You Cannot Trust Christopher Luxon

There was a time when New Zealanders could count on two things at election time. A leader’s word about who they would work with, once given, was treated as binding, and a voter who hadn't enrolled could still do so on election day itself.

Christopher Luxon has presided over the loss of both, and the reason isn’t hard to fathom. A rule-out that keeps centre-right voters from straying to Opportunity sends a signal to National’s core constituency not to stray from the fold. Likewise, an enrolment deadline that falls hardest on the young and on Māori, who aren’t National’s base, serves the same purpose.

On 27 July the Prime Minister told reporters that the National Party wouldn't "do business" with anyone seeking to impose new taxes, and his office affirmed that Opportunity was therefore ruled out. Stuff counted nineteen occasions on which he repeated that he would not work with the new kids on the block, nineteen statements that we're all now just meant to forget about as if they never happened.

Then Opportunity won six percent of the provisional party vote, and Luxon was soon refusing to repeat his previous position while professing a newfound wish for a "relationship" with Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong. A rule-out that lasts only until the votes are counted isn't a principle. It's campaign tactics designed to mislead voters.

On Monday 27 July, 1News reported:

 

Luxon appears to rule out National working with Opportunity Party

National Party leader Christopher Luxon appears to have ruled out governing arrangements with the upstart Opportunity Party, saying his party didn't want to "do business" with anyone seeking to impose new taxes.

Opportunity has hovered just below the 5% party vote threshold for entering Parliament in a wide variety of surveys, including last month's 1News Verian poll.

Luxon was asked by media today whether he could coalesce with the party. 

"Well, I'm just saying to you, they want to increase taxes," he responded. "We're a party of low tax. It wouldn't be surprising to any of you to say we don't think we want to do business with them ... we wouldn't be working with them."

 

Much of the coverage of the reversal has been almost as telling as the reversal itself. The Herald described a softening of his stance and an olive branch to a party he had repeatedly criticised.

The Post led with his pledge to cultivate a relationship, and reported that Erica Stanford and Mark Mitchell said he would phone Wong despite his previously documented categorical rule-outs. This is the vocabulary of diplomacy, cushioning what is plainly a retreat of what Luxon emphatically stated.

On Sunday 8 November, the NZ Herald reported:

 

Election 2026: Christopher Luxon softens stance on Opportunity, wants to build relationship with Qiulae Wong

Luxon first ruled out working with Opportunity in July, and has done so countless times during the election campaign. Asked if he was about to go back on that stance, Luxon said it was “highly unlikely”.

“As we currently stand today, we don’t need Opportunity to form a Government,” he told reporters this afternoon.

Luxon’s stance has softened, however, with an olive branch extended to the party he’s repeatedly criticised.

The habit began in July, when 1News (the main promoter of Gareth Morgan's Opportunity Party) headlined the rule-out as something Luxon "appears" to have done, even after his office again confirmed it was formal. Plainer words such as reversal, backflip or even lie would have served readers better.

To be fair, not every outlet was so accommodating: Stuff's live coverage noted that Luxon repeatedly avoided directly answering questions about the Opportunity Party.

Nor is this an isolated lapse. In the 14 October leaders' debate, Luxon was asked whether he had ever lied to the public, and said no. Unfortunately for the PM, Newsroom's fact-check laughably found his claim to be false. Researcher John Wilcox went further, checking Luxon's statements against Stats NZ data, Treasury forecasts and Auditor-General findings, including his declaration of a united caucus on the day a leadership challenge emerged. Clearly Mr Luxon has a problem with telling the truth.

Then there's the Mowbray affair. Harry Mowbray's Split Your Vote campaign encouraged National supporters to give their party vote to ACT or New Zealand First. And now we have some commentators even trying to convince the public that the vote splitting campaign didn't cost anything and wasn't very effective anyway, despite the obvious additional seats the coalition of chaos won, with Parliament even needing alterations to accommodate. 

The Mowbrays, the wealthiest family in New Zealand, have been significant National Party donors and we already know that ACT and NZ First approved the strategy, also promoting it with advertising. Although there isn't currently any evidence showing that Chris Luxon also supported it, the National Party have clearly been the main benefactors.

On Friday 30 October, 1News reported:

 

ACT, NZ First approved split-vote campaign – National lodges complaint

Businessman Harry Mowbray’s Split Your Vote campaign encouraged voters to give their electorate vote to National and their party vote to ACT or New Zealand First.

In a statement to 1News, a National Party spokesperson said the Split Your Vote campaign was a “deliberate attempt” to confuse voters in an already tight election.

“This particular campaign did not comply with the election rules everyone has to operate under. We referred it to the Electoral Commission, but we doubt we were the only ones,” the spokesperson said.

It now appears that National has won a whopping 42 electorates on only 29 percent of the party vote and gained seven overhang MPs. If they wanted to divert attention away from their own involvement in the vote splitting campaign, making a complaint to the Electoral Commission, when they knew others would do the same, would be a good diversionary tactic.

Then there's the enrolment changes, which perhaps deserve the sharpest scrutiny. The controversial Electoral Amendment Act closed enrolment 13 days before election day, ended same-day enrolment and extended the prisoner voting ban.

 

On Wednesday 4 November, Te Ao Māori News reported:

 

Voters miss out due to barriers 

Community leaders cite new rules, online hurdles and confusion as Māori and Pasifika miss the ballot

Eligible voters are missing out on casting their vote, according to community members who spent time in their neighbourhood door-knocking before the new enrolment deadline.

Ethan Bidois (Ngāti Ranginui), a Glen Innes community member, says confusing enrolment rules, new laws and online hurdles have been a barrier to Māori and Pasifika in the area.

“Particularly if they’re kaumātua, they won’t understand sometimes how to enrol. Particularly online, we’ve come across people who just don’t understand the systems,” says Bidois.

 

At the end of October, 307,991 eligible voters weren't enrolled. Many voters who missed the 25 October deadline were turned away at the booth, and the number of people turned away because their enrolment was incorrect or late won’t be reported with the final result, a travesty that makes it look like a coverup. Others were allowed to vote, but their votes won’t count. Staff were reportedly advised to issue special votes to unenrolled people who were persistent, angry or demanding to vote, and the Electoral Commission has said a vote from someone who isn’t enrolled will be disallowed, or in other words thrown in the bin. The Commission expects about 55,000 disallowed special votes, more than five times as many as in 2023.

There were also reports of Māori voters walking away after voting places ran out of Māori electorate papers. Te Pāti Māori said it had received copies of formal complaints from Ōtaki, Porirua and New Plymouth. The Electoral Commission said it wasn’t aware of any voting places running out, although it acknowledged errors at booths where Māori voters were incorrectly told they needed an EasyVote card.

Previously the Commission had forecast about 700,000 special votes, but its preliminary estimate is now about 400,000, and the total may still change. The government said the law change would cut special votes, so a fall was always expected, but such a large number of Kiwis being disenfranchised raises the question of how many people never reached the ballot box, how many eligible New Zealanders were incorrectly turned away, and just how undermined our democracy has become because of these changes?

Turnout was 74.6 percent, against 78.2 percent in 2023, on track to be the second lowest in New Zealand history. Hipkins puts those shut out at about a quarter of a million, and Chlöe Swarbrick, after bearing the brunt of the National Party's negative campaign, has accused Luxon of lying about the enrolment changes.

 

On Monday 9 November 2026, RNZ reported:

Swarbrick accuses Luxon of 'voter suppression' and lying about enrolment change

Swarbrick told Campbell this year's election "left a sour taste in a few people's mouths".

"It was a deeply cynical election ... we saw the government knowingly indulge in voter suppression," she said.

"Anybody, hopefully even those on the far right of politics, can understand just how slippery a slope it is if we start to justify taking away people's ability to easily and accessibly engage in our democracy."

You can really see why the right wing are moving to financially cripple that news outlet, making good on the threats from Winston Peters after he received some unflattering reporting from them.

The government says the changes cut special votes and speed up the count, but this is clearly untrue. Whether they shifted the result is yet to be proven, and final figures aren't yet in. But the burden of proof lies with the government that made voting harder to show that their changes were actually justified or simply implemented to try and ensure their victory.

A rule-out no longer repeated within hours, a debate denial that clearly doesn’t survive scrutiny, and an electoral system that critics say is tilted against the least advantaged. Mr Luxon asks to be trusted, and the record gives New Zealanders every reason not to.

Remembering Chris Bishop

Chris Bishop has been beaten in his own backyard. On the preliminary count, Labour's Ginny Andersen leads Hutt South by 889 votes, and with National winning no list seats, there's no lifeboat. He called the result "soul-destroying". Special votes remain and the official result is due on 27 November, but the verdict on a minister who confused speed with competence is already in.

Start with housing, where the damage is worst. Bishop declared emergency housing "one of the biggest public policy failures in New Zealand history", then dismantled the safety net before anything adequate replaced it.

Under his direction, Kāinga Ora scrapped 212 projects that would have delivered 3,479 homes, 1,527 of them in Auckland. It's selling a fifth of its vacant land, wrote off as much as $180 million spent on projects that won't go ahead, and cut 620 positions. Bishop's own answers to Parliament showed state housing stock was forecast to fall.

On 19 June 2025, RNZ reported:
 

Kāinga Ora halts hundreds of housing developments, sells vacant land 

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

The agency's plan will see it refocus as a landlord, rather than a developer, and the number of houses it owned would stabilise from 2026.

Crockett said Kāinga Ora reviewed more than 460 social housing projects to ensure it was getting the best value for money and supplying houses in the areas of greatest need.

It was decided 212 projects that would have delivered 3479 homes would not proceed because they did not stack up financially, or were in the wrong locations.

It would press on with 254 projects, building more than 1800 new homes.

Kāinga Ora would also sell about a fifth - 36 hectares - of vacant land because it was no longer needed.

The consequences of this and the governments gutting of emergency housing weren't hard to foresee. Homelessness in Auckland more than doubled. Asked about it in March 2025, Bishop told Q&A "There is basically no agreed definition of what homelessness is", a remarkable thing for a housing minister to say. This year, all but one of 19 housing and homelessness organisations surveyed said homelessness had increased.

There should be no argument... housing works. Yet officials concede they can't guarantee shelter for anyone on a given night, and the latest Budget offers just 2,250 extra social houses over three years, and not until 2028.

Then came the doorstop Bills meant to replace the RMA. The Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill passed their final reading on 22 September, with Bishop promising "freedom." The lawyers heard something else. The Law Society warned that the Treaty provisions would bring considerable legal uncertainty and likely years of litigation, while the free-market NZ Initiative noted that undefined terms leave their boundaries to be settled by the courts.

Bishop described his purpose as having "reduced the ability for people to inject themselves into your business". But that's clearly a grievance, not a planning philosophy. The RMA has generated case law for 35 years and it's still being written. A statute built on fresh, undefined terms invites the same, and decades of litigation is a reasonable forecast.

Local government reform is a mess. Bishop unveiled the biggest shake-up since 1989, replacing elected regional councillors with boards of mayors, then scrapped the idea after strong opposition, breezily calling it a “starter for 10”. Councils were then given three months to submit reorganisation proposals or have reform imposed. Eighteen groups did, at a cost of millions, and in September Bishop and Watts shelved the lot until 2027 because none had the unanimous support of its region.

The Environmental Defence Society warned that overhauling regional governance while replacing the RMA creates confusion about who does what. They're not wrong.

Water is the other half of the council mess. More than 30,000 Wellington, Hutt and Porirua customers haven’t paid their first bill from the new water agency Tiaki Wai, leaving about $21 million unpaid. Bills are up 13.3 per cent to an average of $2,390, and the Commerce Commission chair says the agency’s costs far exceed what it collects. Nationally, council water plans will cost nearly $9 billion more than councils first estimated. With this in mind, Bishop winning any votes is a miracle and testament to the mainstream media's biased reporting.

Fast-track fares no better. Ministers originally held the final say until public outcry forced in expert panels, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment called the law "one of the most complex and convoluted pieces of legislation I have ever seen".

On 14 September 2026, RNZ reported:

Fast track housing projects already putting enormous strain on infrastructure: LGNZ

The mayors of Auckland and Queenstown have already called for an immediate pause on fast-tracked housing developments.

Local Government NZ vice president Dan Gordon said it had developed a four-point plan which will ensure people are confident in the system.

"Number one is looking at development contributions, so it covers projects that have already been applied for under Fast Track. Two is requiring the cumulative effects of multiple projects to be considered. Thirdly is a pause on ministerial referrals, and four is to commission a longer-term review to make sure that fast track is right under the new planning system," Gordon said.

"Some fast track housing projects are already placing enormous strain on existing infrastructure, rather than directing growth to areas that are already ready for it, particularly in rural areas. Fast track housing applications shouldn't be able to bypass council decisions in areas where we already are planning significant housing growth, and certainly not if the council has declined their application multiple times and with good reason."

He said a number of councils had been in touch with LGNZ to express their concerns about the fast track process.

Now the Auckland and Queenstown mayors want fast-tracked greenfield housing paused. Wayne Brown called the Delmore approval "amateur, pathetic and stupid", and Auckland analysis warns that ratepayers could subsidise infrastructure by as much as $1.5 billion. Bishop dismissed Local Government New Zealand's concerns as running ahead of the facts, yet he was already rushing a law change through Parliament to answer them.

Even granny flats have disappointed. The coalition agreement promised them, yet consent-free building began only in January 2026. The advertised saving of up to $5,650 is dwarfed by the development contributions of $17,000 to $30,000 that councils such as Hastings still charge. The Government's evidence of success was more than 52,000 downloads of a guidance document, not homes.

Then there's tobacco. Bishop worked for Philip Morris New Zealand from 2011 to 2013, lobbying against higher excise and plain packaging. He has said he has no “moral issue with tobacco, it’s a legal product”.

The coalition he served in repealed, under urgency, the law that would have banned sales to anyone born after 1 January 2009, cut retailers from 6,000 to 600 and removed 95 per cent of the nicotine from cigarettes. At the same time it halved the excise on heated tobacco products, a market dominated by Philip Morris, and set aside $216 million (later forecasts closer to $300 million) to cover the lost revenue. The one-year tax break was later extended to 2027. Officials confirmed Philip Morris, as the monopoly supplier, would be the main beneficiary.

The results are a stall in progress and a booming black market. Official daily smoking has sat at 6.8 per cent for three years, the Smokefree 2025 goal was missed, and Māori (15.0 per cent) and Pacific (10.3 per cent) rates remain far higher. Meanwhile the illicit share of the market has surged to around one-third, costing the Crown hundreds of millions more.

A former Philip Morris lobbyist sat in a Cabinet that dismantled the strongest anti-smoking laws in the country’s history and handed a multi-year tax break to his mates.

Ministers are meant to deliver outcomes, not press releases and worse results. Bishop delivered cancelled homes, rising homelessness, increased illicit smoking rates, contested law and a retreat on local government.

Even Luxon removed him as campaign chair in April, and on election night the PM noticeably thanked every other senior National figure who appeared to have lost their seat, and pointedly left Bishop’s name out, later saying the insurmountable margin could still fall in Bishop's favour. Whatever the special votes do for the seat, Hutt South has made its judgement, and the record clearly supports it.

Louise Upston Must Go

There comes a point where an apology stops meaning anything. Louise Upston has now offered several, each one arriving only after the scale of the damage her administration has caused becomes too large to spin away, each one a little more contrite than the last, and each one changing precisely nothing for the elderly New Zealanders who spent winter shivering in houses they could no longer afford to heat.

Today's Ministry of Social Development review confirms what should have been obvious from the moment this scandal broke: this wasn't bad luck. It was negligence, compounded by delay, compounded by misinformation, compounded again by a Minister who initially refused to say sorry at all.

The numbers, once you sit with them, are staggering. More than 16,270 superannuitants and veterans had their Winter Energy Payment wrongly stripped away: over a thousand more than had previously been admitted to. A further 14,450 beneficiaries, including 2,460 on a main benefit, were caught in a separate processing backlog.

Yesterday, 1News reported:

Minister's job 'untenable' after review of MSD payment errors – Greens

The number of superannuitants and veterans wrongly stripped of their Winter Energy Payments as a result of a bungled law change has climbed to more than 16,000, a Social Development Ministry review has found.

Released today, the review looked at why thousands of payments were wrongly cut off during the rollout of new checks to verify clients were being paid the right amount earlier this year.

It also reveals issues were raised as early as April but only seriously addressed in August.

These aren't really errors. They are the result of the National Party government demanding budget cuts from MSD. These aren't mere abstractions either. They are elderly people, some with health conditions, deciding whether to keep the heater on or keep food on the table.

MSD's own chief executive has conceded that a suspended payment can mean real anxiety and real hardship. Some of those affected will have taken on debt, missed payments, or worn the interest and penalties that come with it. Some may have even gone without heating, become sick and as a result passed away, simply because a law was rushed and a warning sign was ignored.

And ignored is the right word. Staff flagged the problem on 30 April, within days of the payment period beginning. Senior leadership didn't treat it as a systemic issue until 13 August: more than three months in which individual cases piled up, unconnected, while people went without. That isn't an oversight. That is a failure of leadership.

This isn't an isolated stumble from Upston. Regular readers will recall the Minister's form: when the High Court found MSD had been unlawfully clawing back supplementary assistance from ACC recipients, the response wasn't to fix the practice. It was to retrospectively rewrite the law so the unlawful conduct became lawful after the fact, voiding a win that injured and disabled New Zealanders had earned in court.

It's a pattern with this government generally, and with this Minister specifically: when the system harms vulnerable people, the instinct is to legislate away the accountability rather than fix the harm.

Which brings us to the automated decision-making law, passed under urgency this year with no genuine public consultation, letting MSD hand a growing share of its case processing to automated systems. Ministers insisted this wasn't "generative AI" and that human judgement would remain "where it is needed": reassurances that have aged badly.

On 30 May 2026, RNZ reported:

 

New law allowing automated benefit decisions to modernise welfare system, government says

The government says a new law, which will allow the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to use AI to make benefit decisions, will modernise New Zealand's welfare system.

The Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Bill passed its third reading in Parliament on Friday, rushed through the house under urgency.

The law allows MSD to "approve the use of an automated electronic system by a specified person to make any decision, exercise any power, comply with any obligation, or take any other related action under any specified provision, with appropriate safeguards".

Of course MSD was already using automated systems and AI to make decisions that have negatively affected numerous WINZ clients.

The Green Party's Ricardo Menéndez March has directly linked earlier benefit failures to gaps in this automated system, arguing the government's rush to hand decisions to machines is precisely what leaves vulnerable clients unseen until the damage is already done. When individual client concerns don't get connected into a pattern for months, as MSD has now admitted happened here, you have to ask whether a system built for volume rather than judgement is fit to be making decisions about who eats and who doesn't.

None of this excuses Upston telling elderly beneficiaries, in effect, that she'd already done enough. Nor does it excuse a Minister whose own ministry has now admitted senior leadership sat on a systemic problem for months and did nothing, and who still needed sustained public pressure before even providing a weak and largely worthless apology.

This isn't the first time Louise Upston should have resigned for her failures. Following an earlier, separate benefit-cut error this year, we received the same pathetic excuses and lies. The problem of course is that Upston has the backing of an equally incompetent leader, Chris Luxon.

On 27 August 2026, RNZ reported:

Christopher Luxon, Louise Upston said no benefits were cut after law change - they were wrong

Opposition calls on minister to 'front up'

Menéndez March, the Green Party's social development spokesperson, said the error was unacceptable.

"I think Louise Upston should front up to the public explain exactly how many people were left without their benefits, and if she is unable to do so, then she should resign for her inability to actually ensure that the policies that she is pushing forward would result in accurate assessments, people not being left without their entitlements, and without their ability to put food on the table or cover their rent," he said.

MSD could not say how many people were affected, or for how long, because the information was held in individual client files so it did not have a total picture.

Menéndez March said the problem proved a shortfall of what is known as automated decision making (ADM): using artificial intelligence (but not generative AI) or automated systems to make decisions or carry out tasks.

The Greens are right: her position is untenable. A Minister who oversees the wrongful suspension of tens of thousands of payments to the elderly and vulnerable, who presided over months of unexplained delay, and who has a documented record of choosing to legislate away accountability, has no business remaining in Cabinet.

Louise Upston must resign, and the people her ministry failed deserve far more than another carefully worded statement of regret.

Louise Upston didn't like being called "heartless" for telling cancer patients to find work. She said she'd cut job beneficiaries by 50,000

To date, there are 80,000 MORE. That's 130K from target

Watching her try to blame MSD for laws SHE rushed under urgency is farcical too pic.twitter.com/dxTSN4IZQQ

— Mountain_Tui (@Mountain_Tui) September 10, 2026

Act Party's Dead Cat: Paul Henry as Tim Jago Distraction

There's a particular kind of political theatre that New Zealanders have grown wearily accustomed to over the last few years. It goes something like this: a genuinely damaging story breaks, and within hours, sometimes minutes, a shinier, noisier story is wheeled out to bury it.

This week the Act Party gave us another performance in the genre, the political dead cat, a shocking or attention grabbing announcement thrown onto the table specifically to change the subject from a story the party would rather the public did not discuss.

The term is credited to Australian strategist Lynton Crosby, and it has since become shorthand for exactly this kind of manoeuvre in political commentary from Westminster to Wellington: if you're losing an argument or there are damaging headlines, the trick is to throw a dead cat on the table, because everyone will stop talking about the argument or article and start talking about the dead cat, which in this case is Paul Henry.

On 14 July 2026, the NZ Herald reported:

 

Former Act Party Tim Jago president admits fresh historical sex abuse charge

Former Act Party president Tim Jago has admitted to further sexual offending.

The Herald confirmed today Jago has now pleaded guilty to one charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.

He is due to be sentenced in the Auckland District Court on the historical charge on Thursday.

Readers will recall the disgraced Tim Jago spent nearly four years running Act's organisational machinery before a messy resignation in early 2023. At the time, the Act Party's response to being contacted by a complainant's wife was to provide her with an employment lawyer's contact details instead of directing them to Police.

Jago was subsequently convicted by a jury of indecently assaulting two teenage boys he had mentored through a surf lifesaving club in the 1990s. The fresh charge, relating to offending in 1995, was laid following a new police investigation and comes on top of an already grim record that includes a failed appeal and a third complainant who has separately come forward.

On the same morning, RNZ reported:

 

Paul Henry to stand for ACT in this year's election

Speaking later on RNZ's Midday Report, Henry said he imagined he would receive a high list ranking, but was waiting on a decision from the board.

"You'd have to be a fool not to put me right up the top," he quipped.

But asked directly whether he had any leadership aspirations, Henry said he was "absolutely not interested" and had no such discussions with Seymour about his future.

What has had far less attention is how that announcement came together, and how quickly Henry's position on a Crown entity board was unwound to make it possible.

Henry had been sitting on TVNZ's board since June 2025, appointed by then Media Minister Paul Goldsmith. TVNZ is a wholly Crown owned company, and its directors are bound by the standard obligations that apply to Crown entity board members: to identify and disclose interests, to discuss any significant political activity with the chair in advance, and to avoid conflicts of interest, including those arising from political ambition.

Public Service Commission guidance is explicit that board members standing for election should notify their agency early and agree on a management plan, precisely so a transition like this doesn't happen in the space of a single morning.

That isn't what happened here. According to the Herald's Media Insider reporting, Goldsmith said:

"I was told by Mr Seymour just before the announcement"

The TVNZ board chair confirmed he received Henry's resignation at around the same time. In other words, the minister responsible for TVNZ, and the chair of its board, appear to have learned that a sitting director was quitting to stand for a political party only in the hours before it became public.

Henry himself has said he had been discussing the position with Seymour for about a week beforehand. If that timeline is accurate, there was ample opportunity to notify TVNZ's chair and manage the conflict properly, well before a director appointed by the Crown quietly walked out the door on the morning he needed to be standing on a hotel rooftop to help distract from another Act Party damaging headline.

This matters because the whole point of the disclosure and management framework is to stop exactly this kind of last minute scramble, where a Crown entity is presented with a resignation as a fait accompli rather than a managed handover.

The sequence as reported, a week of private conversations with Seymour, followed by a same day resignation announced to the minister moments before a press conference, sits uneasily with the spirit of a framework built on early disclosure and orderly transition.

It also conveniently ensured maximum media impact for Act's candidate announcement, with no advance warning for TVNZ to manage its own position.

None of this erases what Tim Jago did, nor should it. Survivors do not get the luxury of having what happened to them buried beneath a celebrity photo opportunity.

But the Henry resignation raises a separate and legitimate question of governance: did a Crown broadcaster's board get treated as a formality to be dispensed with once its usefulness had passed, and should David Seymour and Paul Henry both be asked, directly, when the chair and minister were actually first told.

It is a fair question for a governing arrangement already labelled by critics as a Coalition of Chaos, one whose junior partner now appears unable to even manage a single board resignation without leaving a Crown entity blindsided on the morning of yet another dead cat press conference.

Police Find No Systemic Issues – Again

There is a particular genre of statement that New Zealanders have become wearily familiar with over the past year, in which an institution facing serious allegations undertakes an internal review of itself and emerges, remarkably, unscathed.

This week it was again Police's turn, with Assistant Commissioner Tusha Penny informing the public that "an internal assurance audit of all districts and service centres confirmed for Police that there were not wider systemic issues."

The facts, as they stand, are these... A senior officer's handling of adult sexual assault and child protection cases across multiple postings, over a three year period beginning in May 2023, has triggered a rapid review of roughly a thousand files. Fifty four of those cases have now been reassigned for re-investigation.

The officer is, we are told, subject to an "employment process", a phrase doing a great deal of work to avoid the word "stood down".

Today, RNZ reported:

 

More than 50 child protection complaints and adult sexual assault cases have been re-opened amid concerns about a senior officer.

The re-investigations follow a "rapid review" of 1000 files that were under the oversight of the officer while working in different locations over a three-year period from May 2023.

The officer is now subject to an employment process, with police describing the revelations as "extremely concerning".

The Chief Victim's Advisor, who has been briefed on the matter, said the alleged actions of the officer are "absolutely horrific".

In a statement sent to RNZ, Assistant Commissioner District Support Tusha Penny said concerns were raised in May 2026 about the management of one historical case.

"That initial case sparked a further review where another 13 cases were identified as requiring re-investigation. 

...

Penny said the operation had pulled together a team of specialist child protection and adult sexual assault investigators to work on the re-opened cases.

"An internal assurance audit of all districts and service centres confirmed for Police that there were not wider systemic issues. 

  

An audit that finds no wider systemic issues is only as good as those who are tasked to conduct it and what it actually examined, and on both counts Police have told the public remarkably little. We do not know how the audit defined "systemic", or whether anyone outside the organisation had sight of its methodology before Assistant Commissioner Penny delivered her categorical verdict.

What we do know is that this reassurance arrives while a second integrity scandal over staff misuse of devices is still working through the courts, and while a sitting Commissioner faces his own complaints to the IPCA. If three concurrent conduct scandals across different parts of the same organisation do not meet the bar for "wider systemic issues", it is worth asking what would? 

On 23 February 2026, Stuff reported:

Three police staff leave jobs, 10 still under investigation amid audit of devices

Three police staff have left their jobs amid a “rapid review” of security on police devices in the wake of the McSkimming scandal.

Stuff reported in November that 20 police staff were under investigation following the auditing of police devices for misuse and inappropriate content, and that six had been stood down.

On Monday, Deputy Commissioner Jill Rogers said ten staff - including five who had been stood down - remained under investigation.

“In total, police have investigated 18 cases. Several more were initially identified but later excluded when the searches in questions were found to be work-related,” she said.  

 

The device review has also entangled Mitchell in a credibility dispute of his own, and not a flattering one.

 In December 2025, RNZ reported:

 

'Total nonsense': Police Minister hits back at former commissioner's claims he knew about McSkimming allegations

Police Minister Mark Mitchell says the former Police Commissioner's claims he knew about allegations being made about Jevon McSkimming "absolute total nonsense".

Mitchell said he was first informed of concerns regarding former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming on November 6, 2024.

Last month Mitchell said 36 emails containing allegations about McSkimming were sent to his office but he never saw them.

 

Whatever the truth of who knew what and when, the review those allegations set in motion has itself proven difficult to pin down. 

On June 11, 1 News reported: 

 

Three police officers face objectionable material charges  

Three police officers are facing multiple charges of possessing objectionable material.

The charges come after police launched a rapid review of information security controls, triggered by the scandal surrounding the former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming.

This morning, Deputy Commissioner Tim Anderson said two Auckland-based constabulary staff would appear in the Manukau District Court "over the coming days".

Each is charged with "multiple counts" of possessing an objectionable publication. 

 

That review has, at various points, produced twenty staff under investigation, six stood down, five stood down, three stood down and charged, and four resignations, depending on which month's press release one happens to be reading.

Layer on top of that a sitting Police Commissioner, who is himself the subject of two separate integrity complaints referred to the IPCA, and the picture that emerges isn't one of an isolated lapse. It is a pattern, and a fairly damning one.

On 25 June, RNZ reported:

Police Commissioner Richard Chambers under investigation after complaints

An investigation is under way in relation to complaints about Police Commissioner Richard Chambers, RNZ can reveal.

Chambers says he strongly rejects the claims, which RNZ understands relate to alleged conduct towards women. RNZ understands the allegations have not been substantiated at this time.

RNZ approached Police and the Minister of Police Mark Mitchell's office last week after learning concerns had been raised about Chambers.

On Thursday, Deputy Commissioner Mike Pannett told RNZ complaints relating to Chambers were being investigated by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) and police.

"These are being managed in accordance with proper processes including oversight by the IPCA. There is no further comment at this stage."

RNZ understands that as part of the investigation staff from the National Integrity Unit visited one of the complainants in Australia. This allegation is believed to be historical. 

 

Mark Mitchell's contribution to the matter of the reopened sexual assault and child protection files sadly follows an all too regular pattern: an admission that he hadn't received a briefing at the time he was first asked to comment, before pivoting swiftly to praising Police in general for "outstanding work" done by officers who "invest a lot of themselves" in difficult cases.

Most police officers no doubt do good and difficult work every day. But it's a curious rhetorical move for a Minister to make when the matter at hand is a colleague's alleged failure over three years to do that work properly, at the expense of victims of sexual assault and child abuse.

Mitchell went on to say he was "pleased to see" Police had been proactive in auditing files once the issue was raised, a line that treats a response to public exposure as though it were a display of institutional virtue rather than the bare minimum expected of an organisation entrusted with prosecuting crimes against children.

What Mitchell did not offer was any indication that he intends to ask harder questions about how a single officer's oversight of a thousand files across several locations went unexamined for three years, nor any acknowledgement that this failure sits alongside at least two other live integrity scandals within the same organisation he is responsible for.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. After all, the Police have a track record here that simply cannot be ignored. One cannot talk about such things without highlighting the historical sexual misconduct allegations dating from the 1980s, which were made against serving and former police officers, culminating in charges against assistant commissioner Clinton Rickards and former officers Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum over the rape and sexual abuse of Louise Nicholas, with both men acquitted after claiming the sex was consensual. The trial jury was never told that Shipton and Schollum had already been convicted of an earlier pack rape and were serving prison sentences for it.

This is not offered as equivalence. It is offered as context. It is yet another example of the lengths the Police go to to cover up for their own, and the extent of offending required for there to be any accountability. An institution with this particular history of serious misconduct, followed by reassurance, followed by further misconduct, has rather less credibility in hand than Assistant Commissioner Penny's might assume.

Reassurance for victims is welcome, and necessary. It isn't, however, a substitute for scrutiny, and a Minister whose default setting is to always commend the very institution under investigation isn't discharging his oversight function so much as outsourcing it entirely.

The Prime Minister's own office has not been immune to this pattern of serious allegations meeting a surprisingly high bar for action. Michael Forbes, at the time Luxon's acting deputy chief press secretary and previously a press secretary for Social Development Minister Louise Upston, resigned in June 2025 after it emerged he had been the subject of a police complaint over allegations he recorded audio of sex workers without their consent and kept intrusive images and video of other women in private areas.

Police investigated these clear breaches of the law in 2024 and incorrectly decided the matter did not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution. Apparently the offending was never raised by senior Police with his employer under the "no surprises" convention that exists precisely to prevent this sort of political scandal, and Luxon says he only learned of it when a media outlet contacted his office directly.

Whatever the merits of the Prime Minister's claims and that particular charging decision, it sits alongside everything above as one more instance of a prosecutorial threshold that seems to shift depending on the accused persons political connections, from an institution that keeps asking the public for trust it has repeatedly shown it hasn't earned.

Police may well be correct that no single, isolated systemic defect explains all of this. But numerous concurrent scandals, a Commissioner facing his own complaints, and a Minister reaching first for praise rather than questions and accountability, do not describe an organisation in good order. They describe one that keeps discovering, to its own evident surprise, that their swamp needs to be drained again.

Luxon's Homelessness Story Falls Apart in 48 Hours

Christopher Luxon has spent the better part of this week proving, in the most unflattering way imaginable, that neither he nor the people paid to advise him can be trusted to get a basic fact straight for longer than forty eight hours.

On Monday, fronting the post-Cabinet press conference, the Prime Minister admitted he did not know that Auckland has no night shelters for people sleeping rough. This is a man who has now run the country for the best part of three years, who apparently could not tell you the most rudimentary fact about the largest city in the country he leads.

This lack of knowledge, despite Auckland City Missioner Helen Robinson, a woman with over a decade of frontline experience, telling anyone who would listen that she has never seen homelessness in New Zealand at this scale in her career. Demand at the mission is constantly at capacity, with people now sleeping in the mission's laneway because it is unsafe to sleep elsewhere at night, and Luxon seemed entirely untroubled by any of it as he pivoted straight back to defending his government's spending record.

On 2 July, RNZ reported:

 

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon admits he didn't know there was no night shelter for rough sleepers in Auckland

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has admitted he did not know there was no night shelter in Auckland for people sleeping rough.

His weekly post-cabinet media conference followed revelations Ministry of Social Development staff have performance targets to reduce emergency housing numbers.

This is the pattern with this floundering Prime Minister and it ought to embarrass everyone around him. Confronted with a real and worsening crisis on the streets, his instinct was not to address the failures of his own administration, but to immediately reach for a rehearsed comparison to the previous government and a set of statistics chosen to somehow try and make him look competent.
 

On 1 July, 1News reported:

 

Does NZ have night shelters? PM stands by remark

The Prime Minister is standing by a statement that New Zealand has no night shelters, after Labour used the remark to accuse him of being out of touch with the reality facing homeless New Zealanders.

Luxon was today pressed by the Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick over suggestions of rising homelessness and rough sleeping.

We don't have night shelters in New Zealand, Luxon told the House. We don't think the evidence works where someone shows up for one day and moves on.

That a Prime Minister could go from confessing he did not know a fact about his own largest city to confidently asserting a sweeping, false claim about the entire nation within two days is not a forgivable slip.

Consider what each explanation actually requires you to believe. If it was carelessness, then the leader of this country walked into the House of Representatives and made a nationwide claim about homelessness policy without anyone in his office checking whether it was true, on a subject his government had already been repeatedly embarrassed over. That is not a minor oversight.

That is a Prime Minister and an entire staff of press secretaries, policy advisors and communications staff failing to do the most basic due diligence on a topic they knew was under active scrutiny.

If, on the other hand, it was deliberate, then the explanation is worse, not better. It would mean Luxon and his office made a conscious decision that the way to handle an admission of ignorance was not to own it, but to bury it under a bolder and more sweeping claim that sounded like settled policy rather than an accident. That is not damage control, it is a Prime Minister choosing to mislead the public rather than admit he had not done his homework, gambling that a confident assertion in the House would carry more weight than the truth.

Either explanation leaves Luxon exposed. Carelessness of this scale in a Prime Minister is a governance failure. Deliberate misdirection is a integrity failure. There is no third option available to him here where this sequence of events reflects well on his competence or his honesty, and that is precisely why the contradiction has stuck and continues to draw headlines.

After admitting his ignorance on the Monday, Luxon returned to Parliament the following day and flatly told the House there were no night shelters anywhere in the country, a claim so overreaching his own office was later forced to walk it back into something narrower and more defensible.

On 1 July, the Labour Party website posted:

Luxon doesn't know the facts about homeless

Christopher Luxon's comments about night shelters show a Prime Minister who is completely out of touch with the reality facing homeless New Zealanders.

On Monday, Christopher Luxon didn't know Auckland had no night shelter. Today, he stood in Parliament and falsely claimed there are no night shelters anywhere in New Zealand, Labour Housing spokesperson Kieran McAnulty said.

That is still a generous reading of what happened this week, and even that generous reading is brutal. The less generous reading is that somewhere in the Beehive, an advisor looked at a Prime Minister who had just publicly admitted ignorance and decided the smart move was to arm him with an even bolder, even less accurate claim to recite in the House the very next day.

It appears that Luxon is surrounded by people either too incompetent to check a basic fact before putting it in his mouth, or too cynical to care whether it was true.

Either way, the 2400 families Luxon says have been moved out of motels deserve real suspicion rather than applause. That figure comes from a system where MSD staff are effectively rewarded for turning people away, which means the Prime Minister is standing in Parliament claiming credit for a success rate built, at least in part, on rationing help rather than genuinely reducing need.

None of this required a conspiracy to expose. It only required a Prime Minister and his office who could describe the facts on the ground accurately across a single week, about as low a bar as any competent government could be asked to clear.

That this administration couldn't manage it, while people are sleeping in cars and on park benches because there is nowhere else for them to go, tells New Zealanders exactly where homelessness sits on this government's list of priorities.