The Real Cost of Brooke van Velden's Time in Power

Brooke van Velden has resigned as Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and the occasion demands considerably more than the polite eulogy that ministerial departures typically attract. Her tenure was, by any serious accounting, one of the most regressive periods in New Zealand's modern labour history. To permit it to dissolve into the news cycle without further examination would be a profound disservice to the hundreds of thousands of workers whose livelihoods and legal protections were stripped away while she held the portfolio.

Let's start with the overnight demolition of pay equity protections for working women. In August 2024, the government rushed amendments to the Equal Pay Act through under urgency, extinguishing the legal mechanisms by which workers in female-dominated industries could pursue pay equity claims. 

The affected workforce, predominantly women employed in aged care, early childhood education, and health support, had in many cases invested years in building claims through the proper channels. Those claims were voided at speed. Subsequent estimates placed the number of affected workers at well over 300,000, including nurses, teachers, support staff, hospice workers, and caregivers, with warnings of care sector breakdowns and skilled workers leaving for Australia.

On 19 March 2025, RNZ reported:

How a crucial 45-minute meeting between ministers took pay equity claims away from tens of thousands of women

Those choices formed the backbone of the government's overhaul of the once "world-leading" Equal Pay Act - retrospectively stripping nurses, teachers, carers and other female-dominated workforces of the right to pursue pay equity claims under the existing law.

Within five weeks of that meeting, Parliament had passed the Equal Pay Amendment Act under urgency - a move the people's select committee last month described as "a flagrant and significant abuse of power".

The legislation was announced then passed all stages of Parliament within three days in May, meaning the public had no opportunity to make submissions through the usual select committee process.

Dozens of in-train claims were stopped. The rules governing future claims were significantly tightened. And $12.8 billion originally earmarked to fix decades of systemic gender discrimination was instead returned to the Crown's Budget allowances.

The government's justification, that the framework was too costly and legally unpredictable, amounted to a frank admission: the rights of low-paid women were to be weighed against fiscal convenience and discarded. Van Velden offered this argument with the characteristic breezy confidence of someone who has never had to worry about whether her wages reflected the gendered undervaluation of her occupation. 

Van Velden even proudly stated that she had saved the Budget by axing pay equity. She said this as though stripping hundreds of thousands of women of the right to fair remuneration was a sensible line item to balance, rather than an act of deliberate economic harm to the most vulnerable workers in the country.

On 24 March 2026, RNZ reported:

 

ACT Party deputy and minister Brooke van Velden retires from politics

On the decisions she's made in government, van Velden said she's proud of all of them, including the highly controversial changes to the pay equity regime.

"I hand on heart believe that the decisions I made and the actions I took were in the best interests of the country, and ultimately I saved the Budget."

This is where the gaslighting becomes particularly galling. ACT has always presented itself as a party of individual freedom and fairness, the great liberators of the citizen from state interference. Yet when working women sought to use a legal framework to secure fair pay, the party moved with extraordinary speed to shut that framework down. The freedom ACT champions is, in practice, the freedom of employers to continue paying women less. Everything else is rhetoric.

That hypocrisy runs deeper still when one examines ACT's own internal culture. In June 2024, reporting by Stuff journalist Tova O'Brien revealed a picture of the ACT Party campaign operation that bore little resemblance to the party's libertarian self-image. At least six staff members and volunteers had quit following the 2023 general election, citing allegations of intimidation and unfair treatment of women. 

Sources described a culture of fear, comparing the campaign environment to the Hunger Games. The party's own board faced a vote of no confidence. Candidates and volunteers were left in tears. This is the organisation whose deputy leader was entrusted with protecting New Zealand's workers from exploitation and harm in the workplace. The irony here is profound.

On 7 June 2024, RNZ reported:

Tears and resignations after ‘train wreck’ ACT Party election campaign, sources claim

Allegations of a culture of fear

Several people close to the party spoke to Stuff on the condition of anonymity.

The divisions between "Mission Control" and "HQ" were at the heart of the ructions, they said.

"HQ became a bit like a military hospital," one source said. "Mission control, were shooting their kneecaps out faster than HQ could patch everybody up.

"It wasn't unusual to be at HQ and see people in tears, be it candidates or supporters, just sitting down saying I can't do this anymore."

Things got worse when problems started arising with candidates - one compared vaccine mandates to concentration camps, another compared the vaccine to drownings and another referred to Covid as "mass hysteria".

"There was a culture of fear in the party when the wheels started coming off around candidates, anyone that stuck their head up above the parapet was seen as dispensable."

Then there is the minimum wage manipulations. For nearly three consecutive years under this coalition, minimum wage increases have failed to keep pace with inflation. In real terms, New Zealand's most vulnerable workers have gone backwards every single year. This isn't economic bad luck. It is the predictable consequence of a government that regards minimum wage increases as an inconvenience. 

Van Velden happily presided over each of those inflation-adjusted wage cuts, invoking, as ACT ministers often do, the spectre of small business hardship.

On 26 October 2025, the NZ Herald (pay-walled) reported:

Meet Brooke van Velden – the minister loathed by unions and loved by business

Van Velden has been the most polarising minister of labour or workplace in the past 50 years for unions and workers.

Brooke van Velden's philosophical indifference to the welfare of ordinary people was perhaps most vividly exposed in her now-infamous comments about the value of human life. Appearing on Q&A with Jack Tame, she appeared to reconfirm that New Zealand had placed too high a value on human life during the COVID pandemic, stating that the country completely blew out what the value of a life was and that she had never seen such a high value on life.

The comment was not a gaffe. It was a window into the worldview that animated her entire tenure as the minister responsible for worker safety. That attitude to life ultimately followed her into the significant portfolios her mentor David Seymour attained for her in the right-wing coalition government.

Just like the covid response saving lives was not a bad thing for the economy, the evidence shows that higher minimum wages do not destroy jobs in the way Brooke van Velden and the ACT Party's ideological tradition has always insisted they will.

The rewriting of contractor law sits alongside these failures as a reform that will outlast the headlines. The changes narrowed the tests by which workers could establish that they were employees rather than contractors. In practice, this shifts power decisively toward the multinational platform companies, logistics operators, and labour hire firms that have always preferred contractor arrangements precisely because they eliminate sick leave, holiday pay, and the protections of the Employment Relations Act. 

Uber drivers, transport workers, construction workers, cleaners, security staff, and labour hire workers all had protections removed, stripping their rights to minimum wage protection, extended leave entitlements, unfair dismissal protections, and their employer's superannuation obligations. The language of worker choice and flexibility was deployed to obscure what was, in substance, a gift to corporate interests.

On 24 March 2026, Emily Writes reported:

So, Brooke Van Velden, this is your life...

Van Velden removed protections for all of these workers by allowing them to be classed as contractors despite their actual work situation. This removed their rights to minimum wage protection, extended leave entitlements, unfair dismissal protections and their employer's superannuation obligations. Her Employment Relations Amendment Bill essentially rewrote employer-employee relationship obligations into a form never before seen in the modern working world.

All of this has occurred against a backdrop of accelerating economic destruction that the coalition has done nothing to address. Heinz Wattie's announced the closure of three factories in Auckland, Christchurch, and Dunedin, affecting around 350 jobs. The McCain processing plant also shut its doors, leaving Buy NZ Made to warn that these closures reflected broader structural challenges facing New Zealand manufacturing, with almost half of surveyed producers citing slow demand. 

In Nelson alone, the closures of Kitchen Things, the Eves Valley sawmill, Proper Crisps, and Sealord's coated fish factory saw over 500 jobs vanish in the space of three months. In the first half of 2025, 1,270 businesses shut down, a 12 percent increase on the same period the year prior.

 

On 31 August 2025, E tū reported:

Manufacturing in crisis: Closures hit hard in 2025

It's been a devastating year for manufacturing workers around the motu, with major closures gutting local economies and leaving thousands of skilled workers out of a job.

...

These aren’t isolated incidents, but symptoms of a deeper failure. The Government has no clear plan to protect the country’s manufacturing base. While other countries invest in green tech, domestic supply chains, and set proper industrial strategies, Aotearoa is letting decades of expertise and infrastructure slip away. 

This is the economic environment in which van Velden was weakening worker protections, cutting real wages, attempting to gut health and safety regulations that were passed in the wake of the Pike River disaster, and handing legal advantages to employers. Families and survivors of the Pike River tragedy described their meeting with van Velden as a waste of time: She seemed to be focusing all the time on the employers, said Sonya Rockhouse. 

One might have expected a Minister for Workplace Relations to ask what impact her policy agenda was having on workers already confronting redundancy, casualisation, and economic insecurity. There is no evidence she did.

Then came the parliamentary theatre. In May 2025, in response to a Labour question referencing a Sunday Star-Times column by journalist Andrea Vance that had used the C word against the female ministers who dismantled pay equity, van Velden became the first MP to use that word in the debating chamber, framing her outburst as a defence of women against misogynistic language. 

The performance was characteristic: theatrical indignation deployed to reframe a debate about the stripping of women's rights into one about parliamentary decorum. It succeeded, briefly, in changing the subject, but the 300,000 women who lost their pay equity claims remained without recourse.

On 14 May 2025, RNZ reported:

Brooke van Velden drops C-word in Parliament

I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronising language that [national affairs editor for the Sunday Star-Times] Andrea Vance used to reduce senior Cabinet ministers to girlbosses, hype squads, references to girl math and c****," van Velden said.

What we are witnessing, and have been witnessing since 2023, is the consequence of allowing ACT's neoliberalism to function as the ideological operating system of a government nominally led by the National Party. National, once a broad church capable of restraint and pragmatism, has been progressively colonised by ACT's worldview, an economic doctrine with a long and distinguished record of failure that stretches from the 1980s reforms Roger Douglas inflicted on New Zealand to its various iterations elsewhere. It treats labour as a cost to be minimised, regulation as an imposition to be dismantled, and workers as mere market actors who need only be freed from protection to flourish.

Van Velden leaves office with a record that should not be quietly filed away. It should be studied, in detail, as a case study in what happens when personally held beliefs outrank evidence, and when the interests of multinational corporations are accorded a higher priority than the dignity and security of working people.

The Politics of New Zealand's Rental Crisis

There is a particular kind of dishonesty that often dresses itself up as economic theory. For years in this country, we were told that New Zealand's rental market was simply supply and demand in action, the invisible hand at work, efficiently allocating housing to those who valued it most.

What it actually was, of course, was something rather more tawdry: a system engineered to extract the maximum possible sum of money from anyone unfortunate enough to need to rent a roof over their head.

Let us be precise about the mechanism. When a prospective tenant applied for a rental property in New Zealand, they were routinely required to declare their income. This was presented, with straight faces, as an affordability check. In practice, it functioned as a price-setting instrument. Landlords and property managers could observe what a household earned and calibrate the rent accordingly, not to the condition of the property, not to its size, or whether the plumbing actually worked, but to the upper limit of what the prospective tenants could conceivably be made to pay.

The signal here was not quality. It was vulnerability. Middle and higher-income earners found themselves charged accordingly, regardless of whether they were occupying a warm, well-maintained home or a damp, mouldering box dressed up with fresh paint and a flattering TradeMe photograph. Low-income Kiwis often didn't even get their foot in the door.

The results were entirely predictable. By 2022, some 46 percent of renting households were spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent, compared to just 19 percent in 1988. Since 2003, house prices had increased by 230 percent, whilst median household income grew by only 137 percent. Housing was no longer all about shelter. It had become a very profitable business enterprise.

The insignificant easing of rents we have witnessed recently isn't the result of good governance to remedy this issue. The mean weekly rent in New Zealand for the year to September 2025 was $568, showing a 0.6% decline compared to the prior year. This is welcome in itself, but its cause isn't deregulation or the benevolence of landlords. It is a symptom of a recession and emigration. Net overseas migration slowed to just 13,066 in the year to July 2025, compared to a peak of over 135,000 in late 2023, and the net outflow of New Zealand citizens hit a record high of 47,600 in a single year. People are leaving in their tens of thousands because they cannot afford to live in New Zealand.

That is a grim form of market correction, and it deserves to be named as such. Contrast it with Australia, where sustained migration has pushed rents up by an estimated 43.8 percent over five years, with the typical renter paying around $10,500 more annually than at the start of the pandemic. New Zealand's slight moderation has been purchased at a considerable social cost, the departure of skilled younger workers at a rate that constitutes yet another unsustainable crisis.

Against this backdrop, the Green Party's Renters' Rights campaign proposes a two percent annual cap on rent increases, the reversal of no-cause evictions, a Rental Warrant of Fitness, and the construction of tens of thousands of quality public homes. It represents not a radical departure but a long-overdue acknowledgement of reality.

On Wednesday, RNZ reported:

Greens promise to cap rent rises at 2 percent a year

The 'A home for everybody' policy was launched by the party co-leaders and local MP Tamatha Paul at a rental home in Wellington on Wednesday afternoon.

Co-leader Marama Davidson said with rental costs increasing from 19 percent of incomes in 1988 to 30 percent in 2022, it was time for housing to be treated as a human right.

"In a country like Aotearoa, with our wealth of resources and skills, there is no excuse for people to go without a decent home, let along any home at all."

Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the Greens would build tens of thousands more public homes and support councils and community providers to do the same, stimulating local economies and creating jobs while curbing homelessness and waiting lists.

"This isn't rocket science," she said. "Mass building of public housing almost 100 years ago led to decades of stable, affordable homes for New Zealanders.

ACT Housing spokesperson Cameron Luxton responded by calling the campaign a plan to make more people homeless. This is, to put it plainly, a talking point that serves a specific constituency, and that constituency is clearly not tenants.

On Wednesday, Scoop reported:

Greens Revive Campaign To Make More People Homeless

ACT Housing spokesperson Cameron Luxton says the Green Party’s latest housing policy is a return to the same failed ideas that drove up rents and reduced supply.

“We’ve just seen rents fall nationally for the first time in years after anti-landlord policies were reversed. The Greens now want to take us straight back.

WHO ACTS FOR ACT

The ACT Party was founded on the Rogernomics tradition of Roger Douglas, a disciple of the view that markets, left sufficiently alone, will solve all human problems. Three decades of evidence in New Zealand's housing sector clearly suggests otherwise. Yet the party's institutional memory, and crucially its donor base, remains firmly committed to the proposition that property investors are the real victims of housing policy.

This isn't merely ideological. It is financial, and the money trail isn't difficult to follow. Analysis by RNZ of Electoral Commission records found that people with interests in the property industry donated more than half of their political contributions to National, with ACT receiving 32 percent of the total, and Labour a mere two percent. As Victoria University senior research fellow Max Rashbrooke observed, donors of this scale enjoy a constant level of access to ministers that ordinary voters can only dream of.

The conflicts of interest are not merely financial. They are, in the most literal sense, structural. The 2024 Register of Pecuniary Interests shows that Parliament collectively owns 261 properties, an average of 2.2 per MP. National MPs account for the bulk of this, with 18 of them owning approximately 30 or more rental homes. One does not need to be a committed cynic to ask whether legislators with this much skin in the game are best placed to design fair tenancy law.

THE DAVID SEYMOUR PROBLEM

No examination of this subject is complete without dwelling on the particular and instructive case of David Seymour. For years, Seymour cultivated his public image as the honest outsider who simply could not afford to buy a home, a man of the people standing bravely against the landed political elites of Parliament. It was a compelling narrative. It was also, in material respects, completely untrue.

In 2021, Seymour was forced to correct his Register of Pecuniary Interests to disclose that he was a beneficiary of three trusts, the NN Faithfull Family Trust, the BH and VA Seymour Family Trust, and the Beachcomber Trust, two of which held property including a Northland beach house and a neighbouring section, and his father's house in Whangarei. These interests had not been declared in previous years, in violation of Parliamentary disclosure rules. His return was also filed late, drawing a formal rebuke from the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests, Sir Maarten Wevers.

Seymour called it an honest mistake and claimed he had legal advice saying he did not technically own the properties. That is a distinction the rest of us might find difficult to take seriously. A beneficiary of a trust that holds property stands to inherit or profit from that property. The rules requiring disclosure of such interests are not ambiguous. They are written plainly in Standing Orders, and Seymour is a lawmaker who has sat in Parliament for over a decade... a decade too long some might argue.

What makes this particularly pointed is that in 2017, when he was still falsely presenting himself as property-free, Seymour told RNZ: "The fact that the average National MP owns 2.2 properties of their own might suggest why they have spent a lot of time introducing solutions that you would almost suspect were not supposed to work, because they certainly have not." He was right. He was also, at that moment, a beneficiary of trusts that held the very kind of assets he was criticising his colleagues for owning.

One is entitled to ask what he was really doing when he invoked that argument. He was not speaking truth to power. He was in fact dishonestly presenting himself to the public as just another ordinary Kiwi.

Having now restored interest deductibility for rental property investors as a key plank of the coalition agreement with National, and having championed the removal of no-cause evictions, the right-wing coalition government have ensured that the landlord class which funds their political parties have received a considerable return for their political investment, an investment that is ultimately paid for with globally high rents.

A HOMELESSNESS CRISIS OF THEIR OWN MAKING

The claim that the Green Party's proposals would cause homelessness requires particular scrutiny, because the homelessness crisis is already here. It grew substantially under the very deregulatory settings that ACT champions, and it has worsened measurably under the current neoliberal government.

The number of people sleeping rough in Auckland more than doubled between September 2024 and September 2025. Wellington's Downtown Community Ministry recorded a 25 percent increase in rough sleepers in 2025 compared to the prior year. In Christchurch, the City Mission recorded 270 new clients in just six months to March 2025, up from 156 in the corresponding period prior.

The government tightenning the gateway to emergency housing is partly to blame, a policy that came into force in August 2024. The rate of emergency housing applications being declined rose from 4 percent in March 2024 to 36 percent by June 2025. One social agency reported that in a single month, every one of the 27 people they referred to Work and Income for emergency housing was turned away. The government has also reduced its funding for homelessness support by $79 million compared to the prior financial year.

Emergency housing motel numbers have fallen, from 3,141 in December 2023 to 591 a year later. Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka declared this a triumph. The Salvation Army described it more accurately as a likely contributor to the rising number of people living on the street.

To invoke the threat of future homelessness as a reason to do nothing about present homelessness is not policy analysis. It is a defunct defence of the arrangement that produced the crisis in the first place.

WHAT ACTUALLY WORKS

The international evidence is available to any government willing to look at it. Vienna has kept housing affordable for over a century through a combination of city land ownership and large-scale municipal development that sets a genuine price anchor for the broader rental market. 

Singapore's Housing and Development Board provides affordable housing to nearly 80 percent of the population, combining public construction, grants, and income-sensitive pricing to ensure that shelter is a right rather than a commodity to be speculated on. Finland, through its Housing First policy introduced in 2008, became the only European Union country where the number of homeless people has consistently declined year on year. These nations did not stumble into housing security by removing tenant protections and trusting property investors to be decent humans. They built it deliberately, through sustained public investment and enforceable standards.

WHAT REFORM MUST LOOK LIKE

Any meaningful reform in New Zealand must begin with a centralised rental database, a single authoritative register from which all real estate agents and property managers are required to operate. Every rental property should be assessed and graded by size, condition, insulation, heating, proximity to services, and structural integrity. Rents should be set in relation to that assessed quality, not in relation to the maximum amount prospective tenants can pay.

Properties should be offered to renters in order of quality, at affordable rents calibrated to their actual standard. The practical effect of this would be significant, as better quality houses would be rented first. Owners should also be substantially financially penalised if they leave their properties empty and dilapidated, or demolish houses that are still suitable for human habitation. A substantial proportion of New Zealand's older rental housing stock fails that test. The Healthy Homes Standards are a beginning. A Rental Warrant of Fitness, independently certified, publicly searchable, and tied to legal occupancy, is the logical next step.

The Tenancy Tribunal also requires substantive reform. The procedural and evidential disadvantages facing tenants in dispute with landlords are well documented. The current framework leans heavily toward those with legal experience and resources. Protections for renters need to be strengthened in law, not merely recommended as guidelines, and legal representation support for tenants at the Tribunal must be funded accordingly.

There are genuine risks in any rent control regime implemented carelessly. A blunt national cap, applied without regard for regional conditions, property quality, or supply dynamics, could suppress new construction if designed poorly. That's why the Green Party also owes New Zealand a costed, detailed build programme alongside its tenancy protections. Ambition without logistics isn't a housing policy. It is a press release.

But the answer to that risk is better policy design, not the continued absence of any policy at all.

And New Zealand must build state houses that people actually want to live in. Not cramped, isolated units on the periphery of cities, but well-designed, well-located homes that integrate their residents into communities with genuine access to schools, transport, parks, and employment. Vienna did not solve its housing crisis by building chicken coops. Neither did Singapore.

The lessons are available. The question, as ever in this country, is whether the political will exists to act on it, or whether we will continue to mistake the interests of an asset-rich parliamentary class for the national interest, and simply give up by accepting the resulting misery as a natural consequence of the free market.

Karen Chhour Claims Failed Boot Camp was a Success

The New Zealand Government’s military-style youth boot camp pilot, trumpeted as a cornerstone of their “tough on crime” agenda, has collapsed into a predictable quagmire of failure. Despite clear evidence of past boot camp failures and explicit warnings from various experts, Children’s Minister Karen Chhour and her coalition partners have persisted, touting success in a programme where seven of ten participants reoffended, one died, and three were incarcerated youth justice facilities. This is more than a policy blunder, it’s a glaring example of a government so disconnected from reality that it portrays calamity as achievement.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

Bootcamp re-offending rate revealed: 80% allegedly offended within the year

Most of the teenagers who took part in the military-style bootcamp pilot went on to allegedly re-offend within the year, the ministry has confirmed. But that doesn’t mean the Government views this as a failed experiment.

The Government had, for months, refused to confirm how many of the bootcamp participants had gone on to allegedly re-offend. But on Friday, a week after the pilot finished, Oranga Tamariki deputy chief executive Iain Chapman confirmed the alleged re-offending rate sat at about 80%.

...

Children’s Minister Karen Chhour has since introduced a bill to continue the MSA programme, including giving the Youth Court power to force young people to participate in it.

“Zero re-offending was never going to be realistic, but the goal of this programme has always been to provide meaningful supports and an opportunity for these young people to make better choices,” she said.

That bill was expected to pass in time for a new cohort to start next year.

Yesterday, RNZ also reported:

Minister, OT hail boot camp success despite majority reoffending

Seven of the 10 young men involved in the controversial military-style academy (MSA) boot camp pilot reoffended, according to Oranga Tamariki.

But the agency and its Minister is calling the programme a success, after eight of the original 10 participants successfully completed the first 12-month pilot.

During the pilot, which has just concluded, participants ran away, one was kicked out of the programme and another was killed in a three-vehicle crash.

 

Let’s rewind. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care laid bare the horrors of earlier boot camp iterations, like the Te Whakapakari Youth Programme, where young people endured physical, psychological, and sexual abuse under the guise of rehabilitation. Research from as early as 1983 showed a 71% reoffending rate within a year, climbing to a staggering 92% by 1988. The 2010 Military Activity Camp (MAC) was no better, over 80% of participants reoffended within 12 months.

Experts, from Victoria University’s forensic psychologists to the Children’s Commissioner, screamed from the rooftops that these programmes don’t work. They exacerbate trauma, entrench anti-social attitudes, and fail to address the root causes of youth offending: poverty, family harm, and systemic inequity. Yet, the coalition of chaos government ignored these numerous warnings, resurrecting a failed model with a glossy new name: Military-Style Academies.

The results? Predictably dire. Seven of the ten young men in the pilot reoffended, two landed back in youth justice residences, and one tragically died in a car crash. Another absconded during a funeral, only to be arrested for attempted armed carjacking. Karen Chhour, with breathtaking audacity, somehow calls this a success.

Her crocodile tears over the death of a participant, just like her tears over ‘unsafe workplaces’ and ‘bullying behaviour’ in Parliament, ring hollow when she refuses to pause the programme or acknowledge its systemic failures. To claim, as she does, that “zero reoffending” was never the goal is a pathetic sidestep. What, then, if not to rehabilitate, is the point of a rehabilitation programme that funnels vulnerable youth back into crime or, worse, to their graves? What is the point of a boot camp that results in higher reoffending rates than would be seen by doing nothing?

Chhour’s assertion that families are “overwhelmingly positive” about the programme is laughable when weighed against the reality: participants running away, reoffending, and facing incarceration. Her defence, that these young men, mostly Māori, are too complex to expect better outcomes, smacks of defeatism and cultural insensitivity. It’s a convenient excuse for a minister who has consistently failed to deliver, on anything.

Chhour’s tenure as Minister for Children has been marred by serial incompetence, nowhere more evident than in her mishandling of Oranga Tamariki’s communication breakdowns. Her failure to be informed of a second abscondee from the boot camp pilot, described by her own words as “unacceptable” exposes a staggering lack of oversight. Oranga Tamariki’s acting chief executive, Andrew Bridgman, dismissed this as a “simple mistake” within a “big bureaucracy of 4000 people,” but Chhour’s inability to ensure basic communication channels function properly reflects her broader inadequacy. She was left in the dark about critical incidents, including absconding participants, until media scrutiny forced the issue into the open, undermining her claims of accountability.

This isn’t an isolated lapse, Oranga Tamariki’s systemic failure to communicate effectively with providers, as highlighted by the Public Service Association, saw long-standing services blindsided by funding cuts, with Chhour callously labelling them as “abusing funds” without any evidence to substantiate her claims. Her refusal to engage with the Children’s Commissioner on use-of-force powers in boot camps further underscores her aversion to scrutiny and collaborative governance.

Chhour’s failures extend beyond Oranga Tamariki to her role as Associate Minister of Police, where her oversight of firearms reform has been equally dismal. Charged with strengthening gun control in the wake of the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks, Chhour has failed to register her own weapons while presiding over a stalled Firearms Registry she wants to get rid off, with only 30% of licensed firearms owners registered by mid-2024, despite a five-year deadline. Her inability to drive compliance or address loopholes in the Arms Act has left communities vulnerable, with illegal firearms still circulating among criminals. This mirrors her approach to youth justice: loud promises, minimal delivery, and a refusal to heed expert warnings or accept her own limitations.

Luxon on bringing back boot camps:

"We're going to do things differently, we're going to try things. And some things may work, and some things may not work but we're going to do things differently."

That's cool, it's only the most vulnerable kids lives you're experimenting with https://t.co/J1pAGljZlv pic.twitter.com/N7TsCZgzOq

— Nick (@StrayDogNZ) July 4, 2024

However, this government’s disconnect extends well beyond beyond boot camps. Their obsession with punitive measures, extending Young Serious Offender designations to younger teens, slashing community support funding, and ignoring evidence-based interventions, shows a callous disregard for what actually reduces youth crime: early intervention, whānau support, and trauma-informed care...not to mention worthwhile employment, social cohesion and secure housing.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s “try something different” mantra is a hollow soundbite when the “something” is a recycled failure that costs $51 million over four years while Māori youth, who make up 80-85% of the cohort, bear the brunt. The coalition’s claim of success isn't just ludicrous, it’s a betrayal of vulnerable young people and a slap in the face to survivors of past boot camp abuses. Chhour and her government are not just out of touch; they’re wilfully blind, peddling a failed experiment as progress while the evidence, and the human cost, shows otherwise.

They're Distracting You From Their Policy Failures

In a political landscape increasingly defined by distraction and dysfunction, the National-led coalition has descended into a quagmire of trivial pursuits and economic neglect. The latest offerings from Winston Peters and David Seymour exemplify this trend: Peters’ pointless push to legislate the countries name as, well, New Zealand, and Seymour’s obsession with deregulating the placement of backyard sheds. These aren't the actions of a government focused on the pressing issues facing Aotearoa; they're the desperate ploys of government MPs scrambling to stay in the headlines while the economy teeters and ordinary Kiwis bear the brunt.

 

On Friday, the NZ Herald reported:

 

Making ‘New Zealand’ country’s official name added to NZ First’s ever-changing list of bills

New Zealand First’s stack of publicly announced Member’s Bills has grown yet again, with the party today proposing legislation to make “New Zealand” the official name of the country in law.

The legislation – which still needs to be picked from the ballot of Member’s Bills – comes in response to the party’s unease over the use of “Aotearoa”, including in Parliament. 

 

...

It’s the eighth Member’s Bill the party has announced this year, but due to the rules of Parliament, NZ First is only able to have four in the ballot at any one time.

Only MPs who aren’t ministers – NZ First has four backbenchers – can have Member’s Bills and they can only have one in the ballot at a time.

This has meant the party has had to shuffle out several of the bills it has previously announced, but which remain on NZ First’s website as “Our Member’s Bills”.

For example, the “Conscience Acts Referendums Bill”, which was revealed in March to remove conscience votes in Parliament and instead require some particular legislation to go to a national public referendum, no longer appears on Parliament’s website.

Let’s start with Winston Peters' bungling, whose proposal to enshrine “New Zealand” as the country’s official name is another play for the bigoted vote. The name is already codified in law, used globally, and etched into our national identity. This legislative stunt serves no practical purpose and diverts parliamentary resources, which could be better utilised to try and fix the countries more pressing issues, such as homelessness and the cost of living crisis. It reeks of Peters’ trademark populism, a distraction from the coalition’s inability to address substantive issues it appears to have no intention of actually solving.

Similarly, David Seymour has championed easing rules on shed placement, arguing that shrinking section sizes justifies this change. While Seymour frames this as a win for homeowners, it’s a policy so niche it barely registers against the backdrop of people's economic hardship. There's no record of any New Zealander ever being fined for having a garden shed in the wrong place, leading one to wonder: is this really the best use of ministerial time when 112,496 people face severe housing deprivation? These trivial policies are part of a broader pattern of headline-grabbing stunts designed to mask the coalition’s lethargy on substantive issues such as Gaza. They're trying to distract you from their economic mismanagement as well.

Furthermore, the government’s decision to overhaul the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is another knee-jerk reaction, rushed through without robust research or consultation in an attempt to take the focus off of the consequences of their policies, such as declining achievement rates, a decline that's largely the result of our reduced living standards. But instead of actually doing anything to make sure children and young people are in a position to actually learn and reach their full potential, the coalition is more concerned with saving money by providing inedible school lunches.

Education Minister Erica Stanford’s plan to replace NCEA, a system in place for over 20 years, with a new framework lacks evidence of its efficacy. Only 56% of students passed NCEA literacy and numeracy writing tests in June 2023, and 64% passed reading, yet the coalition offers no data to suggest their overhaul will improve these figures. They're again using the opportunity to blame Labour for unworkable NCEA changes brought in by the John Key led National government. This move appears less about educational reform and more about diverting attention from the cost-of-living crisis, where consumer inflation remains stubbornly high and domestic price pressures show no signs of easing, which is having a detrimental effect on young people's ability to learn.

The coalition’s economic mismanagement is also starkly evident in the escalating wave of business liquidations and mounting mortgage stress. Since the National-led government took office in November 2023, business liquidations have surged, with 2,976 companies entering liquidation in 2024 alone, a 27% increase year-on-year, driven heavily by the downturn in construction, hospitality, and our retail sectors. Non-performing loans have also risen, with 485,000 consumers in arrears as of May 2025, including 21,900 mortgage holders behind by over 30 days. With New Zealand’s GDP contracting by 2.1% in the year to September 2024, despite a population growth of 1.2%, and net core Crown debt reaching $175.5 billion (42.5% of GDP) in June 2024, the economic outlook is grim. Treasury forecasts debt to climb to $192 billion by mid-2026, and economists warn that ongoing austerity and global trade shocks, such as Trump's 15% tariffs, could push liquidation rates higher, with small-to-medium enterprises (97% of New Zealand’s businesses) particularly vulnerable to further closures.

Meanwhile, mortgage holders face mounting pressure as interest rates, which rose sharply from 2.58% in August 2021 to a peak of 7.5% by January 2024 under the previous Labour government’s tenure, have only modestly declined under the National-led coalition. As of July 2025, the average one-year fixed mortgage rate sits at 4.97%, a drop of about 170 basis points since the Reserve Bank began cutting the Official Cash Rate (OCR) from 5.5% to 3.25% since August 2024. It's little wonder that the major banks are making record breaking profits ($7.22 billion in 2024) given they aren't always passing on the Reserve Bank's monetary stimulus. This relief is marginal for many, as debt-servicing costs remain elevated.

The National-led government’s trickle down economics and tax cuts, which disproportionately benefit higher earners, have failed to stimulate any meaningful economic recovery. Wage growth, slowing to 3.7% in June 2025 from 6.9% in June 2023, lags behind living costs, with inflation at 2.7% in June 2025 (up from 2.1% estimates) and essentials like rent, food, and utilities consuming 62–98% of disposable income for many low-income households. This mismatch exacerbates financial strain, as the coalition’s focus on fiscal restraint over investment stifles demand and deepens hardship for ordinary Kiwis.

David Seymour’s rhetoric about “saving” even more money (read less money in your back pocket), through further cuts and policy tinkering, such as his Regulatory Standards Bill, is a hollow promise that threatens to deepen New Zealand’s economic woes. Far from delivering efficiency, the bill imposes $50–60 million annually in administrative costs, as estimated by MBIE, due to mandatory Consistency Accountability Statements and a new Regulatory Standards Board that duplicates existing oversight mechanisms. Seymour and other coalition MPs have falsely claimed that the holy grail of artificial intelligence will somehow magically streamline these processes to reduce costs, yet experts like Victoria University’s Andrew Lensen has categorically debunk this claim, noting AI’s need for human oversight limits cost savings. Even if AI had the ability to streamline the government's processes, their failure to adapt is in stark contrast to their dishonest rhetoric, especially in respect to the National led government slashing $1.5 billion from public sector budgets, including innovation and digital transformation programmes. There's no question that since taking office in November 2023, the coalition has stifled AI development critical for economic resilience. By cutting and deregulating without researching long-term impacts, Seymour’s latest iteration of an already defeated bill undermines worker protections and environmental standards, standards that are there to ensure that taxpayers don't always foot the bill for things like the extractive industries environmental pollution. This reckless approach pulls money from an already struggling economy, money that could be going towards more productive sectors such as business innovation and housing security.

Westpac’s senior economist Satish Ranchhod warns that domestic inflation pressures will persist, yet Seymour’s policies seem poised to deepen hardship for the 120,000 already deprived children struggling to get by amid the cost-of-living crisis. It's becoming more aparent with every press release that this “Coalition of Chaos” government thrives on distraction, not delivery.

From Peters’ name game to Seymour’s shed obsession, their policies are an excercise in irrelevance. Meanwhile, the real issues, rising homelessness, the cost of living crisis, hungry children, business failures, and mortgage stress, go unaddressed. With 65% of New Zealanders believing the economy is rigged for the rich, the coalition’s focus on trivialities only fuels discontent. Aotearoa deserves better: a government that tackles the cost-of-living crisis head-on, not one that rearranges the deck chairs while the economy continues to burn.

National's Pathetic Nanny-State Policy Tweaks

Many politicians within the current National-led coalition government have spent much of their careers railing against the supposed "Nanny State" excesses of Labour’s past, particularly of the Helen Clark era. They used to accuse Clark’s Fifth Labour Government of suffocating New Zealanders with overbearing regulations and paternalistic policies, such as requiring power saving light bulbs and water saving shower heads. Yet, in a twist of irony sharper than a shearing blade, this self-proclaimed coalition of freedom has unveiled a raft of petty and pointless rules that would make even the most zealous bureaucrat blush.

From dictating when school kids can use cellphones or protest against climate inaction to taking control of beneficiaries payments to meddling in farmyard chores to tightening the screws on election booth treats to banning transgender people from using toilets, and now dictating how businesses handle pay-wave surcharges, the coalition of chaos is proving itself the true practitioners of the Nanny Statism they once decried.


On Wednesday, RNZ reported:

Chores young people can do on a farm changing

The agriculture sector will be consulted on proposed changes to risk regulations on what chores young people can safely carry out on the family farm.

Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden said it will consult on these thresholds, like collecting eggs or feeding small animals, while ensuring safety is not compromised.

Minister van Velden said children will be able to do more complex tasks with supervision and training as they get older - but expects higher-risk activities like being near heavy machinery to remain off-limits.

Labour’s Chris Hipkins rightly criticised the coalition’s bizarre consultation on what chores children can do on family farms, calling it a solution in search of a problem. The National-led government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that the age-old tradition of kids mucking in on the family farm requires a regulatory overhaul. Apparently, the coalition believes that rural parents need Wellington’s guiding hand to decide whether their teenager can feed the chooks.

This is the same National Party that once lambasted Helen Clark’s government for its "Helengrad" type controlling tendencies, accusing Labour of infantilising New Zealanders with rules like the "anti-smacking law" However here they are, drafting a rulebook for farmyard tasks that’s as patronising as it is pointless. The irony is thicker than a mud patch: National, the party of personal responsibility, now wants to nanny rural families into compliance.

Then there’s the coalition’s obsession with election booth "treating." The Electoral Act 1993 already bans providing free food, drink, or entertainment to sway voters, but apparently that wasn’t nanny state enough for National. They've now doubled down with a new rule slapping a 100-meter buffer zone around polling stations, again outlawing sausage sizzles or lolly scrambles on election day as if a free Raspberry Drop could topple democracy. It’s a petty tweak to an existing law, dressed up as a bold stand against voter bribery, yet it’s exactly the kind of bureaucratic meddling National once sneered at Labour for. One can only imagine the scandal: a hangi or a lolly scramble swaying the vote in a marginal electorate! This is particularly ridiculous when you consider how the coalition of chaos is desperately trying to tilt the next election in their favour by taking away people's right to register to vote on election day, which will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders from participating in democracy.

This is the same coalition of political parties that once sneered at Labour’s supposed overreach, accusing Clark’s government of stifling free expression and community spirit. The hypocrisy is staggering. National once decried Labour’s "nanny state" for restricting individual freedoms, but apparently, a cuppa or sticker at the polling booth is a threat to democracy itself.

And then there’s the pathetic pay-wave surcharge saga, an exercise in futility dressed up as cost-of-living relief. The National-led government proudly announced a ban on surcharges for contactless payments, trumpeting it as a win for struggling consumers. They claimed it would save Kiwis money at the checkout, painting it as a bold strike against sneaky fees. But in a classic bait-and-switch, the coalition later quietly advised businesses to simply bake these fees into their overall prices. So, instead of reducing costs, the ban just shifts the burden to people who bother to punch in their numbers, potentially increasing prices across the board for everyone, whether they pay by card or cash. This isn’t relief; it’s a sleight of hand. Just like their promises of tax relief, National’s latest “solution” to the cost-of-living crisis looks more like a bureaucratic shuffle, forcing businesses to navigate new pricing rules while consumers foot the bill.

Retailers & hospitality have said they will add the surcharge to the price of the goods & services. Without capping what the credit card companies (banks) can charge the business, Luxon's claims are duplicitous. All people will in fact pay more, not just those using a credit card https://t.co/TVXXSNDGW8

— Maxine Gay (@GayMaxine) July 29, 2025

This coalition of chaos, as it’s been aptly dubbed, seems determined to outdo by a country mile the very "Helengrad" caricature it once created and weaponised. The National-led government’s fixation on micro-managing everyday life, whether it’s kids doing chores, people using toilets or paywave surcharges, reveals a governing philosophy that’s less about liberty and more about grabbing headlines with pointless gimmicks.

However, their micromanaging isn't always trivial. They’ve also axed Labour’s world-leading smokefree legislation, a policy designed to shield future generations from tobacco’s deadly grip, all while claiming it’s about slashing red tape. This reckless repeal, scrapping measures like denicotinisation and limits on cigarette sales, hands Big Tobacco hundreds of millions in taxpayer-funded profits, betraying Kiwis’ health for corporate gain. National’s pious rants against Labour’s “nanny state” ring hollow when they’re selling out young people's future to the tobacco giants, one puff at a time.
 

On Wednesday, the NZ Herald reported:

 

Government extends tax break for Philip Morris heated tobacco products

Verrall said the onus should be on Philip Morris to prove its product was safe.

“There is no reason why the government should be running a study for Philip Morris to help get its products used,” she said. “This product is not a health product. It is a harmful product.”

Verrall said the latest update from the Treasury showed the HTP tax cut was forecast to cost up to $293m if continued until 2029.

“It’s deeply worrying when our health system is underfunded that the Government is giving away $300m to the benefit of a single company with links to one of the coalition partners,” Verrall said.

The previous Labour government's, for all their flaws, sought to balance social progress with pragmatic governance, introducing measures like KiwiSaver and Working for Families to empower New Zealanders. National’s relentless criticism of the Clark and Ardern administrations as overbearing now looks like complete and utter projection. Luxon's coalition of chaos is by far the worst micromanagers New Zealand has ever seen.

This coalition, with its scattergun approach to policy and penchant for meddling in the minutiae of daily life, has taken the nanny state baton and run with it, straight into the farmyard, the polling booth, and the checkout counter. If this is National’s vision of "getting New Zealand back on track," then New Zealanders might wonder if the track leads to a bureaucracy more stifling than anything Helengrad could ever dream of.

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."

⚠️ News that this year’s 3-day Youth Parliament has been heavily censored by the Ministry of Youth Development is a shocking act of political control.

Youth MPs were invited to engage — yet have been told to stay silent on issues like climate change, voting rights, and pay… pic.twitter.com/gplINLmaC2

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) July 1, 2025

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.

Another Bunch of Rightwing Propagandists

In New Zealand’s murky right-wing scene, a cast of propagandists peddles fear and division. From anti-vax crusaders to culture war stirrers, these figures exploit distrust, offering noise over solutions. Here’s another rundown of some key and bit players, exposing their tactics and selective outrage in New Zealand's polarised political landscape.

 

Alia Bland

Alia Bland, a small-time player in New Zealand’s right-wing echo chamber, flogs anti-mandate and “freedom” rhetoric online with the zeal of a true believer. Her posts swing between earnest hand-wringing and full-on conspiracy yarns, banging on about government overreach or vaccine evils.

She claims to speak for the “ordinary Kiwi” seeking truth, yet her selective outrage, ignoring science while amplifying fear, betrays a knack for cherry-picking facts to suit her narrative. Bland’s no Chantelle Baker, but she’s part of the same choir, dishing up distrust with a side of moral superiority.

Her niche following laps it up, and in the algorithm-driven outrage economy, even minor voices like hers can spark a blaze. While she bangs on about personal freedom, her silence on systemic inequities faced by Māori or other marginalised groups reveals a convenient blind spot in her “every Kiwi matters” mantra. It’s less rebellion than recycled resentment, repackaged for the digital age.

Alistair Harding

Alistair Harding lurks in the murky corners of New Zealand’s conspiracy scene, peddling fringe media and anti-government rants like a dodgy street vendor. From 5G paranoia to vaccine skepticism, his content’s a smorgasbord of tinfoil-hat theories, all dressed up as “hidden truth.”

He claims to champion critical thinking, yet his posts lean on flimsy evidence and recycled global tropes, shunning the rigour he demands of “mainstream” media. Harding’s influence is confined to the already-converted, but his relentless churning of divisive yarns keeps the misinformation bonfire burning.

He’s no mastermind, just a cog in the outrage machine, tilling the same tired dirt with a smug nod to “waking people up.” While preaching about government tyranny, he’s curiously quiet on corporate power or historical injustices that don’t fit his opaque narrative. It’s a classic case of shouting “freedom” while picking and choosing whose freedom counts.

Chantelle Baker

Chantelle Baker reckons she’s a fearless journo, but her “reporting” is more a megaphone for conspiracy-laden rants than anything resembling news. A fixture in NZ’s anti-mandate scene, her social media thrives on stirring the pot, whether it’s hating Jacinda Ardern, questioning vaccine safety or whipping up distrust in institutions.

She claims to stand for truth and transparency, yet her pivot from reality TV to right-wing rabble-rouser reeks of a grift, peddling outrage to punters spoiling for a scrap. Facts and nuance get the boot as Baker sticks to her disinformation narrative, bugger the evidence.

While she crows about protecting Kiwi freedoms, her silence on issues like Māori rights or social equity exposes a selective sense of justice. Her posts fuel division, not solutions, and her cult following eats it up like the idiots they are, proving that in the digital age, a loud voice and a shaky grip on reality can still pull a crowd.

Don Nicolson

Don Nicolson, former Federated Farmers boss, is a diehard champion of rural conservatism, painting himself as the voice of the heartland. His rants slag off environmental rules, Māori co-governance, and “city elites” meddling in farmers’ lives.

He claims to stand for fairness, yet his selective outrage skips over climate change realities or historical land disputes that don’t suit his bigoted narrative. Nicolson’s rhetoric paints farmers as victims of a woke conspiracy, but his push for deregulation often ignores the environmental fallout that hits rural communities hardest.

While he goes on about protecting the “backbone of NZ,” his racist dismissal of Māori rights and Treaty obligations reveals a narrow view of who counts as Kiwi. It’s less a principled stand than a megaphone for grievances, dressed up as folksy wisdom, keeping the rural right fired up without offering any real solutions.

Matt Shelton

Matt Shelton, the now suspended doc turned anti-vax crusader, is a martyr for NZ’s “freedom” mob, wielding his medical credentials like a badge of rebellion. His loud rejection of COVID mandates and vaccine safety landed him in strife with medical authorities, but it’s only fueled his cult status among the anti-vax crowd.

He claims to champion science and patient choice, yet his cherry-picked “evidence” and scaremongering lean more on fear than facts, undermining the public health he once swore to protect. Shelton’s rants about government overreach conveniently ignore the societal cost of misinformation, like strained hospitals or vulnerable communities hit hardest by pandemics.

While preaching about truth, he’s cozy with fringe groups pushing 5G conspiracies. It’s a textbook case of expertise gone rogue, where a doctor’s title becomes a prop for headlines, not healing, leaving Kiwis to navigate through the disinformation.

Samantha Bailey

Samantha Bailey, a Christchurch ex-doctor turned YouTube star, swapped stethoscope for anti-vax spotlight, peddling videos that trash PCR testing and COVID vaccine safety to her global audience. She claims to seek scientific truth, yet her 300,000-subscriber platform leans on debunked conspiracies, ignoring peer-reviewed evidence while touting her “family doctor” cred despite no practicing certificate since 2020.

Investigated by the Medical Council for misinformation, she cried foul about her free speech, but her “truth-telling” sidesteps the harm of scaring punters off life-saving jabs. Bailey’s rants about government overreach also ignore systemic issues like Māori health gaps, revealing a narrow view of what “health” really is.

Her pivot from medicine to media grift keeps the anti-vax crowd hooked, but it’s less about facts and more about trying to get headlines. In NZ’s misinformation wars, Bailey’s proof a white coat and a webcam can amplify bunkum, even when the stakes are deadly.

Sue Grey

Sue Grey, the self-styled champion of “freedom” and co-leader of NZ Outdoors & Freedom Party, has carved out a niche peddling anti-vaccine conspiracies and pseudoscientific nonsense. With a law degree of dubious provenance from a now-defunct institution, Grey’s crusade against public health measures reeks of opportunism, exploiting public fear for political gain.

Her relentless spruiking of unproven treatments and baseless claims about government overreach has emboldened a fringe following, while her legal stunts, often dismissed by courts, waste public resources. Her posts expose her as a figure entrenching divisive rhetoric, with some accusing her of aligning with globalist agendas she claims to oppose.

Grey’s antics aren’t just misguided; they’re a dangerous distraction from genuine issues, undermining trust in institutions while offering nothing but noise and no solutions.

Hannah Spierer

Hannah Spierer, co-host of the far-right Counterspin Media, peddles anti-government rhetoric alongside partner Kelvyn Alp, with charges for sharing the banned Christchurch mosque attack livestream cementing her notoriety. Her rants frame her as a “freedom” fighter, railing against censorship and “woke” agendas, yet her anti-feminist tirades, like calling women back to traditional roles, clash with her push for personal liberty.

A former Green activist, she now spins conspiracies about vaccines and Māori rights, claiming to protect New Zealanders while stoking division with debunked narratives. Her “truth-seeking” bravado, seen in fiery speeches at protests, ignores the harm of spreading objectionable material, as noted by the Chief Censor.

Spierer’s pivot from lefty roots to right-wing rabble-rouser reveals a selective sense of justice, loud on government tyranny but silent on historical inequities or communities social inequalities. She’s not exposing truth, she’s fueling outrage, banking on chaos to keep her fringe platform humming.

Kelvyn Alp

Kelvyn Alp, NZ’s conspiracy poster boy, runs Counterspin Media like a one-man propaganda outfit, dishing up a smorgasbord of tinfoil-hat theories from anti-vax tirades to 5G paranoia. He claims to expose “hidden truths,” yet his blend of half-truths and outright fiction leans on fear, not facts, earning him a cult following among the distrustful.

Alp’s knack for playing the rebel journo is undermined by his shaky grip on evidence, peddling narratives that crumble under scrutiny. While he shouts like a madman about government tyranny, he’s curiously quiet on corporate power or historical injustices like Māori land loss, which don’t fit his “freedom” spiel.

It’s less a form of journalism and more a type of dog barking at a carnival, flogging fear to punters who are too stupid to find out the truth for themselves. In New Zealand's outrage economy, Kelvyn Alp is proof that a loud voice and a dodgy webcam can still pull a crowd, even if the message is complete rubbish!

Leah Panapa

Leah Panapa, the radio host with a knack for stirring the cultural pot, has carved a niche as the voice of NZ’s “silent majority.” Her on-air musings flirt with right-wing talking points, from whingeing about cancel culture to questioning Māori co-governance, all served with a smile that masks the divisive nature of her propaganda.

She claims to foster open debate, yet her “just asking questions” excuse has worn thin, barely covering up her bigoted viewpoint. Panapa’s less in-your-face than some, but her platform amplifies resentment, giving airtime to callers who see “woke” conspiracies everywhere. 

While she bangs on about fairness and free speech, her silence on systemic issues like Māori inequality or colonial legacies reveals a selective lens. It’s a masterclass in dog-whistling, where a matey tone and a knack for dodging accountability keep the talkback crowd nodding along, no questions asked.

Martin Devlin

Martin Devlin, the sports broadcaster with a gob that runs faster than a rugby winger, loves playing the everyman hero on NZ’s airwaves. His rants often veer from rugby scores into culture war territory, slagging off political correctness or “snowflakes” with all the subtlety of a bulldozer. 

He claims to champion fairness and straight talk, yet his verbal grenades at marginalised groups, like Māori or trans people, reveal a selective sense of who deserves a fair go. Devlin’s blokey charm pulls in the punters, but his playbook is predictable: amplify outrage, dodge accountability, and repeat ad infinitum.

While he bangs on about keeping sports pure, his willingness to wade into divisive social issues with half-baked takes undermines his “just a sports guy” persona. It’s a classic case of a broadcaster using his platform to fuel culture wars, all while pretending he’s just calling it like he sees it.

Maurice Williamson

Maurice Williamson, a former National Party MP and self-styled libertarian maverick, has long been a polarising figure in New Zealand’s political landscape, known for his theatrical flair and unapologetic push for free-market policies. 

From his early days as “Mr. Pakuranga” to his ministerial roles under John Key, Williamson’s championed deregulation and individual liberty. But now he's more comfortable attacking the very political parties who uphold these values. His selective outrage, railing against government overreach while sidestepping issues like Māori land rights or systemic inequities, reveals a narrow view of “freedom” that prioritises the privileged. 

Now a pundit and occasional provocateur, he keeps the conservative base buzzing with disinformation columns and talks that blend wit with a staunch defence of the status quo, proving he’s still a showman, even if the script feels dated.

Michael Laws

Michael Laws, NZ’s eternal stirrer, has spent decades perfecting the art of being loudly wrong, from shock-jock radio to his stint as Whanganui mayor. His columns and commentaries drip with scorn for “woke” culture, Māori rights, or anything smelling remotely progressive, all cloaked in proclimations of “common sense.”

He also claims to speak for the “ordinary Kiwi,” yet his divisive rhetoric often targets the marginalised, ignoring systemic issues like Māori dispossession that don’t fit his bigoted narrative. Laws’ knack for turning outrage into a personal brand is almost admirable, if it weren’t so transparently racist.

While banging on about free speech and fairness, his selective silence on historical injustices or social inequities reveals a conveniently narrow view of justice. He often mistakes being offensive for being insightful, keeping the culture wars simmering with his smug, recycled conservatism.

Paul Brennan

Paul Brennan, a talkback radio stalwart, has built a career giving airtime to NZ’s perpetually deluded. His shows are a safe space for callers to vent about “woke” policies, them Maorees, or government mandates, with Brennan nodding along like a sympathetic barman whose on the bottle. 

He claims to foster open debate, yet his questions rarely challenge assumptions, instead teeing up the next rant for the talkback faithful. While he pontificates about giving “ordinary Kiwis” a voice, his platform amplifies divisive narratives that sideline marginalised groups, like Māori or trans communities, without a second thought. 

Brennan’s not the loudest in the room, but his quiet enabling keeps the outrage spinning, giving air to gripes that fuel division over solutions. It’s a classic case of a broadcaster playing neutral while stoking the fires of culture wars, all under the guise of “just listening” to the punters.

Peter Williams

Peter Williams, the retired broadcaster turned conservative talkback darling, wields his matey demeanor like a weapon in NZ’s culture wars. His rants slag off “woke” culture, Māori co-governance, and climate policies, sounding like they’re ripped from the racist MAGA playbook. 

He claims to represent “ordinary New Zealanders,” yet his selective outrage ignores systemic issues like Māori inequality or colonial legacies that don’t suit his narrative. Williams’ avuncular charm sells divisive ideas as common sense, keeping the conservative faithful cheering along in ignorance.

While blathering on about free speech and fairness, his silence on historical injustices or marginalised communities’ struggles reveals a narrow view of who counts as “ordinary.” It’s a tired act, using his platform to fuel division while pretending it’s just straight talk. In Aotearoa’s conservative drenched airwaves, Williams proves you can sound like everyone’s mate while picking fights that keep the culture wars alive.

Rodney Hide

Rodney Hide, the openly racist former ACT Party leader, has reinvented himself as NZ’s libertarian loudmouth, banging on about government overreach with born-again zeal. His columns and social media are a love letter to deregulation, individualism, and, surprise, anti-Māori sentiment, all framed as “economic logic.” 

He claims to champion freedom for all, yet his dismissal of Treaty rights and Māori grievances reveals a selective sense of who deserves that freedom. Hide’s knack for dressing up bias and prejudice as principle is admirable, but only for those who are equally as racist.

While he preaches about cutting red tape to save the economy, his silence on corporate greed or environmental costs shows a conveniently narrow lens. The bloke who once danced on TV now tap-dances around accountability, keeping the right-wing faithful fired up with recycled rhetoric that ignores complexities in favour of a simplistic “every man for himself” mantra.

Steven Joyce

Steven Joyce, the ex-National Party bigwig, new chair for New Zealand Media and Entertainment, a media company overseeing numerous newspapers, radio stations and digital platforms, and self-styled economic guru, has reinvented himself as a pundit who can’t resist a dig at anything remotely progressive in Aotearoa. 

Once the brains behind National’s “rock star economy” spin, he now flogs free-market dogma through columns and consultancy gigs, slagging off government spending, Māori co-governance, and “woke” red tape. 

He claims to champion prosperity for all Kiwis, yet his push for deregulation often ignores the environmental and social costs that hit vulnerable communities hardest. Joyce’s polished dogma masks a predictable playbook: frame every issue as a threat to business, sprinkle in dog-whistle populism, and call it analysis. 

While talking rubbish about economic fairness, his silence on Māori land rights or systemic inequities reveals a selective bias. His post-political career is less about insight than keeping the old boys’ club cheering, proving some pollies never stop campaigning, even when they should.

Wayne Wright Junior

Wayne Wright Junior, a fringe figure in NZ’s “freedom” movement, thrives on being the contrarian yelling into Aotearoa’s digital void. His protests against vaccine mandates and 5G conspiracies are a cocktail of distrust and defiance, claiming to defend Kiwi rights against tyranny.

His arguments, heavy on passion but light on evidence, rarely hold up, ignoring the science that protects the communities he claims to champion. His small but vocal following laps up his rants, but his rhetoric fuels chaos over solutions. 

While promoting personal freedom, he’s silent on systemic issues like Māori inequality or historical land theft, revealing a selective sense of justice. Wright’s less a thought leader than a cheerleader for division, shouting about revolution while offering little beyond recycled tropes. In NZ’s political outrage economy, he’s proof a loud voice can still stir the pot, even if it’s empty.