The Left Must Unite on Voter-Friendly Tax Reform

The left wing in New Zealand stands at a critical crossroads. As the cost-of-living crisis deepens and economic pressures intensify, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori must unite to deliver voter-friendly tax policies that resonate with everyday New Zealanders. The current tax system, strained by inequity and inefficiency, demands reform that prioritises fairness, fosters growth, and protects those already stretched thin, such as beneficiaries, low-waged workers, and small businesses being pushed to the brink. Without a cohesive strategy that places people, and not the government, first, the left risks alienating voters and ceding ground to the current Neoliberal Government and groups like the Taxpayers’ Union, whose campaign for a cap on rates will be gaining traction among elderly homeowners, a key voting demographic.


On Sunday, The Standard reported:

 

The left should unite on tax, fast

With less than 18 months to go to the election, Labour doesn’t yet have a tax policy. The Greens do. Tax policy done badly will almost certainly stop Labour and the Greens changing this government. But they have to deal with it.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said in March this year that too much investment was going into property rather than “productive businesses that create jobs,” but didn’t elaborate further.

When asked directly if the party would be campaigning on a capital gains tax, Hipkins said: “We’ll campaign on tax reform … now, the exact nature of that, it’s not just a simple issue of this one tax or that one tax.”

Hipkins’ election 2023 position was that “I’m confirming today that under a government I lead there will be no wealth or capital gains tax after the election. End of story.”

The Taxpayers’ Union’s push for rate caps taps into a genuine concern: spiralling costs for homeowners, particularly pensioners, who feel squeezed by rising local government charges will be looking for relief. This resonates because it speaks to fairness, an idea the left should champion more often. However, rate caps, although they will be resonating, are a blunt instrument, potentially starving councils of the revenue needed to maintain ageing infrastructure or invest in climate-resilient systems. Labour and the Greens must counter with a bold, unified vision that balances rates and tax relief with the funding required for councils and government agencies to deliver essential services. The detail should be in-depth, but selling it should be simple and to the point.

A return to a 10% GST rate, for instance, could ease the cost-of-living burden on families, putting more money back into the pockets of those who need it most. Likewise, making the first $10,000 of income tax-free would directly support low-waged workers and beneficiaries, shielding them from a regressive tax system. Such measures would not only provide relief but also kick start the economy. Higher wages and increased benefits for low-income earners are not just moral imperatives; they’re economic necessities. People on tight budgets spend what they have on things like groceries, bills, and local services, directly stimulating demand.

A wealth tax must be implemented in such a way that doesn't give rise to criticism such as claims that it's an envy tax. The fear of capital flight, for instance, where wealthy individuals relocate to avoid taxes, has often been exaggerated in debates over wealth taxes targeting the ultra-rich. Evidence from countries like Norway, Spain, and Switzerland, suggests minimal capital flight after wealth taxes have been undertaken. In Norway, a 2022 wealth tax increase to 1.1% on net wealth exceeding NZ$3.2 million (NOK 20 million) prompted initial claims of significant departures, with estimates suggesting 30–82 high-net-worth individuals (0.01%–0.03% of Norway’s millionaire population of 236,000) left. However, updated analyses indicates the scale of Norway's capital flight was badly overstated.

 

Spain’s 2011 wealth tax, reintroduced in 2022 as a “solidarity” tax on net assets above NZ$5 million (€3 million), affects the richest 0.5% of households and has seen increased revenue with negligible flight. Switzerland’s long-standing wealth tax, ranging from 0.13% to 0.94% on net assets above NZ$170,000 (SFr 100,000), impacts a broader 10%–15% of the population due to lower thresholds but has not driven significant capital flight, with its appeal sustained by low overall tax burdens and no capital gains tax on movable assets. 

France’s pre-2017 wealth tax (ISF) saw around 370 departures in 2003 (0.02% of its wealthy population), dropping to 163 by 2018 (0.01%) after reforms, indicating limited flight. These cases show that well-designed wealth taxes, with high thresholds and robust enforcement, can limit flight risks while raising revenue, countering narratives that taxing the rich inevitably drives them away.

The top 1% of NZ owns 25% of the wealth. The top 10% owns 70% of the wealth. The bottom *half* of the country owns less than 2% of the wealth. David Seymour sees no problem with this. pic.twitter.com/YEEpAaSbrN

— antihobbes (@antihobbes) May 2, 2022

This approach contrasts sharply with National, NZ First and the ACT Parties tax cuts for the wealthy, money that has little to no economic benefit as it generally languishes in savings accounts or offshore investments. The left must champion policies that channel money to those who will spend it, driving growth from the ground up. However, they must proceed cautiously. Additional taxes, particularly those impacting small businesses, could choke off the enterprises that employ many New Zealanders. The left cannot afford to alienate the small business community, already battered by economic headwinds and domestic policies that have lead to a prolonged downturn.

The challenge is to craft a tax system that funds ambitious social and infrastructure investments without stifling growth. Councils need capital to address ageing water networks and urban development, while government agencies require resources for healthcare, education, and climate initiatives. Current tax settings, if maintained or reduced strategically, can provide this capital, but only if allocation and redistribution is undertaken wisely. Labour and the Greens must resist the urge to impose new taxes that could be seen as punitive, especially by voters wary of the government overreach we've often seen from previous administrations.

A united front is essential to sell this vision. Infighting or divergent policies risk diluting the message and handing ammunition to opponents who thrive on division. The left’s tax reform must be bold yet pragmatic, offering tangible relief while safeguarding the revenue needed for a resilient future. Reducing GST or introducing a tax-free threshold would signal a commitment to fairness, while careful stewardship of existing revenue can ensure councils and agencies aren’t left short. The left wing must sell a long term vision for the future of New Zealand capturing the public's imagination in a way that the mainstream media cannot ignore.

By uniting behind a voter-friendly platform that prioritises low-income earners, protects small businesses, and counters the Coalition of Chaos and Taxpayer Union’s narrow narrative, Labour and the Greens can reclaim the high ground on the economic debate. The alternative, fragmentation sound bites that the MSM intentionally ignore, will only embolden those seeking to dismantle the progressive direction needed to increase everybodies quality of life. The time for clarity and unity is now.

NewstalkZB’s Ryan Bridge Is A Hack

Ryan Bridge’s latest Newstalk ZB piece, “It’s three strikes for Chippy,” is an exercise in sloppy punditry, slinging mud at Labour leader Chris Hipkins with flimsy claims and zero evidence. His so-called “three strikes” propaganda, claiming that Hipkins’ ambiguity on the Green Party’s alternative budget, not locking in a 50% GDP debt ceiling, and push for lighter Maori Party MP suspensions, are political suicide is complete tabloid rubbish more suited to far right echo chambers. You only have to scratch the surface, and Bridge’s article collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

First, Bridge calls Hipkins’ non-committal stance on the Greens’ alternative budget a blunder, labelling it a “mad-hatter” plan that’ll “kill growth like roundup on your weeds.” Sounds dramatic, but where’s the proof? The Greens’ $88.8B budget, with its free healthcare, targets poverty and underinvestment, policies that are hardly a middle-voter repellent. RNZ reports that Hipkins has distanced Labour, saying their tax policy is yet to be announced, a savvy coalition play, not an endorsement. Bridge’s claim that this alienates voters is pure speculation, with no polling to back it up. He’s banking on fear-mongering, not facts, to smear Hipkins.

Then there’s the debt ceiling gripe. Bridge says Hipkins’ refusal to commit to 50% GDP debt or less lets National brand Labour a “debt monster.” Rubbish. Labour’s fiscal record under Grant Robertson kept net debt at 43.1% of GDP in 2023, far below OECD averages post-COVID. Hipkins told RNZ borrowing for infrastructure isn’t reckless, it’s strategic. Meanwhile, National’s current net debt has climbed to 47.5% of GDP in 2025, per Treasury forecasts, with no significant growth to show for it. The wealthy are hoarding their windfall, because trickle down economics doesn't work. We all agree that our debt to GDP could be beter, but this really isn't the political win NewstalkZB’s resident fool implies.

Even National’s Nicola no boats Willis is delaying surpluses, admitting economic headwinds...headwinds that the coalition of chaos has largely created for New Zealand by sacking thousands of public servants and halting much needed infrastructure projects. Bridge ignores these facts, pushing a narrative that only Labour’s fiscally irresponsible. Most voters will see through this type of dishonest propaganda. Besides, where’s the data showing voters care more about arbitrary debt caps than housing or healthcare? Nowhere.

The “gun-gesture-gate” jab is the weakest link in Bridge's hubris filled hit-job. The claim that Hipkins’ wanting more appropriate punishment looks “soft-on-crime” is complete nonsense! Labour’s record, boosting police funding in 2023 and properly equipping our border control authorities, hardly screams soft on crime. Besides, Hipkins argued for proportionality, but the deluded Ryan Bridge spins it as a PR disaster for Labour without a shred of public backlash evidence.

Why the slant? Bridge’s piece of tripe reeks of Newstalk ZB’s right-leaning bias, a platform dutifully republishing National’s unhinged talking points until they are blue in the face. His “mad-hatter” and “debt monster” rhetoric mirrors coalition attacks, like National’s “Marxist” jabs at the Greens, the type of insult that only those without an argument resort to. The right-wing hack is just parroting the government’s playbook to try and undermine Labour. His lack of originality or primary sources such as any economic models, or even quoting Chris Hipkins properly, suggests he’s more interested in throwing a bone to National voters rather than reasoned debate. This isn’t journalism; it’s a hit job dressed up as analysis that only the truly deluded extreme right-winger would believe.

Of course Labour and the Greens deserve scrutiny, but Bridge’s cherry-picked “strikes” are built on hot air. Hipkins’ moves are strategic, not blunders, and voters care about real issues like the cost-of-living crisis, accessible housing and properly funded healthcare, not Ryan Bridge’s pathetic and manufactured outrage that NewstalkZB should have thrown in the bin.

The Green Budget: Cutting Through Right-Wing Spin

You might not have heard that the Green Party’s 2025 Alternative Budget is a bold blueprint for a fairer, greener Aotearoa. That's because right-wing spin merchants are twisting its intent and manipulating the narrative with predictable ferocity. From National’s Nicola Willis labeling it “clown show economics” to NZ Herald’s Thomas Coughlan claiming it slashes nurses’ pay, the disinformation is relentless and designed to keep the public guesing.

The Greens’ plan, rooted in wealth taxes and social investment, aims to rebuild resilience, yet perceived vagueness in some areas has left too much room for distortion. Clarity is critical to counter the right-wing attacks and showcase the Alternative budget’s transformative potential.

The coalition’s scaremongering–calling it “Marxist” or “left-wing Trumpism”–is a pathetic tactic of disinformation to dodge substantive debate. The government's cuts to public services contrast starkly with the Greens’ $88.8 billion revenue plan, funded by taxing the ultra-wealthy, not everyday Kiwis. The Greens must seize the narrative and sharpen their messaging to dismantle right-wing myths and highlight how their policies will prioritise people over profit.

Myth: The Green Budget taxes nurses into poverty. Coughlan’s analysis in the NZ Herald falsely claims nurses lose after-tax income. The Greens’ plan cuts income tax for 91% of Kiwis, with wealth taxes targeting the top 3%.

 

Myth: The budget isn’t costed. The Greens’ plan was independently costed by Infometrics, projecting $99.1 billion over four years, with clear revenue streams like wealth and inheritance taxes.

Myth: It’s reckless spending. The $88.8 billion funds free GP visits, childcare, and a $395 weekly income guarantee, addressing inequality while investing in climate and infrastructure resilience.

Myth: Wealth taxes cause capital flight. Treasury’s warnings are speculative; similar taxes in Norway and Spain show minimal exodus by wealthy residents when paired with robust public investment. The Greens’ plan mitigates risks through targeted design.

Myth: It’s “Marxist” nonsense. National’s hyperbole ignores the Green budget’s pragmatic focus: doubling mining royalties, taxing private jets, and boosting job creation via a Green Jobs Guarantee.

Tame’s Q+A critique: Lack of detail. Swarbrick’s admission of needing to “come back” on specifics may have been a misstep. However the line of questioning was taken directly from right-wing disinformation merchants. Despite this, the Green's must proactively publish clear tax thresholds and economic modeling.

The Greens’ vision of free healthcare, guaranteed incomes, and 40,000 green jobs isn’t radical; it’s absolutely necessary to improve New Zealanders living standards. But they must front-foot the narrative. Right-wing spin thrives on ambiguity, and National’s fear-mongering distracts from their own budget’s failures, like underfunding after-hours care and dismantling the social welfare safety net.

Swarbrick and Davidson need to emulate the clarity of past Green Party campaigns, arming supporters with facts to counter disinformation. They must also come up with a game plan to ensure the MSM doesn't ignore their policies in the run up to the election. The alternative budget isn’t a “clown show”...it’s a lifeline for a nation battered by neoliberal ideology already a proven to be a failure. The Greens must own the story, or the right will write it for them.

Collins blunders on expat policy

I hope we can all agree that charging only certain returning expats for isolation costs is the right call. Instead of a blanket fee, which may have resulted in a small number of Kiwis deciding not to return home because of financial reasons, the Government has chosen to implement a fair and principled cost structure.

People visiting for 90 days or less, some on temporary visas, and the wealthy going for a holiday overseas will still have to make a contribution towards their isolation costs when returning to New Zealand. However the fees are pretty nominal and shouldn't hinder New Zealanders or breach their legal right to return home.

People in financial hardship can still apply for exemptions from payment. However those that can afford it will be charged just over $3000 per person in a room, $950 for each additional adult and $475 for each additional child sharing the same room.


Here’s the Green Party’s Golriz Ghahraman with the news:

📣BREAKING: The Green Party has ensured that if you were overseas when #COVID19 hit, you will not be charged a $3000 #quarantine fee if you need to come home to live!

Please let the NZ ex-pats in your world know about this development. @golrizghahraman #nzpol pic.twitter.com/I979gAQlI7

— Green Party NZ (@NZGreens) July 29, 2020

Strangely Judith Collins, despite the National Party proposing almost the exact same fee structure, isn’t pleased with the policy decision.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

National and NZ First promise to charge more returning Kiwis after election

National have a policy to charge all returnees a similar fee, with a narrow set of exemptions. 

Leader Judith Collins said the policy was “a total failure” and “the kind of policy you have when you don’t want a policy.” 

She said her party would replace the scheme entirely with its policy if elected in September. 

Collins said that there was a growing discontent with overseas Kiwis from unemployed New Zealanders trapped at home.

Here’s National’s policy proposal:

National to charge for quarantine 

Additional adults in a room if a couple has arrived, will be charged an additional $1000.

Children under 3 years will have no cost and over 3 years will see an additional $500.

There will be exemptions only for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents on compassionate grounds and in cases where they are facing financial hardship.

Claiming that the Government’s policy is a total failure, when there's nothing really materially different to National's proposed policy, is incredibly stupid! I mean why would you bother replacing the entire scheme for tens of dollars?

Collins would've been better off saying that the Government was copying National's policy. But instead she has made herself look foolish by going entirely negative! Crusher is either criticising the policy for the sake of it, or she doesn't actually remember what her own party proposed only eleven days ago.

Either way, it's clear that the National Party, with the deluded Judith Collins in charge, isn't fit to govern.

Goldsmith loves poverty

Paul Goldsmith

You can often tell just how effective a progressive policy proposal will be by how much the right wing criticise it. The more socially beneficial, the more vitriolic and unhinged they seem to become.

That was the case when the Green Party announced their Poverty Action Plan yesterday. The response on Twitter was quite astounding; with many right-wingers claiming it would be the end of the world. The actual policy itself (PDF) is well worth a read, even if it’s just to get some perspective on how unhinged the right wing have become.

Unable to find any real fault with the Green Party’s economic policy initiative, the right wing has resorted to a desperate kind of disinformation, the type of propaganda that only their deluded core supporters could believe.


Yesterday, Newshub reported:

David Seymour, Paul Goldsmith condemn Green Party's wealth tax plans 

Released on Sunday in the lead-up to the election, its Poverty Action Plan would introduce wealth taxes and new high-income tax brackets to pay for a guaranteed minimum income of at least $325 a week. 

… 

But ACT Party leader Seymour warns this will send New Zealand in the wrong direction.
"At a time when we need to get New Zealanders back to work, the Greens want to suck the life out of the economy by taxing successful people harder and creating even more welfare dependency," Seymour told Newshub. 

"This kind of European socialism will only prolong the economic pain."

Actually, people on low-incomes having more money to spend is a great way to invigorate the economy. It's also a good way to ensure that they get the basic necessities their families require to survive with some dignity.

And National's Finance spokesperson Goldsmith says we need our small businesses to invest and create more jobs - not tax them more. 

"Rather than celebrating Kiwis doing well, the Greens seem to want to punish them," he says in a statement.

Paul Goldsmith then hastily wrote an ill-advised press release.

Higher Taxes Inevitable If Labour-Greens Win 

The Greens have proposed higher income tax rates, up to 42 cents in the dollar, and a wealth tax on people with more than $1 million in assets. 

The wealth tax would be particularly severe. A successful small business person, owning a $1 million house and a business worth $1 million would have to pay $40,000 a year for the 2 per cent wealth tax. 

… 

The very real fear many New Zealanders have is that this current government, which has $20 billion available for election spending, will spend whatever it takes to try to keep its poll numbers up until the 19 September election. 

Then on the 20th, if they win, the smiles will drop and New Zealanders will be presented with the bill – higher taxes.

Today, RNZ reported:

Paul Goldsmith admits to blunder in criticism of Green Party's pledge 

National Party finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith has admitted to getting his facts wrong in a media release critical of the Green Party's pledge to transform the welfare system. 

… 

Goldsmith subsequently put out a release stating that a wealth tax would be "particularly severe". In it, he used the example of a business owner who had a house worth $1 million and a business worth $1m paying "$40,000 a year for the 2 percent wealth tax". 

However, the policy outlined that taxing would only occur on wealth that was over the $1m threshold, and would also take into consideration mortgages as well as shared ownership. 

Goldsmith defended himself on Morning Report, saying the policy was vague on the thresholds. 

"Right at the very bottom [of the documents], there was a table that made the point that what they're talking about is a tax of over $1 million. 

"I quite frankly admit I got it wrong ... but when you look at the details in the press statement and all the policy documents it's not clear as to where the threshold came through. 

"I was moving in a fast-paced environment, trying to respond." 

You’ve got to wonder if the National Party chose Goldsmith as their financial spokesperson solely because of his name? I mean honestly...what a complete goober!

After being caught out wrongly claiming that the Labour led Government was spending more than any other country on its COVID-19 response, you would think that Goldsmith would keep a pretty low profile about now. Instead he went out on another limb and again lied about what the Green Party's Poverty Action Plan truly represents. Not only has Goldsmith displayed a lack of understanding about how marginal tax rates actually work, he’s completely misread the room in terms of the publics reaction to what is a balanced and transformational policy.

There is no question that if we want to do something substantial about inequality in New Zealand, a way to redistribute more wealth to those who need it the most is required. It should also be mentioned that in comparison to other countries, we actually have reasonably low tax rates in New Zealand. The problem is the cost of living in comparison to our low-waged economy and unfair taxes like GST disproportionately impacting poorer families. Obviously the only way we’re going to fix our high rate of inequality is by a progressive tax system like the one proposed by the Greens.

In fact this is a well thought out policy initiative, both in a political sense and in terms of its benefit towards social progress. Not only does it mark a clear line in the sand between the Greens and other political factions, it also targets the upper class, many of whom have chosen to sit on their wealth with a wait and see what happens policy during COVID-19.

Clearly the policy won’t have any negative effects for the vast majority of voters or cause the wealthy to flee the safety of New Zealand, so National’s cries of economic doom and gloom not only confirm exactly whom they represent; they will also fail to gain much if any traction with the general voting public.

So provided the Greens can strong-arm the Labour Party into negotiating on this well thought out policy post election, we could finally see an end to the grinding poverty that causes untold economic and social harm in New Zealand. I'm sure people like Paul Goldsmith will be livid!

Opposition meltdown over KiwiSaver divestment

It was amusing to see National and Act react so badly last week to the Coalition Government’s decision to increase core benefits slightly. But it was absolutely hilarious to see them and their propagandists go into full meltdown about the announcement that KiwiSaver funds will be divested away from fossil fuel and illegal weapons companies.


Yesterday, Stuff reported:

Fossil fuels and illegal weapons to be excluded from future Kiwisaver default funds 

Fossil fuels and illegal weapons will be excluded from all future Kiwisaver default funds. 

The changes announced on Saturday mean investments in fossil fuel production and illegal weapons will be excluded from future KiwiSaver funds that are default providers. 

There are currently nine default fund providers, and their terms expire in mid-2021. 

The new rules will apply to the default funds that are in place from mid-2021 and the process to appoint new default providers starts later this year.

Well I guess silly opposition MPs had to say something about the divestment, but none of them could actually point to any evidence to support their unfounded claims that it was somehow a bad thing.

Instead, they simply based their feckless rhetoric on speculation that fossil fuel and weapons investments provide better returns and by doing so showed that they’re firmly in the pockets of those immoral industries.


Yesterday, Newshub also reported:

National, ACT and oil industry slam KiwiSaver's move away from fossil fuels 

National finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith called it "nanny state" and "virtue signalling", saying Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern should be focused on shoring up the economy against the coronavirus threat. 

"Is Ardern also going to ban New Zealanders from investing in products which contain sugar, or fast food, alcohol and dairy? With this government it wouldn’t surprise me if while they ban investing in these things, they make investing in marijuana compulsory."

Goldsmith can't be serious? Saying fast foods are just like illegal cluster bombs or products containing sugar are similar to anthropomorphic climate change is stark raving mad! What a complete crackpot!

ACT's David Seymour called it "gesture politics". 

"It is a feel-good decision that will be counterproductive, hurting the economy for no environmental benefit. Labour and the Greens are so badly out of touch with how the real world works and New Zealanders will pay the price." 

Neither party mentioned anything about the land mine and cluster bombs ban in their statements. 

So National and Act said nothing about the illegal weapons divestment. That's likely because they would look even more foolish if they came out and openly supported things like cluster bombs or land mines, even though they do actually back these kinds of investments and have done so for many years.

It’s great to see that people power has won again. The Divest from fossil fuels campaign, championed by the good people at 350.org, was a well thought out and executed campaign that has had a number of victories around the world.


Here's 350.org’s post about the latest decision to divest:

We did it! Together we pushed the government to put climate change at the core of its decision to reform default Kiwisaver standards. Today the government announced that all default Kiwisaver funds will have mandatory responsible investment policies that exclude fossil fuel investments. This means that when anyone signs up to join Kiwisaver, they are now guaranteed that the default option for their savings will not be fueling the climate crisis.

Fantastic! It's victories like these that make me think we might just win the war against the creeping behemoth that is climate change. But to do so we must ensure oil and gas companies are impeded at every turn...and we must strongly convey our message to administrations around the world to convince them that their governance depends on finding solutions and implementing readily available alternatives to the destructive fossil fuel industry.

NZ First undermines the Coalition

You’ve really got to wonder what the NZ First Party was thinking and drinking last Friday? Not only did they hamstring the Greens by halting one of their main environmental policies, the electric vehicle fee-bate scheme, a policy that the public was led to believe was a done deal…but they also had the audacity to brag about it online.

How does the ‘National Party’ think they can really change anything when they are in the...opposition? pic.twitter.com/FBJkr2jcK6

— New Zealand First (@NZFirstNews) February 22, 2020

It doesn't make much sense to brag about stopping a policy that the Government you're a part of proposed. It makes less sense to do what the opposing team wanted and then criticise them for it. Sort of like doing a victory lap after scoring an own goal.

The Green Party should be spitting tacks at Winston Peters right now, for ignoring his obligations to his political partners and more importantly the environment. Campaigning to undermine your political opponents is all well and good in election year, unless there’s a coalition agreement that specifically forbids it.

With the SFO's investigation into the NZ First Foundation's dodgy donations and the shenanigans over journalists being photographed and then those photos being leaked to attack blogger Cameron Slater's new website, NZ First is the weak link currently destabilising the Coalition Government. So what are Labour and the Greens going to do about it?

On Friday, RNZ reported:

NZ First axes Government's 'feebate' electric vehicle subsidy plan, while Greens vow to take the policy to the election 

The Government's headline policy to cut the price of electric vehicles by up to $8000 has stalled in first gear after NZ First ministers halted it. 

The policy had two parts: a Clean Car Discount, or "feebate" which would subsidise the cost of cleaner vehicles by making polluting vehicles cost more and a Clean Car Standard, which was designed to encourage importers to import cars with better emissions standards. 

Green co-leader James Shaw said if NZ First ultimately decided to block the policy, his party would take it to the election.

At least Labour and the Greens are still honouring their coalition agreements. But it would be good to hear James Shaw get a bit more outspoken instead of just relying on another election to rectify the political problem that NZ First has become. In the meantime the effects of Climate Change, which is apparently this generations nuclear free moment, are getting exponentially worse.

Don’t take my or the scientists word for it though. Just look at the evidence from across the ditch where Australia’s unprecedented bushfires are the costliest ever, the polar caps melting with Antartica hitting its highest ever temperature of 20.75ºC in February this year and closer to home where most of New Zealand is caught in the grip of another severe drought.

Winston Peters - Leader of the NZ First Party

These things are not normal people.

However according to NZ First the Climate Change emergency knocking on our door is something you can ignore or worse yet play bipartisan politics over.

Sure, being a part of the Coalition Government is all about compromise. But that principle doesn’t hold much water when the compromise involves putting our children’s futures at risk.

This is a bad move by NZ First on numerous levels.

Firstly there is a limited (in both senses of the word) pool of people who’re climate change deniers and clearly National and Act already have this market cornered. Secondly Winston Peters looks like a backstabber by reneging on a policy that he most assuredly agreed to implement. Thirdly it makes New Zealand look like a backwards nation compared to the rest of the world and fourthly it does nothing to help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, which is required if we want to continue being a major producer and exporter of food. The agriculture industry will simply die without water.

So what the bloody hell was Winston Peters thinking?

Political disunity will cost the election

Winston Peters - Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the NZ First Party

We all know that politics can be pretty messy at times. Just look at the Dirty Politics saga in New Zealand, the misgovernment during the Australian bushfires or the recent Trump impeachment debacle in the US. In a macabre sort of way it's what makes politics so fascinating!

It’s amazing how the public reacts to certain controversies. Take the National Party’s ongoing scandal concerning secret donations from prominent Chinese businessmen for instance. The latest Colmar Brunton poll illogically puts National with the Act Party edging ahead and able to form the next Government.

Simon Bridges, who is deeply implicated in the donations fraud, has amazingly gone into double digits as preferred PM for the first time. A whopping 11% of the population now thinks he’s OK. Perhaps this has something to do with him never criticising National's only friend David Seymour, even when the Act Party accepts donations from far-right extremists who want to blow up New Zealand mosques.

Paula Bennett - National Party MP

If the political polling is to be believed, the corruption case hasn’t taken any wind out of National’s sails at all. But what might is senior National MPs taking the limelight from and upstaging the so-called leader of the opposition, Simon Bridges.

After the former National Party Chief Whip, Jami-Lee Ross, was officially revealed as one of the four people charged in the National Party's $100,000 donations fraud case before the courts, Paula Bennett and Judith Collins didn't even bat an eye before going into super spin mode to actively attack Jacinda Ardern for not standing Winston Peters down over the SFO's investigation into the NZ First Foundation. The hypocrisy of National Party MPs was astonishing!

Distracted and put under pressure, Bridges isn’t performing at his best for obvious reasons either. After Bennett upstaged his keynote speech, Collins had to clarify his statements concerning National, if elected, cancelling the planned increases to the minimum wage, which led to some raising questions about who exactly is leading the National Party?

With this sort of public backstabbing going on and the SFO donations fraud case hanging ominously over Bridges' head, you’ve got to wonder if a pre-election change of National Party leadership is on the cards? In terms of who might take over, it’s a two horse race between Bennett and Collins with Christopher Luxton nowhere to be seen.

However it’s not just National’s usually private infighting that’s causing public political ructions. NZ First has decided to undermine the Greens by cancelling the electric vehicle fee-bate scheme, a policy the Greens had campaigned on that was also strongly promoted by Labour. Thankful for the disunity, National MPs even congratulated NZ First’s ostensible betrayal of their coalition partners.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

NZ First axes Government's 'feebate' electric vehicle subsidy plan, while Greens vow to take the policy to the election 

It is understood this measure was weighed up by the NZ First caucus and it decided such a policy needed to go to the electorate. 

"We can confirm NZ First are holding up the rollout of policy that would mean cheaper electric and hybrid cars for New Zealanders," Shaw said. 

So a misleading headline. Holding up or going to the electorate isn't exactly axing a policy.

During the consultation it came under intense scrutiny from the National Party, which launched an aggressive online ad campaign, labelling the policy a "car tax". Complaints were made against the ads, some of which were upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.

... 

NZ First was lobbied by rural industries that it would have a regressive impact. 

Perhaps Winston views the position of coalition partner as a competition and undermining the Greens, who let’s face it have little in common with NZ First, is worthwhile in the long run even though it damages their common goal of keeping National out.

The Greens haven’t had a great time getting their environmental policies, some of which are part of their coalition agreement, over the line. In 2018 they also looked ineffectual after Labour gave oil drilling companies more leniency on the conditions of their expiring drilling permits, effectively nullifying the Government’s previous anti-exploration stance.

Has Labour also been lobbied by vested interests and perhaps browbeaten into changing it’s mind by National’s numerous and dishonest attack ads regarding the fee-bate scheme? Perhaps they simply don’t want to forgo the considerable revenue stream that petrol vehicles generate for the Government?

Hopefully there will be some clarification about where everybody stands on this important policy issue. Either way, it isn’t a good look for the Government’s Coalition partners to be ignoring their agreements and squabbling about already announced policies just seven months out from a general election.

Graphs to help you vote

Here are a few interesting graphs that show how the various party policies stack up, how the National led government has performed over the last nine years and some that show how previous government's performed as well.

i made this mental health policy cheat sheet for work - every party has youth mental health policies!! pic.twitter.com/MQ7o0upiIB

— Kieran Moorhead (@kronzor) September 15, 2017

🗳 #vote17  is open now 🗳

Consider voting to #SaveOurRivers  💦💧💦

... Pass it on! 🔃#decision17  #nzpol pic.twitter.com/Nr5WseKaag

— Greenpeace NZ (@GreenpeaceNZ) September 14, 2017

Its not my graph its urs & Helen is not lying even Bill English acknowledged Labs left NZ in good financial standing, u calling him a liar ? pic.twitter.com/M2LVekK5n2

— LouieTheRed (@LouieTheRed1) September 3, 2017

A rough update to my compilation graph. The Political Compass site notes that their graph may change as policies are released. pic.twitter.com/ZO4op5eiVi

— Mary St George (@MaryStGeorge) August 15, 2017

Here is another JBWere graph showing NZ's productivity recession pic.twitter.com/Jks8B9MRLt

— Brendon Harre (@brendon_harre) August 12, 2017

New Zealand number 1 in the word for homelessness as Yale says https://t.co/9qIVz3OfVa  @NZNationalParty still don't get or see the problem! pic.twitter.com/WwYkzbDzQ8

— Graeme Axford (@talk2graeme) July 20, 2017

I Fish. I Care. I Vote has been developed to help you understand what each party is promising in terms of fisheries. https://t.co/QvcZsfu5hC pic.twitter.com/3bZC2iXDdf

— LegaSea (@LegaSea_NZ) September 13, 2017

Graph of suicide rates in NZ v UK pic.twitter.com/FigRgcQMBP

— Geoff Simmons (@geoffsimmonz) July 18, 2017

This graph is such a clear and disturbing representation of Māori youth suicide in NZ pic.twitter.com/O0mxXH7TMa

— Gina Rushton (@ginarush) June 16, 2017

9) Here is a graph of income poverty across time for kids in NZ with major policy & economic events marked from Pennies from heaven.... pic.twitter.com/TWVT9KkoRD

— Jess Berentson-Shaw (@DrJessBerentson) June 15, 2017

Would hazard that countries on right of graph happier, healthier,  much better to live in... & look which side NZ's on, and heading. pic.twitter.com/U6i2lCwLrZ

— Tom Haig (@ThomasHaig) June 2, 2017

Graph showing tax as a % of GDP for OECD countries. Looking at it, where are the countries you would rather NZ was like? More or less tax? pic.twitter.com/deugnTXlCt

— Scott Milne (@LostArcNZ) September 13, 2017

NZ historic & projected GHG emissions all sectors not expected to decline sig. Source: @mfe_news #climatechangersnz pic.twitter.com/6DBNMFKRI8

— Royal Society NZ (@royalsocietynz) July 19, 2016

Not quite the same (as GHG not CO2) but this graph https://t.co/lLk6iw09e8 is helpful for NZ pic.twitter.com/6ZIZ4QBzpG

— Motu Research (@moturesearch) October 6, 2016

OECD: NZ growth shows its environmental limits. GHG emissions up freshwater munted, biodiversity dying .  https://t.co/2NZJbiKC6R … pic.twitter.com/Vi1PxheYpg

— André Hock (@transparency_a1) March 20, 2017

We're taking a weekly focus on results from our recent #climatechange reports-1st up #NZemissions #climatechangersnz pic.twitter.com/2Npeze1ciM

— Royal Society NZ (@royalsocietynz) July 17, 2016

The warmest August months globally, in a series of 127 years of data:
1. 2015
2. 2016
3. 2017
4. 2014 pic.twitter.com/UzhIpX9alV

— Kees van der Leun (@Sustainable2050) September 15, 2017

Coupla years ago had occasion to make this graph, increase net general govt debt 2007-14. NZ a little less than Oz. pic.twitter.com/mids9QDh2B

— Peter Brent (@mumbletwits) December 6, 2016

This graph speaks even more loudly: the sum owed continued to climb.
National obscures that detail by only talking of "net debt to GDP" pic.twitter.com/HR90MEPTLt

— J (@JPGodfreyNZ) September 6, 2017

Should add NZ #debt data to graph series, currently 170% of income & growing, in line with Canada https://t.co/XevhcSr1K4 pic.twitter.com/PHCAArOTMf

— Joel Benjamin (@Gian_TCatt) April 1, 2017

See a graph & glaze over? Our research team tells the story behind this one: in non-economic language| https://t.co/E701pE5nc4 #nzproperty pic.twitter.com/7uRa1GPXzW

— CoreLogic NZ (@CoreLogicNZ) March 7, 2017

The bubble is bursting. Thank Kek.  Stuff NZ posted, then removed this graph after it became controversial.  40 year mortgage anyone? pic.twitter.com/YgwvXuSK6S

— ♞ chad irl ♞ (@SumAnonGuy) July 12, 2017

Which countries are most generous to new parents? https://t.co/rRr4pGqOU9 pic.twitter.com/sxfC6DskwD

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) October 18, 2016

Im working on doing more practice of the stuff I learn via @DataCamp & not just doing their nice exercises. Heres a graph on migration to NZ pic.twitter.com/J6BG1JjLqK

— Emma Vitz (@EmmaVitz) August 19, 2017

Statistics NZ  graph showing the so-called 'record housing boom' is bollocks. well below previous building rates pic.twitter.com/z6dTRbpVK1

— Clint Smith (@ClintVSmith) August 25, 2016

Lots of variability hidden in that average. From OECD report https://t.co/s1nUJKGx81 pic.twitter.com/QzJ2GDThLz

— Luis A. Apiolaza (@zentree) August 14, 2017

Where do OECD countries stand in the “war against #cancer”? Insights from our health #stats https://t.co/L4WRpuRIEn pic.twitter.com/8g7EHKw7oC

— OECD (@OECD) August 15, 2016

Wow. I couldn't believe the figures. Went back to source to visualise: pretty sobering. #inequality #lastRT pic.twitter.com/zbXEkOfKuE

— Pierre Roudier (@pierreroudier) June 28, 2016

Next time someone tries to tell you NZ is better than us at economic reform, this graph from https://t.co/9YRx9aK3OF pic.twitter.com/5TIhqKAzL8

— Bernard Keane (@BernardKeane) June 20, 2016

Q'd Steven Joyce in committee about NZ's low business R&D investment - turns out we are going backwards from graph pic.twitter.com/ZEOmEBjmwT

— Gareth Hughes (@GarethMP) June 15, 2016

@AndrewLittleMP Graph sums the immigration issue perfectly. Kiwi's are leaving NZ because jobs are going to others! pic.twitter.com/w7Xl28yR7I

— 0100011001010101(ツ) (@Raw_Binary) March 16, 2016

These are the countries winning the recycling race: https://t.co/Ht92byHrHd pic.twitter.com/y3vC3Vx3SA

— Forbes (@Forbes) March 5, 2016

@MPD_NZ And this. See how they proportionally drew the graph to make benefit fraud look bigger than the sliver it is pic.twitter.com/9NGmBxRsxH

— ⒶctivistsⒶotearoa (@ActivistsNZ) February 10, 2016

Policy score card 2017 | Equality Network Read things like this you have to wonder why @NZGreens aren't polling 70% https://t.co/eHQMjZPajR

— Richard Neate (@richardneateNZ) September 15, 2017

A party score card by the Child Poverty Action Group - this one on child poverty and health #PartyVoteGreen pic.twitter.com/7h0M24mNez

— teanau tuiono (@teanau_tuiono) September 17, 2017

124 years since NZ women won the vote, here's how many women are in the top ten on each party's list this election #SuffrageDay #katesentus pic.twitter.com/hwWgmQkMx4

— ActionStation (@actionstation) September 18, 2017

Steps to reduce youth suicide

Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern speaking
at the suicide prevention rally

Last Sunday marked the fourteenth annual World Suicide Prevention Day where various campaigns were undertaken to increase awareness across the globe. This included in New Zealand where 606 pairs of shoes, representing the people who had taken their own lives over the last year were displayed on parliamentary grounds.

How can it be that we have the worst youth suicide rate in the world you might ask? After all, New Zealand is a great little country with lots to offer both young and old people alike.

Much of that shameful suicide statistic has to do with the widening gap between rich and poor. But there are other negative dynamics that must also be addressed before our stubborn suicide rate will start to decline.

1. Start rewarding young people instead of punishing them

We all get it that being tough on crime is a vote winner. However this type of campaigning has run its course and must change in order for government’s to tackle through legislative changes our unacceptable rate of youth suicide.

The punitive prison system in New Zealand has clearly failed to reduce crime. Instead it simply hardens young offenders into worse criminals and often propels them into a life of law breaking. This is a negative dynamic in our society that must be addressed in order to reduce the damage crime causes.

The answer is to provide young people with realistic options like trades training and apprenticeships. Leaving 90,000 NEETs to twiddle their thumbs when gangs offer young people what is essentially a career path out of poverty isn’t something any government should simply rest on their laurels and accept.

2. Increase rehabilitation services especially for young people

Drug and alcohol abuse, even in wealthier families, is a key factor in the unchecked suicide rate. Over the last nine years many rehabilitation services have been reduced in size or closed down due to underfunding. This was a very big government blunder and needs to be rolled back in order to help reduce our world leading youth suicide rate.

Over 70% of youth suicides may be complicated by drug and alcohol issues.

3. Increase young people’s incomes

Financial hardship is another main factor in things like family violence, which adversely affects young people’s mental health. Over the last nine years young people have had their wages reduced significantly while the cost of living has increased exponentially.

This means even if a young person has a job it in many cases doesn’t meet their everyday expenses. The only way to reduce financial hardship and the stress this causes is to increase young people’s wages and benefits.

4. Conduct a public discussion about suicide

Undertaking a public discussion about suicide and the services available to prevent it is particularly important in reducing the amount of young people taking their own lives. There really is no better way to inform at risk youth that they aren’t alone and help is only a phone call away.

Most news agencies are already on board with the discussion to highlight the unacceptably high suicide rate. In fact the NZ Herald recently ran a very good series of articles called Break the Silence, which is well worth revisiting.

However publicly discussing delicate topics like suicide must be undertaken with the utmost care. Politicians and commentators should at all times stick to topics that will be help and not hinder the discussion.

The recent accusations by National party MP Simon O’Connor that Jacinda Ardern was encouraging elderly, disabled, and sick New Zealander’s to take their own lives was highly detrimental to the overall discussion about suicide prevention. Only by developing a conscientious public discourse on the matter can we hope to reduce the numbers of people taking their own lives.

5. Consider the consequences to young people before implementing policy

When the government makes a decision that will affect young people’s lives, such changes should be in accordance with the best outcomes and whatever consequences the decision might cause. 

For example, if the minimum wage isn’t increased in line with inflationary pressure this will cause more hardship for young people and as a consequence could lead to more suicide. Therefore the minimum wage should be increased to reduce young people’s financial hardship.

Policy consequences should be a factor in all governmental decision making.

6. Educate families about available services

A lack of knowledge about what to do when things go wrong for young people and their families means that the Police are often left picking up the pieces. This is a bottom of the cliff solution that doesn’t actually work to reduce the suicide rate and the societal harm it causes. 

Early intervention is by far the better option because it actually saves lives and saves money. Last year suicide in New Zealand was estimated to cost the economy approximately $2 billion per annum.

In this regard the announcement this week by Labour for 100 more Plunket and Tamariki Ora nurses for vulnerable families and the Green’s free counselling for under 25 year olds and a zero-suicide approach are great steps in the right direction. 

These policies will likely pay for themselves by preventing youth suicide.

7. Provide teachers with enough time to get to know their students

Wraparound services are essential in the fight against an increasing youth suicide rate. But when there’s a break down in the family dynamic, who exactly will know that a young person might be contemplating suicide? The best people to recognise there’s a problem are those who work with young people on a daily basis, like teachers.

The government should allow teachers more time with their students and incentivise them to look out for at risk youth. This is not only good for educational outcomes, but will help to reduce the youth suicide rate by allowing a more targeted and cost effective approach.

Where to get help

Lifeline (open 24/7) - 0800 543 354
Depression Helpline (open 24/7) - 0800 111 757
Healthline (open 24/7) - 0800 611 116
Samaritans (open 24/7) - 0800 726 666
Suicide Crisis Helpline (open 24/7) - 0508 828 865 (0508 TAUTOKO). This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends.
Youthline (open 24/7) - 0800 376 633. You can also text 234 for free between 8am and midnight, or email talk@youthline.co.nz
0800 WHATSUP children's helpline - phone 0800 9428 787 between 1pm and 10pm on weekdays and from 3pm to 10pm on weekends. Online chat is available from 7pm to 10pm every day at www.whatsup.co.nz.
Kidsline (open 24/7) - 0800 543 754. This service is for children aged 5 to 18. Those who ring between 4pm and 9pm on weekdays will speak to a Kidsline buddy. These are specially trained teenage telephone counsellors.
Your local Rural Support Trust - 0800 787 254 (0800 RURAL HELP)
Alcohol Drug Helpline (open 24/7) - 0800 787 797. You can also text 8691 for free.

Farmers shouldn’t fear the Greens

The Green party often comes up with policy solutions that the two main parties end up adopting. In fact they’ve been a very politically influential party on the cross-benches, helping government’s develop and implement good social and environmental ideas into workable solutions.

Their Clean water, great farming (PDF) policy is no different, and will likely be embraced by the next National (to a degree) or Labour led government, even if the Green’s aren’t a part of it. In this way the Green's have been the most effective opposition party in New Zealand's short political history.

On Saturday, Stuff reported:

Greens to tax pollution to help fund sustainable farming

The Greens are promising a tax on pollution, set to raise $135 million to be reinvested back into sustainable farming.

Green Party leader James Shaw said the policy would introduce a nitrate pollution levy charged on dairy farmers who "continued to pollute our soils and waters".

"There's no point spending money cleaning up rivers if you don't look at what's making them dirty in the first place," Shaw said on Saturday.

Shaw said the revenue from the levy on nitrate pollution from agriculture would raise about $136.5m a year, starting with intensive dairying, and would fund a package of "game-changing support measures" farmers could use to reduce their impact on the environment.

This is a fantastic and practical policy that will actually help farmers pay for things like riparian planting and other measures to reduce nitrates entering our waterways.

By rolling the policy out over a number of years the government could boost farmers who are already working towards sustainable farming practices.

In fact the farmers who are reducing their pollution levels now will be rewarded under the Greens’ scheme.

The levy would initially be set at $2 per kilogram of nitrate that was lost to land and water per hectare of farm, per year. Initially, the levy would apply only to dairy farms but a "fair pollution levy" would be extended to all forms of agriculture and horticulture over time.

"Dairy intensification over the last three decades is directly linked to rapidly declining water quality," Shaw said.

In other measures, the Greens would extend the Sustainable Farming Fund with an extra $20m a year and invest $210m over three years to create a Transformational Farming Partnership Fund, to focus on issues such as farming for clean water and adapting to climate change.

The party also promised to increase funding to the Landcare Trust to $16m over three years, reward tree planting by farmers and landowners, allow accelerated depreciation on dairy farm equipment to help farmers free up capital, and support organic farming through a new national certification scheme with new funding of $5m a year.

As well as being good for the environment, this policy looks set to help add value to our dairying sector. The world is crying out for organic products, which gain a premium price wherever they're sold.

Of course the largest lobbying group for farmers has opposed any type of restriction on nitrates from entering our waterways.

On Saturday, Radio NZ reported:

Farmers reject Greens' farming-pollution policy

Federated Farmers has slammed a Green Party plan to put a levy on nitrate pollution from dairy farming, saying it would actually cost the environment.

Federated Farmers vice president Andrew Hoggard said the idea was "unfair", "full of holes" and likely to actually cost the environment.

"They also come from other types of farming and they also come from urban sewage treatment plants. So if we're going to be fair about this than you've got to tax all of those, not just tax one sector of society.

I don’t see a problem with starting at the top first. Intensive dairying is by far the worst polluter, and should help pay to clean up the environmental damage they're causing.

It seems as though Hoggard didn’t actually read the policy release properly, because the levy would eventually be extended to all forms of agriculture and horticulture.

Furthermore, urban sewage plants treat their waste in a process that reduces environmental impacts. Invariably, people pay for that waste through their rates, so what is Hoggard talking about? It’s the leaching of nitrates directly into waterways that needs to be addressed.

Mr Hoggard said DairyNZ and others already offered research and expertise, and no government fund would be able to give better advice.

The levy isn’t just about advice… it’s about remedial measures to actually reduce pollution.

"Farmers are actually doing a hell of a lot in this space already, we're already doing quite a bit of work on this and if we're just going to be taxed for it, it's going to take away money which we would otherwise have spent on the environment and quite frankly I think they'd probably end up spending most of the revenue they get on policing it."

He said by his calculations it would cost his farm $12,000 a year, which could be spent on solutions.

What is Hoggard talking about? The money raised will go towards solutions, like making our waterways swimmable again by giving farmers a financial incentive to reduce pollution.

The problem for National is small farm holders will actually benefit from this policy. Most farmers will have additional funds available and any development to reduce pollution they undertake will likely increase their properties value.

A majority of farmers, especially those who adopt the scheme early, will reap the rewards of becoming more eco friendly businesses.

Most farmers have nothing to fear from the Greens' clean water policy. It’s large-scale intensive dairying that is being targeted with this great Green party initiative.

Bennett buried climate change report

Doesn’t it seem a bit ironic that the National party has been caught out trying to hide a report into the effects of climate change while some of the largest flooding disasters ever seen are devastating parts of the world?

As the death toll rises in places like India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Texas from unprecedented deluges, the Minister for Climate Change Issues has been lying about the release of a report into the global warming effect on New Zealand.

Despite the huge cost and magnitude of these horrendous storms, which are scientifically linked to climate change and have displaced more than 40 million people worldwide, the National led government is still burying its head in the sand.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

NZ needs to act now to protect people and property, leaked coastal erosion report urges

A leaked government report calls for immediate action to help protect thousands of people and $19 billion of property at risk from increased flooding and coastal erosion.

The report, commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment, was delivered in April but has still not been officially released.

It concludes that $19 billion worth of buildings, about 43,000 homes, 130,000 people, five airports, more than 2000 kilometres of road and 46km of railway face "higher levels of coastal risk exposure" as a consequence of rising sea levels.

Yesterday, Newshub also reported:

Government accused of hiding climate report that could affect homes of 130,000 people

The Government is being accused of trying to hide a report that shows the homes of 130,000 New Zealanders are at risk from climate change.

The Ministry for the Environment report was delivered to the Government in April.

It found 133,000 people were at risk of "higher levels of coastal erosion", with homes in Canterbury, followed by Hawke's Bay, are most at risk from sea level rise.

The report warns sea levels could rise 30cm-40cm by 2050, with what is now a "rare storm" event happening every year.

Green Party leader James Shaw was leaked the report and says the Government's failure to release it earlier has affected the public's and businesses' ability to plan for rising seas. The current available Ministry for the Environment data is nearly 10 years old - from 2008.

"It seems that there are inconvenient truths in this new report, which the Government would rather not talk about in the lead-up to the election," says Mr Shaw.

"This 284-page document makes disturbing reading and National seems determined to hide it so it can continue to avoid real action to reduce climate pollution and real action to deal with its consequences, such as rising seas."

Clearly it would've been much better to have just released the report back in April.

The office for Ms Bennett told Newshub she has "received some early advice from the group.

"The draft final report is due in November and then the final report in March. The Minister fully intends to release the reports once the final one has been completed."

Voters need to realise that the National party will do almost anything to hide information it doesn’t want in the public domain. This is even more evident when it comes to Paula Bennett.

With dishonest climate change deniers in our halls of power, it’s little wonder the government is being taken to court over their lack of action. The fact that the National party is trying to hide relevant reports from the public before an election should also add weight to Sarah Thomson’s worthwhile case.

If you'd like to see some real climate change policy being implemented, don't vote for the National party. This video from 2014 shows what they really think about the world's most pressing issue.

Update: You can download the draft report here.

James Shaw - Hero of the Week

Green party leader James Shaw was perhaps, until recently, one of New Zealand’s most underrated politicians. He appears as an easy going, well-spoken and approachable kind of guy. But make no mistake; Shaw has a burning desire for political change.

What made Shaw stand out for all the right reasons was his forthrightness during one of New Zealand’s most controversial political episodes. Despite weeks of continuous attacks on then co-leader Metiria Turei by the right wing and their media accomplices, the Green party remains relatively unscathed and climbing in the polls because of Shaw's steady and commendable stewardship.

At every turn he said exactly what was required to ensure the Green party’s worthwhile environmental and social policies weren’t entirely lost in the brouhaha. Clearly Shaw was exactly the right person to stare down the barrel of the media gun and display a level of cool headedness and loyalty rarely seen in politics, loyalty to his party and friend that makes Shaw a cut above.

It’s not easy being a Green party co-leader either.

On Sunday, Stuff reported:

Anatomy of a Meti-crisis: Green leader James Shaw's candid account of 'the longest week of all time'

In Christchurch on 7 August, Shaw was at a debate with other senior MPs. But his eyes kept darting towards Green MP Eugenie Sage, who was sitting in the audience, texting furiously. After a while, she left the room. Shaw knew exactly what had happened. His MPs, Kennedy Graham and Dave Clendon, had walked.

"These are two people who I've been close to for a very long time," says Shaw. "I had seen them at lunchtime that day, and I was exasperated. I was like, 'Come on! Can you not see how this is going to play out?"

When the news broke, Shaw flew back to Wellington. A taxi whisked him to Parliament, and at 9.30pm he stepped onto the black and white tiles in the foyer, where the TV cameras were positioned. He was calm, but there was fire in his eyes. He spat out the word "betrayed". He wanted to expel both men from the party. But by the next morning, Shaw had changed his mind.

"I had realised that these guys had taken what they saw as a principled stand. Everybody disagreed with them, and it was painful. But who are we if we just say, 'Okay, you did a bad thing; now we're gonna screw you over?'"

The party made peace with its rebel MPs. They would leave caucus, and Turei would stay on as co-leader. But just as the dust was beginning to settle, another scandal was brewing. Media had been contacted by a member of Turei's extended family, who claimed she had made herself out to be poorer than she really was.

You can tell how well a left wing politician is performing by how spiteful some right wing blogs, journalists and politicians get towards them. Judging by the vitriol directed at James Shaw he was and still is performing exceptionally well. His assuredness in trying times clearly makes Shaw the type of politician we need to lead New Zealand in the 21st century.

Amongst other work and within 24 hours, James Shaw attended the political panel at the Pasifika Business Network, gave a number of good interviews on Green policy and position, provided a great political pitch at Villainesse, attended the Massey University and Stuff’s opportunity gap election debate, presented the Green party vision for a net zero, low-carbon economy at the Business NZ conference and attended the Maori Television’s first leaders debate where he highlighted a number of issues including the fact that the National party failed to attend. This is a blistering pace that will likely result in the Green party gaining much needed support on election day.

That’s why the Green party leader wins this week’s Hero Award. Let’s hope the Labour party also recognises James Shaw’s considerable abilities and provides him with a ministerial position in any centre-left coalition Government that forms after the next election.