Shane Jones is a Fascist

The spectre of authoritarianism rarely announces itself with jackboots and torchlight parades. More often, it arrives draped in the rhetoric of economic necessity, promising prosperity whilst systematically dismantling the institutions that protect democratic accountability. 

Such is the case with Shane Jones, New Zealand First's Resources Minister, whose latest tirade against regional councils represents a chilling escalation in his campaign to eliminate environmental oversight that stands between his corporate benefactors and unfettered resource extraction.

Jones' inflammatory rhetoric comparing the Otago Regional Council to the "Kremlin of the South Island" and dismissing its qualified staff as "KGB green zealots" would be laughable were it not so dangerously revealing of his authoritarian instincts. His call to "disestablish regional councils" because they dare to apply existing environmental law represents nothing less than an assault on New Zealand's democratic institutions. This is the language of a man who views legitimate democratic processes as obstacles to be eliminated rather than safeguards to be respected.

On Friday, the ODT reported:

 

‘Kremlin’ councils need to go: Jones

Resource Minister Shane Jones has called the Otago Regional Council "the Kremlin of the South Island" after an application to expand the Macraes gold mine ran into trouble.

Mr Jones, who is also the regional development minister, said the council was full of "KGB green zealots" and the episode showed why regional councils needed to be scrapped.

The Otago council’s assessment of environmental effects — which recommended Oceana-Gold’s application to expand its mine be declined in full — was "ideological scribbling".

Any other investor or miner in New Zealand would now quickly conclude they had to join the fast-track application process, "which will enable these economic saboteurs to be marginalised", he said.

 

The parallels to historical fascism are unmistakable. Like the dictators of the 1930s who railed against "enemies of the people" and "saboteurs," Jones employs inflammatory language to delegitimise any institution that challenges his pro-drill agenda. His dismissal of evidence-based environmental assessments as "ideological scribbling" echoes the fascist contempt for expertise and scientific inquiry that characterised regimes which prioritised ideology over evidence. 

When Jones describes regional councillors as "Politburo apparatchiks," he reveals his own authoritarian mindset, anyone who disagrees with his vision for environmental destruction must be part of some sinister conspiracy rather than public servants just doing their legally mandated jobs.

What makes Jones' extremism particularly troubling is the financial corruption that underpins it. The Resources Minister's relationships with mining companies extend far beyond policy alignment into the murky waters of financial influence. Analysis of political donation records reveals a staggering pattern of corporate capture that would make even the most cynical observer blush.

NZ First received at least $121,680 from donors linked to fast-track projects in 2024 alone, with Jones personally benefiting from quarry company J Swap in August 2023, the same company that subsequently donated $11,000 to NZ First and applied for fast-track approval. AJR Finance, connected to quarrying interests, contributed a massive $55,000 to NZ First. These figures represent just the tip of the iceberg in a system where corporate donors are literally buying policy outcomes.


Last year, RNZ reported:

Quarry company J Swap's fast track plea after donations to Shane Jones and NZ First

A NZ First donor wants Fast Track legislation to free up permanently protected land for quarrying.

J Swap, a company involved in quarrying, wants land protected under QEII covenants to be available to quarry. It donated $11,000 to NZ First in December, after the coalition was formed.

It also gave $5000 to NZ First's Shane Jones in August 2023 and $3000 to National's David MacLeod in September 2023.

The proposed Fast Track legislation is touted as a "one-stop shop" for approving infrastructure projects. It would sit over a range of existing acts and regulations and would mean an application would only need to go through one process for approval instead of several consents under the existing system.

Jones' undeclared dinners with mining company representatives, arranged by his own staff, demonstrate a level of impropriety that would have seen ministers resign in shame during more principled eras. That he refuses to answer questions about these meetings whilst simultaneously pushing legislation that directly benefits his dinner companions represents corruption in its most brazen form.

The Minister's attacks on environmental groups further reveal his authoritarian tendencies. His vitriolic campaigns against Greenpeace and the Green Party are not merely political rhetoric but systematic attempts to delegitimise opposition voices. When Jones declares that environmental organisations are "economic saboteurs," he employs the classic fascist tactic of painting political opponents as traitors to the nation. This is the language of autocrats who cannot tolerate dissent.

His promise that fast-track legislation will "enable these economic saboteurs to be marginalised" is perhaps the most revealing statement of all. Here, Jones explicitly acknowledges that his legislative agenda is designed not to improve environmental processes but to eliminate environmental opposition entirely. This is not governance; it is the systematic dismantling of democratic accountability.

The implications extend far beyond mining policy. If Jones succeeds in eliminating regional councils, institutions that employ thousands of professionals and manage critical functions, he will have destroyed a fundamental layer of New Zealand's democratic architecture. These councils don't just assess mining applications; they manage flood protection, biosecurity, civil defence, and public transport. Their elimination would represent the largest centralisation of power in New Zealand's modern history.

Regional councillor Alexa Forbes correctly identified Jones' rhetoric as undermining confidence in both central and local government. When ministers attack the institutions they're supposed to work with, they erode the very foundations of democratic governance. This is precisely how democratic backsliding occurs, not through military coups but through the gradual erosion of institutional safeguards by those entrusted to protect them.

Jones' vision of New Zealand is one where corporate donors write policy, environmental laws are ignored, and democratic institutions are eliminated if they prove inconvenient. His $3 billion mining export target comes with a hidden cost: the transformation of New Zealand into a corporate playground where profit trumps the environment and democracy becomes an obstacle to be overcome.

The tragedy is that this assault on our democratic institutions is being conducted by a minister whose own party received just 6.08% of the vote in 2023. Through the accidents of coalition politics, a fringe politician bankrolled by mining interests now wields the power to reshape New Zealand's governance structures according to his authoritarian vision.

History teaches us that democracy's greatest threats often come not from external enemies but from those within who promise prosperity whilst dismantling the institutions that protect the Kiwi way of life. Shane Jones embodies this threat, and his agenda must be recognised for what it truly is: not economic development but undemocratic destruction, funded by corporate interests and executed through authoritarian rhetoric that would make history's dictators proud.

Government Doesn't Care About the Nelson-Tasman Flooding

New Zealand’s weather is turning rogue, and the National-led government seems content to sit on its hands. The recent flooding in the Tasman District, which claimed one life and left homes, businesses, and livelihoods underwater, is yet another stark reminder of the escalating climate crisis.

This deluge, described by locals as unprecedented, saw the Motueka River breach its banks and State Highway 6 close due to slips and flooding. The government’s response, or lack thereof, betrays a disturbing indifference to the growing frequency and severity of such extreme weather events, driven by climate change.

As New Zealand grapples with an ever-wetter, wilder weather pattern, the coalition’s inaction on flood resilience, emissions reduction, and basic preparedness is nothing short of reckless.

On Friday, 1 News reported:

'Heartbreaking': Flooding turns Tasman farm into 'raging creek'

A farm owner in Tasman says severe weather which has "smashed" her farm overnight is "heartbreaking" for her business.

A state of emergency in place for part of Marlborough, as well as Nelson and Tasman as heavy rain batters the regions. Marlborough District Council has asked residents to avoid all travel unless absolutely necessary.

Wild Oats farm owner Kirsty Lalich told 1News it wasn't the first time her farm on Pretty Bridge Rd had experienced flooding, but said she'd "never, ever seen it like this".

The Tasman floods are not an isolated incident. NIWA’s updated storm rainfall profiles and Nelson City Council’s flood modelling show that climate change is amplifying the intensity and frequency of extreme weather. Since 2018, New Zealand has seen over 30 local states of emergency due to flooding, more than double the number from the previous five years. 

The 2022 Nelson floods were a warning. However, here we are, three years later, with the same region battered again and the new government dragging its feet. Climate change is no longer a distant threat; it’s hammering our communities now, and the National-led coalition seems wilfully blind to the urgency.

Emergency Management Minister Mark Mitchell’s response was emblematic of this apathy. On May 26, 2025, Nelson Mayor Nick Smith, who declared a local state of emergency alongside Tasman District Council, spoke with Mitchell about the escalating crisis. Mitchell downplayed the event, stating the threshold for a national state of emergency hadn’t been met and that the storm would likely pass. Tell that to the family of the person killed while clearing flood damage. 

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

 

Person dies near Nelson after being hit by tree while clearing floodwaters

A person has died after being hit by a tree while clearing floodwaters near Nelson.

Acting Nelson Bays area commander Senior Sergeant Martin Tunley said the incident happened at Wai-iti, southeast of Wakefield, this morning.

“Around 9.40am, emergency services were called to a property on State Highway 6 after a person was reportedly hit by a tree while clearing flood damage.”

Despite efforts by emergency services, the person died at the scene, Tunley said.

 

Mitchell’s dismissive stance, coupled with his absence from meaningful action, underscores a government more interested in optics rather than saving lives. A national declaration could have unlocked critical resources, but instead, locals were left to fend for themselves.

Associate Transport Minister James Meager’s silence is equally damning. When approached by media about the flooding and repeated calls for a Nelson weather radar, Meager didn’t even bother to comment. This radar, which could provide precise, real-time data to predict severe storms, has been a priority for Nelson and Tasman councils since 2010. MetService has acknowledged its value but noted it lacks Crown funding, a decision that rests with the government. 

The public, caught off-guard by the storm’s ferocity, had little warning due to reliance on Wellington’s distant radar, which is obstructed by terrain. This failure to invest in basic forecasting infrastructure is a direct betrayal of communities facing increasingly volatile weather.

Worse still, the National-led government has slashed funding critical to flood resilience. In Budget 2024, it returned $3.2 billion of the $6 billion National Resilience Plan, established in 2023 to bolster infrastructure against extreme weather. This gutting of funds, intended for medium and long-term projects, leaves regions like Nelson Tasman vulnerable. 

The coalition’s broader climate record is equally dismal: it has watered down emissions reduction targets, scrapped the Clean Car Discount, and prioritised fossil fuel interests over renewable energy. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s government seems to view climate adaptation as an inconvenience rather than a necessity.

The Nelson Tasman floods are a clarion call. New Zealanders deserve a government that takes climate change seriously, through robust emissions cuts, investment in forecasting tools like the Nelson radar, and restored funding for resilience projects. 

Instead, we’re left with a coalition that downplays disasters, ignores media, and leaves communities to drown. The tragedy in Wai-iti and the chaos in Nelson Tasman region demand accountability. It’s time for the government to wake up before the next deluge washes away more lives and livelihoods.

Why are Western Leaders Complicit in the Gaza Genocide?

The ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has exposed the profound moral bankruptcy of Western diplomacy, revealing how economic interests and geopolitical calculations have trumped basic human decency.

With over 70,000 Palestinians officially dead, 59.1% of them women, children and elderly, NATO nations have demonstrated a stunning inability to deploy the same diplomatic pressure and sanctions they readily apply to other conflicts. The statistics are staggering: 44% of all victims are children, with the youngest being a day-old boy.

NATO's response to the Gaza crisis stands in stark contrast to its swift action against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. Within days of Russia's aggression, Western nations implemented comprehensive sanctions, froze assets, and coordinated unprecedented diplomatic pressure. Yet when it comes to Israel's disproportionate response in Gaza, these same mechanisms mysteriously evaporate.

On Thursday, Al Jazeera reported:

 

EU calls for Gaza ceasefire, stops short of taking action against Israel

Irish leader Michael Martin decries Europe’s inability to pressure Israel to stop ‘continuing slaughter of children’.

European Union leaders meeting in Brussels have condemned the “catastrophic humanitarian situation” in Gaza, but were unable to unite on means of pressuring Israel to end the war.

Thursday’s summit noted a report issued last week by the bloc’s diplomatic service, which found that Israel was likely flouting human rights obligations under the EU-Israel Association agreement. Yet, the bloc stopped short of acting on the assessment or ditching the 25-year-old accord.

 

The hypocrisy is glaring. Where are the targeted sanctions against Israeli officials? Where is the coordinated diplomatic pressure? Apart from some token restrictions, the silence is deafening, and it speaks volumes about the selective application of international law when it conflicts with Western strategic interests.

Even more damning is the systematic targeting of starving Palestinians seeking basic humanitarian aid. According to the UN Human Rights Office, over 410 Palestinians have been killed in recent weeks while attempting to collect food aid, with at least 93 others killed by Israeli forces while approaching UN and humanitarian convoys. 

In a single incident last week, Israeli tanks killed 59 people and wounded 221 others who were desperately seeking food supplies. The UN reports that more than 3,000 Palestinians have been injured in these attacks on aid seekers. Israeli soldiers, who have reportedly been ordered to open fire, have used bullets, tank shells, and drone-mounted weapons against unarmed civilians whose only crime was attempting to feed their families in a deliberately starved territory.


On Friday, the Intercept reported:

Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month

The Israeli military has killed at least 410 people trying to get food at Israeli-run aid sites in Gaza in the past month.

This constitutes “a likely war crime” that violates international standards on aid distribution, according to the United Nations. “Desperate, hungry people in Gaza continue to face the inhumane choice of either starving to death or risk being killed while trying to get food,” the U.N. human rights office said. Palestinian health authorities reported that Israel killed 44 people waiting for aid in separate incidents in southern and central Gaza just on Tuesday this week. Israeli soldiers have reportedly killed aid-seekers with bullets, tank shells, and drone-mounted weapons.

Israeli officers and soldiers said that they were ordered to deliberately fire at unarmed civilians waiting for humanitarian aid in an investigation published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Friday; the military prosecution has called for a review into possible war crimes.

The reluctance to act becomes clearer when examining the financial beneficiaries of this tragedy. The United States remains Israel's largest arms supplier, accounting for 69% of major weapons imports, continuing to benefit from the $6.3 billion NZD annual military aid package. Germany emerges as the second-largest supplier, while Italy ranks third among Israel's top armaments providers. 

The United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Australia also provide critical military components and weapons systems, with EU states collectively authorising almost $12 billion in export licences to Israel between 2014-2022. The Netherlands supplies crucial aircraft components, while Canada authorised $47 million in new military exports even after pledging to halt arms sales. 

This web of complicity creates a perverse incentive structure where prolonged conflicts translate to increased profits across the Western military-industrial complex. These economic entanglements goes some way to explain the tepid responses from many Western politicians about the numerous war crimes Israel is committing. When your domestic industries profit from conflict, genuine peace-making becomes an economic liability rather than a moral imperative.

Perhaps most embarrassing has been NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's recent performance during the latest NATO summit. Rutte's obsequious behaviour, described by observers as "arse-kissing of the highest order", reached new lows when he appeared to defer to Trump's volatile positions on Middle East policy.


On Thursday, RNZ reported:

NATO's Trump flattery buys time but dodges tough questions

Lavishing praise, playing the royal card and copying his slogans - NATO pulled out all the stops to keep Donald Trump happy and hold the alliance together at a summit in The Hague.

The plan came off, although it largely avoided tough topics of vital importance to NATO such as the war in Ukraine, Russia strategy and a likely drawdown of US troops in Europe.

...

Rutte gushed with compliments in a message to Trump, made public by the US president as he flew to The Hague.

"You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done," the former Dutch prime minister said in his message, putting some of his words in capitals like Trump.

"Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win."

Right before the summit, in another sign of chumminess with Trump, Rutte reacted to the US president's comments berating Iran and Israel by saying that "daddy has to sometimes use strong language".

This diplomatic genuflection demonstrates how Western leaders prioritise personal relationships and strategic partnerships over principled stands on human rights. The spectacle of NATO's chief diplomat pandering to a leader known for his erratic foreign policy positions that have cost the world dearly undermines any pretence of principled international leadership. 

When your primary military alliance becomes a vehicle for personal diplomacy rather than collective security based on shared values, the entire framework of institutions such as NATO loses credibility.

Then there's Trump's pre-election promises regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files, which remain conspicuously unfulfilled. His repeated campaign pledges to release these documents have evaporated into silence, raising uncomfortable questions about what compromising material might implicate powerful figures across the Western political establishment. 

With his verified links to Israel's secret service, Mossad, already released document's show Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile network's reach extended deep into political, financial, and intelligence circles, creating webs of potential leverage that transcend national and diplomatic boundaries. 

When leaders find themselves constrained by hidden vulnerabilities, their capacity for principled decision-making becomes severely compromised. This dynamic may help explain why so many Western leaders, including those who campaigned on transparency and moral leadership, have displayed such curious paralysis when confronted with clear moral imperatives like preventing mass civilian casualties and a genocide in Gaza.



This pattern of compromise and control offers another lens through which to examine Western inaction over Gaza. Beyond the obvious financial incentives, arms sales, defence contracts, and strategic partnerships, lies the possibility that key decision-makers are constrained by factors far more personal and damaging than mere economic considerations. When leaders fear exposure of their darkest secrets, principled stands on genocide become secondary to self-preservation. The systematic nature of Western diplomatic failure suggests coordination born not just of shared interests, but potentially shared vulnerabilities.

The convergence of financial profit and personal compromise creates a perfect storm of moral cowardice. Western leaders who should be leading international condemnation of Israel's actions instead find themselves bound by self preservation and bonds of complicity, both economic and personal. 

Until these hidden influences are exposed and confronted, the selective application of international law will continue to make a mockery of Western claims to moral leadership. The Palestinian people deserve better than leaders whose silence may be purchased with both money and blackmail.

Peter Thiel is Building an AI Driven Mass Surveillance State

Make no mistake: the United States is constructing the most comprehensive civilian surveillance apparatus in human history. And they're not even trying to hide it anymore. 

Under the Trump administration's enthusiastic blessing, tech behemoth Palantir Technologies is weaving together the digital breadcrumbs of every American citizen into a single, all-seeing artificial intelligence system that would make Orwell's 1984 look quaint. Big Brother is no longer just watching. He's predicting, profiling, and pre-emptively punishing.

The latest bombshell? Palantir secured more than $113 million in federal contracts since Trump took office, including sweetheart deals that hand over the most intimate details of American lives to Peter Thiel's surveillance empire. We're not talking about collecting metadata here, we're talking about real-time behavioural analysis of every citizen, powered by AI that doesn't just watch but makes judgements about who deserves scrutiny.

 

Yesterday, The Economic Times reported:

Palantir Under Siege: Protesters rage over surveillance, ICE links in NYC office blockade

Palantir Technologies was confronted with furious protests on Thursday, as protesters were angry with the data analytics firm for its contracts with US immigration officials and the Israeli defense forces to reportedly build surveillance systems, as per a report.

Palantir Faces Protests Over ICE and Israeli Military Ties
The protests against Palantir were organised by the campaign group Planet Over Profit, with help from a coalition of local groups including Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), Bay Resistance, and the immigration rights group Mijente, as reported by the Independent.

...

Company’s History
The data analytics company was founded in 2003, backed by arch-conservative Peter Thiel and the CIA, the firm sells data-crunching services to companies, government agencies, intelligence services, and militaries, according to the report.

Palantir had first started working with ICE under former US president Barack Obama's administration, and is now reportedly helping the Trump administration to build a comprehensive surveillance system that gathers data from many government departments, and is allegedly working even with the Israel Defense Forces, as per the Independent report.

The crown jewel of this digital dystopia is Palantir's Gotham software, previously reserved for hunting terrorists abroad but now trained on American citizens at home, particularly noteworthy given the illegal ICE abductions. This AI-powered beast doesn't just collect data, it makes judgements, identifying "anomalies and patterns indicative of illegal activities or security threats." "Anomalies"? What a delightfully vague term for anything the algorithm decides doesn't fit its narrow definition of normal behaviour.

This isn't some far-off sci-fi nightmare. Immigration and Customs Enforcement records show Palantir recently received a $30 million contract to build a platform to track migrant movements in real time. Today it's migrants; tomorrow it's anyone who questions the government's increasingly authoritarian reach. The infrastructure for total surveillance is being built brick by digital brick, and most people are blissfully unaware of the implications.

But here's where it gets truly sinister: Palantir isn't content with just spying on people. They're throwing $100 million at marrying artificial intelligence with nuclear technology through a strategic product partnership with The Nuclear Company to co-develop NOS, the first AI-powered, real-time software system designed specifically for nuclear construction. What could possibly go wrong when you combine mass surveillance capabilities with atomic infrastructure?

The terrifying reality is that this AI-driven surveillance state represents the weaponisation of technology against the very people it's supposed to serve. Palantir, co-founded by Trump ally billionaire Peter Thiel, who was controversially granted New Zealand citizenship under John Key's government, offers data-analyzing software that uses AI to pull information from a multitude of sources and compiles it into charts, tables and heat maps. Your tax records, social security information, immigration status, online activity, all fed into an algorithmic maw that assigns you a threat score without you ever knowing why.

The most chilling aspect isn't just the surveillance...it's the propaganda potential. Once you have this level of granular data about every citizen, targeted disinformation campaigns become trivially easy. Know someone's worried about their job? Feed them anti-immigrant content. Concerned about healthcare costs? Here's some carefully crafted misinformation about government spending. The same AI systems monitoring your behaviour can manipulate it, creating feedback loops of radicalisation and control.

Even some Trump supporters are waking up to the horror they've unleashed. "I voted for Trump but this is just unacceptable," wrote one MAGA supporter, finally recognising that authoritarian tools don't discriminate based on political affiliation once they're built.

What we're witnessing is the methodical construction of a technological police state where artificial intelligence serves as judge, jury, and executioner of social acceptability. The algorithms don't just collect data, they make decisions about who gets flagged, investigated, harassed, or worse. And once this infrastructure is complete, rolling it back will be virtually impossible.


Meanwhile, back home, Newsroom revealed this week:

Big tech wants Luxon to turn NZ into ‘sandbox’

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford changed New Zealand’s ‘golden visa’ settings in April, creating a more streamlined pathway for those with enough cash to be considered an “active investor”.

As of June 23, Stanford said 100 applications had been approved in principle out of 189 in total. Seven had completed the process and invested funds in New Zealand in exchange for a residence visa, bringing a total of $45m into the country.

Some of these applications, as Stanford previously described them, came from the tech moguls behind “very big, well-known companies that you would probably use everyday”.

New Zealand has already accepted several of this cohort as residents or citizens, including Google co-founder Larry Page and Palantir co-founder and Donald Trump ally Peter Thiel.

Alvarez thought the benefits of attracting these sorts of companies outweighed the risks, as long as there were guardrails in place to protect data privacy, indigenous knowledge and health outcomes, among other sensitive areas.

The United States is pioneering a new form of totalitarianism: one where the oppression is algorithmic, the surveillance is total, and the control is absolute. And here's the kicker for Kiwis: Peter Thiel, Palantir's co-founder and Trump's billionaire mate, already holds New Zealand citizenship.

With the Luxon government actively courting overseas tech investors to use New Zealand as a regulatory "sandbox," we're potentially one handshake away from becoming Palantir's (with an office already right in the middle of Wellington City) testing ground for their next-generation of surveillance tools. When Silicon Valley's surveillance kings are literally NZ citizens, the dystopian future isn't across the Pacific, it's already walking through our front door.

New Zealand needs to wake up before we become the guinea pigs in Silicon Valley's next surveillance experiment. Because once you build the digital panopticon, everyone becomes a prisoner, even those who thought they were the guards.

Butter Economics: The Great Kiwi Rip-Off Exposed

The dairy industry's spin machine has been working overtime lately, desperately trying to convince New Zealanders that paying through the nose for butter is somehow good for us.

Media personalities like Ryan Bridge and industry apologists such as Dr Jacqueline Rowarth have been peddling this economic fairy tale with all the enthusiasm of a Fonterra shareholder.

Their argument essentially boils down to this: high butter prices mean more export revenue, which creates jobs and drives economic growth. Bridge claims that because New Zealand exports 441 tonnes of butter compared to Australia's 9.4 tonnes, we're simply "more susceptible to international market prices."

Meanwhile, Rowarth touts the magical multiplier effect, claiming every dairy dollar generates seven times its value in the economy and creates over eight full-time equivalent positions. 

But scratch beneath the surface of these cherry-picked statistics, and you'll find an economic model that's fundamentally broken for ordinary New Zealanders.
 

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Dairy exports vital for NZ economy despite butter price concerns: Dr Jacqueline Rowarth

A considerable amount of time and energy is spent marketing and positioning to achieve the best price possible for the product.

The money keeps people in employment, funds repairs, maintenance and infrastructure development, and also funds research into new products.

The bulk of the export income goes to the dairy farmers so that they, too, can employ people and create vibrant businesses, while also funding farm research through their levy contribution to industry good bodies such as DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb NZ.

The most damning evidence against the "high prices are good" narrative is the stark reality of food insecurity, a travesty in a country that produces enough food to feed 40 million people. 

Research shows that economic changes since the 1980s, combined with global dairy demand, have created an environment where a significant proportion of New Zealanders now experience financial difficulty purchasing basic dairy products like milk. 

When butter prices surge 65.3% in twelve months, jumping from $4.48 to $6.67 for a 500-gram block, we're witnessing the export success model pricing out locals from their own food production.

 

The income streams give everybody more choice, including the Government through tax-take investment.

Every dairy dollar created by New Zealand cows and sold offshore generates over seven times the value in New Zealand and increases employment by over eight Full Time Equivalent positions.

The $27 billion in export dollars is $5400 for every New Zealander, which multiplied by seven is almost $40,000.

The claimed seven-times multiplier effect that Rowarth champions lacks any credible verification and sounds like more trickle down economics rubbish! If dairy's $18.6 billion export value truly generated seven times its worth, it would represent over 35% of New Zealand's GDP. It obviously doesn't. In reality, dairy represents 5.3% of nominal GDP and 23% of total export values, which is somewhat impressive, but hardly the economic miracle being portrayed.

What Bridge and Rowarth conveniently ignore is the regressive nature of high food prices. A 65% butter price increase represents a devastating blow to lower-income households who spend a higher percentage of their income on food. We're essentially witnessing a wealth transfer from consumers, often those who can least afford it, to dairy industry stakeholders and shareholders.


Last month, Newztalk ZB reported:

Ryan Bridge: Why expensive butter prices are actually a good thing

1) We export a hell of a lot more to the world than the Aussies do.

In 2023, they exported 9.4 tonnes. We exported 441 tonnes. They exported 2% of the quantity we did.

That means our price is more susceptible to the international market price. We export most of our butter, we pay the international price.

Australia on the other hand, eats a lot more of its own and exports less.

This is good and bad. It mean we pay the trade price, yes, but it also means when the price is high, as it has been lately, our largest company Fonterra does well. Our farmers do well. They spend money here and drive growth in our economy which we all benefit from.

The environmental costs of this export-obsessed model are equally damning and largely subsidised by the public. Since 1990, nitrogen fertiliser use, often sourced from questionable providers, has increased by 629%, from 62,000 to 452,000 tonnes annually. The result? Two-thirds of monitored rivers and streams now suffer from impaired ecological health. About 85% of waterways in farming catchments are now polluted, with some areas seeing sensitive species disappearing entirely because of pollution from dairy farms.

The true cost of producing a litre of milk can reach up to 11,000 litres of water when accounting for nitrate pollution impacts. Meanwhile, 40% of New Zealanders rely on groundwater for drinking water, with nitrate contamination worsening in many aquifers. These environmental and health costs, from water treatment to ecosystem restoration to cancer treatments (consumption of nitrate in drinking water is associated with several cancers), are borne by New Zealand taxpayers, not the dairy industry.

The employment argument also falls apart under scrutiny when we consider opportunity costs. Could the same land, capital, and labour create more jobs or higher wages in other sectors? The industry presents their employment figures without comparative analysis, ignoring what economists call the "opportunity cost" of resources tied up in dairy production.

How do we stage an intervention? Someone posted today that NZ butter is as low as $3 in some paces in Australia. Can we organise a butter protest? 😅😭 pic.twitter.com/S5ehKVsTrc

— Don't be a dick 🐦 (@fizzanddumpling) April 28, 2025

Perhaps most galling is the disconnect between domestic and export markets. While New Zealand dairy products command premium prices internationally for being "grass-fed" and "sustainable," Kiwi families are forced to pay international prices for locally produced essentials. This suggests fundamental market failure where domestic consumers subsidise export profits.

The reality is that the dairy industry's argument represents a classic case of privatising profits while socialising costs. Export success benefits shareholders and industry stakeholders while ordinary New Zealanders face food insecurity and environmental degradation. A truly beneficial economic model would balance export success with domestic affordability, ensuring New Zealanders aren't priced out of their own country's food production.

Bridge's comparison with Australian gas contracts is particularly revealing, acknowledging that producers often prioritise large international contracts over domestic needs. This isn't a bug in the system; it's a feature. The question is whether New Zealand's economic model should prioritise export revenue over the basic nutritional needs of its own citizens.

The dairy industry's propaganda machine wants us to believe that expensive butter is a sign of economic success. In reality, it's a symptom of an economic model that has lost sight of its primary purpose: serving the people of New Zealand, not just the balance sheets of multinational corporations.

National's Housing Hypocrisy: New Zealand Pays the Price

While Christopher Luxon's National-led government has been busy patting themselves on the back for delivering a whopping 25 state houses in Rotorua that apparently employed 300 people, they've quietly gone and axed another 76 desperately needed state house builds in Porirua East. Because nothing says "caring about ordinary Kiwis" like cancelling homes in one of the country's most housing-stressed areas.

The decision to cancel these developments in Porirua East represents a fundamental failure to understand the housing crisis facing New Zealand. Porirua has consistently recorded some of the highest rates of housing stress in the Wellington region, with families forced into overcrowded conditions or makeshift arrangements. The cancelled developments would have provided essential relief for dozens of families currently on Kāinga Ora's extensive waiting list, families who now face an indefinite wait for secure housing.

Today, The Post reported:

Porirua East social housing developments axed in Kāinga Ora review

More than 70 new planned social houses in Porirua’s eastern suburbs have been cancelled by a Kāinga Ora review, with the local MP calling it the wrong decision.

The 76 homes across three developments are located in Cannons Creek, on Castor Cres, Matahourua Cres, Hazard Gr and Bellona Place. Out of the affected houses, 22 are single-bedroom, 36 are two-bedroom, 13 have three bedrooms, two are four-bedroom houses and three houses have five bedrooms.

What makes this decision particularly galling is the government's simultaneous celebration of a 25-home development in Rotorua. The NZ Herald dutifully reported that these 25 homes employed 300 people during construction – a figure that works out to 12 workers per house. This is either the most labour-intensive construction project in human history, or it's statistical manipulation designed to generate positive headlines for a government desperately trying to appear competent on housing.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

On The Up: 25 new Kāinga Ora homes ready for Rotorua families

The first stage of a Kāinga Ora housing development in Ōwhata is about to see 25 new homes become available for Rotorua people in emergency and transitional housing.

The development is being praised as a success after employing about 300 tradespeople since October 2023 - a majority of them from Rotorua.

...

Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell said there was no doubt there was a significant housing need in Rotorua.

“There’s also a need to prioritise local contractors as much as possible, and it’s great this has been recognised through this housing project.”

She said Penny Homes had an excellent reputation and was local to the region, so it was appreciated that Rotorua trades and suppliers were used.

“We’re seeing a record amount of housing options being consented and built in Rotorua, including retirement villages, iwi housing developments, and rural lifestyle blocks.”

The number of building consents have steadily declined since National came to power, making Tania Tapsell either deluded or an outright liar! Tapsell was in fact a strong supporter of closing down Rotorua's emergency housing, and has now gone into damage control as the numbers of homeless people in her region increases.

NZ building consents for new dwellings have declined by 16.3% annually since the October 2023 general election.

Jobs in the construction sector are also down 5.3% annually since the @NZNationalParty came to power. #nzpol pic.twitter.com/X4kDx6KtB9

— Jackal (@Jackalblog) May 18, 2025

Using the NZ Herald's own inflated employment calculations, the 76 cancelled Porirua homes could have created approximately 840 construction jobs. That's 840 jobs eliminated in the name of fiscal responsibility, alongside the 76 families who will remain homeless. But this government has proven remarkably adept at finding money for corporate tax cuts while claiming poverty when it comes to housing the most vulnerable.

The Porirua cancellation forms part of a much larger pattern of deliberate housing reduction. Kāinga Ora has scrapped 212 projects nationwide, eliminating 3,479 homes that were planned to address New Zealand's housing shortage. Each cancelled home represents a family that will remain in housing stress, a family that this government has chosen to abandon in pursuit of their neoliberal agenda.

Well, we did it. Despite driving tens of thousands of surplus kiwi workers abroad, we've still increased unemployment by more than any other country in the OECD.
If you think unemployment was 'too low' in the 2020 - 2023 period (ghoul), the next graph might work better for you. pic.twitter.com/1LhdQHmDfo

— Musical Chairs (@MusicalChairs14) December 22, 2024

Simultaneously, the government has moved aggressively to reduce emergency housing provisions, effectively creating a pincer movement that traps families between cancelled permanent housing and eliminated temporary accommodation. The result is predictable: families are being pushed directly into homelessness because they cannot afford the high costs associated with private rentals. Housing providers have warned that the governments approach will create a significant increase in rough sleeping and family homelessness, but the government appears unconcerned about these terrible consequences of their uncaring policy decisions.

The economic logic of this approach is fundamentally flawed. Those 76 Porirua homes would have provided permanent housing solutions for decades, eliminating the ongoing costs of temporary accommodation and the social services required to support homeless families. Instead, the government has chosen a path that will generate higher long-term costs while inflicting maximum harm on vulnerable families.

Research from the University of Otago estimated in 2016 that keeping someone homeless costs the government $65,000 annually through mental health services, police costs, and emergency interventions. Adjusting for inflation and current service costs, this figure likely exceeds $85,000 per person today. With over 112,000 people experiencing severe housing deprivation, the government is choosing to perpetuate a system that costs billions annually rather than invest in permanent housing solutions that would cost a fraction of that amount over time.

 

In 2016, The ODT reported:

Homeless 'costing $65,000 each'

Each person living on the street in New Zealand cost the Government around $65,000 a year, an inquiry into homelessness has heard.

Getting them off the streets and into secure housing could cost as little as $15,000, a University of Otago housing research organisation said.

Many mainstream media outlets have failed to cover this housing mismanagement properly. The NZ Herald's breathless reporting on the Rotorua development, complete with uncritical repetition of employment figures and government talking points, demonstrates a failure of basic journalistic scrutiny. Where is the analysis of these employment claims? Where is the context about the thousands of cancelled homes? This isn't journalism; it's stenography for a government that needs to be challenged and held to account.

The cancellation of essential housing while celebrating token developments perfectly captures this government's approach to social policy. They manufacture small victories for media consumption while inflicting massive damage on at risk communities that need support. The 76 families who won't receive homes in Porirua East are not just statistics; they are New Zealanders who deserve better than a government that treats housing as a luxury rather than a fundamental necessity.

 

Last week, RNZ reported:

Kāinga Ora halts hundreds of housing developments, sells vacant land

State housing provider Kāinga Ora is halting hundreds of housing developments which would have delivered nearly 3500 homes, and selling a fifth of its vacant land.

The agency's chief executive Matt Crockett said on Thursday the "critical step" in its reset plan would see it write down up to $220 million.

Housing Minister Chris Bishop ordered Kāinga Ora to deliver a turnaround plan that would ensure financial sustainability.

Christopher Luxon and his incompetent ministers should be required to explain to every family on the social housing waiting list why their housing needs aren't as important as tax breaks for landlords and tax cuts for the wealthy. They should explain why thousands of construction jobs are less valuable than their commitment to austerity for the poor. Most importantly, they should explain why increasing homelessness is an acceptable price for their destructive political agenda that appears to only be concerned with propping up an overheated housing market and making the wealthy even richer.

New Zealand's housing crisis demands serious solutions, not public relations exercises disguised as policy. We deserve better than this calculated abandonment, and New Zealand deserves a government that prioritises housing families over maintaining a system that is continuously increasing inequality.