The Jackal: National party

Showing posts with label National party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National party. Show all posts

28 Aug 2025

National Government Gaslights over Economic Downturn

New Zealand’s economy is languishing, and the National-led coalition, with Finance Minister Nicola Willis at the helm, has been quick to point fingers at Labour’s Covid-19 spending.

The problem for the coalition of chaos is their narrative is a masterclass in gaslighting, deflecting blame from their own disastrous economic policies while misrepresenting the past. Let’s unpack their mess, because the truth is far uglier than the coalition’s polished spin.
 

Earlier this month, Stuff reported:

The $66 billion Covid spend up: Treasury asks if the Government went too far

Finance Minister Nicola Willis was quick to draw attention to the Tresuary’s conclusions. She has long blamed current economic challenges on the previous Labour Government.

She said this report proved that, as she has said previously, the Labour Government was fuelling inflation.

“Unfortunately, the Labour government ignored [officials’] advice. The consequence was undisciplined spending that pushed up inflation, eroded New Zealand’s previously low public debt position, and fuelled a cost-of-living crisis,” she said.

“The lesson from Labour’s mishandling of the Covid response is that while there are times when governments have to increase spending in response to major events, the fiscal guardrails should be restored as soon as possible,” she added.


During the Covid-19 pandemic, Labour, under Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins, rolled out a lifeline to keep businesses afloat and workers employed. The Wage Subsidy Scheme alone, costing $18.3 billion, ensured millions of Kiwis kept their jobs, while the $70.4 billion Covid-19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF) propped up health, aviation, and small businesses.

This was no reckless spending spree; it was a calculated response to a global crisis, with Treasury initially urging broad-based support like wage subsidies to stabilise the economy. The result? New Zealand’s unemployment rate dropped to a 40-year low of 3.2% by December 2021, and GDP rebounded faster than in any other OECD country. Labour’s spending wasn’t perfect, but it kept the nation afloat when the world was drowning.

 

In 2021, Stuff reported:

NZ dollar tipped to head higher as economy rebounds from Covid

The New Zealand dollar is heading higher as the economy recovers from the Covid-19 pandemic, which will make exports more expensive and imports cheaper.

Fitch Solutions on Wednesday lifted its forecast for the currency, and now expects it to average US74.34 cents over the remainder of this year, having averaged US71.84c over the first five months. The kiwi was at US72.52c around midday on Wednesday.

Economic growth would probably pick up by 3.6 per cent this year after a 1.2 per cent contraction last year, which would encourage investment flows into the country and tighter monetary policy, pushing the currency higher, Fitch said.

“We attribute the New Zealand dollar’s robust uptrend in recent months to the country’s strong economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic,” Fitch said.


Enter the National Party, clutching a Treasury report that claims Labour blew $66 billion. Sounds damning, right? Except it’s a sleight of hand. That figure includes general government expenditure, not just Covid-specific measures, inflating the narrative of Labour’s supposed recklessness while Willis has been borrowing even more than former Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson.

National’s comparison of New Zealand’s Covid spending to other countries while Labour was in power is equally dishonest, as those nations often exclude general expenditure from their Covid budgets. It’s a classic case of cherry-picking data to paint Labour as profligate while ignoring the global context. This isn’t analysis; it’s propaganda from a dishonest government that can only blame others for their own economic failures.

Meanwhile, the coalition of chaos has embarked on a slash-and-burn mission. Since taking office in 2023, they’ve axed 10,000 public sector jobs, including 2,000 in health, and imposed 7.5% cuts across ministries. Wellington, the public service hub, is reeling, with house prices down 6.8% and 19,500 jobs lost since January 2025. The downturn in the capital city is palpable.

 

In May, Reuters reported:

New Zealand's budget cuts punish public sector, business and workers

"We were told survive until 2025 and it will get better. Well, we're now in May 2025 and it doesn't feel better," said Thomson, who is currently doing paid freelance work.

New Zealand's conservative coalition government releases its annual budget on Thursday and is expected to continue to push fiscal discipline with many ministries not expected to see budget increases.

Spending cuts since December 2023 have been felt across the wider economy but perhaps most acutely in Wellington, a city of nearly 210,000 where the government has historically been a major employer.

House prices in Wellington have plunged 6.8% over the past year, far exceeding the national decline of 1.1%. Population growth stagnated in 2024, contrasting with a 1.7% increase nationwide. Consumer and economic sentiment in the city remains lower than in many other regions, with businesses and residents expressing concern over the city's prospects.


In Auckland, businesses are folding at twice the rate of last year, surpassing even the 2008 GFC failure rate. The coalition’s austerity obsession is sucking confidence out of the economy, leaving workers and businesses stranded and tens of thousands of young New Zealanders heading overseas to find a brighter future.

Worse, National’s policies are hammering the most vulnerable. Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden’s 1.5% minimum wage increase to $23.50, well below the 2.7% inflation rate, is in real-terms a pay cut. Welfare cuts and increases in the cost of living further erodes people's purchasing power, hitting the elderly and disabled hardest. Even for people with a little bit saved, nobody is spending because nobody feels confident in the current government's economic agenda.

With household costs up 5.4% in the year to June 2024, driven by a 9.0% rise in rent, an 8.7% increase in mortgage interest payments, and higher food and energy prices, Kiwis are struggling to keep up. These pressures, that even the RBNZ's tweaks are not addressing, compounded by a projected 5% rent increase and persistent inflation in 2025, are bleeding many households dry. This isn’t fiscal discipline; its economic sabotage, draining demand and ensuring an increase in business closures due to reduced cash flow.

 

Earlier this month, RNZ reported:

A boom in businesses going bust

New Zealand is riding its highest wave of company liquidations in more than a decade, with thousands of businesses folding and countless livelihoods caught in the crossfire.

Many more are holding on, but just.

In the first half of this year alone, 1270 businesses have shut their doors - a 12 percent increase on this time year.

It's now anticipated that the total number of liquidations for the year will surpass 2024's 10-year high, when 2500 companies folded. That was an increase of nearly 700 compared to 2023. 


Nicola Willis, the architect of this misery, has the gall to blame Labour while implementing austerity on the poor and pushing policies that fuel inflation. Treasury forecast inflation would be as low as 1.8% in 2025, but National’s policies have kept it at 2.7% and climbing.

National, and their coalition bedfellows, are becoming increasingly desperate, and are throwing everything they can to prop up their golden goose, the floundering housing market. Foreign buyers might make the numbers look good on paper for a while, but they'll do nothing to ensure New Zealanders quality of life improves through increased home ownership rates.

The coalitions much-touted Fast-Track Approvals Bill, now being spruiked as an economic saviour for families unable to afford basic food items, offers zero cost-of-living relief for everyday Kiwis. It’s a sop to developers, corporates and the existing supermarket duopoly, not families facing skyrocketing bills at the checkout.

Willis’ rhetoric about cleaning up Labour’s mess is pure gaslighting, obscuring the fact that her austerity is deepening the economic downturn.

The coalition of chaos is driving New Zealand into an economic abyss, while they attempt to cloak their failures in Labour-bashing and dodgy numbers. The Covid hangover is real, but it’s Willis’ heartless cuts and misguided priorities that are keeping the economy on its knees.

Published by the Jackal



20 Aug 2025

Chris Luxon: Part-Time Prime Minister

Christopher Luxon's tenure as Prime Minister has been marked by a troubling pattern of absence when leadership is most needed. From international crises to domestic unrest, from parliamentary debates to national commemorations, Luxon has consistently found reasons to be somewhere else when the hard conversations need to happen.

What we've witnessed isn't merely political miscalculation or scheduling mishaps...it's a systematic abdication of the responsibilities that come with holding New Zealand's highest office. Where previous Prime Ministers understood that leadership means showing up for the difficult moments, Luxon appears to have redefined the role as one of selective engagement, choosing comfort and optics over confrontation at every critical juncture.

The most recent and perhaps most damning example came when Luxon chose to skip a virtual meeting with numerous European leaders including Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron. The Prime Minister cited the meeting being at "1am New Zealand time" as his excuse for non-attendance, yet this reasoning falls apart under even an iota of scrutiny. For a leader who holds no portfolios and maintains a deliberately light schedule, adjusting sleep patterns for critical international diplomacy should be standard practice and certainly was under Luxon's predecessors.
 

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

PM skips Coalition of the Willing meeting

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not dial in to the latest Coalition of the Willing meeting because of time zone differences.

French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer co-chaired the virtual meeting about 1am New Zealand time.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky also joined the talks, that focused on support for Ukraine and next steps in peace negotiations.

...

Speaking at his weekly post Cabinet media conference Monday afternoon, Luxon confirmed he did not attend Monday morning's meeting.

"I have tried to make them, wherever possible. This one was at 1am in the morning. It goes for two or three hours and then I'm on a media round this morning and obviously down here for Cabinet this morning as well."

He rejected suggestions he did not join the Coalition of the Willing meeting because he didn't think it was important enough.


Luxon prioritising his regular appearance on Mike Hosking's breakfast show, where he delivered his pre-prepared zinger about opposition leader Chris Hipkins needing to "get out from under his rock" regarding the Covid-19 inquiry is a complete failure of leadership. For this part-time Prime Minister, scoring political points on talkback radio apparently trumps engaging with world leaders on matters of war and peace.

The right wing propagandists have been quick to make up a number of excuses that don't hold any water, but the sad fact of the matter is that Luxon chose his own floundering political career over the lives of civilians caught up in the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Luxon has been vocal in claiming that Hipkins is trying to "politically gaslight" New Zealanders by not appearing at the Covid-19 Inquiry, demanding accountability from the opposition leader, even though Labour leaders both past and present have provided all the evidence the second inquiry requested. Yet when it comes to his own responsibilities, Luxon routinely finds excuses to avoid the hard yards required of a functioning Prime Minister.

This pattern of absence is even worse when looking at domestic issues. When the controversial Treaty Principles Bill was being debated, Luxon conveniently found himself needing to discuss Trump's tariff wars with world leaders and could apparently only phone them up from Auckland, a transparent dodge that fooled no one. The Prime Minister who demands others show accountability has become a master of avoiding his own.

In April, Stuff reported:

Why Christopher Luxon won't be at the Treaty Principles Bill debate

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will fly to Auckland while Parliament holds what should be its final debate about the Treaty Principles Bill.

Opposition leaders have criticised Luxon for avoiding the Treaty Principles Bill debates, saying his absence shows a lack of leadership. But Luxon says his position on the bill has been clear and he has no regrets about how this ill-fated proposal has played out.

...

Who said what

Luxon said he would be spending Thursday afternoon in a series of calls with world leaders to discuss the global trade war as US-President Donald Trump made moves on tariffs.

But he said he wanted to make those calls from Auckland.

 

It would have been just as easy for Mr Luxon to make those phone calls from Wellington while he also attended the Treaty Principles Bill debate.

Claire Trevet at the NZ Herald tried to put a positive spin on Luxon's absence:

Forget about David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, PM Christopher Luxon’s Trump tariffs crisis could be the making of him

At the same time, Luxon was nowhere to be seen. Instead, he was on the blower – a can of Pepsi Max on his desk – calling other leaders around Asia and in Europe to try to cobble together a united front and shore up the existing free trade agreements.
 
Luxon was absent from Parliament yesterday as MPs debated the bill, which had hung over the coalition parties since it was agreed as part of their legislative agenda after coalition negotiations following the 2023 election.
 
He spent his time speaking to world leaders about the global trading environment in the light of United States President Donald Trump’s tariff scheme that caused chaos in financial markets this week. Luxon made calls to leaders including Philippines President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr, Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.


Unfortunately for New Zealand, Luxon has often failed to engage meaningfully with voters on the issues that matter most to them. Instead of working to fix the countries numerous problems, Luxon appears to be too busy attacking previous administrations to actually give a damn!

When he's not blaming Labour for his own administrations failings, Luxon is shirking his responsibilities and dodging the difficult questions. Take the country's largest hikoi in New Zealand for instance, protesting the Treaty Principles Bill, the Prime Minister was notably absent from any meaningful dialogue.

Last year, 1 News reported:

Prime Minister on why he did not meet hīkoi at Parliament

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has explained why he didn't meet yesterday's Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti at Parliament.

There were extraordinary scenes yesterday when a crowd estimated by police to be as many as 42,000 marched through Wellington to Parliament, many of them voicing opposition to the Government's Treaty Principles Bill.

The Bill's architect David Seymour, alongside ACT MPs, made a brief appearance on Parliament's forecourt during the hīkoi, however the Prime Minister did not front it.

On Breakfast this morning, the Prime Minister was asked why he chose not to face the hīkoi when so many people were outside his office.

Luxon explained: "The real reason was that a lot of the organisers were Te Pati Māori. They have an opportunity to interrogate me in the House each and every week.


Similarly, when hospital protesters in Dunedin sought to voice their concerns about healthcare cuts, reports emerged of Luxon sneaking in a side door to avoid accountability.

Last year, The Otago Daily Times reported:

'Cowardly': Luxon sidesteps protest by using back entrance

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been called "cowardly" after hurrying in a back door to avoid a hospital protest in central Dunedin.

A group of about 30 protesters chanting, carrying placards and wearing 'They save We pay" t-shirts were waiting to greet Mr Luxon at the entrance to the Dunedin Public Art Gallery.

But Mr Luxon's motorcade stopped instead in Moray Place, at the back of the art gallery.


This isn't leadership; it's political cowardice. A Prime Minister who lacks the backbone to face legitimate protest about his unpopular policy decisions is one who fundamentally misunderstands the democratic compact between the government and the governed.

Luxon's pattern of avoidance perhaps peaked with his decision to skip Waitangi Day 2025 altogether. Despite being personally invited by Māori leaders who expected him to show some leadership during a time of division over the Treaty Principles Bill. Luxon claiming that he wanted to "celebrate Waitangi Day around New Zealand with different iwi" rings hollow when viewed against his government's divisive Treaty policies and unrepentant attack on Māoridom.

As Pita Tipene noted, "kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga need to have conversations, as heavy and as challenging as those conversations may get." But Luxon fled from precisely these necessary discussions. By abandoning Waitangi during one of the most politically charged periods in recent memory, he demonstrated that when true leadership is demanded, he simply doesn't show up.

However, the timing issue regarding the Ukraine meeting reveals something even more concerning about Luxon's priorities. He noted the call went for hours, suggesting he was fully aware of its duration and importance beforehand. Yet rather than adjust his schedule to accommodate this critical international engagement, he chose to maintain his comfortable routine of friendly media appearances.

Luxon's absence during critical moments extends to a pattern of conveniently being elsewhere when domestic controversies are likely to occur. At the first reading of the ACT Party's Treaty Principles Bill, a moment that captured international attention and symbolised the deep division his government's policies have created, Luxon was at the APEC summit. Given that the government largely controls parliamentary timetabling through the Leader of the House, this scheduling conflict was entirely foreseeable and avoidable.

Instead of ensuring he was present for such a significant constitutional moment, Luxon allowed the most controversial bill in his government's legislative programme to proceed in his absence in order to protect his particular brand from further valid accusations of racism. From Peru, he dismissed the parliamentary disruption with a clear lack of understanding of its cultural and constitutional significance, resorted to procedural falsehoods and once again demonstrated a Prime Minister more comfortable engaging with safe audiences than confronting the difficult conversations his own policies have necessitated at home.

This speaks to a deeper problem with Luxon's understanding of what being the Prime Minister entails. He appears to view the role as a part-time position...one that can be managed around his preferred schedule and media commitments. The reality is that being Prime Minister requires sacrifice, including the sacrifice of convenience and comfort when duty calls.

New Zealand deserves better than a part-time Prime Minister who picks and chooses when to show up. The country faces significant challenges, from cost of living pressures to international tensions, that require active, engaged leadership. Luxon's pattern of absence and excuse-making suggests a leader fundamentally unprepared for the demands of the office he holds.

When future historians examine this period, they will likely note that New Zealand had a Prime Minister who was present in title but absent in practice. The question facing New Zealanders is whether they will continue to tolerate such part-time leadership. The evidence suggests that Chris Luxon has already answered that question for them...through his actions, or more accurately, his inaction.

Published by the Jackal



19 Aug 2025

National's Health Cuts Leave NZ Exposed

New Zealand finds itself woefully unprepared for another Covid-19 outbreak, with the coalition government's systematic dismantling of healthcare capacity, cavalier approach to public health messaging, and ideological opposition to evidence-based policy leaving the nation vulnerable to future health crisis.

The warning signs are unmistakable. While the incidence of Covid-19 decreased in 2024 compared with the previous two years, partly driven by the lack of an expected wave over the 2024-25 summer, experts caution this pattern may not continue. But rather than using this respite to strengthen our defences, the current administration has pursued policies that actively undermine public health preparedness.

Perhaps most concerning is the government's abdication of responsibility for coherent public health messaging. Where previous administrations maintained clear communication strategies, the coalition of chaos has offered a vacuum of leadership that has been filled by misinformation and conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories that are sometimes promoted by government MPs and their associates. This messaging crisis has precipitated a dangerous decline in vaccination rates, leaving vulnerable people exposed as new variants emerge.
 

Today, Stuff reported:

 
Five deaths a week and dozens of hospitalisations show Covid hasn’t gone away

A new strain of Covid-19 is making itself known in New Zealand.

XFG, or Stratus as it is nicknamed, was classified by the World Health Organisation as a “variant under monitoring” in June, one month after first showing up in wastewater testing here.

According to wastewater analysis from PHF Science (formerly ESR), Stratus has been on the rise for the past two months. In the week ending August 3, it was the second-most detected strain of Covid, after NB.1.8.1, or Nimbus.

“I've seen in other countries that XFG has out-competed the NB.1.8.1 variant and sort of taken over,” said University of Canterbury professor and expert modeller Michael Plank.

“We haven’t seen that happen in New Zealand so far, which is maybe a little bit surprising. And it could happen, you know, in the months ahead. But at the moment, it's the NB.1.8.1 that appears to be dominating.”

 

The human cost of this negligence extends far beyond acute infections. Risk of long COVID remains high, yet the government has no coherent policy framework to address this growing health burden. Long COVID sufferers, already marginalised by a healthcare system struggling to understand their condition amidst chronic staff shortages, face an uncertain future with diminishing support and recognition.

However, most damaging is the government's systematic defunding of healthcare infrastructure, with the health sector underfunded by approximately NZ$1.5–1.9 billion annually. Nearly 10,000 public sector jobs have been axed as Finance Minister Nicola Willis imposes annual spending cuts as part of the government’s 6.5–7.5% cost-saving mandate, which has had a significant impact on our health sector.

Approximately 2,165 health sector roles have been eliminated, particularly in data, digital, and public health teams. Critics, including the Public Service Association, argue these cuts weaken COVID-19 preparedness and health system resilience.

The coalition's health policies, or lack thereof, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of pandemic preparedness. Funding has been woefully inadequate creating or worsening conditions of severe under-staffing. In fact Budget 2024 committed more new money to funding security guards for A&E departments compared to training new medical staff. This speaks volumes about a neoliberal government who are more concerned with managing system failure rather than addressing its root causes.

Furthermore, the dysfunction within the coalition itself raises serious questions about its capacity to manage health crisis. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters's inflammatory rhetoric and apparent sympathy for anti-vaccination sentiment, reflected in his choice of press secretary, sends dangerous mixed messages at a time when clear, science-based communication is still essential. It doesn't bode well when government minister's are consistently undermining public health measures that actually worked and whose offices often struggle with basic media relations.

The current coalition of chaos campaign against the previous Labour led government for its Covid response is also endemic of an administration with no clear plan for the future. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, flanked by his sanctimonious coalition cronies, have unleashed a venomous tirade against former Labour leaders Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, and Grant Robertson for opting out of the second, non-mandatory phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand’s COVID-19 response, smugly accusing them of shirking accountability.

Luxon, in a blatant display of political grandstanding, even falsely claimed the Labour leaders defied a summons to appear in person, a lie swiftly debunked by the inquiry chair, Grant Illingworth KC, who confirmed that no such requirement existed and that private testimony, like Ardern’s three-hour interview, was entirely sufficient.

This disingenuous attack by the Prime Minister and others, with Seymour sneering at Labour’s absence, reeks of a calculated campaign to vilify the previous administration’s world-leading response, which saved an estimated 20,000 lives. The National-led government’s relentless and expensive pursuit of political point-scoring undermines the inquiry’s purpose and makes a mockery of their claim that the second Covid inquiry wouldn't be used as a political weapon.

The coalition government's retrospective criticism of Labour's pandemic spending, which was recently misrepresented by Treasury, reveals another profound misunderstanding of both epidemiology and economics. Those early investments in health infrastructure, wage subsidies, and public health measures prevented a catastrophic loss of life and economic collapse, economic collapse that the current government's archaic policies appear to be trying to initiate.

Despite the success of New Zealand's Covid response and recovery, the coalition has fervently criticised the previous administration while systematically dismantling the capacity within our health system, which is currently struggling to even deal with things like the current flu season, while offering no alternative strategy for future outbreaks.

The healthcare system is already under severe strain, with thousands of New Zealanders still waiting unreasonable amounts of time for treatment. When the next pandemic arrives, these same hospitals will be expected to manage surge capacity while operating with reduced staff and constrained budgets, potentially reducing the effectiveness of whatever response measures the National-led government can cobble together.

New Zealand's COVID response was once the envy of the world, built on scientific rigour, clear communication, and decisive action. Today, we face the prospect of another wave with a fragmented government that seems ideologically opposed to the very measures that once protected us. The question isn't whether we will face another COVID surge, but whether the current government will make that surge far more devastating than it needed to be.

The coalition's approach represents not just policy failure, but a fundamental abandonment of the government's duty to protect public health. As epidemiologists keep watch, New Zealanders deserve leaders who will listen to science rather than pander to conspiracy theorists, invest in healthcare rather than cut it, and prepare for the challenges ahead rather than pretend they don't exist.

Published by the Jackal



15 Aug 2025

Under Pressure Luxon Resorts to Lying

The art of political spin has always existed in the corridors of power, but what we're witnessing from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon represents something far more concerning, a systematic abandonment of factual discourse in favour of outright fabrication. When a leader begins peddling untruths with the casual confidence of someone ordering their morning flat white, we must ask ourselves: what does this say about the state of our democracy?

The most egregious recent example came during a media standup after parliamentary question time, where Luxon falsely claimed that former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had been summonsed to appear before the Covid-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry. This wasn't a slip of the tongue or a misunderstanding, it was a deliberate mischaracterisation designed to paint Ardern as somehow legally compelled to participate in person.

 

On Thursday, Stuff reported:

Luxon claims Ardern was ‘summonsed’ to Covid Inquiry. She wasn’t

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has claimed Jacinda Ardern and three other former ministers were summonsed to appear at public hearings for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19.

“To be clear, they summonsed them,” Luxon told reporters today. “They refused to show and I think that's not right”.

Problem is, he’s wrong. Those running the inquiry chose not to use powers under the Inquiries Act to force the former Prime Minister as well as former Covid Minister Chris Hipkins, former Health Minister Ayesha Verrall, and former Finance Minster Grant Robertson to appear at public hearings.

Inquiry chair Grant Illingworth explicitly said yesterday that he chose not to use the summons powers.


 

The reality is that Ardern was invited to provide evidence, a standard practice for such inquiries. She accepted willingly, as one would expect from someone with nothing to hide.

This fabrication serves a dual purpose for Luxon: it attempts to weaponise the inquiry process against his predecessor whilst simultaneously creating the false impression that there's something sinister about Ardern not attending in person. It's textbook deflection from a Prime Minister whose own government is struggling with credibility issues across multiple portfolios.

The pattern continues with Luxon's bizarre claim about his mountaintop meeting with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. According to the Prime Minister, their $27,000 helicopter-assisted pavlova photo-op was well received across the Tasman.

Yet a curious thing happened, or rather, didn't happen. Australian media outlets, typically eager to cover bilateral meetings between leaders, remained conspicuously silent. No photographs emerged in Australia of this supposed diplomatic triumph, no video footage of the Prime Ministers atop New Zealand's scenic peaks.

One might charitably suggest that perhaps the Australian press simply missed this momentous occasion, but in an era where every political gesture is photographed, tweeted, and analysed to death, such an oversight seems improbable.

The more likely explanation is that Luxon's definition of well received bears little resemblance to observable reality. When your diplomatic achievements require you to speak for foreign media outlets that didn't report them, perhaps it's time to reconsider your communications strategy.

 

On Thursday, Stuff also reported:

Two helicopters, two prime ministers and a pavlova. Was this $27,000 lunch worth it?

Assuming they were charged the normal amount, a ballpark cost of a trip like this would be at least $27,000 for the two helicopters. Stuff asked Luxon’s office and Department of Internal Affairs to confirm if that was the bill. They did not respond.

Luxon told Stuff he didn’t know the details. But he hailed the visit as a success.

“I just say to you, I think my feedback I got from that Sunday night from people in Australia was like, ‘Man, what a fantastic trip. New Zealand looked fantastic.’ And it played really well back into the Australian media,” he told Stuff, after he returned to the capital.

But in Australia, almost none of the news websites and television bulletins used photos or video from the mountaintop.


These lies might seem inconsequential to some. However, it's Luxon's recent fear-mongering about a capital gains tax that reveals the most troubling aspect of his relationship with truth. The Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed that implementing such a tax would trigger an exodus of wealthy New Zealanders, leaving the country economically bereft. This tired trope has been wheeled out by opponents of progressive taxation for decades, and it remains as factually bankrupt today as it was then.

Research consistently demonstrates that concerns about "capital flight" are grossly overstated. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in the United States has extensively documented how "millionaire tax flight" is a myth with no evidence to support it. Similarly, research by Stanford sociologist Cristobal Young found that claims about wealthy individuals fleeing high-tax states amount to "searching for a crisis that does not really exist".
The OECD's own research on capital gains taxation shows that most OECD countries successfully tax capital gains upon realisation, often with exemptions for housing and small businesses. These nations haven't experienced the economic apocalypse that Luxon suggests would befall New Zealand should we dare to ask wealthy people, like himself, to contribute their fair share.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy notes that tax-related migration is "grossly exaggerated", while the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities has demonstrated that claims about tax hikes driving rich households away are "unproven". The pattern is clear: countries that have implemented capital gains taxes haven't witnessed mass defections by the wealthy, and those that have moved their wealth have often done so for administrative reasons rather than due to capital flight.

What makes Luxon's fearmongering particularly galling is that it represents a betrayal of the evidence-based policy approach that New Zealand has traditionally championed. We're a nation that once prided ourselves on pragmatic governance, on looking at what works rather than what sounds good in a focus group. Yet here we have a Prime Minister who appears more comfortable trafficking in discredited talking points rather than telling the truth.
The concerning trajectory of Luxon's relationship with truth raises profound questions about the health of our political discourse. When leaders feel they need to make demonstrably false claims without consequence, when they substitute their own alternative facts for reality, we edge closer to the kind of post-truth politics that has poisoned democratic institutions elsewhere.

New Zealanders deserve better than a Prime Minister who treats truth as an inconvenient obstacle to his political messaging. We deserve leaders who understand that governance requires grappling with complexity, not retreating into comfortable fictions. The mounting evidence of Luxon's casual relationship with factual accuracy isn't just concerning, it's a warning sign that our democracy's immune system against misinformation may be weaker than we thought.

The question now is whether New Zealanders will hold their Prime Minister accountable for his numerous falsehoods, or whether we'll allow the normalisation of political dishonesty to continue its corrosive work on our democratic institutions?
Published by the Jackal



14 Aug 2025

A Parliamentary Travesty: Brownlee's Authoritarian Overreach

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

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

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

Yesterday, 1 News reported:


Swarbrick kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is Brownlee using the exact same language:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published by the Jackal



13 Aug 2025

Butter Should Be Cheaper in New Zealand

In New Zealand, the land of dairy abundance, the price of butter has become a bitter pill for Kiwis to swallow. A 500g block now costs an arm and a leg, a staggering 46.5% increase in the year to June 2025 and a jaw-dropping 120% higher than a decade ago. The stats are even worse when you compare the April 2024 with April 2025 prices, a 65.3% increase. For a nation that produces a third of the world’s trade in dairy products, this is nothing short of scandalous.

The National-led coalition, under Chris Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis, has failed to address the cost of living crisis, with the price of butter in particular an affront to household budgets, instead offering hollow platitudes and tax tricks while the ability of voters to purchase basic necessities worsens. It’s time to demand real relief, starting with making butter affordable again.


On August 6, Stuff reported:

 
Global butter prices have dropped by 3.7%, this is what it means for us

The Global Dairy Trade (GDT) revealed that butter prices had dropped 3.8%, but what does that mean for shoppers?

Butter prices are up around 47% annually in the past year according to Stats NZ, with the average price of 500g sitting upwards of $8.

A tub of butter worth a whopping $18.29 was even spotted at an Auckland supermarket in early July.

Brad Olsen, Chief Executive and Principal Economist of Infometrics, said butter prices dropped or held steady during the last three GDT auctions, declining around 8.6% since the second half of June.

So if global prices have fallen, will we start to see cheaper butter?

Nowhere, not immediately at least.


New Zealand’s dairy industry, led by Fonterra, is a global powerhouse, yet ordinary Kiwis are paying international prices or higher for a staple produced in their own backyard. Export parity pricing means we’re hostage to global market rates, driven by demand from China and the Middle East, despite our five million dairy cows grazing local pastures and polluting local rivers. We're paying a premium to ship our own dairy products abroad.

This system prioritises Fonterra’s yearly NZ$22.82 billion revenue over the needs of New Zealanders struggling to afford the basics.

Nicola Willis, whose past ties to Fonterra as a senior manager raises questions, has become conspicuously silent on challenging this dishonest pricing model. Her refusal to consider a fairer two-tiered system, where domestic consumers pay less than export markets, smacks of loyalty to corporate interests over constituents, and flies in the face of their pre-election promises.

Willis’ claim that supermarkets, not Fonterra, set retail prices dodges the core issue: a lack of competition in the grocery sector, dominated by Foodstuffs and Woolworths, allows unchecked margins to inflate costs further. But all we get from the coalition of chaos is promises of doing something, not any real quantifiable action.

The National-led coalition’s broader economic mismanagement has only worsened the cost-of-living crisis. Luxon’s repetitive mantra, “people are doing it tough,” rings hollow when paired with policies that fail to deliver any tangible relief. Two-thirds of New Zealanders, according to ConsumerNZ, have low confidence in this government’s ability to tackle the affordability of basic necessities...and they're not wrong.

Removing GST from dairy, as some have suggested, was dismissed by Willis due to a supposed $3.3bn–$3.9bn revenue hit, an excuse that prioritises fiscal optics over struggling families, struggling families that will still spend any savings from cheaper butter on other basic necessities. In effect there's no net loss for the government in making butter prices cheaper for consumers, raising a valid question about whom exactly Nicola Willis serves?

The coalition’s tax cuts, touted as relief, have done nothing for low-income households facing skyrocketing prices for essentials like butter, which isn't just a spread but a cultural staple in Kiwi baking and cooking.

In a country that produces enough food to feed 40 million people, no one should be going hungry. Yet 500,000 New Zealanders are accessing food banks or food support services each month, indicating a complete failure by the current system to distribute the nations wealth equitably. Impoverished kids, people the Prime Minister views as "bottom feeders," cannot simply make a Marmite sandwich when their school lunches are inedible if there's no butter in the house, Mr Luxon.

Small businesses, like Kayes Bakery in Southland, are being crushed, forced to import cheaper Australian butter or raise prices, risking declining revenues and closure. This irony, importing butter into a dairy nation, highlights the absurdity of the status quo, and the absurdity of National's neoliberal policies that ensure many New Zealanders miss out.

Consumers are resorting to desperate measures, from driving hours to Costco to churning butter at home, reflecting a deep frustration with a system that feels entirely rigged.

Then there's the environmental cost of intensive dairy farming (polluted rivers, cancer causing aquifers and increased climate emissions) adding insult to injury, as Kiwis pay a premium while bearing the ecological fallout and costs.

The high butter prices aren't helping to pay for the cleanup. Instead, they're effectively subsidising the dairy industry’s massive profits and increased farmer payouts, which aren’t being spent in the struggling economy. Instead, much of these profits service debt, which only enriches foreign-owned banks.

Luxon’s rhetoric and Willis’s inaction are emblematic of a government out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. We need bold action: regulate supermarket margins, explore domestic price controls, remove GST off of essential items and challenge Fonterra’s export-driven model that is turning New Zealand into a wasteland, all while providing dairy products only the wealthy and sorted can afford.

Willis’s Fonterra connections demand scrutiny...her reluctance to confront the dairy giant suggests a conflict of interest that undermines public trust. But the crux of the matter is that butter should be cheaper in New Zealand, not just for affordability but as a matter of fairness in a dairy-rich nation.

Published by the Jackal



10 Aug 2025

National's Education Failures and Assault on Māori Language

In a move that's akin to cultural erasure, Education Minister Erica Stanford’s Ministry of Education has banned a Māori book, At the Marae, from classroom use for the absurd reason that it contains “too many Māori words.” This book, designed specifically to support the teaching of te reo Māori, is a vital tool for fostering bilingualism in Aotearoa’s classrooms. To deem it unsuitable because it embraces the very language it seeks to teach isn't just ludicrous, it’s a deliberate attack on Māori identity in an attempt to undermine the revitalisation of an official language of New Zealand.
 

On Friday, 1 News reported:

 
Fury as ministry cans kids book for too many Māori words

The Education Ministry has canned a reader for junior children because it has too many Māori words, infuriating Te Akatea, the Māori Principals' Association.

The association's president Bruce Jepsen said the decision not to reprint At the Marae was racist and white supremacist.

The ministry told schools At the Marae, did not fit the sequence that young children were now taught to decode words using the structured literacy approach.


Te Akatea, the Māori Principals’ Association, rightly called this decision “an act of racism,” with president Bruce Jepsen decrying it as a step toward recolonising education. Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated incident but part of a broader, insidious pattern under an authoritative government to strip Māori language and culture from public view. The removal of “Aotearoa” from passports, the planned erasure of Māori names from road signs, and the renaming of government agencies to exclude te reo Māori are all symptomatic of a racist agenda, which is costing taxpayer's millions of dollars with no quantifiable benefit, to diminish Māori presence in our literature and shared spaces.

Take the Electoral Commission's renaming of the Rongotai electorate to Wellington Bays, an act devoid of any rationale beyond a clear intent to erase Māori nomenclature. No consultation, no justification, just a blunt rejection of a name tied to Māori heritage obviously undertaken at the behest of the current racially motivated government. The coalition’s track record on Māori language extends to other shameful decisions. The redirection of $30 million from the Te Ahu o te Reo Māori programme, which trained teachers to deliver te reo Māori, to fund a maths curriculum refresh plagued with problems is a stark example.

Experts have debunked Stanford’s claim that the programme failed to improve student outcomes, labelling it misleading and a pretext for defunding Māori education. Sadly, government ministers aren't adverse to lying in order to further their racist agenda. This follows the coalition’s decision to review Treaty of Waitangi clauses in education and other legislation, a move critics argue is designed to undermine Māori rights and co-governance. However, Stanford’s leadership has been equally disastrous when looking at her broader education policy direction.
 

On Friday, RNZ reported:

'Wouldn't overblow it' - Education Minister on maths book errors

The Education Minister has thanked "keen bean" students for picking up errors in Ministry of Education-funded maths resources.

Eighteen errors were spotted and fixed in new maths resources, including incorrect sums, a wrong number labelled in te reo Māori, and incorrectly saying "triangles" instead of "rectangles" in an answer.

In one case, an answer to a problem in a Year 4 workbook was listed as 1024, and had to be changed to the correct answer of 19,875.


Standford's casual dismissal of 18 errors in Ministry of Education-funded maths resources, errors as egregious as incorrect sums and mistranslations of te reo Māori (e.g., “rua” written instead of “whā” for the number four) is emblematic of a government prioritising haste over quality resources that teachers can actually use. Stanford’s flippant “I wouldn’t overblow it” response, thanking “keen bean” students for spotting mistakes, downplays a systemic failure likely exacerbated by an overbearing racist agenda and over-reliance on artificial intelligence in resource development.

In July, RNZ reported:

School curriculum rewrite had serious problems, managers considered using AI to help

Internal Education Ministry documents sighted by RNZ reveal serious problems plagued the rewrite of the school curriculum earlier this year and managers were considering using AI to help with the work.

The latest leak from the organisation shows only a few months ago it lacked a clear definition of the core concept underpinning the entire rewrite - "knowledge rich" - even though it had already published primary school maths and English curriculums by that time and had nearly completed draft secondary school English and maths curriculums.

It was also struggling with repeated requests for changes.

...

The latest leak followed a series of disclosures of internal documents that prompted the ministry to hire a KC to investigate where they were coming from.

A "programme status report" sighted by RNZ said the introduction of a new process for developing the curriculum posed an "extreme" issue to the work.

"The new delivery process is adding complexity to both internal and external delivery and review procedures as we do not have a clear definition of a knowledge rich curriculum and what it looks like in a NZ context," it said.

"There is no international comparison we can pick up and use."


The hasty rewrite of the school curriculum, driven by a ministerial advisory group appointed in late 2023 by Erica Standford, has been marred by inadequate due diligence, resulting in a litany of errors that undermine student learning. In fact the coalition of chaos has failed the education litmus test spectacularly. Since taking office, student attendance has plummeted, with only 67% of schools engaging in the government’s Stepped Attendance Response (STAR) programme by April 2025.

NCEA literacy and numeracy pass rates also expose the National-led coalition’s abject failure, with Māori students achieving a dismal 22% pass rate in 2024, compared to 67% for non-Māori, leaving 78% of Māori learners without equitable outcomes. But instead of helping the 45,000 Māori students struggling under a system starved of resources, the government instead plans to get rid of  NCEA to try and hide their systemic education failures. Worse yet, they are undermining education for Māori students further by cutting $30 million from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori programmes, which previously supported 1,200 teachers annually, and a $15 million reduction in culturally responsive education initiatives, deepening the systemic neglect that perpetuates Māori underachievement.

The National-led coalition government’s systematic erasure of Māori words from public spaces, such as road signs, passports, and government agencies, coupled with new financial burdens like the doubled $100 International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy (IVL) for some visa categories in 2024 and additional charges of up to $35 per person for access to popular walking tracks like the Tongariro Alpine Crossing, threatens to derail New Zealand’s tourism industry, which generated $37.7 billion and supported 318,000 jobs (14.4% of the workforce) in 2023.

The truth of the matter is that nobody wants to visit a racist country. Māori culture, including te reo Māori, is a cornerstone of the tourism appeal, with 68% of international visitors citing cultural experiences as a primary draw. The government's openly racist policies and suppression of Māori language risks alienating this market, especially as competitors like Australia and Canada bolster Indigenous tourism programs.

The IVL hike and new track fees, impacting 1.9 million annual visitors and 200,000 track users respectively, have already contributed to a 7% decline in arrivals from key markets like the UK and USA in 2024 compared to pre-COVID levels. Together, these policies could stall tourism’s recovery, with long-term economic losses projected at $20-$30 billion over the next decade, as New Zealand’s unique Māori cultural identity, a global brand asset, is undermined by ignorant government policies.

Education Minister Erica Stanford’s tenure has been a cascade of blunders, exposing her incompetence and disregard for accountability. In May 2025, Official Information Act releases revealed she used her personal Gmail account to handle sensitive government business, including pre-Budget documents and visa policy changes, breaching the Cabinet Manual’s explicit rules against such practices. This “untidy” conduct, as Stanford admitted, risked cybersecurity breaches, with Labour’s Willow-Jean Prime slamming it as a “welcome sign to threats to national security” affecting millions in taxpayer-funded decisions.

Standford's failure to properly oversee Associate Minister David Seymour’s free school lunches programme has been equally disastrous, with 124,000 daily meals from subcontractor Libelle Group (liquidated in March 2025) marred by delays, nutritional shortfalls, contaminated and inedible food. Stanford only learned of Libelle’s collapse through media reports, further highlighting her detachment from critical oversight. Her apparent inability to grasp NCEA’s complexities has also drawn scorn, particularly in regards to her rushed six-week consultation for sweeping NCEA changes, which critics called inadequate for reforms affecting generations of learners. Stanford’s downplaying of 18 errors in Ministry-funded maths resources and her defense of a hasty curriculum rewrite riddled with inaccuracies, further erode confidence in her ability to get things right. These numerous missteps, alongside her dismissal of Māori education concerns, cement Stanford’s record as one of reckless negligence and cultural insensitivity, failing New Zealand’s students and taxpayers at every turn.

Despite all the evidence, the coalition of chaos' actions betray a deep-seated aversion to Māori culture and a reckless approach to education. Banning a book like At the Marae for embracing te reo Māori isn't just an administrative blunder, it’s a calculated nod to the government's never ending war on indiginous rights and another step toward cultural erasure. The National-led coalition’s legacy is one of division, incompetence, and a shameful disregard for the Treaty of Waitangi. Aotearoa deserves better than a government that fails its children and disrespects its indigenous heritage. New Zealand therefore deserves a change of government.

Published by the Jackal



8 Aug 2025

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.

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.

Published by the Jackal



7 Aug 2025

John Key Set to Benefit from National Gutting NCEA

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

On August 3, 1 News reported:

NCEA leaves Kiwi kids unprepared for future - Crimson head

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

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

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

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

 

On August 4, 1 News reported:

Government proposes axing NCEA, introducing new qualifications

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Published by the Jackal