The Jackal: 2025


3 Jul 2025

Bob Vylan Censored While Gaza Genocide Ignored

The recent blacklisting of British punk-rap group Bob Vylan, following their provocative chant of “death, death to the IDF” at Glastonbury 2025, exposes a chilling double standard in Western governance.

The swift and heavy-handed response, launching a criminal investigation, revoking the band’s visas, cancelling future concerts, and seeing them dropped by their agency, stands in stark contrast to western government's silence on Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza. 

This is not merely an attack on free speech; it's a grotesque display of selective outrage, where dissent against a genocidal military machine is punished while mass starvation and slaughter is ignored.


Yesterday, The Irish News reported:

Police investigate Bob Vylan over ‘death to IDF’ call at gig before Glastonbury

Punk duo Bob Vylan are being investigated by police after allegedly calling for “death to every single IDF soldier out there” at a concert one month before Glastonbury.

The pair are already being investigated by Avon and Somerset Police over their appearance at Worthy Farm when rapper Bobby Vylan led crowds in chants of “death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)” during their livestreamed performance at the Somerset music festival last weekend.

In video footage, Bobby Vylan, whose real name is reportedly Pascal Robinson-Foster, 34, appears to be at Alexandra Palace telling crowds: “Death to every single IDF soldier out there as an agent of terror for Israel. Death to the IDF.”


Bob Vylan’s chant, raw and unfiltered, was a cry against the Israel Defense Forces’ documented brutality, which has seen over 56,000 Palestinians killed since October 2023, many of them women and children. The United Nations has described Israel’s actions as consistent with genocide, yet Western governments continue to arm and defend Israel while condemning artists who dare speak truth to power. 

Bobby Vylan’s words, far from inciting violence, we're a justified response to a military force that has shot unarmed Palestinians seeking food aid, with soldiers admitting to using “unnecessary lethal force” against civilians. This is the real scandal, not a musician’s chant, but the West’s complicity in a humanitarian catastrophe.

In New Zealand, the hypocrisy is equally glaring. Free speech advocates like David Seymour, who once championed unfettered expression, have been conspicuously silent or contradictory when it comes to Bob Vylan’s case. Seymour’s libertarian rhetoric falters when the speech challenges Israel, revealing a selective commitment to free expression that bends to geopolitical convenience. 

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Winston Peters has sat on his hands over what is clearly a terrorist group, the IDF, as New Zealand quietly removed the Proud Boys from its terrorist list, despite their history of violent assaults, including the January 6 Capitol riot in the US, which caused the deaths of nine people, including police officers.


Today, RNZ reported:

It's no longer illegal to be a proudly violent Proud Boy

Then, in 2022, the New Zealand government took a bold stance, listing the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity, a move that made global headlines and was praised by anti-extremism campaigners.

"It was big news... and what it would mean in practice was that anyone who supported or funded or participated in Proud Boys actions here was committing a criminal act, imprisonable by up to seven years, so it was a big deal," Penfold says.

But then last month, without any fanfare, the group slipped off the list of designated terrorist entities.

The only statement on the move was released on the website of the New Zealand Gazette - the newspaper of the government. Penfold describes it as bland and brief.

"The designation had been made under the Terrorism Suppression Act... and every three years that designation will expire unless the prime minister seeks to extend it."

When asked why he didn't extend it, a response to Penfold from the prime minister's office "didn't specifically answer that", but she was told "the Proud Boys remain on the radar... and if any new information comes to hand, they will consider it."

"Those who monitor terrorist organisations and far-right extremist groups... are really concerned at this step that the designation has been allowed to lapse", Penfold says.

So as New Zealand grapples with the rise of conspiracy-fuelled protests and declining trust in democratic institutions, the Proud Boys' shadow, although faint, may still be felt.

 

The government should not be ignoring the Proud Boys' role in spreading white supremacist propaganda, propaganda that has lead directly to people dying. This leniency towards far-right extremists, who've incited and committed real violence, contrasts sharply with the heavy-handed crackdowns on pro-Palestinian voices.

Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch mosque shooter, was radicalised on websites like 4chan and 8chan, where white supremacist narratives, including the "Great Replacement" conspiracy, festered in unmoderated forums. These same platforms, known for their extremist subcultures, were also used by the Proud Boys to propagate their "Western chauvinist" ideology, share memes, and recruit members, creating an overlapping digital ecosystem of hate.

Other white supremacist figures linked to the Proud Boys and similar online spaces include Dylann Roof, who massacred nine Black worshippers in Charleston in 2015 and was active on sites like Stormfront...and Patrick Crusius, the 2019 El Paso shooter, who posted a manifesto on 8chan echoing the same anti-immigrant rhetoric embraced by Proud Boys, which is earily similar to the rhetoric used by Donald Trump to justify the illegal ICE abductions. The shared use of these platforms underscores a broader network of far-right radicalisation fuelling violent acts.


On Tuesday, the NZ Herald reported:

Christchurch mosque attacks: Podcast questions lone wolf theory

Tarrant was asked to join the Lads Society, an Australian white nationalist and Islamophobic extremist group, in 2017.

Following Tarrant’s attack in Christchurch, the group’s members posted to a closed social media channel.

Some celebrated the attack, others questioned if it was a false flag, possibly to restrict firearms access in New Zealand.

“This one’s not a false flag. Take my word for it,” the group’s founder Thomas Sewell said.

“He seems to know more than the others,” another member replied.

“What do you mean, take my word for it. That almost sounds like you know the cobber.”

Sewell then responded – Tarrant had “been in the scene for a while”.

Sewell later compared Tarrant to Nelson Mandela, saying he would be imprisoned until “we win the revolution”.

 
In stark contrast, the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group for spray-painting planes and buildings with red paint is another grotesque overreach. This non-violent protest group, which seeks to disrupt western arms supplies to Israel, is branded a threat to national security, while Israel’s starvation policies and bombing of civilians in tents and aid sites go unchallenged.

In Gaza, hundreds have been killed near food distribution hubs, with Israeli soldiers openly admitting to treating starving women and children as a “hostile force.” Western governments offer tepid criticisms at best, while their actions, continued arms exports and diplomatic support, enable the carnage.



The hypocrisy extends beyond individual cases to systemic patterns of enforcement. Across Western nations, authorities deploy extraordinary measures against pro-Palestinian demonstrations while showing remarkable restraint toward far-right rallies that openly promote racial hatred. Police forces that brutalise peaceful protesters demanding an end to the collective punishment in Gaza then turn their attention to escorting white supremacist marches safely through diverse communities.

Free speech advocates who once championed absolute protection for controversial expression now perform intellectual contortions to justify censoring criticism of unjustified military actions. These same voices, who defended the rights of Holocaust deniers and racial provocateurs under abstract principles of open discourse, suddenly discover compelling state interests that justify silencing uncomfortable truths about contemporary violence.

This selective censorship reveals the true nature of Western liberal democracy's commitment to free expression: it extends only as far as speech that doesn't threaten established power structures or challenge strategic geopolitical relationships. Artists, activists, and ordinary citizens who dare name ongoing atrocities face swift punishment, while actual violent extremists operate with relative impunity.

The Bob Vylan controversy thus represents far more than an isolated incident of artistic censorship. It exemplifies a broader authoritarian drift wherein Western governments abandon foundational democratic principles when confronted with dissent that threatens preferred narratives. When free speech becomes conditional upon political convenience, democracy itself withers.

This is the West’s moral collapse: a world where punk bands are vilified for decrying genocide, but white supremacists and war criminals are indulged. Bob Vylan’s blacklisting isn't just an attack on art; it's a warning to all who dare challenge the status quo. As socialist Jewish activist Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi noted, suppressing outrage against a “televised genocide” only fuels its expression. If New Zealand and its Western allies truly valued free speech and justice, they would hold Israel to account, not silence those who speak for the oppressed.

Published by the Jackal



2 Jul 2025

Democracy Under Siege: NZ Government Gags Youth MPs

In a development that epitomises authoritarian overreach masquerading as administrative procedure, the Coalition of Chaos government has decided to censor Youth MPs during the 11th Youth Parliament, an event that was meant to amplify the free voices of our young people.

The revelation that youth representatives, invited to Parliament to debate the very issues that will define their futures, have been forced to water down or outright remove criticisms of government policy represents a fundamental assault on the democratic principles this coalition once claimed to champion.

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

 
Youth MPs accuse government of 'censoring' them, ministry says otherwise

The government is rejecting accusations it is censoring Youth MPs, saying the protocols followed are the same as 2022 and the young people get the final say on their speeches.

However, the email sent to one Youth MP carries the subject line "changes required", and stated the ministry "have had to make some changes".

Some of the Youth MPs involved say they will not be suppressed and the issue has fuelled the fire to make their voices heard.

 

Coalition parties spent years in opposition decrying Labour's supposed nanny state mentality, lambasting what they saw as overbearing governmental control. Yet here they stand, dictating what young people can say in a forum explicitly designed to foster free expression and democratic participation. This isn't the bold, open democracy that Chris Luxon promised, it's a masterclass in hypocrisy that would embarrass even the most cynical political operator.

The current Youth Parliament involves 123 young people aged 16-18, selected by MPs to represent their constituencies. But despite this broad church of political views, these voices are being systematically silenced when they dare to speak truth to power. 

The Ministry of Youth Development's decision to issue emails with the subject line "changes required" to approximately half of the Youth MPs preparing to address Parliament reveals breathtaking audacity from a government that has transformed from opposition critics into zealous practitioners of the very control they once condemned.

Youth MP Thomas Brocherie, co-director of Make It 16, cut straight to the heart of the matter:


However, the Youth MPs spoke to reporters at Parliament with one - Thomas Brocherie, a spokesperson for Make it 16, a group pushing for a voting age of 16 - saying the approach taken to the speeches was diluting the value of the Youth Parliament.

"We have been told to not argue on either side of contentious issues such as the pay equity reforms or the Treaty Principles Bill for the excuse that they are current topics in the current Parliament. This is not just illogical, it is censorship," he said.

"We cannot say we value democracy unless we actually show and prove we value democracy. Silencing the stakeholders of the future does not value democracy."

Another Youth MP Nate Wilbourne, a spokesperson for Gen Z Aotearoa, said rangatahi were being silenced and censored.

"We've been told to soften our language, to drop key parts of our speeches and to avoid criticizing certain ministers or policies. This isn't guidance. This is fear based control."

Brocherie said the emails being titled "changes required" was "not at all a suggestion, that is blatant editing, they want us to change something to suit their purpose, to suit their agenda".

Youth MP Lincoln Jones said they were provided with "a PDF of edited changes... delivered to our inbox, and that was the expected requirement, that we speak that speech".

"It's honestly like they've gone through with it with a microscope to find any little thing that might be interpreted wrong against, I guess, the current government."


These young people's arguments carry particular weight when considering the existential nature of the issues they're attempting to address, climate change being foremost among them.

Two-thirds of New Zealanders expect severe climate impacts in their area over the next 10 years, whilst New Zealand ranks 41st internationally as a "low climate performer". These are not abstract policy debates for young New Zealanders, they represent the scaffolding of their future. When Youth MP Nate Wilbourne speaks of the "war on nature" and attempts to name ministers responsible for environmental vandalism, he exercises the fundamental democratic right to hold power accountable on matters of existential urgency.

The government's justification for this censorship reveals either breathtaking ignorance or calculated dishonesty. Minister for Youth James Meager insists speeches are not being censored whilst simultaneously defending a process that removes criticisms of government policy, edits references to environmental action, and sanitises language deemed "too political." This isn't guidance; it's censorship dressed up in bureaucratic doublespeak.

However, the decision to abandon livestreaming of this year's Youth Parliament, citing "resource constraints" represents perhaps the most cynical element of the government's censorship regime. Previous Youth Parliaments were fully livestreamed, allowing young New Zealanders across the country to witness democratic participation in action. Youth MP Lincoln Jones rightly identified this change as an attempt to "ensure that speeches that don't fit the narrative of this government are not getting out to the general public."

Youth MP Sam Allen noted that participants have gone "from what should be a really exciting event" to "just feeling quite scared" about potential consequences. This erosion of confidence in democratic participation reflects something far more troubling than isolated administrative overzealousness, it's symptomatic of a broader democratic crisis that extends well beyond Parliament's youth programme.

This pattern of democratic erosion has not gone unnoticed by New Zealand's most respected institutions. The New Zealand Law Society's recent watershed report painted a stark picture of rule of law deterioration, highlighting "unequal access to justice and concern at an increased failure to follow good lawmaking processes." 

The Society warned that "accelerated legislative processes have restricted public consultation and select committee review through the use of urgency and Amendment Papers," cautioning that "without deliberate action and adequate investment public confidence in the justice system, and the principle that all are equal before the law, will continue to erode."

On Friday, NZ Lawyer reported:

Access to justice barriers and poor legislative and policy making processes were two major threats

The New Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa has released a watershed report that has cautioned against the rule of law being eroded.

The Strengthening the rule of law in Aotearoa New Zealand report indicated that significant and urgent threats included access to justice barriers, poor legislative and policy making processes, and sustenance of the judicial system's independence.

"Predominantly, what we heard focused on unequal access to justice and concern at an increased failure to follow good lawmaking processes. Issues with access to fair justice processes were particularly prevalent in the conversations. The barriers vary, including unaffordability of legal services, underfunded legal aid and duty lawyer schemes, and delays in courts and tribunals", Law Society President Frazer Barton said.



Outgoing Auditor-General John Ryan delivered an equally damning assessment in his final report, noting that "public trust in government is declining." His observation that "trust is the lifeblood of a well-functioning democracy but it is vulnerable" proves particularly prescient when examining how this government treats criticism from any quarter, whether from teenagers, councils, or democratic institutions themselves. 

Ryan identified that Māori, disabled, and Pasifika communities, who "experience disproportionately worse outcomes," show less trust in the public sector, a crisis compounded when young advocates for these communities face systematic silencing.

Yesterday, the Controller and Auditor General reported:

Public trust in government is declining

The public sector represents about one third of the economy. To be successful as a country, we need an effective and efficient public sector that demonstrates that it provides value and is trusted by the public. Although there is much to celebrate in the quality and resilience of New Zealand’s public sector in recent years, the public’s trust in democratic institutions is declining.

Trust is the lifeblood of a well-functioning democracy but it is vulnerable. We saw, for example, in the latter stages of the Covid-19 pandemic how disinformation and a breakdown in trust in parts of the community negatively affected how some responded to public health messages, guidance, and restrictions aimed at protecting the health of all New Zealanders.

We know that levels of trust vary considerably between different population groups. Māori, the disabled, and Pasifika communities experience disproportionately worse outcomes in health, education, housing, employment, and justice. It is likely no coincidence that they are less inclined than the rest of the New Zealand population to trust the public sector.

In my view, the persistent inequity of outcomes needs to be tackled if we are to increase and maintain the trust of all New Zealanders in our system of government.

 

This government’s penchant for undermining democratic processes is further evidenced by its handling of the Fast-track Approvals Act, passed in December 2024.

The government's authoritarian legislation, which allows ministers to bypass standard regulatory processes for infrastructure and resource projects, was rushed through Parliament with limited public consultation and minimal transparency. Documents detailing the 149 projects included in the bill were withheld from MPs until just 72 hours before the final vote, severely restricting scrutiny and public debate. 

Critics, including the Waitangi Tribunal, have raised alarms about the Act’s potential to erode Māori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi, particularly in relation to seabed mining off Pātea. This blatant sidelining of democratic oversight and indigenous voices underscores a troubling willingness to prioritise corporate interests over public accountability.

Equally concerning is the government’s suspension of three Māori Party MPs in June 2025 for performing a haka in protest against policies perceived to undermine Māori rights. This heavy-handed response to a cultural expression of dissent within Parliament, a space meant to embody free speech, signals an intolerance for any opposition that runs counter to their authoritarianism.

The haka incident, coupled with the coalition’s broader moves to review the Treaty of Waitangi and reduce the use of Māori language in government, has sparked widespread protests and accusations of rolling back decades of indigenous progress. Such actions suggest a government more interested in consolidating control than fostering inclusive debate.

The government’s moves to override local councils through Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms further exemplify this democratic erosion. By centralising decision-making powers and sidelining local authorities’ ability to reflect community priorities on housing and environmental protections, the coalition has effectively neutered local democracy. 

These reforms, driven by a top-down approach, limit public input and undermine the ability of councils to represent their constituents, echoing the same authoritarian impulse seen in the censorship of Youth MPs. This pattern of stripping away local agency betrays the coalition’s earlier promises to empower communities, revealing a government more concerned with control than collaboration.

When teenagers can't criticise ministers over climate inaction without bureaucratic interference, when councils can't represent their communities without central government override, and when proper legislative processes are abandoned in favour of urgency and expedience, we witness democracy's foundations being systematically undermined by a government that treats participation as an inconvenience rather than a cornerstone of good governance.

This government must immediately reverse its shameful censorship of Youth MPs, restore transparent democratic processes, and abandon its attacks on local governance. The warnings from our legal and auditing experts are clear, we stand at a crossroads between democratic renewal and authoritarian drift. New Zealand's democracy cannot survive when those in power systematically silence criticism and circumvent accountability. Our young people deserve better, our communities deserve better, and our democracy demands nothing less.

Published by the Jackal



30 Jun 2025

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.

Published by the Jackal



29 Jun 2025

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.

Published by the Jackal



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.

Published by the Jackal



28 Jun 2025

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.

Published by the Jackal



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.

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.

Published by the Jackal



27 Jun 2025

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.

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.

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.

Published by the Jackal



26 Jun 2025

National's Fossil Fool Fiasco Betrays Climate Commitments

New Zealand’s National-led government has once again proven its reckless disregard for our planet and our international reputation by abandoning the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA), a commitment made in 2021 to phase out fossil fuel production.

This incredibly dumb decision, coupled with a $200 million fund to subsidise oil and gas exploration in Budget 2025, is a slap in the face to our climate obligations and a dangerous gamble with our trade relationships.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) explicitly warned the coalition of chaos about the legal and reputational risks, yet Ministers like the corrupted Shane Jones have ploughed ahead anyway, cozying up to fossil fuel barons while thumbing their noses at science and our global partners.

This isn't just incompetence...it’s a betrayal of New Zealand’s future just so a few politicians can line their and their oil baron mates' pockets.

Today, Newsroom reported:

 
NZ abandons international fossil fuel pledge

New Zealand’s departure from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance came quietly, but not as a surprise to anyone closely following the Government’s fossil fuel policies.

Resources Minister Shane Jones says the coalition’s fossil fuel plans meant the exit was inevitable. But he also says more formal agreements, like free trade deals with the EU, include wriggle room for matters of sovereign risk, such as national energy supply.

...

Legal advice later provided to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said repealing the 2018 ban on offshore oil and gas “would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand’s free trade agreements”.

The Green Party warned on Tuesday that, based on the assessment of an independent KC, the move breached another international commitment: the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability. This agreement was celebrated by Trade Minister Todd McClay last year as a “pioneering” endeavour.

On Tuesday afternoon, McClay responded to questions from Greens co-leader Chlƶe Swarbrick by doubling down on the nation’s commitment to its climate targets: “What it says about this Government is we will meet our international obligations. When we enter into them, we take them seriously.”

The following morning, New Zealand was found to have withdrawn from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance.
 

MFAT’s legal advice, as revealed in a Regulatory Impact Statement, was crystal clear: repealing the 2018 ban on offshore oil and gas exploration risks breaching trade agreements with the EU, UK, and the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) with Costa Rica, Iceland, and Switzerland. The $200 million fund, described by Green Party co-leader Chlƶe Swarbrick as a “clear breach” of ACCTS, directly violates commitments to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

The government's own MFAT, hardly known for their green idealism, cautioned that this could also be seen as backsliding on our Paris Agreement obligations, potentially increasing New Zealand's emissions. Yet, the National-led government has ignored these warnings, prioritising short-term profits over long-term stability. Trade Minister Todd McClay’s feeble claim that New Zealand remains “compliant” with ACCTS is laughable when legal experts like Nura Taefi KC confirm the fund’s illegality under international law.

Shane Jones, the Resources Minister, is at the heart of this debacle, and his track record reeks of corruption and fossil fuel favoritism. Known for his “Make NZ Great Again” theatrics, Jones has a history of bending over backwards for industry mates. In 2019, as Forestry Minister, he was caught pushing for a $15 million bailout for West Coast logging firms, sidestepping due process.

The coalition of chaos is funnelling $200 million of taxpayer money to oil and gas companies, with $8 million alone for “administering” the fund, which smells distinctly like another slush fund for cronies. Shane Jones' dismissive quip that BOGA is a “women’s knitting group” reveals not just his contempt for climate action but his cozy relationship with Energy Resources Aotearoa, the oil and gas lobby that’s been begging for taxpayer-backed exploration since July 2024. Jones’s refusal to disclose conditions for the $200 million fund during parliamentary scrutiny further fuels suspicions of backroom deals.

The National and Act parties, meanwhile, are doubling down on climate denialism. National’s Simon Watts, Climate Change Minister, claimed in November 2024 that New Zealand could stay in BOGA while lifting the ban, an assertion contradicted by BOGA’s co-chair, Lars Aagaard, who warned of re-evaluation. Act’s David Seymour, ever the contrarian, has long scoffed at climate science, once calling emissions targets “symbolic nonsense.” Their policies reflect this: Budget 2025 slashed funding for renewable energy initiatives by 20%, while natural gas production is being propped up as a “transitional” fuel until 2070. This flies in the face of the International Energy Agency’s 2021 warning that no new fossil fuel projects are compatible with 1.5°C goals.

New Zealand’s climate resilience is crumbling under this government. Extreme weather events cost the economy $4.3 billion in 2023 alone, yet National and Act have cut climate adaptation funding by 15%, leaving communities vulnerable. Pacific Island nations, like Tuvalu, have slammed New Zealand’s fossil fuel pivot as a betrayal, risking our regional leadership. With 68% of Kiwis in a 2024 poll demanding stronger climate action, this government’s fossil fuel obsession is not just reckless...it’s undemocratic. The coalition of chaos is burning our future for a quick buck, and we're all going to pay the price.

Published by the Jackal