A Four-Year Term Would Further Erode Public Oversight

In a move that reeks of further disdain for democratic accountability, New Zealand’s National-led government is making moves to implement a four-year parliamentary term, a proposal that would further erode the public’s ability to hold governments to account. This audacious bid, championed by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, comes at a time when the coalition is railroading through a slew of socially destructive policies that no one voted for.

In February, 1 News reported:

Govt announces four-year parliamentary term legislation to be introduced

The Government has agreed to introduce legislation that would allow the parliamentary term to be extended to four years - subject to a referendum - Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says.

Previously, coalition partners New Zealand First and ACT have both voiced support for four-year political terms, and the proposed Bill was modelled on the ACT Party's draft Constitution (Enabling a 4-Year Term) Amendment Bill.

The current three-year limit is entrenched — meaning it can only be overturned through a supermajority in Parliament or a referendum.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has previously indicated the Government planned to propose a referendum for four-year Parliamentary terms at the next election, and has been critical of the current three-year term which he said pushed governments into short-term decision-making.

On Wednesday, the NZ Herald reported:

NZ Government allocates $25m for referendum on four-year parliamentary terms

The Government has set aside $25 million for a referendum on four-year parliamentary terms, pencilled in to run alongside next year’s election.

The three-year term is a vital check on power, allowing voters to reverse course before ill-conceived policies wreak havoc. It’s a mechanism that can keep governments honest, or at least, as honest as they can be. Extending the term to four years would not only shield government's from scrutiny but also entrench their reckless agenda, leaving Kiwis to bear the consequences of decisions made without any mandate.

Why the rush to reduce oversight? Perhaps because this coalition knows their policies lack legitimacy. From tax breaks for tobacco companies to slashing essential services, the National-led government is implementing measures that were conspicuously absent from their campaign promises. The electorate didn’t vote for this economically damaging agenda, they voted for vague assurances of “getting back on track,” not a wrecking ball through our social fabric.

Take the tax breaks for tobacco companies, extended to three years in a move that blindsided health advocates and the public alike. This wasn’t a policy National, ACT, or NZ First campaigned on; it was a backroom deal that prioritises corporate profits over public health. The repeal of smokefree legislation and $300 million worth of tax breaks to increase cancer rates is a stark example of this government’s priorities.

Meanwhile, essential services like healthcare, education, and social housing are being gutted. The 2025 Budget saw $11 billion redirected from pay equity, KiwiSaver, and Best Start to fund tax cuts that disproportionately benefit landlords and multinationals. These cuts hit the most vulnerable hardest, with low-income earners, Māori, women, and the self-employed bearing the brunt, as highlighted by Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson.

The coalition’s disdain for voters is palpable, and further highlighted by their often negative rhetoric. Luxon’s infamous quip referring to New Zealanders as “bottom feeders” betrays a corporate arrogance that views the public as mere “customers” rather than citizens with rights. ACT leader David Seymour’s dismissal of those who missed voter registration as “drop kicks” further reveals the coalition’s contempt for the electorate and people's right to vote.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis had the gall to even suggest Kiwis should be grateful that unemployment, now at 5.2%, hasn’t climbed higher. This patronising rhetoric underscores a government that sees itself as above the people it serves, pushing policies that serve narrow interests while ignoring the broader public good.

She’s arrived at the ‘bitching about the ungrateful punters’ stage already, and that doesn’t usually appear until the third term. https://t.co/TRGJglEuRl

— Scott Nickerson (@totaraforest) August 6, 2025

The coalition’s socially destructive agenda extends beyond tobacco and tax cuts. The dismantling of the Māori Health Authority, the minimisation of te reo Māori in public services, and the push to reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi through ACT’s controversial bills are moves that inflame division and undermine decades of progress. These policies, driven by David Seymour and Winston Peters, were not endorsed by voters but are being foisted upon the nation under the guise of coalition necessity. Talk about the tail waging the dog.

The result? A deepening recession, rising unemployment, higher inflation (CPI 2.7% compared to 1.8% forecast), and growing public discontent, with polls showing National’s support plummeting. A four-year term would only embolden this type of neoliberal government to double down on its unmandated agenda, with the passage of time and lolly scrambles towards election time somewhat shielding them from the electoral consequences of their negative policy decisions.

Adding insult to injury, the proposed referendum on a four-year term is itself a waste of taxpayer money, a waste of taxpayers money that only a paywalled article is reporting on. Talk about a complete failure of the fourth estate. Nobody asked for this vote; it’s a pet project of a government already haemorrhaging public trust and money. At a time when essential services are being significantly cut and cost-of-living pressures are squeezing households and closing businesses, funnelling resources into an unrequested referendum is yet another example of this coalition’s skewed priorities.

The three-year term ensures that voters can relatively swiftly correct course when governments veer into chaos. Luxon’s coalition is banking on an extra year to entrench policies that prioritise corporate mates over ordinary Kiwis, all while dismissing public discontent as the grumblings of “bottom feeders” and "drop kicks". If this government truly believed in its vision, it wouldn’t fear facing the electorate every three years.

The push for a four-year term isn’t about stability, it’s about evading accountability. New Zealanders deserve better: a democracy that listens, not one that lectures.

National is Trying to Steal the Election

Democracy in New Zealand, as in many nations, was hard-won through struggle, sacrifice, and relentless advocacy. From the suffragists of the 1890s, who fought tirelessly for women’s right to vote, to Māori activists who challenged colonial exclusion to secure representation, the journey to universal suffrage was marked by petitions, protests, and unwavering resolve. The 1893 Electoral Act, granting women the vote, was a world-first, but it followed decades of campaigning by figures like Kate Sheppard, who galvanised thousands to demand change.

Māori, denied equal voting rights under early colonial systems, faced even greater barriers, with the Māori seats, established in 1867, emerging only after fierce resistance to land confiscation and marginalisation. These hard-fought victories remind us of the saying, “The vote is a right, not a privilege, and it must be guarded fiercely.” Yet, as we face the National-led coalition’s electoral reforms ahead of the 2026 election, that right is under increasing threat, with changes that could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands from participating in democracy.

The National-led coalition government has introduced electoral law changes that appear designed to undermine our democratic process. The Electoral Amendment Bill, currently under scrutiny, ends same-day voter enrolment, a practice that has allowed New Zealanders to register and vote on election day or during advance voting since 1993. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith claims this addresses delays in vote counting, pointing to the three weeks it took to finalise the 2023 election results. But this justification holds little water. Electoral officials have noted that coalition negotiations, not vote counting, caused the bulk of delays before the coalition of chaos government could be formed.
 

On Monday, Newsroom reported:

 

Attorney-General rules her own Govt’s voting crackdown breaches human rights

Electoral law restrictions announced last week are in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, Attorney-General Judith Collins KC says in a report belatedly disclosed to Parliament.

She indicates more than 100,000 people may be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by rules banning enrolment in the final 13 days before an elections. Young people, and areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, are likely to be worst affected.

Denying voters the political franchise is a heavy price to pay, she says, when there are alternative, less restrictive measures that could have addressed the same problem of speeding up the vote count.

However, the impact of scrapping same-day enrolment could be even more profound. In 2023, an estimated 300,000 to 350,000 special votes were cast by those who enrolled late or needed to update their details. These voters are disproportionately young, Māori, Asian, and Pasifika...groups that tend to support Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori. By closing enrolment 12 days before election day, the coalition of chaos has deliberately tried to lock these voters out, a move that even Judith Collins in her role as Attorney-General has warned may breach human rights law and disproportionately affect Māori communities.

But that's not all. Reports have surfaced of numerous individuals being inexplicably removed from the Māori electoral roll, prompting Te Pāti Māori to launch court proceedings to challenge what they see as systemic voter suppression. This follows the coalition’s reversal of Labour’s 2022 reforms, which allowed Māori to switch between the Māori and general rolls outside pre-election periods. These changes threaten to alienate Māori voters, who already contend with longer wait times at polling booths and limited access in remote areas. Te Pāti Māori’s legal action reflects a broader fear that the government is targeting Māori political power, especially after their strong 2023 performance, securing six electorate seats.


Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Te Pāti Māori files urgent High Court proceeding over electoral roll concerns

Te Pāti Māori says it has filed urgent proceedings in the High Court over reports people have been removed from electoral roll or shifted off the Māori roll.

...

RNZ has spoken to several affected people, including Taryn Utiger, who could not find herself on the Māori roll despite switching to it last year.

She said she updated her details a month ago and called the Electoral Commission to double check she was all set to vote.

"They were like, yup ka pai you're on the Māori electorate roll, everything's good to go you will be able to vote in the local body elections and the referendum. I was like cool, thought that was the end of it, everything confirmed. Then I logged in last night and nothing."

Compounding this assault on democracy, numerous reports have also emerged of New Zealanders on the general electoral roll being inexplicably removed without notification or justification. These cases, spanning urban and rural electorates, occurring just before the end date for registrations, August 1, 2025, for local body elections, suggest a troubling pattern that undermines the integrity of the electoral system. The removal of eligible voters from the general roll, much like the issues plaguing the Māori roll, raises serious questions about administrative incompetence, or worse, deliberate manipulation.

Such actions are profoundly undemocratic, eroding trust in the electoral process and fuelling suspicions of a coordinated effort to suppress participation, particularly among demographics less likely to support the coalition. The lack of transparency around these removals only deepens the sense of unease, as voters are left wondering whether their right to vote is being systematically eroded.

Further compounding the issue, the coalition has reinstated a blanket ban on prisoner voting, ignoring the Electoral Commission’s recommendation to expand voting rights to all prisoners. This move disproportionately impacts Māori, who are overrepresented in the justice system, further eroding their democratic voice. ACT leader David Seymour’s dismissive rhetoric, labelling late enrolees as “dropkicks,” reveals a contempt for democratic participation that betrays the coalition’s motives. The right wing doesn't like democracy, as evidenced by their numerous policies that weren't canvased prior to the election.

These reforms aren't about efficiency; they're about engineering an electoral advantage. Special votes have historically favoured left-leaning parties, often shifting final results in their favour. By restricting access, the coalition is banking on suppressing turnout among groups less likely to support them. This echoes tactics seen in other democracies, where voter suppression has been used to skew outcomes. 

Worse still, reports on social media suggest the Electoral Commission has recently removed thousands of voters from the electoral roll without notification, which will leave many to discover on election day that they’re ineligible, with no recourse under the coalition’s plan to end same-day enrolment. While it’s unclear if these removals deliberately target left-leaning voters, the National-led government’s unjustifiable policies disproportionately affect communities more likely to support Labour, the Greens, or Te Pāti Māori. This pattern of disenfranchisement raises alarming questions about the integrity of our electoral system.

The fight to protect New Zealand’s democracy must be swift and unified. Te Pāti Māori’s court challenge is a vital step, but opposition parties, civil society, and voters must rally to safeguard the right to vote. Public pressure and scrutiny at the select committee stage of the Electoral Amendment Bill are essential. The sacrifices of those who fought for the right to vote demand that we act. New Zealand’s democracy deserves to amplify every voice, not silence those who seek change. The 2026 election hangs in the balance, and with it, the soul of our nation.

The Coalition of Chaos' Assault on Electoral Fairness

The National-led government, propped up by its coalition partners ACT and New Zealand First, has embarked on a brazen assault on New Zealand’s democratic fabric. Their latest electoral law overhaul, set to decline hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders the right to vote by scrapping same-day enrolments, is a calculated move to tilt the electoral playing field in their favour. This is'nt just a bureaucratic tweak; it’s a deliberate act of voter suppression that threatens the very principles of fair representation.
 

Today, RNZ reported:

Enrolment changes could have 'significant' impact on democratic participation - Ministry of Justice

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says comments made by the deputy prime minister - calling voters who enrol late "dropkicks" - are "unhelpful", as changes to voter enrolment are rolled out.

Justice officials say closing enrolments ahead of advance voting could result in lower turnout and reduce confidence in the electoral system. And electoral law experts are also questioning why the changes need to stretch for the whole advanced voting period.

...

On Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour backed the changes, insulting the hundreds of thousands of people who enrolled or updated their address, and voted, during the advance voting period and on election day itself.

"Frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law," he said. "It's actually made so easy to do, they even have a little orange cartoon running around telling people to do it. And if you're too disorganised to do that over a thousand days between two elections, then maybe you don't care that much."

The coalition of chaos, as this shaky alliance has been correctly titled, is engineering a system where fewer voices, particularly those who've not enrolled in their local electorate, are heard at the ballot box. The decision to end same-day enrolment, a measure that allowed 110,000 New Zealanders to enrol or update details on election day in 2023, is nothing short of undemocratic. These voters, often young, Māori, Pasifika, or in unstable housing, are disproportionately likely to support progressive parties like Labour, the Greens, or Te Pāti Māori.

Constitutional law expert Andrew Geddis has noted that special votes, which include late enrolments, have historically favoured left-leaning parties. The government is effectively silencing people who don't agree with their neoliberal dogma, prioritising administrative convenience over democratic participation. Even the Ministry of Justice warned that these changes could lower turnout and erode confidence in the electoral system, a damning indictment of the coalition’s priorities.

ACT leader David Seymour’s contempt for our democracy is palpable. His dismissal of late enrolees as “dropkicks” who “can’t get themselves organised” reveals a deeper disdain for the very people democracy exists to serve. This isn't an isolated incident, but a window into the right-wing’s broader attitude: a belief that only the “deserving” should have a say. Seymour’s rhetoric, dripping with elitism, belies a worldview that sees voting as a privilege for the wealthy and sorted few, not a universal right. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s feeble rebuke of Seymour’s comments as “unhelpful” does little to mask the coalition’s complicity in this socially ignorant narrative.

Adding to this litany of anti-democratic measures is the government’s failure to address the unfairness that allows property owners with multiple homes to vote in each district where they own property. This archaic rule grants wealthier New Zealanders disproportionate influence in local elections, as their multiple votes amplify their voice over those who rent or own a single home. It’s a stark injustice that undermines the principle of equal representation. Compounding this, the coalition’s discussions about abolishing regional councils threaten to further erode local democracy. These councils, vital for environmental and community governance, ensure regional voices are heard. Dismantling them would centralise power and silence communities, reflecting the government’s broader pattern of prioritising control over democratic fairness.

The government’s anti-democratic streak doesn’t stop there. Their plan to reinstate a blanket ban on prisoner voting, reversing Labour’s 2020 reform that restored rights to those serving less than three years, is a shameful regression. This move will strip voting rights from an estimated 2,000–3,000 inmates, including those on remand who may later be acquitted, a clear violation of fundamental rights.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s response to concerns about this breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as ruled by the High Court in 2015, was a chilling “I do not care.” This flippant disregard for judicial rulings and human rights underscores a government more interested in populist posturing than upholding democratic principles.
 

Last year, RNZ reported:

 

Government rejects four voting changes as review lands

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has ruled out several recommendations from the Independent Electoral Review set up by the previous government.

The minister on Tuesday released the final report, which makes more than 117 recommendations, after it was delivered to him at the end of November 2023.

• Goldsmith ruled out action on some recommendations, including:
• Lowering the voting age to 16
• Allowing all prisoners to vote and stand for Parliament
• Freezing the ratio of electorate to list seats, which would lead to an increase in the number of MPs over time
• Repealing the offence of 'treating' voters with refreshments and entertainment.

Equally troubling is the coalition’s refusal to lower the voting age to 16. Despite a Supreme Court ruling affirming that 16 and 17-year-olds have the cognitive capacity for “cold decisions” like voting, and a 2024 Independent Electoral Review supporting the change, the government has stonewalled progress. They clearly don't want young people to get into the habit of voting throughout their lives. Their 2023 withdrawal of a bill that would have allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local body elections, with Local Government Minister Simeon Brown halting Justice Committee deliberations, snuffed out public consultation and silenced a generation eager to engage on issues that effect them directly.

This move, coupled with the coalition’s broader agenda, paints a picture of a government allergic to inclusive democracy. From voter suppression to disenfranchising prisoners and stifling youth voices, the National-led government’s actions betray a cynical and destructive agenda and won't do anything for our declining participation rates. By rigging the electoral system to mute progressive voters, they’re not just undermining democracy...they’re gambling with the trust that holds it together. Voters deserve better than a coalition of chaos that prioritises power over principle.

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.

Chantelle Baker Gets a $100,000 Reality Check

It’s a rare day when the New Zealand courts deliver a sharp reminder to the right-wing that actions have consequences, even for those who’ve built a career on peddling disinformation. 

Chantelle Baker, the self-styled “citizen journalist” and darling of New Zealand’s anti-vax, anti-government fringe, has been ordered to pay a whopping $100,000 bond ahead of her defamation proceedings against Stuff, likely because the Judge anticipates that she will lose the case.

This isn’t just a legal slap on the wrist, it’s a moment to reflect on the toxic ecosystem of misinformation Baker has cultivated, and what it means for accountability in New Zealand's fractured political landscape.

Unfortunately for the deluded grifter, there's a Reddit post doing exactly that. But it's not as embarrassing for her as what's being published on mainstream media websites at the moment.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

Chantelle Baker ordered to pay $100k bond ahead of defamation case against Stuff

An independent journalist who claims she was defamed by Stuff’s Fire and Fury documentary has been ordered to pay a $100,000 bond to cover potential court costs before her case can proceed. The High Court decision on October 29 followed an application by Stuff’s parent company, Trans-Tasman Resources, which argued the bond was necessary due to the financial risks posed by the case.

Chantelle Baker, who describes herself as an independent journalist, filed the defamation lawsuit against Stuff, claiming the 2022 documentary falsely portrayed her as a far-right extremist. The documentary explored the rise of disinformation in New Zealand during the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2022 Parliament protest. Baker alleges the documentary’s portrayal caused significant harm to her reputation.

Justice Palmer, in his ruling, said Baker’s claim was not utterly hopeless but faced significant hurdles. He noted that proving defamation would require demonstrating that the statements in Fire and Fury were false and had caused serious reputational damage. The judge considered the complexity of the case and the potential for high legal costs in ordering the bond, which must be paid within 10 working days.

 

Let’s not mince words: Baker’s rise to prominence during the 2022 Wellington protests wasn’t about truth or journalism. It was about capitalising on fear, distrust, and a global pandemic to amass a large number of social media followers, that she can grift from.

Her live streams, filled with baseless claims about COVID-19 vaccines, police conspiracies, and even claims that the fires at Parliament were started by “agent provocateurs,” weren’t just reckless disinformation, they were intentionally dangerous.

The Disinformation Project rightly labelled her a “super spreader” of false narratives, with her posts often outpacing mainstream media in engagement during those chaotic weeks. This wasn’t reporting; it was performance art for the paranoid, designed to inflame and divide.

The Platforms Sean Plunket with Chantelle Baker this morning discussing the details of her recent out of court settlement with the NZ Herald along with her upcoming case against Stuff & second respondent The Disinformation Project’s Kate Hannah in which she alleges defamation… pic.twitter.com/MlGStDW69n

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) September 26, 2024

 

Now, Baker’s defamation suit against Stuff, tied to their excellent documentary Fire and Fury, has hit a wall. The $100,000 bond, a court-ordered security to ensure she can cover costs if she loses, speaks volumes.

Defamation cases are costly, and courts don’t impose such bonds lightly. It’s a signal that Baker’s claims may be as flimsy as her “journalistic” credentials. Her previous win against the NZ Herald, where she secured an undisclosed settlement and an apology, seems to have emboldened her. But that case, centred on Kate Hannah’s comments about Baker’s role in the “NZ Disinformation Dozen,” was more about legal technicalities than vindicating for her incendiary narrative. The Herald’s retraction was a pragmatic move, not an admission of Baker’s innocence.

What’s galling is how Baker has monetised her disinformation crusade. From her Operation People fundraiser for Hawke’s Bay flood relief, where only a fraction of the $13,565 raised went to actually helping people in need, to her ongoing crowdfunding for legal battles, she’s mastered the art of the grift.

These aren’t the actions of a truth-seeker but of someone who’s turned distrust in institutions into a personal ATM. Her supporters, egged on by cries of “media bias” and “censorship,” keep the cash flowing, blind to the fact that their hero’s “alternative media” is less about accountability and more about self-enrichment.

The $100,000 bond order exposes the fragility of Chantelle Baker’s vexatious litigation, casting doubt on her self-styled image as a “citizen journalist.” This case raises questions about who’s really behind this politically driven circus? Could it be her daddy, Leighton Baker, the former New Conservative Party leader also known for his anti-mandate activism during the 2022 Wellington protests? Is Chantelle a principled crusader or a front for deeper-pocketed interests, perhaps tied to her father’s right-wing, conspiracist agenda? Either way, the courts aren’t buying her victim act, and that’s a win for those who value evidence over faux outrage.

This case matters because disinformation isn’t just words, it’s a weapon that was used against New Zealand to try and illegally oust the duly elected government. Baker’s narratives have eroded trust in public health, media, and democracy itself. As Aotearoa grapples with declining institutional confidence, her grift thrives on that chaos. The $100,000 bond isn’t the end of her story, but it’s a crack in the facade. If she loses, which is likely, the financial hit could curb her type of dishonest campaigning, which is something that can only be a good thing for our great country.

Winston Peters: The Architect Of Political Decay

Winston Peters, New Zealand’s 80-year-old Deputy Prime Minister, has once again proven himself unfit for office and a complete hypocrite by dragging political discourse into the gutter while preaching decorum. Last week, Peters lamented declining standards in the House, only to hurl a homophobic slur at Chris Hipkins, calling him a “sausage eater who doesn’t know what a woman is”. This stupid remark, splashed across headlines, came minutes after his sanctimonious whining about parliamentary standards. The hypocrisy is staggering, but unsurprising from a homophobic politician whose career thrives on theatrical outrage and divisive rhetoric.

Our Deputy PM is apparently outraged over the use of the c-word but very happy to make homophobic jokes about the leader of the opposition.

Winston Peters: "[Chris Hipkins] is a sausage-eater who doesn't know what a woman is." pic.twitter.com/1uFy3sJ8X8

— Nick (@StrayDogNZ) May 17, 2025

Peters’ recent antics at Wellington Railway Station further expose his disdain for civility. While announcing a few peanuts for rail, alongside the nodding fool Chris Bishop, Peters engaged in a profanity-laced shouting match with a heckler, telling the member of the public that he “looked like bollocks” and should “naff off”.

The glaring issue here isn't the insults, but that the National-led government’s weak rail funding announcment has once again gone under the radar. What mainstream media viewers won’t realise is that the coalition of chaos has reduced NZ Rails budget by 70% compared to Labour’s plan for long-term investment, with Nicola no boats Willis 2025 budgetting of $604.6 million targeting essential freight and metro rail maintenance only.

While this money addresses immediate infrastructure needs, it falls well short of the transformative investment needed for a sustainable, nationwide rail network system. Despite these facts, Peters did well to pretend that the National-led government's showboating about $604.6 million was somehow more than previously allocated, until he was called out by a concerned member of the public that is.

Instead of rising above, Peters sank to the occasion, later doubling down on Newstalk ZB by saying he wouldn’t care if the man lost his job for daring to exercise his right to free speech. Threatening someone’s livelihood for verbalising a political opinion isn’t just petty; it’s a chilling attack on democratic expression.

So @winstonpeters, whose foul, disinformation heavy attacks on Benjamin Doyle lead to death threats, thinks it is ok if someone is fired for honestly saying how they felt? By the same token, does he think HIS record of such speech also warrants sacking? https://t.co/bDC1caLNdg

— Amazonia - Kaua e tautohetohe ki nga riwai (@Jandal_It) May 20, 2025

This isn’t Peters’ first foray into political thuggery either. In 2024, he was ejected from the House for his unhinged outbursts, including accusing Green MP James Shaw of lying in 2024 and lambasting Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick and others in a tirade that culminated in a showdown with Assistant Speaker Greg O’Connor. Unfortunately Peters’ unhinged tirades are not fully detailed in the official Hansard records, presumably because they are an embarrassment to New Zealand.

Winston Peters has a meltdown after a man called out his attacks on Te Pāti Māori. Affirming that he was standing up for Māori, Winston says “that’ll be new for you”, apparently making an assumption based on the man’s ethnicity.

We recommend this man to be NZer of the year! pic.twitter.com/g9ILSqy66l

— ALL (@AotearoaLib) May 20, 2025

The NZ First leaders history is littered with similar low-lights. He even physically shoved an outspoken member of the public in Hamilton during a 2014 standup. Last year he resorted to calling Green MPs “sick idiots” after losing the debate. Then there’s his more recent foray into verbal diarrhea, like calling Chlöe Swarbrick a “groomer” for sticking up for a queer MP from her political party. These aren’t isolated incidents, but a pattern of boorish behaviour that alienates voters and poisons our political engagement.

Peters’ tactics of crude insults, vindictive threats, practiced profanity and performative outrage, aren’t just embarrassing; they’re a deliberate middle finger to the public, which has the intended consequence of emboldening his deluded followers into similar derogatory campaigning. By weaponising division and eroding trust in Parliament, he’s also turning people away from politics altogether, which is a questionable tactic given that low voter turnout tends to favour right-wing political parties.

We as a country deserve better than a Deputy PM who thrives on expletives just to grab the mainstream medias attention. The sooner Winston Peters steps down the better it will be for New Zealand and our fragile democracy.

The Coalition of Chaos: Democracy Be Damned

The New Zealand coalition government, a Frankenstein’s monster of National, ACT, and NZ First, has once again shown its utter contempt for our democracy. This time it's the Ministry for Regulation, who didn’t even bother to read thousands of submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill, a piece of legislation so insidious it’s been dubbed a “backdoor rewrite” of New Zealand’s founding document. This follows hot on the heels of the coalition of chaos’ dismissal of overwhelming public opposition to ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. It’s a pattern of arrogance so profound that it's eroding the very foundations of our democratic process.

Let’s start with the Regulatory Standards Bill. Newsroom reports that of the 23,000 submissions received, a staggering number were left unread by the Ministry, with ACT’s David Seymour shrugging off the 99.67% opposition as “off-topic.” This isn’t just negligence; it’s a deliberate middle finger to the voting public. These submissions weren’t spam...they were the voices of everyday New Zealanders, including 114 submissions from iwi/hapū, raising serious concerns about the bill’s failure to uphold Te Tiriti obligations.

The Waitangi Tribunal called for an immediate halt, citing breaches of Treaty principles, but Seymour dismissed them as a “parallel government.” This is the same playbook used with the Treaty Principles Bill, where the Justice Select Committee admitted 97% of submissions opposed it, yet the coalition plowed ahead, reopening submissions to dilute the backlash after their undemocratic tactics were revealed. It’s a cynical ploy to wear down dissent while pretending to listen.


Today, Newsroom reported:

Thousands of Regulatory Standards Bill submissions not read by ministry

David Seymour said ‘there just weren’t that many’ worthwhile ideas in the 23,000 submissions on his proposed legislation

The majority of the 22,821 submissions on last year's consultation on a potential Regulatory Standards Bill weren't even read by the Ministry for Regulation before proposals on next steps were taken to Cabinet.

The article by Marc Daalder is not accessible to the general public, raising the question: Are our mainstream media outlets truly committed to informing voters about the government’s undemocratic decision-making?

Unfortunately this type of fascist move isn’t an isolated incident either...it’s a feature of this coalition’s arrogant and out of touch governance. Take the Pay Equity Amendment Bill, rammed through under urgency in a mere 48 hours with no select committee, no public submissions, and no consultation with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Thirty-three claims affecting thousands of workers were scrapped overnight, disproportionately harming low-paid women. The secrecy and speed reek of a government terrified of scrutiny, and the Prime Minister’s accusations of “scaremongering” only underline their disdain for accountability.

Then there’s the Fast-track legislation, a love letter to extractive industries that sidelines environmental protections and public input. Māori rights group Toitū te Tiriti warned that the Regulatory Standards Bill could wipe Treaty clauses from law, yet the coalition presses on, undeterred by 18,000 signatures and a huge hīkoi protesting similar anti-Treaty moves. Even coalition partner Winston Peters, sensing the weight of public opinion, has raised concerns. But don’t hold your breath for National to rein in ACT’s neoliberal over-reach. They are waiting to see if they can undermine our democracy and get away with it.

This coalition of chaos treats public opinion like an inconvenience. They cherry-pick submissions, bypass due process, and govern by ambush, all while cloaking their insidious actions in a veil of culture wars and dishonest rhetoric about “transparency” and “economic efficiency.” Seymour’s claim that the Regulatory Standards Bill will “cut red tape” is a thinly veiled excuse to entrench ACT’s ideology at the expense of Māori rights and public input.

New Zealand deserves better than a government that listens only to its own echo chamber. It’s time to call this what it is: a betrayal of democracy. We must continue to resist, organise, and demand accountability before this coalition of chaos dismantles everything we hold dear.

Young people must be allowed to vote

Let me just start out by saying that young people must be allowed to vote. Not because they are more enlightened than previous generations, but because the earlier people become voters, the more likely they will continue to participate in democracy.

We have a serious problem in New Zealand with low voter turnout. Many believe that there’s simply no point in voting, because politicians will always look after their own vested interests first. However when enough people vote for progressive change, then the status quo must change as well.

Today, the BBC reported:

 

New Zealand Supreme Court rules voting age of 18 is discriminatory

New Zealand's Supreme Court has ruled that the country's current voting age of 18 is discriminatory, meaning parliament must discuss whether it should be lowered.

The case was brought by campaign group Make It 16, which wants the voting age reduced to include 16 and 17 year olds.

There is no doubt that young people have the most to lose when it comes to governments dragging their feet over their ineffectual environmental policy. The same can be said for social policy, whereby both National and Labour are happy to tinker around the edges while Rome effectively burns.

Following the ruling, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she personally supported reducing the voting age to 16, but added that "it is not a matter simply for me or even the government, any change in electoral law of this nature requires 75% of parliamentarian support".

Not all parties support the lowering of the voting age.

The centre-right National party opposes the move, while the Labour party is yet to state whether it would support a change in voting age or not.

Of course the opposition are opposing any changes. They are after all playing to their core supporters, namely old rich people who are stuck in their deluded ways. Clearly National and ACT are ageist parties hell bent on repressing the young, particularly when we’re talking about young people from ethnic minorities.

In fact the news that the Supreme Court supported young people’s voting rights couldn’t have come at a worse time for National Party leader, Christopher Luxon. After proposing failed boot camps as a solution to ram raids, Luxon then got on another decrepit high horse to blame parents for their children not attending school.

 

Yesterday, Newshub reported:

Christopher Luxon takes aim at parents, 'culture of excuses' for truancy crisis, but Jacinda Ardern fires back

Luxon's pointing the finger at parents and has no time for excuses.

"You chose to have these kids, you have to wake up at 7am, get your kids to school at 8am," he said.

"You have now got subsidised free lunches, free breakfasts, subsidised period products, subsidised school uniforms.

"There is no excuses. What we have in New Zealand is a culture of excuses."

Last week, Luxon put principals on notice.

He told AM: "There is a mixed standard of leadership across our schools and across our principals that actually means they're not focussing as strongly on getting kids to school as they can."

Talk about a vote loser. While Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern sides with teachers, parents and young people, Luxon is doing all he can to alienate entire sectors of the communities we live in. Young people aren’t the boggy men that the National Party needs to divide and conquer. Instead they will be a catalyst for change to ensure humanities survival.

The sooner our politicians realise this and vote accordingly to give young people democratic parity the better.

Donald Trump loses

Former US President - Donald Trump

What on Earth was America thinking? Four years of a Trump administration has brought the country to its knees. Civil unrest, particularly during the bungled COVID-19 response that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, looked set to escalate into full-blown anarchy.

A legacy of increased environmental degradation and economic conflicts are also major ticking time bombs. But perhaps the most damaging aspect of Trump’s failed presidency is the United States’ international credibility, which is now in tatters.

Not only did the 2016 Trump presidential campaign collude with Russian Intelligence Officers in order to damage their political opponents, over the last four long years they've also undermined their own democratic system from within, which in my opinion is tantamount to treason!

Of course the Don hasn’t admitted to playing any part in the underhanded affair. That’s because Trump cannot admit to ever doing anything wrong!

Trump mocks disabled reporter Serge Kovaleski

Even now, with Pennsylvania flipping and nearly every news agency calling it, Trump is on Twitter claiming that he’s won the 2020 election. There is of course no doubt that he’s lost. Over 4 million voters are now in favour of Biden with Georgia and Arizona on the cusp of adding to the incoming Presidents considerable electoral vote tally.

Today, New York Daily News reported:

Adios, Donald: Trump loses, Biden wins, and America has a precious opportunity to rebuild

Finally, our long, national nightmare appears to be ending.

Though tight margins in some swing states may trigger some automatic recounts, and we all know that the president may try to cry foul, for now it seems as though Joe Biden has done it. He’s ousted Donald Trump from the White House to become the next president of the United States — and he’s brought with him the first Black woman vice president.

Man, it feels good to write that. After the four years of corruption, incompetence, division, racism, sexism, nepotism, cronyism, nihilism and nationalism that Trump foisted on the American people, often against even the will of his own supporters, we can hopefully go about the business of restoring some semblance of normalcy, decency and calm to American life.

 

The final result will likely be Biden on 305 to Trump on 229, which should be considered a decisive victory for Joe and the Democrats. In fact we should consider it a victory for the entire World as well.

However the fact that millions of Americans did vote for an evil lunatic is terribly concerning. I mean if a President can openly encourage people to inject chlorine as some sort of treatment for COVID-19 and there still be no widespread questioning of his legitimacy, you know that things aren’t at all well in the US of A. 

Noam Chomsky discusses his latest book

On this week’s episode of On Contact, Chris Hedges travels to Cambridge, Massachusetts for a conversation with America’s most important intellectual, Professor Noam Chomsky. In Part I of their conversation, Chomsky discusses the adverse effects of neoliberalism on the working class, as addressed in his book, “Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power”. 

Doubting the election result

You might have noticed or even signed a petition to get the 2014 election recounted. To date, 8,586 people have put their names to this petition, which in terms of political activism in New Zealand is quite a lot.

The people behind the petition and those signing it have come under a lot of criticism, some of it justified and some of it not. The problem here isn't just that there's a lack of evidence to clearly show vote rigging has taken place, it’s that the reaction to people exercising their democratic right to set up and sign a petition is a bit over the top.

I should clearly state my position on this matter. I don’t believe there's enough evidence to show election fraud and therefore justify a recount. However, I am not saying that vote rigging in New Zealand is impossible. One blogger who does appear to be saying that vote rigging is impossible in Aotearoa is Idiot/Savant.

Yesterday, No Right Turn posted:

Deranged

Saturday's result was a shock for the left. And for some, it was apparently so shocking that it can only have been the result of fraud. So they're petitioning the head of the Electoral Commission for a recount.

Naturally, they present no evidence - just their feeling that "something doesn't seem right", and that the result "makes no sense". Scarily, over 7,600 people agree with them.

This is utterly deranged. Any fraud would have to be widespread, across multiple polling places and districts. There would be evidence. And the thousands of party activists who volunteered to scrutinise the poll and the count would be speaking up about it. As would the electoral commission staff, returning officers and poll workers. Democracy goes deep in New Zealand, and people of all parties would be affronted by attempts to undermine it. Its just not the New Zealand way.

Clearly Idiot/Savant is using a very old debating technique here, by saying that to question the establishment and its processes is unpatriotic. ‘How could you not trust your fellow Kiwis’ is the implied question, which combined with the name calling is designed to demoralize those thinking about or actually signing the petition.

But the dumbest thing: every New Zealand election already receives a full recount (during which special votes are counted and the rolls are scrutinized to detect dual voting and failed personation). Only after that do the results become official. And after that, there's a whole judicial recount process if anyone has any concerns.

Here’s the actual rules. BTW, the Electoral Commission doesn’t release figures about voter fraud. Therefore unless Idiot/Savant has some sort of inside knowledge about such matters, he/she cannot claim to know whether or not vote rigging has or is occurring in New Zealand.

There's also a reddit discussion on the matter, with the initial commentator, tommcg, writing:

Petition to recount votes because election was 'rigged'. Are you kidding me? Even as a left supporter, this shit makes me beyond mad. 

Not to mention all the people bleating about how the election is rigged because you don't need ID to vote & can just go vote at another voting place. Why do people need to be so stupid?

Personally I don't see any problem with people having to produce a form of ID to be able to vote. This would be the best way to ensure a person didn't make multiple votes at different polling booths. Another commentator, apteryxmantelli, also writes:

I may not like the fact that nearly 50% of NZ votes were cast for National, but it happened. Those 1800 signatories to that poll would be far better served joining a political party and getting involved now to help make things a bit different in 3 years time.

This comment raises the issue of who the people signing the petition are and whether or not they would join a political party in order to effect change?

I suspect that the majority of people who sign the petition aren't very interested in joining political parties, because they've clearly already lost faith in the system. It would also seem probable that they didn't vote for National, and would have been disappointed that the status quo remains in power. I can identify with them in this respect.

The other issue here is that there likely won't be any transparency about how the voting system works, even if this petition is tabled in the House of Representatives. This is unfortunate, because it might be clear-cut to political party observers or those working within the electoral commission that there is no electoral fraud, but it's not transparent to the general public. This creates a degree of doubt in many people's minds, especially when there are glaringly obvious cases of government corruption in other areas.

The main issue here is that, because of their doubt about vote rigging going unanswered, many of those 8,586 people aren't likely to vote again. This should be particularly concerning to left wing parties, especially considering their likely voting preferences. Another concern here is that there are a number of prominent people currently promoting the idea that not voting is some sort of solution to dirty politics. This is clearly not a good dynamic to have if we want to increase participation rates, which in my opinion is the only realistic answer to our current political conundrum.

Despite what their propagandists claim, the non-vote clearly benefits right wing parties. That's why they aren't going to do anything about increasing transparency or participation. In fact they’re likely to work to undermine these things, because it works in their favour.

Finally, here's Nandor Tanczos' take on the matter:

Stop saying that you think the election was rigged. The left lost. (This for the more volatile activists).

I have to agree with Nandor here, because without some sort of solid evidence like these videos from the Scottish referendum, claims that our electoral process is rigged will go nowhere. In fact such claims, and especially the negative reaction to those making them, are likely to do further damage to our already low participation rates in New Zealand...and that's of no benefit to democracy at all.

National kills its own candidates

National MP Mark Mitchell

After reading Nicky Hager's book, Dirty Politics, which documents the underhanded way certain right wing attack bloggers operate to destabilize our democracy, I was surprised at just how devious National's very own black-ops team acted towards certain prospective National party candidates they didn't like.

It appears that the more moderate and conservative the National party candidate was, the more abuse he or she would receive from Cameron Slater and Simon Lusk on behalf of the candidate they were representing.

All of this was designed to shift National away from the political centre and further in line with Slater & co.'s questionable belief system. Unable to enter politics themselves, these traitors instead focused on cutting the throats of anybody who stood in the way of their extreme right wing agenda.

Today, the NZ Herald reported on one such example:

Disclosures disgust defeated candidate

Church-goer who sought National seat speaks out over blog’s ‘smear campaign’.

National Party member Brent Robinson says he is disappointed and upset about what he calls an "atrocious" smear campaign during the Rodney candidate selection in 2011, as outlined in Nicky Hager's Dirty Politics.

And although speaking out will do the party no favours, he hopes it will see politics cleaned up.

Mr Robinson was one of five hopefuls for the Rodney selection in 2011, eventually won by Mark Mitchell, who went on to become MP.

Dirty Politics, based on emails stolen from Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater, appears to show Mr Slater collaborating with political strategist Simon Lusk to push for Mr Mitchell.

Whether Mark Mitchell was paying for the services of the deplorable Whale Oil is still to be determined. However, what we do know for certain is that such dirty tactics were raising serious concerns within the National party itself.

Back in May 2012, 3 News reported:

Secret minutes reveal split in National’s ranks

Leaked minutes of a National Party board meeting in March show major concerns over a party member who is so close to some of the party's MPs that he presents a serious risk to the party and its image.

But when 3 News asked Prime Minister John Key to explain, he said he did not know of any concerns.

Under questioning though, he did start to recall.
The man in question is Simon Lusk, who loves the outdoors but who also sees himself as a big fish in the National Party.

3 News is told he gets paid to give strategic advice to about a dozen of the party's MPs and aspiring MPs.

But secret National Party board minutes from March released to 3 News show the party is so worried about Mr Lusk's influence that his "agenda represents a serious risk to the party".

It's hard to determine just how many current MPs have been unfairly assisted into their positions within the National party because of Whale Oil's smear campaigns. But in terms of subverting our democratic process, this would seem to be Slater's greatest success story. However, because he has now been exposed, Slater was ironically and unknowingly undermining the National party.

I wouldn't be surprised if long time National supporters find this revelation hard to accept. Some may even choose to try and ignore National's dirty politics, but I suspect many will be so repulsed by Cameron Slater and his close ties to various National MPs that they will look for a different party to vote for in the upcoming general election.

The National party can no longer claim they stand for the long held beliefs and values of its founders. Instead, it has a sickness that if not promptly dealt with will further weaken the entire party. That's another valid reason why it's important to change the government on September 20, to give National the time it needs to clean up its act and take out the trash.

Demo for Democracy

PM stokes fears over deep sea drilling

Today, NewstalkZB reports:

PM allays fears over deep sea drilling

The Prime Minister's adamant the public's not going to be muzzled over deep sea drilling projects.

The Government's considering a law change that would make application for offshore exploratory drilling non-notified.

A law change which essentially means the public won't know about where and when seismic testing is taking place and exploratory wells are being drilled. They also won't be allowed a say in any decision making. If that's not muzzling the public, I don't know what is.

But John Key doesn't think that locks people out of having a say on such projects.

"This is at the exploratory stage and if eventually they go to full exploration, then that will go through the normal process with normal consents and public input."

This subsequent law change is of course because the government has realised their "Anadarko Amendment" to make protesting at sea illegal will simply be ignored. There are many New Zealander's who are strongly opposed to deep sea oil drilling and will risk prosecution to stand up for what is right.

Instead of listening to the people of New Zealand, the government is trying to win the argument by removing people's access to information. They are trying to remove people's right to peacefully oppose dangerous industries that have proven disastrous to the environment on more occasions than I would like to number.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

Environmentalists say the exploration stage is risky with a danger of spills. The Deepwater Horizon disaster took place during drilling a deep exploratory well, killing 11 crewmen and sending millions of barrels of oil gushing into the sea for 87 days.

A study by Scandinavia's largest independent research organisation SINTEF shows more than a third of blowouts take place during exploratory drilling.

Clearly oil exploration isn't the benign industry that the government is making it out to be. It is a highly dangerous and risky enterprise and therefore something the public should be notified about.

Why isn't this decision going though a parliamentary select committee? By ignoring proper process and trying to limit the public's say on such decisions, the government is once again acting undemocratically. They therefore don't deserve to govern.

GCSB public meeting - video

The Coalition to Stop the GCSB Bill organised a powerful line-up of speakers for this public meeting in front of a packed Auckland Town Hall and tens of thousands of online viewers -- each speaker explaining why this GCSB Bill is bad for our country.

Speakers in order are:

Dr Rodney Harrison QC (lawyer)
Kim Dotcom (the most high profile victim of illegal GCSB spying)
Jon Stephenson (journalist and war correspondent)
Seeby Woodhouse (Founder of Orcon ISP and 2004 NZ Young Entrepreneur of the Year)
Helen Kelly (CTU President)
Professor Jane Kelsey (Law Faculty Auckland University)
Marama Davidson (Maori activist and blogger)
David Shearer (Labour Party Leader)
Russel Norman (Green Party Leader)
Winston Peters (NZ First leader)
Hone Harawira (Mana Party Leader)
Nicky Hagar (investigative journalist)

H/T The Daily Blog

Wiretap legislation economic disaster

Yesterday, the NBR reported:

The government is planning to issue secret orders to service providers when the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill ("TICS Bill") becomes law to force them to create interception capability for surveillance agencies. This has been approved by cabinet and is therefore official Government policy.

What's not clear is if the mechanism of a Ministerial directive will also be used to gag the service provider? Or is the secrecy merely a guise to allow compliant service providers to pretend they haven't been forced to create a backdoor for the government?

Either way, the impact on New Zealand online service providers, and New Zealand as a country, could be truly devastating.

It's little wonder the service providers have unanimously come out strongly against such badly devised legislation. The TICS bill will clearly undermine their business models by giving their competition an advantage. Vikram Kumar explains why:

However, the consequences of this approach are very damaging and dangerous - when you don't know who to trust, you trust no one. There will be a loss of confidence across all service providers in New Zealand. A lack of information is quickly filled by rumour and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

In fact it won't just be damaging to the telecommunications companies, it will be damaging to New Zealand's economy as well.

As an example of just how bad the consequences are, consider how there is now a loss of trust in all US-based online service providers from Snowden's revelations. While there may be debate about the exact nature of the backdoor, there is no doubt that 9 online companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple - do provide the US Government with secret, lawful access. Gag orders makes things worse - two email providers facing actual or potential secret orders have shut down but are unable to provide any real information, stoking FUD.

As a consequence of the loss of trust, The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) has projected a $35 billion loss to US cloud companies. A Forrester analyst projects global losses at $180 billion. Meanwhile, European companies are likely to get an advantage over New Zealand and US companies, including a greater push to keep things within Europe.

So much for National being business friendly.

I wonder if the government has even considered the huge cost to New Zealand's economy because of their stupid legislation? Probably not! Instead they seem totally focussed on creating a mass surveillance state and damn the consequences.

Official government policy
Examples from around the world show just how corrosive secret spying capability orders and gag orders are to trustworthiness, both to the country and its online service providers. Secrecy also aids compliant online service providers, happy to go along with the Government without insisting on a warrant, protected by the Principle 11 exceptions in the Privacy Act. A real corporate-government surveillance partnership. 

Secret orders, secret compliance, secret evidence in courts... we just need secret courts to complete New Zealand's descent into a totalitarian state. 

People will quickly figure out that they have no way of knowing which particular service provider has or hasn't given the government a backdoor. The logical approach would be to assume that all service providers are compromised.

Which business is going to take the risk that their, say, Board papers or accounts, are secretly available in real-time to the NZ Police, SIS, GCSB, and the Five Eyes partners? In particular, overseas businesses will be spooked from doing business with any New Zealand based online service provider. They will know that warrants can be issued to safeguard New Zealand's economic well-being just as easily as they are for national security and law enforcement.

Will this strengthen the case for the likes of Google and Microsoft to pull out of New Zealand rather than risk getting a secret directive for a backdoor from the ICT Minister?

Will New Zealand cloud companies decide to move out to more democratic countries?

When the NBR starts questioning the governments position with such veracity, you know that National has got things horribly wrong! Claiming that the NBR is just fear-mongering along with New Zealander of the year Dame Anne Salmond, Rodney Harrison QC, the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission etc isn't going to cut it this time John.

The TICS and GCSB bills look set to not just undermine our democracy, they will damage the National party and their coalition partners as well. At least there's a silver lining to the governments undemocratic law changes that will undoubtedly be an economic disaster for New Zealand.