McSkimming Cover-Up: Luxon and Mitchell’s Lies Unravel

The Jevon McSkimming scandal, where a former Deputy Police Commissioner stands accused of sexual offending, with a cover-up stench wafting from the highest echelons of the Police and Parliament, has exposed a government more interested in protecting its own than upholding justice.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority’s report, released on November 11, 2025, paints a damning picture: senior cops failed to act, and the rot extends all the way to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Police Minister Mark Mitchell. Yet, the National Party insists they only learned of the allegations recently. Let’s dissect this flimsy excuse and the media’s complicit silence in a scandal that should bring down the government.

First, the timeline reeks of inconsistency. The NZ Herald reveals that Luxon and Mitchell received anonymous emails detailing McSkimming’s alleged misconduct as early as December 2023. That’s nearly two years ago, yet they claim ignorance until the IPCA report dropped this month. How convenient!

On 12 Nov, the NZ Herald reported:

Jevon McSkimming emails: What happened after Mark Mitchell, Christopher Luxon received anonymous allegations?

Police Minister Mark Mitchell says it was “atrocious” for police headquarters to tell staff in his Beehive office not to inform him of emails arriving in his own parliamentary inbox containing allegations against Jevon McSkimming.

The level of gross incompetency required to not know about these allegation emails should inhibit Luxon and Mitchell from being in Parliament, let alone a part of a New Zealand Government. Their claims of ignorance, however, are stretched beyond credibility when evidence shows they were directly informed through their offices, raising serious questions about their accountability, honesty and leadership.

The IPCA uncovered that over 300 emails were dispatched by the complainant, Ms Z, between December 2023 and April 2024, with senior police allegedly managing to suppress the matter, despite 36 emails being directed to Mark Mitchell and 10 to Christopher Luxon. If police headquarters instructed Mitchell’s office to withhold these communications, which he himself described as “atrocious” why did he fail to demand answers or ensure that all those who failed in their duties are rightly dismissed?

Are we simply to accept that none of the staff in Mitchell’s office, the police staff seconded there or their commanding officers fulfilled their obligation to properly inform the Minister, as explicitly required by the no surprises legislation?

The excuse that standard email procedure was initially followed, which has now apparently been changed, doesn’t wash when the procedure itself reeks of a deliberate gag order to ensure Mitchell and Luxon could feign ignorance. This isn’t oversight; it’s a calculated cover-up, particularly when it comes to trying to protect the Prime Minister, who has largely escaped any proper questioning about the sordid matter.

And now, a bombshell: Mark Mitchell’s own sister was the staff member who responded to Ms Z’s allegation email in January 2024, emails that Mitchell had previously claimed were only seen by police staff members in his office, raising serious questions about nepotism and conflict of interest in this so-called “standard procedure” that looks more like an orchestrated coverup by the day.

On Friday, The Post reported:

Mark Mitchell’s electorate office replied to Jevon McSkimming accuser’s emails

But The Post can reveal that nearly half of those emails — 17 of the 36 — were sent not to his Beehive office but to Mitchell’s Whangaparāoa electorate office throughout January and February 2024.

The graphic messages, sent anonymously, came from Ms Z, a young, former police employee who had been in an extra-marital relationship with McSkimming.

At least one of those emails received a reply from Parliamentary Senior Member Support staffer Lisa Mitchell - the minister’s sister.

Luxon’s “incredibly disappointed” response also rings hollow when his office sat on the emails for months. If opposition leaders received similar tip-offs about a high ranking Police Officer's alleged criminality, and remained silent, there would be hell to pay. The contradiction of coverage and accountability is incredibly stark: the mainstream media, from TVNZ to the Herald, has barely grilled Luxon on this major scandal, preferring to let him sidestep the issue and choose his own talking points.

Contrast this with the relentless scrutiny of Labour MPs when they go for a bike ride or forget to log a meeting. Right-wing scandals get a free pass, while left-wing missteps are flogged to death until there's resignations. Where’s the exposé demanding Luxon and Mitchell's heads? Where's the in-depth analysis highlighting the lies they initially told when claiming ignorance? The silence is deafening, suggesting a media more aligned with power rather than the principles required to keep our politicians honest.

The National Party’s claim of ignorance crumbles under any scrutiny. Mitchell’s admission that police headquarters meddled with his inbox implies someone knew enough to orchestrate a blackout. But that excuse crumbles with the admission that his own sister was privy to the allegations made about McSkimming's sexual offending.

Why didn’t Mitchell and Luxon initiate an investigation after the emails landed, emails they obviously were informed about? The delay smacks of their complicity in the coverup, especially when the IPCA’s findings suggests an orchestrated attempt by Crown Law to try and keep the complainant silent.

The public deserves answers, not more platitudes or excuses, excuses about yet another coverup that only emboldens sexual deviants like Jevon McSkimming and Luxon's former press secretary, Michael Forbes.

This scandal isn’t just about McSkimming’s alleged crimes; it’s a litmus test for the National Party’s integrity. While families struggle to meet the cost of living, the government is preoccupied with trying to shield itself from any fallout over McSkimming's deviancy. They are using the same playbook as the Forbes scandal, ignorance so profound that it should preclude them from standing for office again.

But the main problem is a complete lack of any proper demand by mainstream media or a concerted effort by officials for accountability, coupled with the double standard in scandal coverage, which undermines democracy itself. Another unfortunate failure of the fourth estate to keep our right-wing politicians honest.

A Parliamentary Travesty: Brownlee's Authoritarian Overreach

The spectacle that unfolded in Parliament this week, Where Gerry Brownleee, the Speaker of the House, bumbled his way through Standing Orders, represents nothing short of a constitutional crisis wrapped in the Speaker's robes.

Chlöe Swarbrick, the Green Party co-leader, was unceremoniously booted from the House for the remainder of the week for the grievous sin of suggesting that "If we find six of 68 Government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history" regarding Israel's ongoing war crimes in Gaza.

This isn't just parliamentary theatre; it's a damning indictment of Speaker Gerry Brownlee's authoritarian tendencies and his fundamental inability to apply standing orders with even a semblance of consistency or fairness.
 

Yesterday, 1 News reported:

Swarbrick kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has again been kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise for a comment she made yesterday in the House.

Yesterday, Swarbrick was kicked out of Parliament during an urgent debate on recognising Palestine as a state.

The debate was called after Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Government was weighing up its position on the issue.

In recent times, the UK, Canada, France and Australia have announced plans to recognise Palestine as a state.

During the debate on Tuesday, Swarbrick said MPs could "grow a spine" and support her bill which would impose sanctions on Israel.

In response, Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee said: "That is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise." When she refused, Brownlee said she would have to leave for the rest of the week and removed her from the House.

 

The hypocrisy here is so brazen it would be laughable if it weren't so deeply concerning for our democratic institutions. When John Key famously roared at the entire Labour Party to "get some guts" during his tenure as Prime Minister, did we see Brownlee, then in opposition, calling for suspensions? Quite the contrary. Brownlee himself applauded most vociferously, treating Key's insulting outburst with admiration. Brownlee was similarly accepting of Brooke van Velden's use of the word "Cunt". However, when Swarbrick uses less insulting language, calling for government MPs to show some "spine," suddenly we're dealing with language that's "completely unacceptable" to parliamentary standards.

This selective enforcement isn't just inconsistent, it reveals Brownlee's fundamental bias as Speaker, a bias that has been exhibited throughout his tenure. As Speaker of the House, his role demands impartiality, yet time and again we witness him wielding the Speaker's power like a partisan cudgel, particularly against opposition MPs who dare challenge the government's moral failings.

CHLOE EJECTED:

I had a little sympathy for parliamentary protocol until I saw this. Gerry Brownlee gives standing ovation to John Key after Key's outburst criticising opposition MPs.

Brownlee also contravened Jonathan Hunt's Standing Orders by banning her for a week#nzpol pic.twitter.com/rdJinbGKh2

— Mountain_Tui (@Mountain_Tui) August 12, 2025

Brownlee's authoritarian streak isn't new. Earlier this year, his handling of the Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka in Parliament demonstrated the same heavy-handed approach. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke and co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi have been hit with sanctions for what was fundamentally an expression of cultural protest against legislation threatening Treaty rights.

Rather than recognising the profound cultural and constitutional significance of their protest, Brownlee chose punishment over understanding. The parallel is striking: whether it's Māori MPs defending indigenous rights or Swarbrick calling for international law enforcement, Brownlee consistently sides with unfair authoritarian silencing over justified democratic debate.

Most concerning is Brownlee's apparent disregard for parliamentary procedure itself. Standing Orders clearly state that following an MP's suspension for one sitting day, "the matter is at an end." Yet Brownlee has attempted to extend Swarbrick's punishment across an entire week, a ruling that fundamentally contradicts established parliamentary practice.

📍Let’s not mince words: Speaker Gerry Brownlee has shown glaring hypocrisy in singling out Chlöe Swarbrick for her sharp—but frankly, deserved—rebuke of the government, and booting her out of the House for the rest of the week.

Her comments came at the end of a fiery speech… pic.twitter.com/60u2fUIzUt

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) August 12, 2025

This isn't just procedural pedantry; it's the difference between rule of law and rule of the whims of a deluded right winger who doesn't understand the correct proceedures that govern his position, or even remember what he himself has said in the past.

In 2008, Gerry Brownlee accused Michael Cullen of not having a backbone. So how can he now say in all honesty that a Green's MP essentially saying the same thing is misconduct?

Here is Brownlee using the exact same language:

Does he agree with Trevor Mallard when he stated in the same speech: “any decent leader would have had the backbone to turn round, go the other way, and not greet Tame Iti,”; if so, does his trio of hongi with Tame Iti last week indicate that he is not a decent leader and has no backbone, because he did not take the strongly worded advice of his wise colleague?

 

When Speakers start making things up as they go along, particularly to silence opposition voices, we're witnessing the erosion of democratic norms that took centuries to establish.

This pattern of believing rules don't apply to him isn't new territory for Brownlee. In 2014, while serving as Transport Minister, he offered to resign after deliberately bypassing airport security in Christchurch, leading two staff members through an exit door to avoid security screening because he was apparently running late for a flight. The Civil Aviation Authority investigation revealed that the dishonest Brownlee had "plenty of time" to go through security correctly and still catch the flight, as a review of screening times that day showed the process took less than two minutes per passenger.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this display of authoritarian overreach from a man whose ministerial career is marked by catastrophic failure. As Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Brownlee presided over one of the most bungled reconstruction efforts in New Zealand's history. The Christchurch rebuild became synonymous with delay, cost overruns, and bureaucratic incompetence under his watch. Communities waited years for basic infrastructure while Brownlee's ministry shuffled papers and shifted blame.

Then there's Brownlee's budget bungling, most notably his increases to the petrol excise duty and user charges because Bill English couldn't balance the budget properly. Not to mention Brownlee's press secretary, Nick Bryant, involvement in Cameron Slater's attack campaign against a public servant which resulted in death threats. Throughout his parliamentary career, Brownlee has demonstrated a particular talent for inflammatory and often racist rhetoric and campaigning when it suits him, yet now he demands standards of discourse he never applied to himself. His history of intemperate outbursts and partisan attacks sits poorly with his current position as supposed guardian of parliamentary decorum.

Swarbrick's comments weren't frivolous parliamentary point-scoring, they addressed New Zealand's immoral position regarding Israel's documented war crimes in Gaza. International courts have established clear evidence of violations of international humanitarian law, but our government appears to be paralysed by political calculation rather than moral clarity.

#BHN Tonight at 9pm
- Jacinda rules out attending COVID hearing
- The hypocrisy around Chloe's ejection
- Erica Stanford bans more te reo in primary schools#nzpol #nzpolitics https://t.co/pJhtGJpqDw

— Pat Brittenden (@patbrittenden) August 13, 2025

When an MP calls for basic adherence to international law and human rights obligations, the appropriate response isn't suspension, particularly in a country that prides itself for it's leadership on democratic principles. Instead, we have a Speaker who treats legitimate criticism of government inaction as grounds for silencing robust debate. This isn't protecting parliamentary standards; it's protecting the government from accountability.

Brownlee's ruling represents a dangerous precedent where Speakers can essentially manufacture extended punishments beyond established procedures. If this stands unchallenged, we're accepting that parliamentary rules can be bent to suit political convenience, a path that leads inevitably to the erosion of democratic safeguards. The real travesty isn't Swarbrick's call for moral courage; it's Brownlee's attempt to silence it through procedural authoritarianism.

John Key Set to Benefit from National Gutting NCEA

Like so many of their policies, the National government’s plan to scrap the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) for "new" qualifications smacks of ideological overreach and corporate influence. At the heart of this upheaval lies a troubling coincidence: the rhetoric of Crimson Education, a for-profit tutoring empire, mirrors the government’s propaganda against NCEA with eerie precision. Former Prime Minister Sir John Key, a senior adviser to Crimson since 2019, stands to gain from a policy shift that could funnel desperate students and parents into his company’s coffers. This smells like a stitch-up, and New Zealanders deserve better than a recycled neoliberal playbook that prioritises profit over pedagogy.

Crimson Education’s co-founder, Jamie Beaton, couldn't contain himself on Q+A (3 August 2025), slamming NCEA as a “rough” curriculum that leaves students “two years behind in core subjects like maths, science.” He bemoaned its lack of international recognition and rigour, pushing for systems like Cambridge or the International Baccalaureate (IB). Just a day later, Education Minister Erica Stanford and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon echoed these sentiments, decrying NCEA’s “inconsistency” and “complexity” while unveiling plans to replace it with the New Zealand Certificate of Education (NZCE) and Advanced Certificate (NZACE).

One day after Crimson Education's Beaton appears on Q&A to denounce NCEA, Erica Stanford announces she is cancelling it, ignoring expert advice.

The next day John Key, business partner to Beaton, flog off their new course How corrupt are the National Party?#nzpol #nzpolitics pic.twitter.com/RD2WgVj8eV

— Mountain_Tui (@Mountain_Tui) August 5, 2025

Both Crimson and the government paint NCEA as a barrier to global competitiveness, advocating for a rigid, exam-heavy model that aligns with Crimson’s expertise in tutoring for elite, international qualifications. The synchronicity is uncanny, almost as if the script was written in the same boardroom.

However, this overhaul, announced by Erica Standford and Chris Luxon, with the National Party's usual blame Labour rhetoric, lacks the robust research and consultation such a seismic shift demands. Principals like Simon Craggs of Papakura High School have slammed the proposal as a “step backwards in time,” warning it could marginalise Māori and Pacific students who’ve benefited from NCEA’s flexibility.

Labour’s Willow-Jean Prime has rightly called out the rushed timeline, consultation from 4 August to 15 September 2025 is a mere six weeks for a policy that won’t fully roll out until 2030.

This isn’t consultation; it’s window dressing, reminiscent of the 1990s neoliberal reforms where “consultation” meant ticking boxes while decisions were already made. The government’s reliance on a damning NZQA briefing feels cherry-picked, ignoring years of refinements that made NCEA inclusive and adaptable. Where’s the evidence that a return to A–E grades and mandatory subjects will lift outcomes for all, not just the academic elite?

 

On August 3, 1 News reported:

NCEA leaves Kiwi kids unprepared for future - Crimson head

The NCEA qualification lacks the rigour needed to prepare New Zealand students for competitive universities and workplaces, the chief executive of Crimson Education says.

It comes as an announcement from the Government and Education Minister Erica Stanford is expected imminently on the future of the NCEA system.

Speaking to Q+A, Crimson Education co-founder Jamie Beaton said NCEA wasn't setting students up well for future success, and lacks international recognition.

“To be honest, it’s rough. NCEA is basically not a rigorous curriculum at all, and students graduating with it are often two years behind in core subjects like maths, science as well,” said Beaton. 

 

On August 4, 1 News reported:

Government proposes axing NCEA, introducing new qualifications

The Government is proposing to replace the current NCEA with new national qualifications, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford announced this morning.

The pair made the announcement in Auckland this morning, saying the current system "doesn’t always deliver what students and employers need".

"We want every New Zealander to reach their full potential and contribute to a thriving economy — and that starts with our students," Luxon said.

 

Jamie Beaton

Jamie Beaton of Crimson Education and Stanford share a strikingly aligned critique of NCEA, asserting its lack of rigour, limited international recognition, inadequate preparation for future pathways, and flawed flexibility that prioritises credit accumulation over meaningful learning. However, these claims can be challenged. The assertion that NCEA lacks rigour ignores its adaptability, which has enabled diverse learners to achieve qualifications, with schools like Papakura High reporting high pass rates. The claim of limited international recognition overstates the issue, as NCEA is accepted by many global universities, and its flexibility allows tailored pathways that rigid systems like Cambridge may not offer.

The argument that NCEA fails to prepare students for future success overlooks its vocational and academic pathways, which have supported students into trades and tertiary study, as evidenced by NZQA’s data on qualification attainment. Finally, criticising NCEA’s flexibility as a flaw disregards its strength in catering to varied learning needs, unlike exam-heavy models that risk marginalising non-academic students, as principals like Simon Craggs warn, potentially exacerbating inequities in a rushed, under-consulted reform.

The costs, both financial and social, will be significant. Redesigning curricula, retraining teachers, and transitioning students over five years will demand millions, yet no clear budget has been outlined. Schools, already stretched by the National Party's austerity, face disruption as they juggle dual assessment systems during the 2028–2030 transition period. Students, particularly from lower-decile schools, risk falling through the cracks in a system that prioritises exam performance over diverse pathways. Craggs warns this could exacerbate inequities, leaving Māori and Pacific students, who make up half our future population, further behind.

Cancel NCEA! NZ education is so poor! AI has to do it instead!

But does anyone know why and when things turned poorly?

2009 - 2012 after significant cuts to education by NZ Prime Minister John Key, the same man advising Jamie Beaton from Crimson Education#nzpol #nzpolitics pic.twitter.com/xsTlwNevmw

— Mountain_Tui (@Mountain_Tui) August 5, 2025

Mainstream media has largely failed to probe the potential conflicts of interest here. While some outlets report on criticism of the reforms, they’ve sidestepped the glaring connection between John Key, Crimson Education, and the government’s anti-evidence based agenda. Key’s advisory role at Crimson, a company poised to profit from heightened demand for tutoring in a more competitive system, raises red flags. Beaton’s Q+A appearance, perfectly timed with Stanford’s announcement, suggests a coordinated push, yet media silence on this link is deafening.

Are we to believe it’s coincidence that a former National PM and his corporate allies are cheerleading a policy that could drive families to Crimson’s pricey services? This isn’t about improving education; it’s about reshaping it to benefit a select few. The government’s haste, lack of consultation, and unbudgeted costs betray a policy driven by ideology, not evidence. New Zealand deserves an education system that uplifts all students, not one that hands the reins to corporate players like Crimson Education. It’s time to call this what it is: a betrayal of our kids’ futures.

Was MethaneSAT Deliberately Compromised?

New Zealand’s MethaneSAT, launched with fanfare in March 2024 to tackle methane emissions, has become a troubling case study in corporate overreach and government opacity. The satellite’s abrupt failure in June 2025, attributed to a mysterious loss of power, raises serious questions about the role of Blue Canyon Technologies (BCT), a subsidiary of the controversial RTX Corporation (formerly Raytheon), which took control of the satellite in March 2025. This move, shrouded in secrecy, reeks of a deliberate attempt to undermine a mission that threatened the fossil fuel industry’s interests, with our National-led government seemingly complicit in the affair.
 

Today, RNZ reported:

 

Space Minister Judith Collins goes to ground over alleged government failures managing NZ's first space mission

Space Minister Judith Collins has gone to ground over alleged government failures managing New Zealand's first official, taxpayer-funded satellite mission.

Last year, Collins welcomed the launch of MethaneSAT as "a milestone in the development of New Zealand's space sector".

However, since the methane-hunting satellite lost communication with its owners, she has refused to answer questions on whether there would be any form of review of New Zealand's involvement in the mission.

...

Several experts RNZ has spoken to in the space industry lamented the choice to spend tens of millions being involved in a third party project, rather than making the country's first space mission something designed and launched from New Zealand.

Political leaders declined to front on calls for a thorough review.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has blamed Labour for overseeing the initial investment and referred follow-up questions to Collins. That's despite the launch and orbit happening under the current government.

Collins has repeatedly refused to comment and referred all questions, including questions abut whether the government would hold a review, to the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), which houses the country's Space Agency.

MethaneSAT was designed to deliver precise, high-resolution data on methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, with a focus on exposing leaks from oil and gas operations. The satellite could have also potentially tracked the release of the potent greenhouse gas from agriculture. Such transparency is anathema to industries that thrive on obfuscation, preferring to downplay their environmental impact while lobbying for deregulation.

The National government, under Christopher Luxon, has shown a troubling alignment with these interests, delaying accountability, rolling back climate policies and championing fossil fuel exploration. This cosy relationship casts a shadow over the decision to hand control of MethaneSAT to BCT, a company with no stake in New Zealand’s environmental goals but a clear lineage in RTX’s defence empire, notorious for its ethical and legal transgressions.

The transfer of control to BCT in March 2025, ostensibly to address “operational challenges,” was a baffling move. Why entrust a critical climate mission to a subsidiary of RTX, a corporation mired in scandals? RTX has a rap sheet that includes a $950 million settlement in 2024 for defrauding the U.S. Department of Defense with defective pricing, bribing Qatari officials to secure contracts, and violating export controls by leaking sensitive technology to China, Russia, and Iran.

Their environmental record is equally grim, with toxic waste contamination in Florida and Arizona. RTX’s weapons, including cluster munitions and missiles used in Yemen and Gaza, have fuelled civilian suffering, while their “pain ray” systems used on civilians raise further ethical alarms. BCT, as part of this conglomerate, inherits a legacy of untrustworthiness, making the initial contracts and their control of MethaneSAT deeply suspicious.

Equally troubling is the lack of transparency from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and Defence Minister Judith Collins. MBIE’s refusal to answer questions about the transfer or the satellite’s persistent issues, frequent safe mode entries, thruster malfunctions, and a paltry data output, smacks of a cover-up. Collins, typically forthright, has been conspicuously silent, leaving New Zealanders in the dark about a $29 million taxpayer investment. This opacity fuels speculation that the government prioritised corporate interests over accountability, especially given Raytheon's questionable history and National’s fossil fuel-friendly stance.

The satellite’s “problems” before its planned handover to the University of Auckland’s Te Pūnaha Ātea Space Institute in June 2025 are equally perplexing. Reports of issues due to Solar Cycle 25’s peak in 2024–2025 seem convenient excuses. MethaneSAT is the only reported satellite to fail due to solar activity during this period, despite thousands of others navigating the same conditions. This singularity raises red flags: were these issues genuine, or a pretext for BCT to assume control?

The apparent absence of any proper mechanism for NZ authorities to oversea systems during these transfers or robust checks and balances during the satellite’s construction by BCT is glaring. Manufacturing faults are now cited as a cause of failure, yet no independent oversight ensured the satellite’s integrity. This smells of negligence, or worse, deliberate sabotage to protect oil and gas industry interests from MethaneSAT’s data, that would have highlighted methane emissions with pinpoint accuracy.

Rocket Lab, which operated MethaneSAT’s mission control until March 2025, adds another layer of intrigue. Their current PR campaign, which even includes promotional propaganda from Auckland's Mayor, Wayne Brown, consisting of founder and CEO Peter Beck insisting that they avoid military entanglements, is patently false. Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket, HASTE suborbital vehicle, and Photon spacecraft bus support U.S. and U.K. defence contracts, including hypersonic weapons testing (HASTE), military communications satellites (SDA’s Tranche 1 and 2), and rapid cargo delivery for conflict zones (Rocket Cargo). These technologies clearly bolster U.S. operations, contradicting Rocket Lab’s claims of neutrality. Their ties to Lockheed Martin, a weapons giant, further undermines their credibility.

The MethaneSAT debacle is a stark reminder of how corporate and government interests can converge to undermine public good. The farming and oil and gas industry’s aversion to accurate methane data, National’s fossil fuel bias, and RTX’s chequered history suggest a troubling narrative: a satellite designed to hold polluters accountable may have been deliberately compromised. Until Collins and MBIE provide answers, New Zealanders are left to wonder whether our climate ambitions were sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical games and corporate greed.

Shane Jones is a Fascist

The spectre of authoritarianism rarely announces itself with jackboots and torchlight parades. More often, it arrives draped in the rhetoric of economic necessity, promising prosperity whilst systematically dismantling the institutions that protect democratic accountability. 

Such is the case with Shane Jones, New Zealand First's Resources Minister, whose latest tirade against regional councils represents a chilling escalation in his campaign to eliminate environmental oversight that stands between his corporate benefactors and unfettered resource extraction.

Jones' inflammatory rhetoric comparing the Otago Regional Council to the "Kremlin of the South Island" and dismissing its qualified staff as "KGB green zealots" would be laughable were it not so dangerously revealing of his authoritarian instincts. His call to "disestablish regional councils" because they dare to apply existing environmental law represents nothing less than an assault on New Zealand's democratic institutions. This is the language of a man who views legitimate democratic processes as obstacles to be eliminated rather than safeguards to be respected.

On Friday, the ODT reported:

 

‘Kremlin’ councils need to go: Jones

Resource Minister Shane Jones has called the Otago Regional Council "the Kremlin of the South Island" after an application to expand the Macraes gold mine ran into trouble.

Mr Jones, who is also the regional development minister, said the council was full of "KGB green zealots" and the episode showed why regional councils needed to be scrapped.

The Otago council’s assessment of environmental effects — which recommended Oceana-Gold’s application to expand its mine be declined in full — was "ideological scribbling".

Any other investor or miner in New Zealand would now quickly conclude they had to join the fast-track application process, "which will enable these economic saboteurs to be marginalised", he said.

 

The parallels to historical fascism are unmistakable. Like the dictators of the 1930s who railed against "enemies of the people" and "saboteurs," Jones employs inflammatory language to delegitimise any institution that challenges his pro-drill agenda. His dismissal of evidence-based environmental assessments as "ideological scribbling" echoes the fascist contempt for expertise and scientific inquiry that characterised regimes which prioritised ideology over evidence. 

When Jones describes regional councillors as "Politburo apparatchiks," he reveals his own authoritarian mindset, anyone who disagrees with his vision for environmental destruction must be part of some sinister conspiracy rather than public servants just doing their legally mandated jobs.

What makes Jones' extremism particularly troubling is the financial corruption that underpins it. The Resources Minister's relationships with mining companies extend far beyond policy alignment into the murky waters of financial influence. Analysis of political donation records reveals a staggering pattern of corporate capture that would make even the most cynical observer blush.

NZ First received at least $121,680 from donors linked to fast-track projects in 2024 alone, with Jones personally benefiting from quarry company J Swap in August 2023, the same company that subsequently donated $11,000 to NZ First and applied for fast-track approval. AJR Finance, connected to quarrying interests, contributed a massive $55,000 to NZ First. These figures represent just the tip of the iceberg in a system where corporate donors are literally buying policy outcomes.


Last year, RNZ reported:

Quarry company J Swap's fast track plea after donations to Shane Jones and NZ First

A NZ First donor wants Fast Track legislation to free up permanently protected land for quarrying.

J Swap, a company involved in quarrying, wants land protected under QEII covenants to be available to quarry. It donated $11,000 to NZ First in December, after the coalition was formed.

It also gave $5000 to NZ First's Shane Jones in August 2023 and $3000 to National's David MacLeod in September 2023.

The proposed Fast Track legislation is touted as a "one-stop shop" for approving infrastructure projects. It would sit over a range of existing acts and regulations and would mean an application would only need to go through one process for approval instead of several consents under the existing system.

Jones' undeclared dinners with mining company representatives, arranged by his own staff, demonstrate a level of impropriety that would have seen ministers resign in shame during more principled eras. That he refuses to answer questions about these meetings whilst simultaneously pushing legislation that directly benefits his dinner companions represents corruption in its most brazen form.

The Minister's attacks on environmental groups further reveal his authoritarian tendencies. His vitriolic campaigns against Greenpeace and the Green Party are not merely political rhetoric but systematic attempts to delegitimise opposition voices. When Jones declares that environmental organisations are "economic saboteurs," he employs the classic fascist tactic of painting political opponents as traitors to the nation. This is the language of autocrats who cannot tolerate dissent.

His promise that fast-track legislation will "enable these economic saboteurs to be marginalised" is perhaps the most revealing statement of all. Here, Jones explicitly acknowledges that his legislative agenda is designed not to improve environmental processes but to eliminate environmental opposition entirely. This is not governance; it is the systematic dismantling of democratic accountability.

The implications extend far beyond mining policy. If Jones succeeds in eliminating regional councils, institutions that employ thousands of professionals and manage critical functions, he will have destroyed a fundamental layer of New Zealand's democratic architecture. These councils don't just assess mining applications; they manage flood protection, biosecurity, civil defence, and public transport. Their elimination would represent the largest centralisation of power in New Zealand's modern history.

Regional councillor Alexa Forbes correctly identified Jones' rhetoric as undermining confidence in both central and local government. When ministers attack the institutions they're supposed to work with, they erode the very foundations of democratic governance. This is precisely how democratic backsliding occurs, not through military coups but through the gradual erosion of institutional safeguards by those entrusted to protect them.

Jones' vision of New Zealand is one where corporate donors write policy, environmental laws are ignored, and democratic institutions are eliminated if they prove inconvenient. His $3 billion mining export target comes with a hidden cost: the transformation of New Zealand into a corporate playground where profit trumps the environment and democracy becomes an obstacle to be overcome.

The tragedy is that this assault on our democratic institutions is being conducted by a minister whose own party received just 6.08% of the vote in 2023. Through the accidents of coalition politics, a fringe politician bankrolled by mining interests now wields the power to reshape New Zealand's governance structures according to his authoritarian vision.

History teaches us that democracy's greatest threats often come not from external enemies but from those within who promise prosperity whilst dismantling the institutions that protect the Kiwi way of life. Shane Jones embodies this threat, and his agenda must be recognised for what it truly is: not economic development but undemocratic destruction, funded by corporate interests and executed through authoritarian rhetoric that would make history's dictators proud.

National's Fossil Fool Fiasco Betrays Climate Commitments

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

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

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

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

Today, Newsroom reported:

 

NZ abandons international fossil fuel pledge

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

"This is a declaration based on science."

New Zealand has declared a climate change emergency and committed to being carbon-neutral by 2050. pic.twitter.com/6rSEnD7e15

— DW News (@dwnews) December 2, 2020

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

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

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

David Seymour Wants More People to Die From Cancer

It’s a grim day for Aotearoa when a politician like David Seymour, leader of the ACT Party, can stand up and effectively cheer for New Zealanders smoking themselves into an early grave. As I'm sure you're aware, the National-led coalition government gutted our world-leading smokefree laws when they first came to power in October 2023, and the consequences are already piling up. This isn’t just a policy misstep, it’s a betrayal of public health, driven by dodgy deals and corporate cash, with Seymour and other corrupt politicians pulling the governments strings for their tobacco industry mates.

In 2022, New Zealand passed pioneering legislation under Labour to create a smokefree generation, slashing tobacco retailers from 6,000 to 600, reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes, and banning sales to anyone born after 2008. The evidence was clear: these measures were projected to save 5,000 lives annually and $1.3 billion in health costs over 20 years, while slashing smoking rates, particularly for Māori from 19.9% to under 5% by 2025.

But the National-led government, with Seymour and NZ First’s Winston Peters pulling the strings, repealed these laws in February 2024 to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Finance Minister Nicola Willis admitted the repeal would rake in $1 billion in tobacco tax revenue, blood money paid for with the lives of more New Zealanders dying from tobacco related diseases like cancer.

And now we have the prized fool himself, David Seymour, openly stating that it would be good if more New Zealanders died from smoking related diseases.

Today, Newsroom reported:

 

Seymour’s ‘light up’ message alarms tobacco researchers

‘Lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you’re a hero,’ Act leader says of smokers – a line health experts say is no laughing matter

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour’s comments to a London audience calling smokers “fiscal heroes” – and declaring people should “light up” to save their government’s balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say.

Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as “quite evil” the Labour government’s plan to create a smokefree generation.

...

Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month.

Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been “quite evil, in a way” and described smokers as “fiscal heroes”.

“If you want to save your country’s balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you’re a hero,” he said to laughter from the audience.

...

“As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?” (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year’s NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.)

Seymour said it was “just a sad fact” that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses.

“If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.”

When the coalition of chaos made their stupid decision to increase the number of New Zealanders who die from tobacco related diseases like cancer, many Health experts sounded the alarm. Modelling from the University of Otago estimates the repeal could lead to thousands of additional smoking-related deaths, with Māori and Pasifika communities hit hardest, exacerbating existing health inequities. 

Māori life expectancy is already 7.5 years shorter than Pākehā, and smoking is a leading cause of this gap. The coalition’s decision to scrap the smokefree laws was a “major win for the tobacco industry,” as Health Coalition Aotearoa’s Boyd Swinburn put it, boosting Big Tobacco’s profits at the expense of Kiwi lives.

And who’s cashing in? Tobacco giants like Philip Morris, the sole supplier of heated tobacco products (HTPs) in New Zealand, are laughing all the way to the bank. Documents reveal Philip Morris lobbied hard for tax cuts on HTPs, a move Associate Health Minister Casey Costello delivered in July 2024, slashing excise tax by 50% despite research showing that HTPs are just as harmful as cigarettes.


Last year, Newsroom reported:

Minister left $46b benefit of smokefree reforms out of Cabinet paper

In a section outlining the “financial implications” of repealing the reforms, Costello’s Cabinet paper only discussed the costs of reimbursing retailers who had applied for special permits under the old regime and the potential for $1.5 billion in additional revenue from tobacco excise over four years. However, the December 6 briefing contained more information about the economic benefits of the scheme in its own “financial implications” section.

Early estimates had suggested New Zealand might save $5.25b in health costs and $5.88b in increased productivity over the lifetime of the population alive in 2020, officials told Costello.

More recent independent analysis, published in November 2023, found a $17b loss to government out to 2050 from reduced excise revenue and increased superannuation costs from people living longer would be more than offset by a $46b economic benefit over the same period, the briefing said. “The new estimates find the smoked tobacco measures are likely to result in large economic benefits for the total population.”

Verrall said it was up to ministers on what they wanted to include in Cabinet papers. However, she said, Costello appeared to have withheld information from Cabinet that was unfavourable to her position.

The stench of tobacco money lingers over this corrupt coalition. RNZ uncovered that Philip Morris’s external relations team includes former NZ First staffers, raising questions about cosy relationships and dirty deals. Public health researchers have demanded ministers like Costello and Seymour disclose any tobacco industry links, noting their rhetoric mirrors Big Tobacco’s talking points.

Costello’s claim of “independent” advice to justify her policies was debunked when she couldn’t explain the source of a document pushing tobacco tax cuts, suspiciously aligned with tobacco industry goals. Imagine what would happen if a left wing politician fabricated research to prop up a predetermined anti-health agenda. The mainstream media would be apoplectic until they were forced to resign.

ACT and NZ First, the tail wagging the National dog, have shown their true colours. Seymour’s libertarian posturing and NZ First’s populist rhetoric mask a willingness to sacrifice public health for corporate interests. National, desperate to attain power, caved to their demands despite earlier supporting some smokefree measures. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s weak excuse, that the laws would fuel black markets, has been contradicted by evidence showing the illicit tobacco trade was already declining.

David Seymour’s claim that smoking is a “freedom of choice” is a grotesque insult when 5,000 Kiwis die each year from tobacco related diseases, trapped by addiction, not choice. This National-led coalition, with ACT and NZ First yanking the leash, has sold out New Zealand's health for tobacco profits and tax cuts that fatten the wallets of the wealthy while robbing tamariki of a smokefree future. The blood of future victims will stain this government’s dubious legacy forever. New Zealanders must demand transparency, and hold these corrupt politicians accountable before Big Tobacco’s shadow claims even more lives.

Adrian Orr Resigned Because of Nicola Willis’ Austerity

The abrupt resignation of Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr is a blaring siren that New Zealand’s economic foundations are being relentlessly jackhammered by Nicola Willis’ unyielding austerity obsession. 

Orr was effectively ousted after a fierce funding dispute with the Finance Minister, who appears determined to gut budgets left, right, and centre while cloaking it as “responsible” governance. 

Willis' relentless cost-cutting zeal risks destabilising the Reserve Bank’s independence, raising alarms about whether her agenda prioritises fiscal optics over the nation’s long-term economic resilience.

 

In April, RNZ reported:

Reserve Bank's budget to be slashed by 25%

The Reserve Bank's operating budget for the coming year has been slashed by about 25 per cent.

The reduction in spending, which appears to be driven by increased staffing levels, has been agreed to by both the central bank and the government.

It follows Adrian Orr's abrupt resignation as the Reserve Bank's governor last month.

Unlike most other agencies, which receive annual funding through the Budget process, the Reserve Bank's board negotiates five-year funding agreements with the Minister of Finance, who receives advice from the Treasury.

 

Documents released under the Official Information Act lay bare the truth: Orr wanted $1.031 billion to keep the Reserve Bank humming; Willis offered a measly $775.6 million, a 25% cut to operating expenses over five years.

 

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Documents reveal why Adrian Orr suddenly quit as Reserve Bank Governor

The Reserve Bank has revealed a dispute over funding was behind Adrian Orr's abrupt resignation as governor.

A raft of documents - released by the central bank under the Official Information Act - reveal an "impasse" as Orr argued Finance Minister Nicola Willis was not providing enough funding for the next five years.

In an accompanying statement, an RBNZ spokesperson said it became clear in late February that the board - chaired by Neil Quigley - was willing to agree to a "considerably" smaller sum that Orr thought was needed.

"This caused distress to Mr Orr and the impasse risked damaging necessary working relationships, and led to Mr Orr's personal decision that he had achieved all he could as Governor of the Reserve Bank and could not continue in that role with sufficiently less funding than he thought was viable for the organisation."

 

Willis’ austerity isn’t just a numbers game; it’s a deliberate assault on New Zealand’s future. The coalition’s 2025 Budget, dressed up as a “Growth Budget,” is full of sleight of hand and doublespeak. While Willis and Luxon crow about fiscal prudence, their cuts are gutting essential services and much needed infrastructure projects. Health funding for Māori providers? Flatlined, forcing providers to “just keep going” with no new money. Education? Starved, with schools scrambling to cover basics. Public transport and infrastructure? Slashed.

Stats NZ data paints a grim picture: real per-capita health spending has dropped 3.2% since 2022, and infrastructure investment as a share of GDP is at its lowest in a decade, down to 2.1% in 2024. Meanwhile, 61,000 families are $43 worse off per fortnight thanks to cuts like the halving of KiwiSaver contributions.

The coalition’s propaganda machine is working overtime to paper over this mess. Luxon parrots the same “tight but responsible” line, claiming the Budget “gets the basics right.” But it’s a lie as transparent as gladwrap. $11 billion has been stripped from women’s pay equity, $66,000 shaved off young people’s retirement savings, with NZ$51 billion borrowed in 2025/26, all to funnel more tax cuts to landlords and corporates. The coalition’s spin is straight out of the Tory playbook. Slash public services, widen inequality, then blame the victims.

This isn’t just financial mismanagement and bad policy; it’s economic vandalism. Austerity has a track record of failure. Just look at the UK, where a decade of cuts led to 330,000 avoidable deaths and stagnant growth. New Zealand’s productivity needs investment in education, health, and resilient infrastructure, not penny pinching or another fire sale of public goods. Willis’ approach risks a death spiral: underfunded services collapse, inequality spikes, and the economy stalls. The Reserve Bank’s own forecasts warn of sluggish 1.2% GDP growth in 2025, hampered by these cuts.

Orr’s exit should be viewed as a canary in the coal mine. He stood up for a properly funded central bank, knowing its role was required in shielding New Zealand from global shocks. Willis’ refusal to budge wasn’t just a snub…it appears to be a power play to bend the bank to the government's and Treasury's agenda. Nikki No Boats is playing hardball, leaning on the Reserve Bank to soften those capital rules that have the big Australian-owned banks, who extracted $7.22 billion from Kiwis in 2024, grumbling. Her push smells like a calculated move to cozy up to these financial giants.

The coalition’s priorities are clear: corporates over people, spin over substance. New Zealanders deserve better than the National-led governments misleading propaganda. It’s time to call out Willis’ austerity for what it is…a wrecking ball that is destroying New Zealand’s future.

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.

Fast-Track Corruption Will Ruin New Zealand

The Fast-track Approvals Bill, rammed through Parliament like a bulldozer through a native forest, has raised a number of questions about just how much the pockets of coalition politician's are being lined. This isn’t governance; it’s a garage sale of our environment, with corrupt politician's like Shane Jones, Chris Bishop and Simeon Brown holding the cash tin.

Let’s cut to the chase. Companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects in New Zealand donated more than $500,000 to the National, Act, and NZ First political parties and their candidates in 2022 and 2023. Coincidence? Hardly.

 

Here's a few of the "donations" from companies associated with the fast-track process:

 

Melrose Private Capital: Donated $84,680 to New Zealand First in 2024 (two donations: May and September 25). Part owner of Taharoa Ironsands, a sand mining project south of Kawhia, Waikato, included in the fast-track process.

Fletcher Building: Donated $7,200 to the National Party in 2023 for tickets to a dinner event. Holding company for Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure, associated with quarry projects in the fast-track process.

Winton Land Limited: Director Christopher Meehan and related entities donated $206,154.23 to National and ACT in 2023, including $103,260 to the National Party and $50,000 to ACT from Meehan personally, and $52,894.23 to the National Party in 2022 from Speargrass Holdings, another company directed by Meehan. Winton’s Sunfield development project in Ardmore, Auckland, is part of the fast-track process.

Vipan Garg: Donated $5,135 to the National Party in 2023.

Winton Land Limited: Director Christopher Meehan donated $103,260 to the National Party and $50,000 to ACT in 2023. Speargrass Holdings, another company directed by Meehan, donated $52,894 to the National Party in 2022. Winton’s Sunfield development project in Ardmore, Auckland, is part of the fast-track process.

Russell Property Group: Donated to the National Party in 2022 and 2023 (specific amounts not detailed). Director Brett Russell also donated $35,000 to the National Party in 2024, 10 days after the fast-track project list was announced. Associated with a fast-track project, though specifics are not fully detailed.

Gibbston Valley Wines: Donated to the National Party (amount not specified). Directors are linked to the Gibbston Valley residential project in the fast-track process.

Sanford: Donated to New Zealand First (amount not specified) in 2024. Associated with aquaculture projects in the fast-track process.

McCallum Bros: Donated to New Zealand First (amount not specified) in 2024. Associated with mining/quarrying projects in the fast-track process.

Kings Quarry: A finance company associated with its director and half-owner donated $50,000 to New Zealand First and $5,000 to Shane Jones in 2023. Included in the fast-track project list.

Last year, RNZ reported:

$500,000 in political donations associated with fast track projects

Companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects gave more than $500,000 in political donations to National, Act and New Zealand First and their candidates, RNZ analysis shows.

The projects include a quarry extension into conservation land and a development whose owner was publicly supported by National MPs during a legal battle with Kāinga Ora.

This is the kind of money that buys more than a few campaign billboards, it buys influence, access, and, apparently, a free pass to gut environmental protections. The Fast-track Approvals Bill, sold to us as a way to “get things done,” seems to have a hidden clause: “things” include auctioning off our natural heritage to the highest bidder.

 

On Monday, The Press reported:

 

Mining company granted exploration permit in Marlborough Sounds

An Australian mining company has been granted an exploration permit for a remote and rugged area of the Marlborough Sounds, sparking concern from residents.

Sams Creek Gold Limited, owned by Siren Gold, sought the five-year permit for an operation named Queen Charlotte, to explore the potential for mining in an area from Endeavour Inlet and Resolution Bay north to Port Gore and Titirangi Farm Park, and includes a section of the renowned Te Araroa Trail.

The land also includes the historic Endeavour mine which was a major source of antimony, a heavy metal used in alloys and electronics, until it closed down in 1901. At the time it was New Zealand’s largest antimony mine.

 

Siren Gold Limited is connected to Kings Quarry through their shared involvement in the Sams Creek Gold Project in New Zealand. Siren Gold, an exploration company focused on gold and antimony projects, holds an 81.9% interest in Exploration Permit 40338 for the Sams Creek project, with OceanaGold owning the remaining 18.1%.

Kings Quarry, owned by the Semenoff Group and linked to Siren Gold via an unnamed director and half-owner, is associated with this project, as a finance company tied to this director donated $50,000 to New Zealand First and $5,000 to Shane Jones in 2023, coinciding with the project’s inclusion in New Zealand’s fast-track approvals process. Siren Gold’s recent five-year exploration permit (EP 61605) for antimony and gold at Endeavour Inlet in the Marlborough Sounds raises even more questions about political interference in the consenting process.

 

The coalition’s mantra of “streamlining” is starting to sound like a euphemism for “strip-mining.” This bill, which passed in December 2024, lets ministers green light projects with barely a nod to environmental safeguards or public input. Mining companies, developers, and other big players are lining up for a slice of New Zealand. The 149 projects handpicked for fast-tracking read like a wish list for the government’s corporate mates, not a plan for New Zealand’s future. They want to sell our environment, degrading it into a wasteland that nobody will want to see.

Here's @jacktame grilling Chris Bishop over the new fast-track process that will allow the government to override court decisions that have blocked large-scale projects for environmental reasons: pic.twitter.com/3RLNeCBTqc

— Nick (@StrayDogNZ) March 10, 2024

The fast-track legislation is poisoning New Zealand's corruption perception index scores and ruining our tourism industry, a $10 billion economic pillar already faltering under New Zealand's tarnished image. By fast-tracking projects like mining near Punakaiki’s Pancake Rocks, it threatens the “100% Pure” brand that entices global visitors to our shores. With international criticism from the UK and EU, perceptions of unsustainable development are keeping eco-conscious tourists away, hitting regional economies hardest.

So why isn’t this front-page news? Why aren’t our media outlets screaming about a government that is running a pay-to-play scheme? Nearly 27,000 public submissions, mostly opposed, and thousands marching in protest should’ve giving the government pause for thought. Instead, we get radio silence while ministers like Shane Jones, Chris Bishop, and Simeon Brown play fast and loose with the taxpayers wallet and our democratic process. The Ombudsman called out the Department of Conservation for unlawfully withholding advice on this bill, yet the coalition just shrugs and carries on. It’s governance by arrogance, with a side order of cronyism.

 

In May, RNZ reported:

 

Ministers continue to make decisions on fast-track projects after parties take donations linked to applicants

Ministers Shane Jones and Chris Bishop continued to make decisions about several fast-track projects despite their respective parties receiving donations linked to the applicants.

One political scientist says such donations could be perceived as a conflict of interest and erode public trust in government.

…

Political donation data released last week shows NZ First received donations from seafood company Sanford, mining company McCallum Bros and the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust.

National received donations from Russell Property Group and the company's director, Brett Russell. It also received a donation from Gibbston Valley Wines, which has directors linked to the Gibbston Valley residential project. Projects from these companies are included in the Fast-track legislation.

…

Shane Jones, a NZ First MP, assessed projects put forward by an advisory group which fell into mining, quarrying and aquaculture. He declared a conflict of interest for eight projects, and stood aside for these. He did not declare a conflict of interest for applications from Sanford, McCallum Bros, or the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust.

…

Chris Bishop, a National MP, assessed projects related to housing, land development and infrastructure. He stood aside for one project, the assessment of Winton's Sunfield development as he had advocated for it in the past. He did not stand aside for the assessment of Russell Property Group's Beachlands South, or Gibbston Village.

Let’s not mince words: this is corruption, plain and simple. When donations from companies set to benefit from a bill line up so neatly with its passage, it’s not just a red flag…it’s a flashing neon sign saying "CORRUPTION". The coalition’s claim of “no private benefit” is laughable when the evidence clearly shows otherwise.

New Zealanders deserve better than a corrupt government that treats policy like a commodity. We need transparency, accountability, and a full investigation into these donations. Who paid what, and what did they get in return? If National and NZ First want to “get things done,” they can start by coming clean. Until then, the only thing they’re fast-tracking is public distrust.