing to my kōrero.

Subscribe now

If you have a Gold Card, are a student, or are unwaged, there is a 15% discount.

Gold Card discount.

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here is Bob Marley with Slogans from a demo he did in 1979, with instruments added by his sons many years later:

… So I went to the bank
To see what they could do.
They said, “Son, looks like bad luck
Got a hold on you”.

Songwriters: John Valentine, William Valentine.

This morning, Barbara Edmonds appeared on Breakfast after Labour’s fiscal strategy was announced over the weekend. Tova began by asking how and when she would reduce debt to 20% of GDP. Edmonds said she didn’t expect it to happen in the first term, and I was glad to hear it.

While paying down debt is a good thing, our current debt level is much lower than in countries such as the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia. At a time when our infrastructure is falling apart, I think it would be sensible to borrow to fund long-term assets like hospitals, water infrastructure, and road upgrades to better handle the impacts of climate change.

The diagram below shows similar fiscal discipline under Grant Robertson, who paid down debt from 2017 to 2020, leaving us with a buffer to draw on when Covid struck. This enabled New Zealand to exit the Covid period with lower debt levels than many countries had entered it with.

Since then, National has increased our debt levels, which are now above the 20% level Barbara is targeting. You’ve really got to wonder how a government that has bled the public service dry and cut all sorts of spending has managed to increase debt, but it has. Straight from the Liz Truss school of economics, it has literally borrowed to fund tax cuts we couldn’t afford.

Barbara explained the measure they were using, which confused not only Tova but me as well when I looked at government-to-GDP debt ratios. Net Debt, she said, takes into account the government's financial assets, including the super fund.

Then they moved on to spending allowances. National has said they will limit this to 30% of GDP, but Labour have set a level of 33%. Barbara recognised the immediate need to invest more in healthcare, so I got the impression that figure was where they would end up, not necessarily a hard-and-fast limit right away.

My concern has been that revenue from a CGT would take some time to come in, as the tax is not retrospective and applies only to new capital gains in a flat or falling market. I was glad to hear such a realistic tone from the Labour Finance spokesperson. Unfortunately, Barbara couldn't give us dollar amounts for how much more they would have than National, not until the books are opened at the end of September. But clearly, if the latter is spending 30% and Labour 33%, that means Labour is spending 10% more.

Edmonds said Labour’s full spending plan would be available then, but they were clear they need to invest in healthcare. In my view, Labour have got their priorities bang on for this election:

Personally, I would like to see them go further, taxing more and spending more, but I also understand they have to win an election against a government that has whipped itself into an anti-tax hysteria. Their message of jobs, healthcare, homes, and the cost of living will have broad appeal, and they will no doubt campaign strongly on the fact that this government has failed to improve the measures that matter to all of us.

Tova moved on to other taxes, mentioning the National Party, which holds strong views on the new taxes Labour might introduce. These views are not based on facts but on a desire to scare people into voting against their own interests.

Sadly, in the absence of the government having any ideas to take to the electorate other than more austerity and a hope that one day things will get better, this election is turning into a contest between no taxes, which will result in more cuts and further degradation of our public services, and the adults in the room who say that if we want nice things, like not waiting for hours in hospital corridors, we need to pay a bit more tax so we can all benefit.

We saw it on 1 News last night, and I posted:

Christopher Luxon does his best George H.W. Bush, saying “No New Taxes”. Cool story, bro, but how are you going to pay for your LNG storage, your Roads of National Significance or the health crisis?

Darien pointed out, “From the party that increased GST from 12.5% to 15%.”

If you remember, John Key promised no tax increases, then went ahead and increased GST anyway. Maybe Labour should treat that as a precedent. Not to increase GST, but to make a promise before the election and then completely disregard it once elected. I’m not entirely serious; Labour is expected to tell the truth, but I am fed up with the double standard.

John wrote, “Fees and levies…taxes by other names. Dishonest and untrustworthy National Party, Luxon and Willis.”

Barbara confirmed to a confused-looking Tova that Labour were not introducing any new taxes beyond a CGT.

The interview became frustrating as Tova read the names of each tax Barbara’s earlier statements had already ruled out, waiting for her to confirm they wouldn’t introduce that one. It was idiotic: Barbara said, “No, just the CGT,” after each one, and Tova, committed to the strategy, just ploughed on regardless. By the end, Edmonds was laughing at the childish line of questioning.

Barbara said, “We've been really clear: the one tax we’re campaigning on is a simple, targeted Capital Gains Tax, which we’ve been clear about since October last year when we released that. So for us, it’s important that we put that money towards healthcare because when you’ve got only 54 nurses in the last two years, and you’ve got Emergency Department corridors full of beds, that’s not the healthcare system that Kiwis expect from their taxpayer money.”

It was so good to hear her articulate the problem so clearly and in such contrast to a government that actually pretends things are getting better. In my view, Barbara Edmonds is a massive asset for the Labour Party.

She follows two of our greatest Finance Ministers, Cullen and Robertson, and while they may be big shoes to fill, it was so good to hear a Finance Spokesperson speak so clearly and with such regard for public services, in direct contrast to Nicola Willis.

It went right over Tova’s head, though, and she was back to her game, asking about other taxes, such as Streaming Taxes, which were unequivocally ruled out by Chris Hipkins last week. Barbara called her out, saying she was just going through a list, but Tova claimed it was for her benefit after National's attacks. I thought that was a load of rubbish; when the Labour spokesperson said there would be no new taxes except for a CGT, it was completely clear.

Turning the tables, Edmonds said National needs to be clear on which levies they will increase to pay for what they and their partners are offering. “Buying back the BNZ, building a new Cancer hospital - what’s not clear is how much those levies are going to increase because we’ve seen that government charges in the last two years have increased by 21%. So they may be saying no new taxes, but what about the levies?”

They touched on the latest Reid Research poll out this morning, which was as follows:

Tova asked Barbara about TOP, who, at 5.3%, were again in the Kingmaker position, whereby they could form a coalition with or agree a supply arrangement with either:

• Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori, or

• National, ACT, and NZ First.

In response, Barbara said that “People are going to vote for whoever they think has the best deal for them and their family, and we get it, so this election is going to be super tight; we’re going to fight for every vote, and that’s why we want to be able to say to New Zealanders we want a more affordable NZ. We want you to be able to see the GP when you need to, and it not cost you $100. We want to ensure you can put your kids on a bus without it costing you more than $20 a week. We’re really clear on what we’re campaigning on, and we look forward to the contest.”

What a contrast with Nicola Willis. Barbara Edmonds was warm and friendly; she wasn’t focused on what other parties might do but was proud of what they were offering. Above all, she clearly embodied the Labour Party's proud history of helping Kiwis live good lives in a fairer society where all matter.

I’m starting to get the impression that Labour’s offering in this election is worth the wait. It is clear the priorities are bang on, and there are intelligent, capable people to deliver them. No wonder National are resorting to scare tactics.

Have a great Monday, all of you wonderful people. I got a couple of new subscribers yesterday, which was great to see, so I’ve left today’s newsletter open to all.

But I’d still really appreciate it if you could spare a little to subscribe to my kōrero.

Subscribe now

If you have a Gold Card, are a student, or are unwaged, there is a 15% discount.

Gold Card discount.

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here is Simply Red with Money’s Too Tight (To Mention).

Share

Songwriters: Olivia Rodrigo and Daniel Nigro.

This morning’s Q&A began with the current flu crisis, which is leaving classrooms empty and our hospitals beyond capacity.

It’s pretty awful, this strain; some have described it as being like COVID, which makes you wonder why the government has done nothing to try to prevent it. I’m not suggesting a lockdown, but clear directives telling people to stay home would surely be useful.

Jack said ambulance services had a record number of call-outs three times this week. Worse than Covid and worse than what he referred to as a sloppy New Year’s Eve.

It isn’t hard to join the dots. Health NZ are stymied from replacing staff by a government that wants to save money; the health system is constantly running at full capacity; and then you add this influenza that lays staff low and brings more and more patients through the door. The government has squeezed the life out of it, stretched the system to the breaking point, and still pops up cheerfully saying they’re making things better.

Primary health has failed, with people having to wait days or weeks for appointments which are too late for people who need help, and so we see long waits, patients in corridors, and health staff, I imagine, at their wits' end.

Jack showed a clip of Health Minister Simeon Brown in a recent interview when he said the government was pleased with how the targets are tracking. This was, of course, before the scandal broke that they had been sitting on a backlog of thousands of vacancies across the sector in desperately needed roles.

Jack spoke to camera, asking if there was a better way and what we expected from a health system. I thought about it.

For me, I would expect that someone who needs to see a doctor can do so within 48 hours, without having to resort to the emergency department. When you go to the hospital, I think an acceptable wait should be no more than two hours, and there should be enough room for patients. There should also be sufficient staff to cover for winter absences. I don’t think that is too much to ask, do you?

The guest was Rob Campbell, who you might remember lost his job at Health NZ due to a post criticising Christoper Luxon and the dog-whistle racism of the coalition, and that was before they were even elected.

The former chair of Health NZ said the system was struggling and had already been under immense pressure. He said the sector has been highlighting the winter need and risk of a more hard-hitting flu strain for some time. He said we haven’t prepared for it, so patients and staff have borne the burden.

Jack said the government had funded $25m for the period to increase FTE employees and hospital beds, but Rob challenged him to actually find any such additional staff.

We also haven’t got the message out there about the importance of vaccinations, said Campbell, and even among those eligible for free jabs, take-up was low.

I suppose it’s hard for a coalition to put out sensible health messages when one of you, NZ First, has embraced those disgruntled by our Covid response as a constituency and thinks that preventative measures are woke.

Jack asked Campbell what a better approach would look like. He said you need to start earlier, which is fair enough; it's better to try to avoid a looming crisis than to take measures to address a crisis you’re already in. He also said the problem wasn’t new, but a symptom of a long-running issue.

Jack said staffing was at the forefront of this issue and repeated what he said when Simeon Brown was last interviewed: that only 54 nursing FTEs have been added across the country in two years, and if you’re wondering, NZ has 86 public hospital sites, so that’s not even one per hospital. Tame also said the PSA, which he added are actively campaigning against the government, has accused them of delaying recruitment for vacancies.

I found it curious that the PSA was singled out as campaigning against the government, not because they aren’t - of course, they oppose a government that has declared war on the public service but because they don’t do so with other groups.

We often hear about Business Associations, Bank CEOs, and even the TPU, and I’ve never heard TVNZ say those people are campaigning for the government, even though they blatantly are.

Campbell said funding was a problem, and despite increases, it is never more than enough to keep things going the way they were. If we want things to improve, he said we’ll have to pay. Not just enough to keep the lights on and the headlines at bay, but real money, as we might spend on a road.

Campbell said that the government, the Ministry and Health NZ had taken an adversarial approach to their staff. I felt awful imagining health care workers constantly having to go above and beyond only to see that the people above them who should be thanking them and doing whatever they can to support them are treating them as the problem.

He said those groups should have been working collaboratively with unions and the various professional representative groups. Again, that’s not too much to expect, is it? A bit of cooperation rather than finger-pointing?

Campbell summarised the problem by saying we don’t have enough people, they aren’t paid enough, and they aren’t necessarily in the right place. It was clear, concise, and true - and I could see why he lost his job.

He also pointed out the infrastructure problems and the government’s preference to speak about new things rather than improving what we have. He’s not wrong; on some of the floors in Auckland Hospital, it feels like you’ve gone back in time 50 years to the last time they had any money spent on them.

Campbell said it would cost between five and six billion dollars per year to get back to safe staffing levels. I don’t doubt it, and in my view we should set our tax rates accordingly.

When Jack suggested that finding that much money each year would be a challenge, Campbell said we can instead choose poorer health outcomes and noted that those are not spread equally, or we can do something about it, and that will require more tax.

Those are the alternatives: continue what we have or pay more tax and get the health system we want and need. It’s not a small amount of money, and it’s definitely not something that could be funded by a CGT in the next few years, when it will bring in virtually nothing unless we return to large year-on-year increases in housing prices.

Campbell said the Ministry, politicians, and Health NZ were all avoiding the problem. He proposed an all-of-health solution that would encompass housing, education, and income levels, which must be addressed.

Then he said you look at nutrition, alcohol, and smoking, all of which this government has a poor track record on, from Seymour’s slop in schools to removing obstacles for liquor outlets, and we all know their track record on smoking and vaping.

He said you need health facilities where people are in the community, and that is an area I would give this government some credit for. Pushing cancer treatments out into the regions has been a positive step, so people don’t have to travel long distances for regular treatments, unlike Paul Henry’s latest brain fart of centralising expertise in just Auckland and Christchurch.

Maybe Henry, who reckons a bunch of philanthropists will stump up ten billion for his Ronald McDonald Cancer Centre, could instead stump up to keep the health system running. Or better yet, tax them and use the money in the best way to help.

I was impressed by Rob’s thinking about how we can improve health before people end up at a hospital. Again, I recall the Covid response that kept hospitals from being overwhelmed by taking preventative measures.

We need to get back to the goals of a Smokefree Aotearoa, to regulate the alcohol industry that causes so much harm, to fund more early screening, have better vaccination campaigns and make sure everyone has a warm, dry home and stays there when they’re sick, and we’ll have a lot fewer people arriving in our hospitals.

Rob suggested we need well-staffed clinics that can serve a community; there is certainly something to be said for treating people this way rather than through our current GPs, who give you 15 minutes and, in many cases, simply gatekeep medication or referrals to more specialised experts. We need what White Cross offers but without the exorbitant prices.

Jack asked about Simeon Brown outsourcing services to private providers. Campbell said that might alleviate the problem in the short term, but it would further weaken our public system and mean we weren't developing capabilities within it. This will make us increasingly reliant on the private sector.

It’s madness in my view. Yes, public health costs a lot, but it’s going to cost a damn sight more if we’re also funding private sector profits.

Jack asked Rob whether he thought any of our political parties had the appetite to address the problem. He smiled and suggested people vote for a party that advocates strengthening rather than weakening our public health system.

That means Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori, who want to invest more in our public health and resist moves to privatise.

While we’re on the topic of funding, subscriptions continue to decline, so I’d really appreciate your support if you can afford to subscribe to this kōrero. I’m reluctant to put a paywall in front of my writing, but if people keep reading the newsletter without a few more contributing, I’ll need to do that starting next week.

Subscribe now

If you have a Gold Card, are a student, or are unwaged, there is a 15% discount.

Gold Card discount.

Have a great Sunday, all you lovely people.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here is Olivia Rodrigo with The Cure.

Share

Songwriters: Adam Fredric Duritz / Ben G Mize / Charles Thomas Gillingham / Daniel John Vickrey / David Lynn Bryson / Matthew Mark Malley / Steve Bowman.

Why can’t the chicken cross the road?

Many Kiwis spend a lot of time commuting to work; public transport can be unreliable, and even a bit of rain can turn our motorways into parking lots. But one man is fortunate to live in a taxpayer-funded apartment just across the road from work. How lucky is that?

Unfortunately, the serial moaner that is our PM still found a reason to complain: those pesky bike lanes that made it impossible to navigate. Christopher Luxon has declared our business people negative, wet, and whiny, yet he complains about having to cross the road and risk encountering cyclists.

I found the following clip shared on Facebook; I don’t know who posted it, but I'm happy to update this and credit them if anyone knows.

Over the years, I’ve spent a bit of time in Wellington, and, without wanting to boast, I’ve never had any trouble crossing Molesworth Street. To be fair, the day the hīkoi arrived at Parliament, it took me a while to cross because of the crowd, but in my defence, I reckon it would have taken Christopher Luxon a lot longer to cross that day than it took me.

The good folks at Stuff investigated just how difficult it was to cross Molesworth Street, but it turned out to be pretty simple: a quick look left and right and then off you go, just the one cycle lane to worry about.

Crossing roads can be manageable with the right precautions, and if those checks felt a bit risky for the PM, he could always walk a bit further and cross at the pedestrian crossing. Failing that, he could drive across the road, but what sort of entitled prat would do that?

I guess he started as he meant to continue. A Mercedes to cross the road, Air Force flights to fundraisers, nothing is too good for CEO Man.

A Colonial Curriculum with no Climate Change.

Hot on the heels of the oopsie daisy where someone removed any mention of Climate Change from the National Party curriculum, it seems they don’t want anyone learning a history different from what was taught to us back in the good old days. Back before we realised that such a one-sided, colonial-focused history did a disservice to Māori, to our history and to all of us.

When I studied history at high school, we learned about Benjamin Disraeli and the various factions in the Middle East and Northern Ireland, but we never learned about NZ’s history. I remember looking at exhibits on the NZ Wars at the Auckland War Memorial Museum and realising I knew more about the Franco-Prussian War or the Boer War than I did about my own country - and that doesn’t happen by accident.

Progress has been made in recent years in teaching our history, understanding Te Tiriti, and encouraging Te Reo; I find it incredibly sad that National and their coalition partners are so determined to roll it all back.

Christopher Burns, Auckland University of Technology lecturer in teacher education, said of the new curriculum, “The section on the New Zealand Wars states that ‘conflict grew because Māori and European settlers had different ideas about land, authority, and te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi’. This reduces the Government acquisition of Māori land by force to a kind of misunderstanding.”

It teaches students the falsehood that “rangatira signatories of te Tiriti ceded their existing authority”. I thought, who wrote this? Was it Don Brash? Māori never ceded sovereignty, but I understand why certain people might like that taught to children.

Te Tiriti is described “as a response to concerns about ‘lawlessness’ but not that it was lawlessness among British settlers”. If you’ve done even minimal reading, you’ll know it was a response to the behaviour of the colonisers, not the tangata whenua.

As for the fact that Climate Change was removed from the released curriculum, Professor Chris Eames, from the University of Waikato School of Education, called it a “travesty of omission, at a time where other countries are taking significant steps to include climate change in their curricula”.

He added, “We are woefully under-preparing our young people by disavowing the responsibility borne of creating climate change ourselves. This is very disappointing.”

I don’t know whether National is making these changes to boost its supporter numbers in years to come, but I find it appalling that Erica Stanford has overseen a curriculum that omits climate change and lacks a balanced view of history.

Kai for kids.

In contrast to the coalition whitewashing our curriculum and feeding our kids low-quality slop, the Greens announced a policy yesterday to ensure our kids have nutritious kai, to create local jobs with the sort of small businesses Seymour’s changes shut out, and to support local food producers.

.The Green Party’s election policy for free and nutritious school lunches will:

• Restore the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme, with lunches provided through schools or local providers to meet the needs of their students.

• Expand the programme to approximately 400 more schools, ensuring 150,000 more children enjoy a nutritious lunch every day.

• Fund the programme permanently to provide certainty for schools, whānau and local providers.

David Seymour said his “programme saved taxpayers more than $120 million by reducing the average per-student meal cost from $8.68 to $3.58. The Greens’ version of the scheme has the average price per meal of $6.50.” He continued, “No wonder the Greens want new taxes; they are prepared to spend three times as much getting the same result.”

Cool story, Dave, but some of us think our kids are worth more than being used to save money by providing the lowest-quality food for a profit, and you are definitely not getting “the same result”.

Marama Davidson said, “The goal of a school lunch programme should be providing nutritious school lunches to children, not exploiting Government contracts to prioritise profits and overseas shareholders over our tamariki. The Green Party’s school lunch programme will feed kids and local economies, not the pockets of corporations.”

You’ve got to wonder about the sort of Prime Minister who has difficulty crossing the road, an Education Minister who wants to dumb down the curriculum, and anyone who agreed that David’s dastardly dinners were a good idea.

Have a great Friday, all you lovely people.

To access all my writing, join the conversation, and support my mahi, subscribe here:

Subscribe now

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here are Counting Crows with Sullivan St from their album August and Everything After, my favourite album of all time.

Songwriter: Mark Knopfler.

Ongoing spillage.

At the start of Breakfast’s usual panel discussion, Chris Chang noted that Kieran McAnulty didn’t get much time to speak last week, with National’s leadership challenge seeing Chris Bishop take the lion’s share of the questions. But the Labour man had a bit to say in Parliament during the urgent debate called over what Winston Peters refers to as a “One Man Coup - if you can believe that”.

A couple of highlights were shown, but I think it’s really worth taking a look at his full speech here:

Kieran wasn’t appearing on Breakfast this week, and in his place was Ginny Andersen up against her rival for the Hutt South seat, Chris “it wasn’t me” Bishop.

It’s a really changeable seat. Back in 2017, Bishop won the seat, and Ginny was a list MP. That reversed in 2020 with Ginny winning the electorate and Bishop coming in off the list. Then it reversed again in 2023 with Bishop winning the seat and Ginny returning from the list.

This year, it looks like it will reverse again. Chris Bishop is unlikely to win the electorate, and unfortunately for him, if National wins many electorates relative to their party vote, there may not be a list lifeboat this time. He may be jettisoned to wander from food truck to food truck, wondering why nobody looks at his photos any more.

Chang began by suggesting to Ginny that Kieran would make a good leader, and Chris Bishop smiled, relishing the brief reprieve as the focus briefly shifted to Labour.

Ginny laughed it off and said that although Chris, sitting alongside her, had been unable to get rid of Luxon, New Zealanders had that opportunity on the 7th of November. She said Labour were out there talking to people who wanted a government working hard for them, not backstabbing each other.

“Honourable and showing intestinal fortitude,” said Chang, quoting the way that opposition MPs had described Penk during the debate. Then he asked Bishop if he agreed. The National man called the debate, as opposed to the coup, “a bit of a sideshow” and then started talking about anything else: a second harbour crossing, new housing investment. He said quite a few words, but none of them was “Yes, I agree,” suggesting Bishop was happy to have Penk as the fall guy and had no intention of going down with him.

The interviewer asked whether 10 portfolios were too many, referring to Paul Goldsmith; Bishop agreed that it was, saying he had six himself.

To me, this has been the ultimate display of Luxon’s laziness; you’d think any decent boss would roll their sleeves up and help, but no, Christopher didn’t take any of Penk’s work on himself; he just kept piling more and more onto Paul Goldsmith. That seems a poor decision in hindsight, given his woeful performance on Q&A this weekend, where he failed to explain why he is giving shopkeepers the power to respond with physical force to children as young as 14, when retailers and the Police are against it.

Healthcare.

They moved to health, and Chang asked, in light of recent interviews on Endometriosis and rural cancer treatment, why we still had a postcode lottery. Ginny said it started with access to Primary care and spoke of their policy for free doctors’ visits

Back in 2023, National said they would “put an end to postcode lottery healthcare by delivering more doctors and nurses.” As we know, they put in place a regime that made it so difficult to replace staff that we now have an enormous backlog of vacancies, so so much for that commitment.

If you’re interested, Fleur Fitzsimmons of the PSA covered this really well on BHN last night. It’s worth a watch if you have time:

Bishop had nothing to offer and resorted to blaming Labour, despite his own party having had three years to fulfil its promises. He said they were making progress, but there was still a lot more work to do. I imagine that anyone working in the health sector, or who has been a patient, would be surprised by talk of progress.

Ginny again emphasised the importance of access to primary healthcare and being able to afford to see a doctor, but Bishop said that it was all very well to promise three free GP visits, but you need the doctors. Something National should know a thing or two about, after making commitments like longer maternity stays, only to be told they’d need staff to do so.

Another Harbour Crossing.

Next, Chris Chang spoke of Winston Peters, National’s ever-faithful ally, saying the work was a shocking waste of money, with $100m spent. Not only was he throwing his partners under the bus, but he was also continuing his long-standing tendency to forget that, more often than not, he was a senior cabinet member in the government he’s complaining about.

There was a lot of waffle from Bishop about indicative business cases and about coming up with a comprehensive business plan, without negating the fact that they’ve pissed a hundred million dollars up the wall, and they still don’t even know whether they’re building a tunnel or a bridge, or how on earth they’re going to pay for it.

Bishop said Ginny’s lot might inherit the problem, prompting Tova, waiting in the wings, to pipe up and ask whether he’d just announced they were going to lose the election. I’m not sure Ginny could have smiled any more joyfully. Clearly, the Fast Track man has decided this one is better left for others to deliver.

Ginny said that most NZers would expect, three years and a hundred million dollars later, to have something to show, but there isn’t. Bishop furrowed his brow and shook his head, mouthing “No”. But given that Andersen was right, perhaps that was more a plea for it to stop than a denial.

Ginny listed a bunch of projects Bishop had promised across the country, including in their region, that he never delivered. Bishop glowered, and his eyebrows came close to merging. She continued, saying there was a history with National of going around promising projects with no plan to pay for them - hello, the Roads of National Significance, anyone?

Where Keiran could defeat Bishop with a knowing look in response to blatant bullshit, Ginny seemed to take pleasure in needling Bishop, and he was not enjoying it. His response lacked humour as he said, “I appreciate you don’t know a lot about how these things work, but you actually have to do the investigations before you can do the work.”

The second part of his statement is correct; you need to conduct the investigation, which is why National should stop making commitments they have no idea how to deliver. As for the first part, the personal attack - what a dick.

It was like water off a duck’s back for Ginny, though, who was still laughing as the interview ended, especially because, at least in terms of the Hutt South electorate, on November 7th, I suspect she will be the one having the last laugh.

Have a good Thursday, all you lovely people. 🙂

To receive all my posts, join the conversation, and support my mahi, subscribe here:

Subscribe now

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for any amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, The Last Laugh with Mark Knopfler and Van Morrison:

Songwriters: Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon.

Sometimes, don’t you want to just scream?

1 News led their bulletin yesterday with a supposedly major scandal: Christopher Hipkins had unequivocally ruled out a Streaming Tax, but it turned out Labour had an old bill in the cookie jar of private members' bills to introduce a levy on overseas corporations that make millions here to fund local content.

I rolled my eyes until I could see the inner workings of my brain, which seemed to be producing steam.

Good grief, is TVNZ avoiding the government's wrath by providing “Balance”, a polite way of saying they should make mountains out of opposition molehills and equate non-issues on the left with government calamities?

Simeon Brown said, “Chris Hipkins is a serial flip-flopper, telling Kiwis one thing, while his caucus is doing another.” Speaking of flip-flops, that lad needs a good hard whack with a jandal.

Willie Jackson, whose member’s bill it was, said, “I was talking about a streamers' levy in the context of a member's bill. I wasn't talking about it as being Labour Party policy.”

Given the state of the economy, the cost of living, and their own disunity, it was surprising to see National spend so much time focused on another party ruling out a policy. Or maybe that was the point: look away from our dumpster fire and look over there at the opposition, with vaguely contradictory information.

Chippy said it was simply an administrative oversight, and Labour went ahead and made sure none of their private members’ bills could confuse National again. He said, “Labour had discussed many different policy ideas this term but was now locking down its manifesto ahead of the election.”

Personally, I thought it was pretty clear-cut and not an issue at all. Over the course of an election cycle, there are many such bills; there are currently 71 of them in the tin, unlikely to see the light of day now. But when a party leader rules something out, that obviously supersedes such bills.

National were jumping up and down like they’d uncovered the largest of scandals, clearly trying to deflect from their own story, and TVNZ chose to lead with it. It was hard not to wonder whether Paul Goldsmith had been grunting down the line to them that they better do so, or else.

Given that National has decided that private members' bills are equivalent to party policy, I thought we should look at the ones they and their coalition partners have waiting to be drawn. That’s only fair. Simeon Brown’s logic says that members’ bills are official party policy, so what does that look like?

National’s Suze Redmayne has a bill “to extend the list of those who may administer a declaration under the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 to include chartered accountants.”

Currently, you have to be a Justice of the Peace, a lawyer, a notary, an MP, or hold certain roles in the police to do so, but apparently Ms Redmayne thinks accountants should be considered fine, upstanding members of our community.

It seems a bit weird to me. I don’t have anything against bean counters per se, but why them? Why not your GP or the chemist, or so many other professions that could have been considered? Still, I guess Suze knows best, and, of course, for consistency, this must now be read as official National Party policy.

National’s David McLeod has a bill “to increase the number of deceased donors of organs and tissue, improve family consent rates, and make it more accessible to donate organs and tissue to preserve life or maintain the quality of life of another.”

That’s an excellent initiative; full marks. I can’t see why anyone would oppose it, but it does raise the question of why it’s not National policy. They could easily have passed it this term. I would like to see National, or any other party, take this to the electorate, but I’m pretty sure they won’t.

Tim Costley has a bill that “seeks to ensure Kiwis are more financially secure in retirement by gradually increasing KiwiSaver contributions to reflect Australia’s 12% rate.”

I think this is a sensible idea; we should have done it decades ago. Yet it seems ironic that the party that declares it won’t take money from hard-working Kiwis intends to increase their KiwiSaver contributions so significantly. And don’t forget, according to National, members’ bills are the same as official party policy.

When it comes to ACT:

• Simon Court has a bill to remove alcohol restrictions in areas where Trusts operate. Because what this country really needs is easier access to cheaper booze.

• Parmjeet Parmar has one on her favourite topic of not recognising Māori in any way in the public sector, in this case, universities.

• Mark Cameron has one to stop Regional Councils meddling in “managing greenhouse gas emissions”. The bill says only central government should have a say, which is pretty significant, as over the last three years they have shown they have nothing to say on the matter and would prefer we all pretend there isn’t a problem.

Then we come to New Zealand First, who seem to have removed all of their wackadoodle culture-war bills, leaving just a few, including one that is a no-brainer.

Jamie Arbuckle has a bill on returning containers, you know, like we used to do when we took an empty milk bottle or lemonade bottle back to the dairy and received what was essentially a deposit on the bottle back. It seems sensible, so I don’t imagine it will make Winston’s 2026 list of policies to take to the electorate.

As a Green Party supporter, it’s only fair that I should look at their bills, but to be honest, I would be more than happy for them to include these items as policies in the election:

• Scott Willis has a proposal to separate Retailers and Generators in the electricity market, as we did with Telecom when it stifled competition.

• Chlöe Swarbrick has one to “allow for sanctions to be imposed and enforced on individuals or entities that are responsible for, associated with, or involved in the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

• Steve Abel has a bill that says our animal welfare laws should apply to all food sold in Aotearoa. He cites the fact that “over 90 percent of pork imported to New Zealand in 2022 came from countries that allow the use of sow stalls, which were prohibited in New Zealand in 2016.”

• Julie Anne Genter has one that would “restrict the use of wood treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) in high-contact structures such as children’s playgrounds, picnic tables, and garden furniture.” The Bill indicates that “Exposure to CCA-treated timber has significant human health effects, with increased exposure causing systemic cancers—including lung cancer. CCA-treated timber also leaches pollutants into our environment, especially when disposed of incorrectly.”

• Ricardo Menéndez March has just this week put forward a bill to “ban excessive pricing by the supermarket duopoly. Supermarkets will be prohibited from charging prices that are excessive relative to the cost of supplying the products, plus a fair margin.” The bill notes that “Australia has recently introduced a new law to prohibit excessive grocery pricing. Research by Consumer NZ shows that 86% of New Zealanders support introducing a similar law here.”

  

As for Labour, they might have had a clean-up, but there are still some excellent proposals there that ought to be policy if they aren’t already:

• Deborah Russell has a bill to ensure that “in cases of liquidation and insolvency, workers are paid for all amounts outstanding to them.” The current cap is removed, and money owing to workers is prioritised.

• Cushla Tangaere-Manuel has one that says, “Consumers should have the ability to cancel or withdraw from subscriptions without unnecessary or unfair hurdles.” Some organisations make it very difficult to cancel subscriptions. For example, with Sky TV, you can add additional options easily online, but you can’t remove them. That means at least half an hour on the phone to a call centre, who will continue to offer you things you don’t want in order to keep you as a subscriber.

• Ingrid Leary has a proposal on Retirement Villages that will “require that capital sums are returned (repaid) to exiting residents of retirement villages within a fair and reasonable time upon leaving the village.” Which is a damn good proposal in my view.

So there you have it, Coalition policies that must be considered policy for the purposes of the election and a whole swag of ideas from the opposition that merit becoming policy.

Have a good Wednesday, all you lovely people.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To receive new posts from me, join the conversation in the comments, and support my work, please subscribe:

Subscribe now

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for whatever amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

To end today, it’s Queen with One Vision. Fi and I lived in Wembley very near the stadium from 2001-2003, and that walk from the tube station into the stadium is so familiar:

Share

Songwriter: Brad Skistimas.

If you’re unfortunate enough to have Simeon Brown appear on your newsfeed lately, you’ll have seen him hopping around like a demented pixie, squealing that the end is nigh and that Labour will tax us into oblivion, despite the fact that they haven’t actually announced their tax policy.

Eight new taxes, the National Party’s propaganda reads. Then nine. How about ten? Do I hear eleven? Any tax they can think of, they attribute to Labour, presumably on the basis that if you throw enough manure, some of it will stick.

On the 4th of August, they complained about eight new taxes; by the 16th of August, that had risen to eleven new taxes, despite no policy announcements, no evidence, and it being wild speculation at best. One thing we can say for certain is that the Blue Party is not very good at using AI.

It doesn’t matter whether the policies belong to other parties; National simply says Labour will deliver all of them. Old taxes or new taxes, such as Ute taxes or Netflix taxes; they say Labour will do those even if there is no suggestion they plan to, and they may have simply taken part in a related conversation.

Here is the aforementioned Pixie; if you're concerned by what he has to say, don’t be; every word is a lie. Given that Simeon Brown presents himself as a dedicated Christian, he seems to have a remarkably casual attitude towards standing before the nation and telling the sort of porkies that deserve to be flash-fried by a lightning bolt.

It sounds terrible, doesn’t it, but never fear, it’s all complete bollocks. And this time Simeon is not merely lying but also being a hypocrite because on October 1st 2016 NZ introduced what was dubbed the “Netflix Tax”, requiring overseas suppliers of digital content to pay GST. That was a National Party government, by the way, Mr Brown.

I think corporations that make millions in NZ should pay tax on their profits, like any other business, but just because something is a good idea doesn’t mean you can claim that Labour will do it. In fact, Labour has ruled out introducing streaming and ute taxes if in power after November 7, so I’m not sure where Simeon is getting his facts from; maybe they showed up in a colonoscopy?

In addition to ruling out the imagined taxes that had Simeon running around like Chicken Little, squawking that the sky was about to fall, Hipkins also said that Simeon Brown was “getting more and more hysterical by the day”.

Hipkins continued, “If I was looking at internal polling numbers like the sort that he’s looking at, I’d be getting a bit worried about that as well. But that doesn’t mean that he can make up policy on behalf of the Labour Party.”

Labour have also ruled out TOP’s 1.75% land value tax, which would be political suicide for a major party, although doing so risks losing votes, as TOP’s support base must largely come from those who have had enough of the two major parties.

To be fair to TOP, they are at least proposing a progressive change, recognising the need for a fairer tax system if we’re to make the sort of improvements to this country we want to see. At some point, Labour will need to announce another source of revenue, because a CGT in a falling market will bring in essentially nothing for years. It’s a good long-term policy, but it won’t help with our immediate needs.

This morning, Hipkins appeared on TVNZ’s Breakfast show, and they began by discussing a second harbour crossing for Auckland, ignoring that we already have one out west, which is connected to the Motorways. Yesterday, National held a press conference, saying they’re going back to do a business case despite having spent $100m on consultants, and they’re going to consider the ridiculous option of building a bridge from Pt Chev to Chatswood.

Chippy said the announcement sounded familiar because he had made a similar one three years ago. In other words, there has been no progress other than a dumpster fire of taxpayers' money, leaving us pretty much where we were. “They’re basically re-announcing what I announced three years ago,” said Hipkins.

Chris Chang then moved on to the PM, noting that NZDF aircraft had been used to fly him home from a National Party fundraiser, another case of entitlement by Christopher Luxon, which is now largely forgotten, though apparently there was more to come. Chang said that this morning’s Herald carried a story listing six instances in which the PM had used military aircraft to attend a National Party fundraiser.

From the paywalled article:

Hipkins told the Herald yesterday that one flight “might be an error” but “six times is a habit”.

On Breakfast, Chippy said, “Christopher Luxon has been using the Air Force as his own personal air taxi service, and that’s not what it’s there for. Yes, government Ministers use Air Force planes in a state of emergency, in situations where they just can’t get where they need to be, and there’s an urgent need for them to be there. But the idea that Christopher Luxon is flying around the country to attend National Party fundraisers and the taxpayer is heavily subsidising that through the Air Force is almost impossible to justify.”

They moved to what Chang called the “100% united National Party” after the coup that wasn’t, and Chippy couldn’t help but laugh at the idea of them being united, saying, “It’s a total shambles on the other side of the house”.

Chippy said he was focused on the cost of living and rising unemployment, but National only seemed concerned about their own jobs.

They concluded with a series of yes/no questions.

• A referendum on MMP? Hipkins said ‘No’.

• Four-year terms? He was open to that.

• A referendum on the flag. ‘Nope’

• Cannabis. ‘Nope’

• Asset Sales. ‘Nope’

Hipkins is clearly focused on what matters rather than the sort of sideshows that have been the hallmark of this coalition. I do find it disappointing that Labour takes such a conservative stance on cannabis law reform; it seems so out of step. I mean, even the US, with its war on drugs, has more progressive laws.

As for Luxon’s idea of a referendum on MMP that looks dead in the water based on the latest 1 News poll:

Many of us are keen to hear what Labour will offer in terms of tax policy, but in the meantime I wouldn’t bother listening to Simeon Brown or any of his colleagues, who, in the absence of any achievements of their own to campaign on, are, as per usual, resorting to telling lies about what Labour will do.

I’ll leave it there for today. If you found this useful, were informed, or just had a laugh, please subscribe. My income is falling noticeably, so if you’re a regular reader, please don’t assume others will contribute. Click one of the buttons below to subscribe.

Subscribe now

Gold Card discount.

Have a good Tuesday, folks; looks like a nice day after a cold start.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here are Five Times August with “Liars, Cheats, and Crooks”

Speak plainly (māori) to me
Go with the flow
That’s how you show your love
Speak plainly

Songwriter: Marlon Williams.

This morning, Breakfast held interviews from one end of the political spectrum to the other, from David Seymour, standing in for Christopher Luxon, to Te Pāti Māori, which made a welcome return to discussing strategy rather than infighting.

I still find it mind-boggling that what began as a punishment for TVNZ over Maiki Sherman’s actions, who is long since gone, has continued all this time, with the Prime Minister still refusing to appear on either Q&A or Breakfast and handing the slot to his political rival, Deputy Dave, whose most likely source of votes is from National.

While we’re on that, I can’t help but think, with the benefit of hindsight, that Maiki has been treated terribly unfairly. Losing a career over a word used in a private social setting is ridiculous the more you think about it, and it stands in stark contrast to that weasel Lloyd Burr, who kept his mouth shut about the context and kept his job.

Up first was Seymour with Chris Chang. They began with a video of Erica Stanford from yesterday, in which she pledged her undying loyalty to Christopher Luxon. Personally, I think such declarations are more meaningful beforehand than four days after a vote, but each to their own.

Chang suggested Seymour appeared because Luxon was still PM; David joked that if he had known his position on Breakfast was at risk, he would’ve taken more interest in the attempted spill. I know most people reading this probably find Seymour as appealing as something you scrape off your shoe, but his ability to turn up with a smile, no matter how unpopular his ideas are, makes Luxon look all the more feeble.

Chang said ACT Minister Andrew Hoggard had called the attempted coup a “shit show” and asked how Seymour would describe it, but he played it diplomatically with the coalition line that everything is fine.

Then David went off on a spiel about his policy announcement over the weekend, which seeks to remove consideration of Te Tiriti or Te Ao Māori from the hiring process to finally create a level playing field for Pākehā.

That was a joke, by the way; no such issue exists beyond a few ACT-supporting weirdos who have conniptions at the thought of being involved in anything Māori.

According to Seymour, considering things Māori was causing the public sector to underperform, which is absolute nonsense. In truth, I suspect ACT hates this because they know that exposure to people and culture is how you end ignorance, the cause of racism, and they sure don’t want that. They even want to end Karakia, and I posted last night:

David Seymour promises to keep the public service safe from Karakia; what an absolute dropkick.

Paul pointed out, “It appears he has little experience in the commercial world, where meetings now often begin with karakia.”

Margaret wrote, “Does he think he can stop our tangata whenua from exercising their cultural rights - he’s got to be joking.”

Heather said, “Ignorant, pontificating, nasty, self-important weasel. There is a problem in Wellington with an infestation of weasels.”

Katie commented, “I don’t think he realises people actually like it and he is in the minority.”

There are plenty of pākehā who have had a gutsful of Seymour’s anti-Māori BS, and I wonder whether he might struggle to get re-elected now that Paul Goldsmith has confirmed he will stick with the Epsom electorate rather than take Chris Penk’s safe seat. Goldsmith is campaigning for both the candidate and party votes, so who knows, maybe if the left vote strategically, Camilla Belich could come through the middle and take the seat for Labour. Wouldn’t that be great?

Seymour’s rhetoric was repugnant; his hatred of Māori was clear as emotion entered his voice, and he said it was about people feeling included. I don’t know what meetings Seymour has been imagining, but in my experience, and I imagine in most people’s, there is nothing exclusionary about a Karakia.

He made increasingly absurd claims, saying that Karakia exclude talent from entering the public sector, which is nonsense. I don’t believe anyone with talent has turned down a job for that reason. If a candidate were so repulsed by a simple Karakia, I would question their suitability for a public role.

Asked about Te Pāti Māori’s message on strategic voting and whether it was a good thing, David said it would be good if they delivered a policy. Which is just dumb because if you go to the party’s website, they have a comprehensive list of policies. For example, this on Military Neutrality:

• Declare Aotearoa a militarily neutral nation.

• Reset foreign policy to be independent, grounded in Māori values, and centred on Pacific and Indigenous relationships.

• Review and withdraw from military alignments that undermine sovereignty.

• Refocus the Defence Force on protection, disaster response, and Pacific support.

• Uphold international human rights and hold war criminals to account.

I can see why Seymour wouldn’t like that last one; he's all for supporting war criminals like Netanyahu and turning a blind eye to human rights violations in Gaza.

David rambled on about education, saying that ACT had done more for Māori Education than TPM and that he didn’t know what they wanted. Well, this is one thing they say, David: “Education should never teach our tamariki to leave themselves at the door. It should strengthen identity, grow confidence, open pathways, and prepare our people to lead in the world as Māori.”

To top it all off, Seymour said parties shouldn’t tell people how to vote, which is so hypocritical as to be absurd, after National kept ACT on life support by doing just that for years in Epsom.

Up next were the two co-leaders of Te Pāti Māori with their strategy to end this government, which I posted about when it was covered in last night’s 1 News:

Great to hear Te Pāti Māori tell people to vote strategically: electorate for them, and the Greens or Labour with their party vote. It makes so much sense and helps the left with an overhang.

Understandably, those who want to see Labour or Green candidates win Māori electorates may not see it that way, but you can’t argue with the fact that if people follow their suggestion, the left will end up with more seats than if they don’t.

Lathee wrote, “That is very good thinking. They have identified the real danger of the right winning again.”

Some pointed out that people voted strategically last time, and we ended up with the coalition, but that wasn't due to vote splitting; it was about how many people voted for the coalition. In a closer election, those additional seats could make all the difference.

Shaayd wrote, “I don’t understand how Labour and the Greens aren’t on board with this given how close this election is set to be. I’m not saying they should stand down; I’m saying they should at least acknowledge the strategy's validity. Many people aren’t politically plugged in, and it would benefit our whānau to know exactly what their options are.”

I fully understand that some Labour people want their candidates to go all out for the Māori seats, but that would be a hollow victory if they win the local battle yet lose the opportunity to form a government, ending up short by a few seats.

Rawiri said it was a huge sacrifice for the greater good. While TPM weren’t necessarily giving away much in terms of a potential party vote, he was right: this plan is for the greater good of ending the coalition’s time in power, and that is what matters.

Debbie said, “You've got to ask yourself: is our priority to hear and feel the pain of our people and do what’s right by them, or to do what’s best for the party? As a Kaupapa party, we decided to put our people first.”

Some might say that’s a bit rich after a year of infighting from TPM, but I’ve always respected Debbie and Rawiri, although John Tamihere is a different matter. The two leaders were quite open and honest about what happened over that period, and I got the impression they have come through it, and I’m so glad to see it.

Rawiri said, “Our people are calling for a change of government; they want a one-term government, and we should be working together to be able to do that. We’ve offered a strategic voting plan heading into this election, and it would be good if others on the left would do the same.”

Asked about Seymour's stance on Karakia, Rawiri said it sounds like David needs more Karakia in his life.

Speaking about Te Pāti Māori’s wealth tax, the details of which have not yet been released for this election, Tova said Chippy had ruled out such a tax. Rawiri's eyes lit up, saying that on November 8th Hipkins will be dealing with two parties that want a wealth tax, TPM and the Greens, and that such discussions were better left until then.

Te Pāti Māori has played a major role in opposing this government; they have seen 15,000 more sign up to the Māori roll, and I hope they have a good number of MPs at the negotiating table to secure some concessions.

Because the thing is, and most of us get this, although obviously Seymour wouldn’t agree - when Māori do well, we all do well.

Have a great Monday, all of you lovely people.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

If you’ve enjoyed this newsletter and can spare a few dollars, please consider subscribing; I'd really appreciate it. 🙂

Subscribe now

Gold Card discount

To end today, here is the magnificent Marlon Williams with Kōrero Māori:

Share

What a week in politics; it’s not often a Party Leader survives a coup, let alone two. Helen Clark famously stared down a challenge from Annette King, Michael Cullen, Jim Sutton and Koro Wētere, but once a spill is on, it usually leaves an ex-leader with knives sticking out of them, a tripping hazard under the rug.

Now, Mr Luxon would like to pretend that the repeated challenges to his leadership were no big deal, that it was all Chris Penk’s doing, and that it’s only of interest to the ‘beltway’ crowd; good luck with that, fella.

In response to a question from a doubting journalist yesterday, he said, “So, Thomas, it’s great you’re out of the bubble today, mate. I’m just saying to you, we have discussed that ad nauseam over the last 48 hours. I get that it was a frustrating period for everybody, but we came out of that caucus united, focused, and I am very proud of my team that are there to take New Zealand forward on November 7th.”

Nothing to see here; it’s all clean-cut. The traitorous Penk was a lone wolf who had to go, and Bishop and Stanford had nothing to do with it. Further discussion may make Luxon nauseous, but that doesn’t mean he’s discussed it ad nauseam for 48 hours if all he's done is avoid questions and peddle a story of team unity that nobody believes.

But look, over there, it’s a monorail. Shiny.

You get a gondola.

Chris Bishop, who definitely wasn’t involved in any attempted coup this week, said, “The simple reality is we simply can't just add road space in Queenstown. If there's anywhere in the world where a gondola can work for decongesting, it's Queenstown.”

Seriously, a gondola? Why not just use buses? I don’t have an issue if the good folks of Queenstown want to build a new tourist attraction, but I'm concerned about using the meagre public transport budget for it.

“We're up for using that money to fund gondolas,” said Bishop.

Public transport across this country needs massive investment if we’re to get people out of cars, yet we’re always told to look for cheaper, cut-price solutions, so we can’t have nice things like a train to the airport in a city the size of Auckland. But we’re going to build a gondola in Queenstown? Great.

Bishop said gondolas would be a “cooler” option for public transport in Queenstown than buses. So it seems more about the “vibe” than what is actually needed.

Bishop posted yesterday, “National has announced today that congestion-reducing gondola solutions in Queenstown will be able to access public transport funding through NZTA. In plain English, what this means is that the proposals are viable (and there’s a long way to go on that), and once they get up and running, gondolas will be treated like buses and trains and ferries. But let’s be honest. Cooler!”

I’m glad Bishop considers public transport cool, but a gondola seems like a gimmick, and his announcement feels like a distraction. Besides, if he’s going to change the rules for Queenstown, how will he respond when the rest of the country clamours, “Where’s ours?”

Places that might not be retreats for the rich and famous, but that make significant contributions and have their own infrastructure needs. Southland Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive, Sheree Carey, said, “If they look at all the stats, we are the ones that are leading in every statistic that you can see, in growth and exports and everything, and where is the love? Southland wants some love as well.”

I don’t imagine Mr Bishop considers Southland particularly “cool”, but he should be very interested, as the local Chamber of Commerce says the “region is grappling with how to fill about 4000 skilled jobs.”

Let’s just put it this way: if Labour were promising to fund a gondola while ignoring infrastructure in a region that could deliver all those jobs, National would be running around like headless chooks, telling everyone that the red team were anti-business.

Another day, another poll.

As we get closer to the election, it feels like there is a new poll every other day, and yesterday it was the Talbot Mills poll.

This poll told a different story from the last couple and was more in line with other results we’ve seen over recent months.

Labour was on 34%, up 1 percentage point; National were on 29%, down 2 points; NZ First rose 1 point to 13%; the Green Party was down a point at 8%; ACT was unchanged on 7%; and Te Pāti Māori was steady on 3%.

National, ACT, and NZ First would have 59 seats, just short of a majority, whereas Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori would have 55 - neither bloc reaching the required 61 for a majority.

As with other recent polls, TOP, at 5.2% (up from 4.7%), would hold the balance of power, and their six seats could allow either bloc to form a government. Alternatively, they could sit on the crossbenches and support legislation on a case-by-case basis, either pushing the right to consider the environment or the left to restrain its socialist plans to help people.

Who knows what the TOP board will decide? I still can’t figure out what the party really stands for, but any coalition arrangement requires a 75% majority of the five-member board. The board can also overrule caucus decisions that clearly prejudice the party's charter, which sets out its principles.

TOP has a Land Tax that would see many people pay more in taxes than under the Greens’ tax package, centred on a Wealth Tax, which would result in 96% of the population paying less tax. It would mean more tax than under Labour, and I can’t see any other party supporting that policy, sensible as it may be to restructure, as it would be one hell of a sell to a population that can’t even seem to get their heads around a CGT that excludes the family home.

Large cuts to the public service are also part of TOP’s offering, which would fit in nicely with National and ACT should they decide to go that way.

I know one of these TOP board members: a man known as AJ Bertenshaw, whom I worked for a decade ago at his company, Serato, which makes DJ software.

AJ now goes by the name Alan Wilderland, and in addition to being a board member, he is the Opportunity Party’s largest financial donor. With his marketing ability, technical background, and financial resources, I’m not surprised that TOP have probably run the best social media game in town.

AJ and I used to have political chats, and I recall his frustration that there wasn’t a Blue Green option for people who cared about the environment but weren’t necessarily screaming socialists. Responding with my Green hat on, I told him I thought most people who cared about the environment also cared about people, but he wasn’t convinced.

AJ is quite eccentric, absolutely loaded, and one of the most entitled people I have ever met. I once spent days organising specialist movers to take a large 3D printer from the office to his house under strict instructions that no damage should occur; it had absolutely nothing to do with the business or my job.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked AJ. In my experience, it’s pretty rare to be able to speak freely about politics in a management role. He’s highly intelligent, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want him to choose which government we get.

And that’s probably enough for this week. Have a great weekend, folks. There won’t be a newsletter from me tomorrow as we’re having a bit of a family gathering.

To receive new posts from me, join the conversation in the comments, and support my work, please subscribe:

Subscribe now

Alternatively, if you want to show your appreciation, you could “Buy Me a Coffee” as a one-off koha for whatever amount you like.

Buy Me A Coffee.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here is Fatboy Slim, a Serato user, with a surprising guest vocalist building until the point you can’t stand it anymore:

Songwriters: Justin Gunner Chancellor / Maynard James Keenan / Adam Thomas Jones / Daniel Edwin Carey.

A couple of weeks ago, the story broke that Martyn Bradbury, aka Bomber, the editor of the Daily Blog, was being muzzled:

Prominent blogger facing court action, says he is ‘prepared to go to prison’ for free speech

The news was rough to hear. Firstly, I consider Bomber a mate, not a close friend, but someone I exchange “Merry Christmas, Comrade” messages with and sometimes chat with. Heck, I’ve known him since the mid-90s, when he was editor of the Auckland University magazine, Craccum, and I was a student becoming interested in politics.

Secondly, it felt like an attack on my profession, and being an independent political writer is hard enough without the threat of legal action.

It’s unpleasant to be challenged in that way, and I have to say I’ve gone right off the ACT Party and the Taxpayers’ Union after interactions I’ve had with them over articles I’ve written.

Like others, I speculated about who might have taken such action, but I certainly hadn’t expected it to come from a fellow blogger.

Paula Penfold’s article indicated that Free Speech Union board member and political commentator Ani O’Brien had taken Bradbury to court under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

O’Brien was apparently concerned that Bomber’s criticism of her had become personal, saying, “It wasn’t about him calling me right-wing or disagreeing with my politics, or even mocking my arguments or my work. That’s fine. I accept that.”

It was a noble sentiment: play the ball, not the man. But, given the source, it was, in my view, rank hypocrisy. This is the same Ani O’Brien who spread outright lies and ugly, baseless insinuations against former Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle, harassing them until they felt compelled to resign.

Do you remember that press conference from Doyle, the pain and despair of being falsely accused of child abuse - that came directly from O’Brien.

Ani published screenshots of Benjamin’s private account and described it as “one big giant red flag,” “a child safeguarding nightmare,” and “outrageously inappropriate.” She didn’t call Doyle left-wing or disagree with their politics; she published false allegations of the most repugnant kind, directly attacking Benjamin personally.

Someone I have tremendous respect for, Russell Brown, summarised that situation, and I’ve taken this screenshot from one of Ani’s newsletters:

Ani seems to be quite interested in what other people do, which again has nothing to do with anyone’s political viewpoint.

She has called “non-binary” a “nonsense concept made up by some of the most privileged people on Earth who in the absence of real problems create pseudo grievances about friggin’ pronouns.”

Te Pāti Māori, in her view, are “radicals” who “don’t speak for all Māori.” Cool story, I can’t recall TPM claiming to speak for all māori; I’m more concerned that anyone might think the likes of Seymour or Luxon speak for all pākehā, because they sure as hell don’t.

Not quite able to believe the hypocrisy I was reading about, I posted:

So, right-wing blogger Ani O'Brien tried to silence left-wing blogger Martyn Bradbury, and she is on the board of the Free Speech Union? That organisation is a joke, existing to justify awful far-right speakers while silencing those they disagree with.

Jodi said, “Pity Maiki Sherman wasn't afforded the same protections from Ani's writing as Ani herself demands.”

O’Brien denied claims that her Substack piece, which outed a private conversation between Maiki and Lloyd Burr, was part of a coordinated “political hit” by the National Party or the government against TVNZ. I guess it just looked like a duck. Quack.

Laura commented, “I detest her outspoken, anti-trans perspective that she pushes online, which resembles fascism.”

Moira wrote, “So she is allowed to malign Hipkins by releasing very personal information to damage him in the public eye but kicks up merry hell when someone says something she doesn’t like! This is the whole thing about Free Speech Union! It is only the right wing that is permitted Free speech, it appears!”

Ani denied leaking the information from her friend Jade Paul, Chippy’s ex-wife, but said: “Perhaps you all might understand my visceral dislike for Chris Hipkins a bit better now.” Which seems kind of personal to me and has nothing to do with politics.

Andy replied, “So free speech for me but not for thee.” Which could be the motto of the farcical Free Speech Union.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the Free Speech Union (FSU), their so-called ‘council’ includes the likes of former ACT MP Stephen Franks, Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers’ Union, and of course Ani O’Brien.

The FSU has defended the rights of Posie Parker, who clearly shares many views with Ani, and of Julian Batchelor, who spread utter lies and disinformation about co-governance as he toured the country, spreading hatred towards Māori.

They defend the worst of the worst under the guise of Free Speech, but when it comes to others' words, they want to shut them down, to silence what they disagree with.

They have opposed the Medical Council, Nursing Council, Veterinary Council, Architects Board, and others in incorporating Treaty of Waitangi/indigenous rights or cultural competency requirements into their policies. Fighting the culture war for the right, which has nothing to do with Free Speech, but is all about controlling what others can do.

The FSU opposes expanding our Hate Speech laws; they criticised groups like the now-closed Disinformation Project and called for them to be defunded. They are literally opposed to people being expected to tell the truth or to behave like civilised humans in what they say. This makes it laughable that they should target Martyn Bradbury for saying something that hurt Ani’s feelings.

Now, I don’t know what Bomber said about Ani, but I do know what she has said about Benjamin Doyle, Chris Hipkins, and Maiki Sherman. As far as I’m concerned, this is a cynical use of the FSU to attack someone with whom they hold diametrically opposed political views.

Nobody should be subjected to personal attacks, but when you wield the most poisonous pen in the land, you’re a rank hypocrite for expecting different standards to apply to you than what you show to others.

If you’ve enjoyed this newsletter and can spare a few dollars, consider subscribing or, alternatively, “buy me a coffee” as a one-off koha; it would be greatly appreciated. 🙂

Subscribe now

Gold Card discount

Buy Me a Coffee

Have a great Friday and take care, all you lovely people.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, this one is a bit heavier than usual. Here is Tool's "The Pot." If you’re not a fan, this might not be for you, but if you are, you’re very welcome.

Songwriters: Maisie Peters & Julia Michaels.

Loyal and united.

When I last left you, Christopher Luxon had just trotted out his colleagues to declare that he had their full support and that the caucus was united.

Once again, he was utterly inauthentic and is obviously not learning anything from his media advisors, because nobody who watched that brief press conference came away thinking, “Now there is a united group of people.”

It probably didn’t help that some of Luxon's 100% united team looked as if someone had their pet off-screen with a gun to its head.

Vikki suggested Luxon was “Dead man walking” while Catherine said, “It felt like a eulogy”.

Todd noted, “I've seen more joy in dentists’ waiting rooms.”

Irene wrote, “All breathing sighs of relief that Penk was the fall guy. This lot look like they're attending a funeral, not being part of a united team. If Luxon thinks this is over, he's very much mistaken.”

Penk walks the plank.

Luxon identified a scapegoat, even though it appeared that Chris Penk was opening the door for other candidates who sat on their hands, and removed him from his Ministerial responsibilities. This shows that Luxon might not act in response to racism, but challenging his leadership is beyond the pale.

Penk later said that, after discussing it with his family, he would pull up stumps altogether and walk away from politics, despite having one of the safest seats in the country, Kaipara ki Mahurangi, where he took almost 60% of the vote in the last election.

To be fair, if you’re familiar with the expression “they could put a National Party rosette on a fence post, and it would get elected”, this was the electorate the writer of that quip probably had in mind.

I posted:

With Chris Penk now retiring rather than standing again, National lose one of their brighter members from a field of deadwood. A disastrous day for that party.

Don’t get me wrong, I found some of his socially conservative views repugnant, and it was pretty ill-considered when he suggested our Nuclear Free status was disposable, but he also recently stood up for his community against National’s Fast Track legislation with a development that was opposed by the council and locals.

Mostly, though, he gave me the impression of being quite intelligent and capable, even if I disagreed with his views. Members with those qualities are in short supply in the current National caucus, and the following tweet made me wonder whether he was being considered by another party:

Who wants a National Party safe seat?

Alex imagined the undignified scramble to claim Penk’s seat, the former Helensville electorate that John Key held despite living nowhere near it. He suggested:

• Angee Nicholas (Henderson candidate, unlikely to win, but high on the list) (more likely)

• Nancy Lu (high on the list, probably more a contender for Luxon’s Botany seat)

• Paul Goldsmith (after years of not being able to win Epsom)

• Melissa Lee (after years of not being able to win Mount Albert)

• Nicola Willis (less likely)

• Or someone completely unknown

Of these, I remember seeing Angee Nicholas speak at the 2023 election, and I was impressed by how genuine she seemed and how family-focused she was. She almost won the Te Atatu seat, with Phil Twyford winning by just 131 votes. It would be good to see more diversity in the National caucus.

I wondered whether the electorate-less Willis might be having her own family discussions about relocating. Despite being from Wellington, she’d probably find friendlier faces out in the sticks, and she has been playing dress-up for the part. Here she is telling some lucky farmer about fiscal holes.

On 1 News last night, Chris Hipkins said, “The National Party is in complete disarray; they are in no fit state to provide the sort of leadership that the country needs. The National Party might not have been able to get rid of Christopher Luxon; New Zealanders can on the seventh of November.”

Chlöe Swarbrick made me smile when she said, “The PM got to have a chill, nice lunch for three hours with his caucus members, and then they came out and said, ‘don’t worry, guys, it is all good’. I think we can clearly see the reality of what’s happening; I think New Zealanders have pretty good BS radar.”

Over on TV3 News, they were even more scathing, and Matthew Hooton didn’t hold back on the party's inability to roll Luxon:

I was disappointed that Luxon wasn’t rolled, not because I thought any of the other candidates would be any better, but because our country deserves a leader of a higher calibre than Luxon, and god forbid the voters of this country return him to power.

From the left’s point of view, it was a great result. A new leader could have given National a boost in support, but now they look even less stable and united than before this strange episode of crying wolf.

The 1 News Verian poll.

On a big day in politics, the latest TVNZ poll, which would have led the bulletin on any other day, was pushed down the programme despite producing a fascinating result.

This would leave the left with approximately 59 seats, short of the 63 required, while the right would fall short with 57.

Both blocs would require the TOP party, either in coalition or as a supply partner, to form a government. If this poll were reproduced on election day, TOP would be the kingmaker, with a small group of non-elected board members deciding which way the country would go, contingent on negotiations.

Christopher Luxon’s off-the-cuff decision to rule out working with TOP looks more like an own goal, although, to be fair, I wouldn’t trust him not to go back on that. Realistically, there is little common ground across ACT, National, NZ First, and TOP.

I still struggle with TOP. I really like some of their policies and the attitude they have brought to the campaign, but with no prior parliamentary experience, I struggle with the idea that they will hold the balance of power.

Still, for all that, I trust them a damn sight more than I do Winston, so if we must have a Kingmaker, I would rather it was Q than you-know-who.

It looks like it’s going to be quite a run-up to the election, and I look forward to bringing it to you. A request: if you find my writing entertaining or informative, please consider subscribing. At $80 for a year, it’s less than $2 per week. If you’re a Gold Card holder, there’s a 15% discount, bringing it down to $68 for a year.

Subscribe now

Gold Card discount

Have a great day, all you lovely people, and take care.

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here is Maisie Peters with Kingmaker.