New Zealand’s political landscape is often full of noise from conservative commentators preaching free speech, family values, and fiscal restraint. Their propaganda criticises progressive policies, while dodging coalition of chaos failures, campaigning that reeks of double standards. This post cuts through their hypocrisy, exposing the cracks in their so-called principles.
 |
Ani O’Brien |
Ani O’Brien, a gender-critical commentator and Free Speech Union Council member, is a vocal advocate for women’s rights and free expression, frequently opposing transgender policies and what she terms “cancel culture.”
In 2025, she publicly criticised online pile-ons, decrying their harm to open discourse, yet paradoxically fuelled a controversy by making untrue claims labelling a Green MP a “pedophile,” amplifying a divisive narrative without evidence.
Her critique of the Waitangi Tribunal’s role misrepresents its legal scope, falsely suggesting it oversteps its advisory mandate, which clashes with her proclaimed commitment to evidence-based arguments.
Furthermore, her opposition to transgender rights disregards medical consensus supporting gender-affirming care, undermining her claims of a principled, rational stance. This selective approach reveals a tendency to prioritise ideological culture war battles over consistent adherence to factual integrity and fairness.
 |
Barry Soper |
Barry Soper, Newstalk ZB’s senior political correspondent, delivers right-leaning commentary on New Zealand politics, often targeting Labour’s governance while defending the policies of the National-led coalition.
In his 2024 reports, he praised National’s tax cuts as providing essential economic relief for families, yet downplayed their detrimental impact on public service funding, such as cuts to healthcare and education, which contradicts his vocal calls for balanced and transparent reporting.
His long-standing advocacy for journalistic integrity, frequently highlighted in NZ Herald profiles, is undermined by his selective focus on left-wing missteps while sparing coalition policies similar scrutiny. This bias reveals a pattern of prioritising ideological alignment with centre-right agendas over the impartiality he claims to uphold, casting doubt on his commitment to objective journalism.
 |
Bob McCoskrie |
Bob McCoskrie, director of Family First NZ, is a prominent advocate for traditional family values, consistently opposing progressive social policies such as abortion law reforms and gender education in schools.
His 2024 polls, widely shared through Family First’s platforms, pushed conservative narratives to influence public opinion on social issues. While championing parental rights, he supports policies like ACT’s school bans on gender-affirming practices, which restrict youth autonomy, creating a contradiction in his advocacy for family empowerment.
In 2025, his anti-transgender rhetoric ignored Family First’s own data highlighting a youth mental health crisis, particularly among marginalised groups, undermining his claims of prioritising family welfare. This selective moralising reveals a focus on ideological purity over addressing the broader social implications of his advocacy.
 |
Brian Tamaki |
Brian Tamaki, founder of Destiny Church and leader of Vision NZ, promotes Christian nationalism, anti-government sentiment, and conservative values through his fiery public persona.
His 2024 X posts vehemently opposed COVID-19 restrictions, framing them as tyrannical overreach that threatened personal freedoms. Yet, his demand for religious freedom is contradicted by his enforcement of rigid church doctrines, which stifle dissent within his congregation and limit individual choice.
In 2025, Tamaki’s claims of government overreach clashed with his support for policies like Māori ward referenda, which undermine minority representation by imposing restrictive democratic processes. This hypocritical stance on freedom, shifting to suit his political agenda, reveals a selective advocacy that prioritises his influence over consistent principles of liberty and fairness.
.jpg) |
Cameron Slater |
Cameron Slater, a polarising right-wing blogger behind Whale Oil and The Good Oil, champions conservative causes and free speech, often using his platforms to launch vitriolic attacks on political opponents with provocative, sensationalist rhetoric.
In 2014, he falsely claimed Labour plotted to kill him, later retracting the baseless accusation, and in 2025, he peddled a debunked myth about Auckland schools installing cat litter boxes, amplifying misinformation for attention.
His defamatory posts against Matt Blomfield, ruled false by courts, starkly contradict his defence of acting in the public interest, exposing a pattern of reckless behaviour. Slater’s sensationalism, prioritising clicks over credibility, undermines his claims of principled advocacy, revealing a consistent disregard for factual accuracy in pursuit of influence.
 |
Chantelle Baker |
Chantelle Baker, a conservative commentator and former reality TV contestant, promotes anti-establishment views and free speech through her X posts and media appearances, aligning with populist sentiments.
Her 2024 posts amplified unverified claims about Māori elite influence in governance, fueling division without evidence, while she simultaneously demanded transparent and honest discourse.
Her advocacy for individual freedoms, particularly in critiquing government overreach on Māori issues and COVID-19 policies, clashes with her support for policies restricting minority rights, such as the coalition’s Māori ward referenda. This selective stance prioritises ideological point-scoring over consistent principles, revealing a tendency to exploit populist narratives for attention rather than fostering genuine evidence based debate grounded in fairness.
 |
Damien Grant |
Damien Grant, a libertarian columnist for Stuff and former co-host of the now disbanded Working Group podcast, is a vocal champion of free-market policies and minimal government intervention, frequently critiquing progressive economic and social measures.
In a 2024 Stuff column, he opposed Labour’s tax policies as anti-business, arguing they stifled economic growth, yet he avoided addressing National’s corporate subsidies, which distort market fairness, undermining his anti-government stance.
His 2023 role as MC at a Taxpayers’ Union debate, where he challenged candidates on cultural issues like Māori representation, clashed with his economic liberty focus, revealing a selective libertarianism that leans into populist rhetoric. This inconsistency suggests a prioritisation of ideological posturing over a cohesive commitment to minimal government across all domains.
 |
David Farrar |
David Farrar, a National Party-aligned blogger and pollster behind Kiwiblog and Curia Market Research, promotes classical liberalism and evidence-based policy critique through his influential platforms.
He blamed Labour’s health reforms for doctor departures, conveniently ignoring global workforce trends that contributed to the issue, and in 2018, he hosted a climate denialist post, undermining his claims of fostering informed debate. In 2024, a biased question in one of his polls triggered Curia’s exit from the Research Association of New Zealand, exposing a stark contradiction to his proclaimed commitment to polling integrity.
Farrar’s selective rigour, prioritising partisan narratives over objective analysis, reveals a tendency to align with National Party agendas while maintaining a veneer of independent critique.
 |
Dieuwe de Boer |
Dieuwe de Boer, a New Conservative board member and editor of Right Minds NZ, fervently advocates for Christian conservatism, nationalism, and anti-progressive policies through his outspoken online presence.
His 2023 X posts endorsed far-right events, amplifying extremist rhetoric that alienated moderate audiences. While decrying “left-wing” cultural mandates, he supported real estate licensing courses in 2024 that incorporated conservative biases, contradicting his opposition to ideological imposition.
His staunch anti-immigration stance, framing migrants as a cultural threat, starkly contrasts with his praise for British colonial heritage, which relied on migration, exposing selective historical cherry-picking. This inconsistency undermines his ideological coherence, prioritising nationalist rhetoric over a principled engagement with New Zealand’s complex history.
 |
Don Brash |
Don Brash, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and founder of Hobson’s Pledge, has been a vocal advocate for a “one law for all” approach, as evident in his 2024 Hobson’s Pledge posts, which argue against policies specifically benefiting Māori.
He positions himself as a champion of equality, emphasising a unified legal framework for all New Zealanders. However, his stance conveniently sidesteps the historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, which have systematically disadvantaged Māori communities through land confiscations and cultural suppression.
In 2025, Brash’s criticism of initiatives promoting the Māori language, such as increased funding for te reo education, stands in stark contrast to his earlier tenure as National Party leader, where he publicly endorsed cultural diversity to appeal to a broader electorate. This apparent shift reflects a move toward populist rhetoric, prioritising political expediency over a consistent commitment to inclusive principles, raising questions about the coherence of his ideological framework.
 |
Duncan Garner |
Duncan Garner, a well-known former broadcaster and journalist, has built a reputation through hosting The AM Show and Radio Live, using his platforms to promote centre-right perspectives through columns and media appearances.
His critiques often target progressive policies and perceived government inefficiencies, such as Labour’s economic strategies. In a 2018 Stuff column, Garner endorsed Simon Bridges’ leadership of the National Party while condemning the divisive tactics of Jami-Lee Ross, yet he failed to address similar internal power struggles within National, exposing a selective outrage that undermines his impartiality.
In 2024, his vocal criticism of Labour’s economic management, particularly around inflation and public spending, contrasted sharply with his silence on the National-led coalition’s austerity measures, such as cuts to public services, which disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. This inconsistency casts doubt on his claims of balanced journalism, suggesting a bias toward centre-right agendas.
 |
Elliot Ikilei |
Elliot Ikilei, previously the deputy leader of the New Conservative Party, is a vocal advocate for Christian conservatism, emphasising family values and opposing progressive policies like gender education in schools and vaccine mandates.
His 2024 YouTube videos labeled the government’s COVID-19 response as authoritarian overreach, resonating with libertarian sentiments. However, his support for restrictive social policies, such as limiting youth access to gender-affirming care, contradicts his rhetoric of personal freedom, revealing a selective application of his principles.
In 2025, Ikilei’s anti-immigration stance, which framed migrants as a burden on society, ignored New Zealand’s economic dependence on migrant labor in sectors like healthcare and agriculture. This selective focus undermines his “pro-family” advocacy, as it disregards the contributions of migrant families, exposing a contradiction driven by ideological rigidity rather than practical consistency.
 |
Eric Crampton |
Eric Crampton, chief economist at The New Zealand Initiative, is a staunch advocate for free-market policies, frequently criticising government overreach in areas such as competition law and housing regulation.
In a 2024 NZ Herald column, he pushed for reforms to the Commerce Act to reduce barriers to market entry, arguing that excessive regulation stifles innovation. While he consistently critiques regulatory burdens, his 2025 call for deregulation in the housing sector overlooks how such measures could deepen inequality by favouring developers over low-income communities. This omission clashes with his rhetoric of fairness and economic efficiency, as deregulation risks exacerbating housing affordability issues for marginalised groups.
Crampton’s selective focus on market freedom without addressing its social consequences reveals a gap between his ideological advocacy and the broader implications of his proposals.
 |
Francesca Rudkin |
Francesca Rudkin, host of Newstalk ZB’s Weekend Collective, promotes centre-right perspectives, often critiquing progressive cultural policies while emphasising personal responsibility.
In 2024, her interviews with figures like Ben Elton challenged what she described as “woke” trends in media, positioning herself as a defender of cultural pragmatism. However, her silence on the National-led coalition’s cuts to arts funding, which threatened cultural institutions, contradicts her advocacy for cultural engagement.
In 2025, Rudkin’s praise for economic deregulation as a driver of prosperity overlooked its adverse effects on low-income communities, such as reduced access to public services. This selective lens undermines her community-focused rhetoric, suggesting an alignment with centre-right priorities that prioritises economic ideology over the social cohesion she claims to support.
 |
Hannah Tamaki |
Hannah Tamaki, co-leader of Vision NZ alongside her husband Brian, is a prominent figure in Christian conservatism, advocating for Māori rights while opposing vaccine mandates and progressive policies.
She regularly criticised vaccine mandates as oppressive encroachments on personal freedom, resonating with her libertarian-leaning followers. Yet, her support for Vision NZ’s strict moral codes, which impose conservative values on personal behaviour, limits individual choice, creating a contradiction in her freedom rhetoric.
In 2025, her advocacy for Māori rights clashed with her silence on the coalition government’s policies undermining Māori wards in local governance, which weakened indigenous representation. This selective activism, driven by political expediency rather than a consistent commitment to cultural or personal freedoms, highlights a pragmatic approach that prioritises electoral appeal over principled consistency.
 |
Heather du Plessis-Allan |
Heather du Plessis-Allan, host of Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive, is a prominent centre-right voice, frequently critiquing progressive policies such as Māori language road signs and Labour’s economic management.
In a 2024 Herald column, she described the closure of Newshub as the “slow death of linear TV,” attributing it to market shifts while downplaying the role of government cuts to media funding, which clashed with her free speech advocacy.
In 2025, her criticism of Te Pāti Māori’s 21-day parliamentary ban as excessive ignored similar overreaches by the National-led coalition, such as restrictions on protest rights. This selective critique aligns closely with National’s narrative, undermining her claims of journalistic impartiality and revealing a tendency to prioritise ideological alignment over consistent scrutiny of power.
 |
John MacDonald |
John MacDonald, host of Newstalk ZB’s Canterbury Mornings, promotes right-leaning views, critiquing Labour’s regional policies while advocating for local economic growth.
In 2024, his broadcasts opposed Christchurch’s public transport subsidies, arguing they burdened taxpayers, yet he failed to address the National-led coalition’s underfunded infrastructure projects, which hindered regional development. This selective focus undermines his stance on fiscal accountability.
In 2025, his calls for community-driven solutions clashed with his support for coalition policies that centralised power by limiting local council autonomy, such as restrictions on Māori wards. This contradiction reveals a selective commitment to regional empowerment, prioritising ideological alignment with the coalition over consistent advocacy for local governance.
 |
Jordan Williams |
Jordan Williams, executive director of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, is a prominent advocate for fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, and government accountability.
His 2024 campaigns targeted wasteful public spending, such as bloated bureaucracy, to promote transparency. However, his credibility was challenged by defamation lawsuits in 2015 over unproven claims against Colin Craig, revealing a reckless approach to public accusations.
In 2025, his push for austerity measures, including deep cuts to public spending, ignored their detrimental impact on essential services like healthcare and education, clashing with his rhetoric of fairness. This selective focus on fiscal discipline over social consequences exposes a hypocritical prioritisation of ideological goals over the broader implications of his advocacy.
 |
Julian Batchelor |
Julian Batchelor, an anti-co-governance activist and public speaker, campaigns vigorously against Māori co-governance arrangements, framing them as separatist in his 2023 speaking tour, which provoked protests due to its inflammatory rhetoric comparing co-governance to “apartheid.”
He regularly calls for open debate on the issue but dismissed Māori perspectives as divisive, contradicting his claims of fostering inclusive dialogue.
Batchelor’s advocacy for equality ignores the historical inequities stemming from Treaty of Waitangi breaches, such as land loss and cultural erosion. This selective stance prioritises populist appeal over reasoned engagement, sidelining the complex historical context in favour of a narrative that resonates with his audience’s frustrations.
 |
Karl du Fresne |
Karl du Fresne, a conservative columnist, is a staunch defender of free speech and traditional values, frequently criticising “woke” media and progressive policies.
His 2024 posts on The Platform condemned cancel culture as a threat to open discourse, yet he ignored right-wing efforts to suppress dissent, such as restrictions on protest rights. While railing against media bias, he selectively targets left-leaning outlets, sparing conservative platforms.
In 2025, his praise for free-market policies clashed with his silence on corporate welfare, such as subsidies for the agricultural sector, contradicting his anti-interventionist stance. This selective outrage reveals a tendency to prioritise ideological alignment over consistent critique of systemic issues.
 |
Kate Hawkesby |
Kate Hawkesby, host of Newstalk ZB’s Early Edition, promotes centre-right views, critiquing progressive social policies like gender education in schools while emphasising personal responsibility.
Her 2024 broadcasts opposed Labour’s welfare expansions, arguing they fostered dependency, yet she remained silent on the National-led coalition’s cuts to social services, which impacted vulnerable populations. This omission undermines her fairness rhetoric.
Her advocacy for free speech, praised in NZ Herald profiles, clashed with her 2023 dismissal of Māori rights protests as disruptive, revealing a selective commitment to open debate that aligns with her ideological leanings rather than a universal defence of expression.
 |
Kerre Woodham |
Kerre Woodham, host of Newstalk ZB’s Kerre Woodham Mornings, champions centre-right values, critiquing Labour’s economic policies and cultural shifts she deems “woke.”
Her 2024 broadcasts praised the National-led coalition’s tax cuts as empowering for individuals, yet she downplayed their regressive impact on low-income New Zealanders, who faced reduced access to public services. This contradiction undermines her community-focused stance.
In 2023, her vocal free speech advocacy, noted in Newstalk ZB profiles, ignored right-wing efforts to limit protest rights, such as restrictions on Māori demonstrations. This selective application of her principles reveals a tendency to align with centre-right narratives over a consistent commitment to open discourse.
 |
Leighton Smith |
Leighton Smith, a former Newstalk ZB host and current podcaster, promotes hard-right views through his Leighton Smith Podcast, opposing progressive policies like climate action and Māori rights.
In 2024, his episodes criticised Labour’s environmental regulations as government overreach, yet he remained silent on the National-led coalition’s expansion of fossil fuel projects, which clearly shows a biased approach to his rhetoric.
His 2025 advocacy for free speech, cited on iHeartRadio, contradicted his dismissal of dissenting voices, such as environmental activists. This selective commitment to open discourse highlights a prioritisation of ideological views over genuine engagement, undermining his claims of fostering debate.
 |
Liam Hehir |
Liam Hehir, a New Zealand lawyer and conservative commentator, writes for Newsroom and The Blue Review, advocating for centre-right policies and democratic principles like voter accountability.
He critiques progressive overreach, such as on waka-jumping laws or parliamentary privilege, but his mockery of the Greens’ stance on waka-jumping in 2018, despite his own opposition to such laws, reveals inconsistency.
His 2022 use of offensive terms like “spastic” in tweets, which he later deleted after a backlash, clashed with his professional persona as a reasoned commentator. This contradiction suggests a selective adherence to decorum and principle, prioritising provocative rhetoric over consistent democratic advocacy.
 |
Mike Hosking |
Mike Hosking, a prominent Newstalk ZB host and columnist, champions centre-right policies, economic growth, and personal responsibility.
In 2024, Mike Hosking’s Newstalk ZB claim that Treasury’s PREFU ruled out a recession was deceptive, with economist Bryce Wilkinson exposing its flawed data. While Hosking slams economic spin, he glossed over 2025’s 5.1% unemployment spike, hyping nonexistent growth to echo National Party talking points.
His 2014 NZ Herald gripes about media bias ring hollow given his own pro-National tilt, revealing a clear bias for ideology over honest economic scrutiny.
 |
Muriel Newman |
Muriel Newman, a former ACT MP and director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, advocates for free-market policies and reduced Māori rights in her 2024 newsletters.
She opposes “race-based” policies, framing them as divisive, but ignores systemic inequalities, such as historical land confiscations, contradicting her fairness claims.
In 2025, her push for economic deregulation clashed with her silence on corporate monopolies, which undermine market competition, revealing a selective libertarianism. By targeting Māori protections while sparing powerful private interests, Newman’s advocacy prioritises ideological purity over a consistent critique of systemic power imbalances.
 |
Nick Mills |
Nick Mills, host of Newstalk ZB’s Wellington Mornings, promotes right-leaning views, critiquing progressive local policies like Wellington’s urban planning reforms while advocating for business-friendly governance.
His 2024 interviews with figures like Tory Whanau opposed cycleway costs as wasteful, yet he ignored the National-led coalition’s underfunded transport projects, which hindered infrastructure development. This selective focus undermines his fiscal responsibility stance.
In 2025, his calls for local autonomy contradicted his support for coalition policies that centralised council powers, such as restrictions on Māori wards. This inconsistency reveals a selective advocacy that aligns with coalition priorities over genuine regional empowerment.
 |
Paul Moon |
Paul Moon, a history professor and contributor to The Common Room, promotes conservative views on New Zealand’s cultural and historical policies, opposing progressive initiatives like Māori language revitalisation.
His 2023 posts on Bassett, Brash, and Hide criticised the history curriculum for its focus on Māori perspectives, yet his selective emphasis on colonial history ignores Māori dispossession, as noted in The Spinoff.
In 2024, his advocacy for academic freedom clashed with his support for restrictive education policies that limit curriculum diversity. This contradiction prioritises ideological alignment over historical nuance, undermining his claims of scholarly objectivity in addressing New Zealand’s complex past.
 |
Peter Cresswell |
Peter Cresswell, a libertarian blogger at Not PC, advocates for minimal government, individual liberty, and free markets, frequently criticising progressive policies.
His 2014 NZ Herald critique of election media bias contrasts with his own biased framing of Labour as “socialist” in 2024 Not PC posts, revealing a double standard in his demand for objective journalism.
In 2025, his push for housing deregulation ignored environmental impacts, such as urban sprawl, clashing with his earlier acknowledgment of sustainable urban planning needs. This selective focus highlights a tendency to prioritise libertarian ideals over the broader consequences of his policy prescriptions.
 |
Rhys Williams |
Rhys Williams, a New Plymouth businessman and NZ First supporter, is linked to inflammatory posts targeting politicians with derogatory language, including crude insults like calling female MPs “Cunts!”
While ostensibly backing NZ First’s populist, nationalist agenda, his lack of a clear public platform undermines any claim to reasoned political support.
His personal attacks, such as those against Benjamin Doyle, contradict NZ First’s policy-focused rhetoric, revealing a hypocritical descent into vitriol. This behaviour prioritises provocative posturing over substantive engagement, aligning with populist tactics rather than principled advocacy.
 |
Robert MacCulloch |
Robert MacCulloch, a Victoria University economist, champions evidence-based policy and critiques government mismanagement, particularly Labour’s economic strategies.
In 2024, he challenged Stuff’s fact-checking of a leaders’ debate, arguing it wrongly dismissed Christopher Luxon’s GST claim, emphasising rigorous data. Yet, his speculative comments on demand elasticity without supporting evidence undermined his own standards.
In 2025, his praise for market solutions contrasted with his silence on corporate monopolies, which distort competition, inconsistent with his anti-interventionist stance. This selective focus reveals a tendency to prioritise ideological alignment over the consistent application of empirical rigour.
 |
Ryan Bridge |
Ryan Bridge, a broadcaster and former host of The AM Show, promotes centre-right views through his 2024 role on Newstalk ZB’s Early Edition, critiquing progressive policies like COVID-19 lockdowns while championing free speech.
His 2021 AM Show discussions on mystery COVID cases emphasised open debate, yet his 2024 interviews pushed National Party narratives without scrutinising their budget cuts, which strained public services.
This selective questioning clashes with his image as a tough interviewer, undermining his claims of journalistic impartiality. Bridge’s tendency to align with centre-right priorities reveals a gap between his rhetoric and consistent scrutiny of power.
 |
Sean Plunket |
Sean Plunket, a broadcaster and founder of The Platform, promotes conservative views and free speech, criticising “woke” policies in his 2024 broadcasts.
He condemns cancel culture as a threat to discourse, yet his 2025 interviews amplified unverified claims against progressive figures, fuelling pile-ons that stifled debate.
His advocacy for open dialogue clashes with his selective platforming of right-wing voices, often sidelining balanced perspectives. This hypocritical stance prioritises ideological alignment over the impartiality he claims to uphold, revealing a tendency to use free speech as a tool for advancing conservative agendas rather than fostering genuine debate.
 |
Simon O’Connor |
Simon O’Connor, a former National Party MP and conservative commentator, promotes traditional values and free-market policies through his writings and public speeches, opposing progressive reforms like abortion law changes.
His 2024 X posts criticised Labour’s social policies as “woke overreach,” yet he remained silent on the National-led coalition’s cuts to public services, which disproportionately harmed vulnerable communities.
This selective focus undermines his claims of advocating for fairness, as it prioritises ideological alignment with National over consistent critique of policy impacts. O’Connor’s approach reveals a tendency to cherry-pick issues that align with his conservative values, sidelining broader social consequences.
 |
Trevor Loudon |
Trevor Loudon, a far-right activist and author, campaigns against communism and progressive policies, alleging socialist conspiracies in global politics.
His 2024 KeyWiki posts claimed Labour MPs are Marxist infiltrators, promoting unproven narratives. While accusing others of ideological agendas, Loudon pushes his own conspiracies without evidence, contradicting his call for factual discourse.
In 2025, his warnings of “socialist” New Zealand policies lacked substantiation and ignored similar overreaches by the National-led coalition, such as centralised governance reforms. This selective focus reveals a hypocritical prioritisation of ideological fearmongering over consistent scrutiny of political power.