ACT Undermines Democracy With Regulatory Standards Bill

With jaw-dropping cynicism, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour and his ACT Party have plumbed new depths, trampling democratic values in their rush to ram through the Regulatory Standards Bill.

The right-wing government’s rush to force this contentious bill through under urgency, using AI to sift through 23,000 public submissions, isn’t just an affront to democracy, it’s a deliberate ploy to silence New Zealanders’ voices.

Seymour’s baseless claim that 99.5% of submissions are bot-generated is also a shameless dodge to dismiss overwhelming opposition. With the Ministry for Regulation’s summary showing 88% of the 23,000 submissions rejecting his reckless bill, this tactic is not just absurd, it’s a brazen assault on democracy, exposing a government hell-bent on its neoliberal agenda over honest engagement with voters.

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

 

'We have massive problems with regulation' - Seymour defends Regulatory Standards Bill

In an at-times heated exchange with Guyon Espiner, Seymour stood firm on the need for regulatory reform despite New Zealand's high international rankings in governance and legal standards.

Espiner pointed out that New Zealand ranks 99 out of 100 for regulatory quality in the World Bank index, placing it just behind the global benchmark.

Seymour dismissed the ranking, arguing it measured whether a country is "basically a third-world country" and failed to capture the real-world frustrations faced by businesses, particularly in agriculture and construction.

 

...

However, Espiner highlighted that of the 23,000 total submissions, only 76 supported the bill - a support rate of just 0.33 percent.

Seymour dismissed the figure as misleading.

"That quantum reflects nothing more than the fact that it's got easier and easier for people to make really, frankly, fake submissions … They've got bots, they can make a submission."

Despite dismissing the opposing voices as fake, Seymour maintained that what mattered was not the opposition but the quality of the legislative framework, which is non-binding in its nature, thus not enforceable - despite the bill's $20 million price-tag.

Seymour argued the Regulatory Standards Bill was about transparency, not enforcement. He compared it to the Public Finance Act and the Reserve Bank Act - also non-binding in nature, but important for government accountability.

Seymour’s cries of “bots” in the submission process are laughably hypocritical, given his own digital sleight-of-hand. In 2020, his Instagram account ballooned overnight with thousands of faceless, inactive followers, clear hallmarks of bot-driven inflation. His deflection then, blaming Meta while offering no proof, mirrors his current dodge, exposing a pattern of deceit. 

When questioned about this, Seymour deflected, claiming ignorance and demanding answers from Meta. However, no credible explanation followed. This convenient amnesia undermines his credibility to cry “bots” now, exposing a double standard that cannot be ignored.

Deploying AI to cherry-pick just 1,000 of 23,000 submissions—likely discarding the rest as “spurious”—guts New Zealand’s democratic process. As Labour’s Duncan Webb rightly slammed, this “coalition of chaos” renders public input a hollow sham.

Seymour’s assertion that the “quality of ideas” matters more than quantity is a thinly veiled excuse to ignore the 88% submissions in opposition, prioritising his deregulatory zeal over public interest. This approach, coupled with the bill’s rushed first reading under urgency, reeks of a government determined to steamroll their agenda through while gaslighting voters.

Seymour’s cozy ties to the Atlas Network, a billionaire-funded libertarian think tank, taint his fitness as Deputy Prime Minister. His pre-parliamentary training with Atlas-linked Canadian think tanks and ACT’s murky connections, fueled by donors like Alan Gibbs, whose daughter chairs Atlas meetings, betray an allegiance to corporate interests over New Zealand’s common good.

The Regulatory Standards Bill, with its focus on property rights over collective goods like environmental protections or Treaty obligations, mirrors the Atlas Network’s playbook of prioritising profit over people.

Such affiliations, which Seymour has lied about despite well documented ties, should disqualify him from wielding influence over such legislation that could reshape New Zealand’s regulatory landscape.

Seymour's charade isn't just undemocratic, it’s a betrayal of the public’s trust. By dismissing the vast number of submissions that are opposing this bill as bot-driven and outsourcing their analysis to AI, Seymour and his coalition partners reveal their contempt for the democratic process, a contempt that is undermining public opinion in our house of representatives.

New Zealanders deserve better than a Deputy Prime Minister who scorns their voices while bowing to global corporate puppeteers. The Regulatory Standards Bill, like Seymour’s leadership, is a glaring red flag of autocratic drift. His gaslighting of public submissions isn’t just an assault on democracy...it’s an abuse of power that demands fierce resistance.

Coalition’s Climate Cop-Out Risks $2 Billion Export Hit

New Zealand’s National-led coalition of chaos government has once again proven its inability to tackle the climate crisis with even a shred of competence. The world is watching, and the verdict is damning: Aotearoa is failing to curb CO2 emissions by any meaningful measure and the National-led government's 2025 Budget is kicking the climate change can down the road, prioritising carbon capture fantasies over genuine climate action.

Let’s start with agriculture, which accounts for nearly half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, largely methane from livestock. Despite earlier promises to include agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) by 2025, the coalition has delayed this to 2030, bowing to pressure from farming lobbyists. This exemption, plus other pro-farming policies that will increase pollution, ensures that the sector responsible for 43.5% of our current methane emissions faces no real accountability.

The 2025 Budget, which will make any reductions harder to achieve, is a grim reflection of the government’s cowardice to curb agricultural emissions in any meaningful way. Instead, it allocates $200 million to fossil fuel developments at gas fields while slashing $56 million for electric buses. They're also cutting $100 million from climate resilience projects for the Pacific. Meanwhile, the coalition scrapped incentives for electric vehicles and cycleways, undermining low-emission transport. Then there’s the government’s losing bet on the lame horse that is carbon capture.

In May, RNZ reported: 

 

Climate solution all but buried before it begins

The CCS project - led by Todd Energy and backed by the government - aims to capture carbon dioxide from industrial processes and inject it deep underground in Taranaki, at the Kapuni gas field, locking it away for centuries.

The start date has been pencilled in for around 2027, and from then until 2030 it is expected to store a million tonnes of CO₂, with a further almost million tonnes stored over the following five years.

It is a big part of the government's broader plan to meet its legal obligations to cut emissions by 2030 - about a third of the carbon savings needed.

But Gibson tells The Detail the project's future is now uncertain unless Todd Energy gets "more money or less liability or a combination [of both]".

"There is a whole raft of things that have changed, one is the carbon price is low compared to other countries ... then there is the issue of the liability regime, so if there is a leak 15 years after you have filled up a field and closed it off, who is responsible for that ... so there is wrangling going on around the rules."

Globally, CCS has a mixed track record. Some projects, like Norway's Sleipner, have stored CO₂ safely for decades. Others have failed spectacularly, costing billions and storing less than promised.

Nicola Willis’ austerity budget also fails to bolster the ETS, which excludes agriculture and relies on a flawed cap that doesn’t prioritise gross emissions reductions. Instead, it pours funds into unproven carbon capture and sequestration technologies that are just pipe dreams. The Climate Change Commission projections showed the government won’t deliver any meaningful cuts, rendering younger generations to a future of climate chaos. Christopher Luxon's idiotic approach bets on “immature technologies” that may never be commercially viable, wasting resources that could be better spent on already consented solar and wind projects that are waiting in the wings.

Internationally, New Zealand’s backsliding is raising eyebrows. Our free trade agreements with the EU and UK, which include robust climate commitments, are at risk. The EU-NZ FTA, for instance, explicitly ties trade to Paris Agreement obligations, yet our reversal of the offshore oil and gas exploration ban and failure to cut agricultural emissions could breach these terms.

Breaching our FTA climate commitments could cripple New Zealand’s export sectors, with estimated losses of $1-$2 billion annually. Agriculture, contributing $29 billion to exports in 2023, faces the greatest risk. Dairy and meat exports to the EU, valued at $5.2 billion, could see tariff reinstatements costing $435-$870 million yearly, while trade disputes and penalties might add hundreds of millions more. Reputational damage in climate-conscious markets like the EU and UK could further erode demand for our “clean, green” products, threatening the economic backbone of our nation.

Climate campaigners, like 350.org Aotearoa, have slammed the coalition’s “pathetic” 2035 NDC target (51-55% emissions cuts below 2005 levels, barely a 1-5% improvement over the 2030 goal) calling it a “disgrace” compared to the UK’s 81% cut. But it’s not just New Zealand organisations that are noticing the National-led government’s climate failures.


On Tuesday, RNZ reported:

 

Climate change scientists accuse government of 'ignoring scientific evidence'

The prime minister has dismissed international climate scientists as "worthies" for criticising the government's approach to methane.

But the Green Party says New Zealand appears to be on a "climate denial bandwagon" and needs to end the speculation over what it plans to do about the country's single biggest source of emissions.

Christopher Luxon received a letter from 26 international climate change scientists accusing the government of "ignoring scientific evidence" over plans to lower its methane target.

New Zealand has one of the highest per-capita methane rates in the world because of its farming exports and the current target is reducing methane by between 24 and 47 percent by 2050.

Farmer lobby groups are demanding the government lower the target, and back away from any plans to put a price on methane.

What’s even worse, the government’s rhetoric is once again flirting with climate denial like the science isn't already settled. Coalition of chaos Minister’s have recently downplayed methane’s impact, with Agriculture Minister Todd McClay dismissing offshore carbon credits, saying they are unnecessary despite an 84-million-tonne shortfall in our Paris targets.

The government's head-in-the-sand approach not only impacts our potential for a clean and green economy but tarnishes our global image, which will affect not just our export sector, but also our already struggling tourism industry as well. The world is noticing, and New Zealand’s climate inaction will cost us dearly, both environmentally and economically.

Michael Forbes’ Sex Worker Exploitation Shames Government

In a shocking revelation, the National Party's deputy chief press secretary to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has resigned amidst allegations of recording sex workers without their consent. According to numerous reports, Michael Forbes allegedly amassed a large number of audio recordings and photographs of women in compromising situations, including sex workers, women at the gym, and even those changing in private spaces.

Police apparently investigated after a Wellington brothel raised concerns in July last year, though they deemed it below the threshold for criminal prosecution, perhaps a result of the offender’s position of power and associations rather than any limitation of the law. However, this sordid scandal exposes not just questions about individual moral bankruptcy, or who knew what and when and why the police failed to act expediently, but a broader systemic political failure under a clearly misogynistic right-wing government.
 

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Prime Minister's deputy chief press secretary Michael Forbes resigns after reportedly recording sex workers without consent

The Prime Minister's deputy chief press secretary has resigned after allegedly recording audio of sessions with Wellington sex workers and taking intimate photos of women in public.

A Stuff investigation reported that Michael Forbes, a former journalist, allegedly recorded audio of multiple sessions with Wellington sex workers, and amassed a gallery of women working out at the gym, shopping, and being filmed through a window getting ready to go out.

A Wellington sex worker told Stuff she realised while Forbes was in the shower that his phone's voice recorder was allegedly activated back in July 2024.

She told the outlet she and other sex workers working that night asked Forbes for his phone PIN code and they went through his phone. They claim to have found multiple audio recordings of sessions with sex workers, albums full of photos of women, and videos of women getting ready to go out, filmed through a window at night.

Let’s cut through the spin: New Zealand’s Prostitution Reform Act 2003 decriminalised sex work to protect workers’ rights and safety, a world-leading move championed by the likes of the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective. Yet, under this government’s austerity-driven agenda, we’re seeing a grim reality unfold. Savage cuts to welfare, housing support, and health services, coupled with a cost-of-living crisis, are ensuring young women, particularly Māori and Pasifika, are being forced into desperate work they wouldn’t normally undertake.

The data is stark: Māori women, who make up only 9% of the population, account for 31.7% of those working as prostitutes, often in the riskiest street-based sector. Many enter under the legally required 18-years of age, driven by poverty and a lack of options, not choice.

There is no question that the coalition’s policies are socially destructive, slashing the safety net that keeps young women from falling through the cracks. Rising housing costs, stagnant wages, and gutted social services create a perfect storm where survival for young women often means turning to sex work. The hypocrisy is galling: a government that claims to champion “law and order” employ a press secretary who preys on the very women their policies are endangering.

Christopher Luxon’s recent lament about declining birth rates in New Zealand rings hollow when his government’s policies are fuelling poverty and inequality…conditions that stifle family formation. The Coalition’s austerity measures undermine young people’s ability to build stable relationships, save for a first home, or afford children. Instead, these policies are pushing more young women and men into precarious work, including sex work. Michael Forbes’ reprehensible actions represent a vile abuse of power, mirroring a broader culture of entitlement and entrenched misogyny that flourishes when society devalues its most vulnerable.

Critics of decriminalisation, like Family First, might argue for criminalising certain aspects of sex work, but they miss the point. Don't get me wrong...the oldest profession in the world has benefited from Labour's legalisation. The issue isn’t the legal framework; it’s the economic and social conditions forcing women into prostitution against their will in the first place. Survivors like Sabrinna Valisce have called out the “rosy rhetoric” of decriminalisation, noting how it can mask coercion and exploitation when structural inequalities persist, which is exactly what the National-led government has further ensured with their socially destructive policies.

Michael Forbes, whose scripted apology and sob story shouldn’t be believed, was providing advice to Chris Luxon to apparently “communicate the government’s priorities, milestones and successes to New Zealanders,” while exploiting sex workers that he had a vested interest in controlling, both physically and arguably through the government's legislative changes. His type of abusive mentality is clearly on display throughout the coalition's policy direction, which is designed to keep young women poor and desperate. The government’s refusal to fund robust exiting services for sex workers for instance or address poverty head-on suggests a tacit acceptance of this exploitation, or worse, a conscious effort to ensure young women have no other option.

Let’s not mince words: Chris Luxon’s government is complicit in a system that funnels young women into prostitution, then turns a blind eye when they’re abused and violated. Forbes’ alleged abuse of sex workers is a clear indication that he was advising the PM to further entrench targeted policies that strip away women’s rights. Cuts to social services and women’s refuges aren’t just to save the government money…they’re a manifestation of the right wing’s need to disempower and control women. This isn’t just negligence; it’s a deliberate design to keep young women vulnerable, ripe for exploitation by wealthy men in places of power.

This government’s failure to prioritise economic justice and social support is a betrayal of our most vulnerable, condemning young women to a cycle of desperation and abuse. No right-minded New Zealander should stand for this entrenched system of financial exploitation. It’s time to demand accountability, dismantle the policies that trap women in economic servitude, and build a society that truly values people’s dignity, no matter what type of employment they choose to undertake.

A Roundup Of Right-Wing Propagandists

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.

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.

Majority of Voters Think Budget 2025 is Terrible

The latest Talbot Mills Research poll has dropped a bombshell on the National-led coalition’s Budget 2025, and it’s not pretty. According to the NZ Herald, only 22% of Kiwis think this budget is good for New Zealand, while 33% reckon it’s outright bad. On a personal level, it’s even grimmer, only 9% believe it’ll benefit them, with 34% saying it’ll make things worse. 

David Talbot, the poll’s director, didn’t mince words: this is the worst budget reception in nearly 30 years of tracking. For a government that campaigned on economic competence, this is a slap in the face from voters who are clearly unimpressed with Nicola Willis’ fiscal fanfare.

On Saturday, the NZ Herald reported:

Budget 2025 tests poorly with voters, according to Talbot Mills Research poll.

The Government’s recent Budget has tested poorly with voters, according to the results of a new Talbot Mills Research poll.

Asked whether they thought the Budget delivered on May 22 will be good for New Zealand overall, bad, or would not make much of a difference, 33% said it would be bad and just 22% thought it would be good.

“We’ve been measuring New Zealanders’ reception of government budgets for nearly 30 years. This is the worst we’ve ever recorded,” said David Talbot, director of Talbot Mills Research.

“Across all three dimensions: overall, economic, and personal, it was judged by Kiwis to be net negative, and in each case the worst since our tracking began in 1996.”

Participants were also asked whether they thought the Budget would be good for the New Zealand economy, bad or would not make much of a difference.

The results showed 30% believed it would be bad for the economy and 27% thought it would be good. In terms of whether they thought the Budget would be good for them personally, bad or make not much of a difference, 34% of respondents said it would be bad and just 9% thought it would be good.

Nicola Willis called Budget 2025 “responsible,” claiming it’s steering New Zealand toward recovery. The people polled, representing a majority of New Zealanders, say otherwise. With 30% of respondents saying it’s bad for the economy and only 27% seeing it as a positive, the coalition’s big plan, centred on tax breaks for businesses and slashing public spending, is nothing more than a corporate handout dressed up as progress. The $6.6 billion “Investment Boost” for businesses, allowing a 20% immediate tax deduction on new assets, might thrill the boardrooms, but it’s left ordinary Kiwis cold.

The gutting of KiwiSaver contributions, now halved to about $260 annually, is another kick in the teeth for workers trying to save for their future. Willis’ claim that this will somehow help first-home buyers is laughable when employers are expected to offset higher contributions with lower wage increases. So much for “making New Zealanders better off.”

The coalition’s obsession with austerity and tax cuts for the wealthy reeks of trickle-down economics, a tired playbook that’s failed time and again. Meanwhile, means-testing Best Start and projecting a measly $200 million surplus by 2029 (using their cherry-picked Obegalx measure) shows a government more interested in micro-management and balancing books than addressing the cost-of-living crisis hammering households.

The poll’s damning verdict reflects a public that’s not buying the spin. With 78% of Kiwis in other Talbot Mills polls saying economic conditions are “poor” or “not so good,” it’s clear the coalition’s priorities are misaligned with what the country requires.

This budget’s failure isn’t just a policy misstep; it’s a political disaster for Christopher Luxon’s government. The coalition’s rhetoric of “strong fiscal management” is crumbling under the weight of public discontent. Talbot Mills’ data suggests a deeper malaise, voters aren’t just skeptical; they’re angry. If Luxon and Willis think they can coast to 2026 on corporate tax breaks and road cone hotlines, they’re in for a rude awakening.

The left must seize this moment. Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori need to hammer home the coalition’s disconnect, offering a vision that puts people over profits. Budget 2025’s polling debacle is a clear signal: Kiwis want a government that fights for them, not one that leaves more Kiwi families further behind.

Brooke van Velden's WorkSafe Cuts Endanger More Kiwi Lives

Even before the 2010 Pike River disaster, where 29 miners perished due to systemic safety failures, we’ve known our workplace safety record in New Zealand is a national disgrace. But instead of increasing protections, this government is slashing WorkSafe’s resources and watering down the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 2015, all in the name of “business clarity.”

Let’s look at the numbers. New Zealand’s workplace fatality rate is appalling! Around 50-60 deaths annually, with 400-500 serious injuries and 750-900 deaths from work-related ill health. That’s roughly 1,000 deaths a year since Pike River, totalling 10,000 lives lost, plus 420,000 injuries. Compare this to Australia, where the fatality rate is 60% lower, or the UK, where it’s a staggering 500% lower, despite similar risk-management frameworks. Our injury rate? 1,200 per 100,000 workers, compared to Australia’s 899 and the UK’s 692. We’re not just lagging behind on workplace safety; we’re a global embarrassment.

The coalition’s response? Gut WorkSafe, our primary regulator, with 180 roles on the chopping block in the latest restructure, following 113 redundancies last year. This decimates expertise; health specialists, inspectors, and advisors who help businesses navigate safety obligations. Instead of strengthening enforcement, the government’s pushing “flexible” regulations, letting businesses off the hook for "proactive" risk management. There’s no question that the HSWA 2025 reforms are more free-market deregulation dogma, prioritising profit over people.

Today, RNZ reported:

 

Brooke van Velden shifts WorkSafe's focus from enforcement to advice

The government is shifting its work and safety regulator's priorities from enforcement to advice, saying this will help address concerns about underfunding and a "culture of fear".

First steps include updating more than 50 guidance documents and launching the hotline - announced in March - for reporting excessive road cones.

The restructure goes much deeper than that, though, with Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden issuing a new letter of expectations, rearranging the regulator's finances and redefining its main purpose in legislation.

The government has cut $2.2 million from the agency's funding since 2023 - a 1.6 percent cut from $141.1m to $138.9m - with heightened inflation over that time further increasing costs.

We also need to talk about New Zealand’s no-fault Accident Compensation Corporation system. While a lifeline for some injured workers who meet ACC's ever stricter criteria for cover, it's predominantly a get-out-of-jail-free card for unethical businesses. Unlike Australia, where targeted sector-specific safety measures have slashed accidents, our system lets negligent employers dodge accountability. Companies pay into ACC, but there’s no real sting for repeated safety failures, no punitive fines or mandatory audits to force change. This leaves high-risk industries like construction, agriculture, and forestry, where most fatalities occur, free to cut corners. Māori and Pasifika workers, disproportionately harmed, bear the brunt of this negligence...perhaps one of the reasons the ACT Party-led government is reducing workplace safety oversight.

The coalition’s austerity fetish and ACT’s neoliberal idiocy are driving this race to the bottom. Workers face rising workloads, stagnant wages, and now, weaker safety nets. We need more inspectors, better training, and enforceable regulations, not a return to the pre-Pike River days of employer self-management, which clearly failed spectacularly. New Zealand must adopt Australia’s proactive approach: real-time regulator feedback, sector-specific interventions, and hefty penalties for non-compliance.

This government’s priorities are clear…profits for the few over safety for the many. But what people need to realise is that every cut to WorkSafe, every softened rule, is a step toward more coffins. Kiwi workers deserve better. We need a system that holds dodgy bosses who cut corners to account, not one that lets them gamble with more worker’s lives.