The Coalition of Chaos Is Sinking New Zealand

There's a particular kind of arrogance that afflicts those who ascend to positions of power for which they are manifestly ill-prepared. It is not the arrogance of competence, of someone who has mastered their brief and knows it, but rather the breezy confidence of those who have never been seriously tested, and who mistake the trappings of office for the substance of competent governance.

It is precisely this brand of arrogance that has come to define the National-led Coalition of Chaos, and New Zealanders are now paying a very heavy price for it.

Let us begin with the Minister of Finance. Nicola Willis holds a degree in English literature and a postgraduate diploma in journalism, credentials that would serve her admirably as a book reviewer or a parliamentary press gallery correspondent, but which represent a curious qualification for the stewardship of a $400 billion economy.

One might charitably observe that some of New Zealand's more capable Finance Ministers have also lacked formal economics training. The difference, however, is one of disposition. Where her predecessors such as Bill English  listened to advisers, Willis has demonstrated a troubling tendency to do precisely the opposite.

When fifteen or more of the country's leading economists wrote open letters warning that her austerity programme would deepen and prolong the recession: that you cannot, as the PSA put it with admirable clarity, cut your way to prosperity. Willis's response was, in essence, to disagree and move on. The $43 billion in spending cuts she regards as a badge of honour are, in the view of those who actually study these things, a principal reason why New Zealand's economic recovery has been so anaemic, so halting, and so persistently disappointing.

The consequences of this ideological stubbornness are now documented not merely in the arguments of domestic critics, but in the assessments of global financial institutions. Fitch, the international credit ratings agency, has placed New Zealand's AA+ rating on negative outlook, warning that debt reduction is becoming "more difficult to envisage" as fiscal consolidation has been repeatedly delayed.

General government gross debt is now forecast to rise to 56% of GDP by June 2027, a figure that sits grotesquely above the 36.1% projection made when New Zealand was last upgraded in September 2022. That the delays have occurred across successive governments does not absolve the current administration; it indicts it, for it was handed a roadmap of warnings and chose to ignore them.

Meanwhile, Reuters has laid bare the structural fragility that underlies the government's cheerful forecasts. For decades, New Zealand has relied upon a rising housing market to engineer economic recoveries. That playbook has now failed.

On Monday, Reuters reported:

New Zealand struggles to regain economic mojo without housing recovery

At the same time, economic growth cooled in the fourth quarter, data showed last week, with construction slumping and consumer spending weak, even before the massive distruptions created by the ​war. The unemployment rate stands at a decade-high of 5.4%.

...

Government efforts to stoke growth have been lacklustre, even with an election looming on November 7 that is sure to be dominated by ​voter dissatisfaction over the economy. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has offered little aimed at reviving the labour market, which is still reeling from waves of public sector layoffs last year.

Even after the Reserve Bank slashed the Official Cash Rate from 5.5% to 2.25%, house prices remain some 20% below their pandemic peak, hollowing out the wealth effect upon which so many households depended. Borrowers are being squeezed, construction projects lie stalled, and a wave of New Zealanders, precisely the professionals and entrepreneurs a genuine growth strategy would seek to retain, have lost hope and are quietly departing for better opportunities in Australia.

Into this fraught domestic picture now falls the additional chaos of Donald Trump's war in the Middle East. Oil price inflation is pushing up borrowing costs globally, potentially forcing the Reserve Bank into a more hawkish stance at precisely the moment the economy can least afford it. New Zealand's substantial dependence on energy imports makes it acutely vulnerable.

Christopher Luxon, a former airline chief executive who has consistently demonstrated that managing a corporate balance sheet is rather different from governing a sovereign nation, appears to have no coherent response to this gathering storm beyond the ritual recitation of talking points about fiscal responsibility, the same fiscal responsibility, one might note, that Fitch has just formally called into question. It's that kind of incompetence that New Zealanders are starting to notice en masse.

Yesterday, The Guardian reported:

New Zealand PM’s ratings dip as fragile economy fails to impress before November election, poll shows

National leader Christopher Luxon drops in preferred PM stakes with rise in people saying country heading in wrong direction

The RNZ-Reid Research poll, released on Monday, also found a growing number of people felt that New Zealand was heading in the wrong direction.

Luxon slid two points to 17.3% in the preferred prime minister stakes – his lowest result across major polls since he became leader in 2023. Labour’s Chris Hipkins also dipped 0.4 points, to 20.7%.

The prime minister’s net favourability – the difference between those who rate his performance as good versus poor – has also dropped from -14 in January to -20.6, his weakest result in the Reid Research series since he became National’s leader in 2021.

Meanwhile, Luxon’s National party has slipped nearly five points behind the main opposition party, Labour. If an election were held today, the parliamentary left and rights blocs would face a hung parliament.

The cruellest irony of this government's tenure is that its most zealous cuts have fallen upon the very investments in science, in public services, in wages, and in housing infrastructure, that might have produced the growth it so loudly claims to want.

While minimum wage workers have absorbed a third consecutive real-terms pay cut, and while $12 billion was stripped from pay equity settlements affecting predominantly female workers, landlords have had their interest deductibility restored and tobacco companies have breathed a sigh of relief to the tune of $3.2 billion dollars.

New Zealand deserves better than a Finance Minister with an English literature degree who dismisses the warnings of fifteen economists, led by a Prime Minister who cannot read a room and remains fluent only in corporate double-speak. Reuters did not mince words: Luxon has offered little aimed at reviving a labour market still reeling from the waves of public sector layoffs his own government inflicted. The Coalition of Chaos has not merely failed to provide a growth strategy. It has actively dismantled the conditions under which one might have been possible.

The Dumbest War in Living Memory

There are wars fought for survival. There are wars fought for resources. There are wars fought, however misguidedly, for ideology. And then there is Donald Trump's illegal war against Iran, a war so bereft of coherent justification, so naked in its opportunism, and so catastrophic in its execution that future historians will struggle to find a category in which to place it. The dumbest war in living memory has found its author, and he is currently sitting in the most powerful position, explaining that he knows nothing about a bombed school or a destroyed desalination plant, and that Iranians are in any case, according to him, "among the most evil people ever on earth."

Let us dispense, first, with the pretexts.

This is not a war for security. The Arms Control Association has noted plainly that such a war of choice against Iran, without congressional approval, violates the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, as well as Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations. Iran was, by all credible accounts, still engaged in diplomatic talks on the very day the US and Israel missiles began to fall on civilian targets.

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said on 2 March 2026 that the agency had found no evidence of "a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons" in Iran, and when asked directly whether Iran was "days or weeks away from building a bomb," his response was simply "no." Iran was still engaging in reportedly productive diplomatic talks over its nuclear program the day before the United States unleashed its weaponry. Security was never the point. If it were, you do not blow up the table at which the other party is prepared to sit.

This is not a war for oil, at least not in the way that cynics once imagined. American and Israeli strikes have, for the first time, targeted oil storage and refining facilities in Tehran. You do not secure a resource by incinerating it. What you do achieve, however, is a surge in global oil prices that enriches investors (including Trumps family members) and producers elsewhere, rattles markets, and inflicts immediate pain upon ordinary consumers, including New Zealanders whose import-dependent economy has absolutely no insulation from such shocks.

This is not a war to free the Iranian people either. The liberation narrative has long served as the humanitarian mask of American imperialism, and it fits no better here than it did in Iraq. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed that the United States attacked a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island, with water supply to thirty villages impacted. You do not liberate a population by destroying the infrastructure upon which their survival depends. The Geneva Conventions are unambiguous: targeting facilities indispensable to civilian survival constitutes a war crime.

When Trump was asked about the desalination plant, he offered this remarkably incoherent response: "I know nothing about a desalinisation plant, other than to say, if they're complaining about..." He then trailed off into fresh denunciations of October 7, conflating Iran and Hamas as though the distinction were a bureaucratic inconvenience rather than a basic fact.

Bombing schoolchildren does not liberate them. Bombing desalination plants does not free people. It starves them, and it breeds a generation for whom the word "America" will forever cause resentment and anger across the entire world.

What this war actually is becomes clearer the more one examines the timeline. Whenever new material surfaces connecting Trump to the Epstein files, fresh documents, flight logs, or witness testimony implicating powerful men in the sexual abuse and torture of children, the news cycle conveniently fills with explosions. The pattern has become so reliable that it scarcely requires elaboration. A political war, then, fought as distraction. A racist and religious war, in which an entire nation of 90 million people is reduced by its attackers to a single, dehumanised caricature.

Trump has described Iranians as among "the most evil people ever on earth," a statement of breathtaking historical ignorance and moral vacancy from a man who has spent years cultivating relationships with some of the most genuinely evil figures of modern times.

From the moment Operation Epic Fury was launched, Trump's messaging has oscillated between outright fabrication, dealmaking and the wholesale destruction of Iran. He has called on the IRGC to surrender in exchange for immunity. He has asked Iranian diplomats to switch sides. He has declared that the new Supreme Leader will "not last long" without American approval. These are not the utterances of a statesman prosecuting a considered strategy. They are the improvisations of a man who began a war without a plan to end it, and who is now making his endgame up as the west loses allies and the body count climbs.

OMG a reporter confronts Donald Trump about Iran bombed its own elementary school with an American Tomahawk missile ridiciliously 😂🤣😭 pic.twitter.com/k7ld66Xk9W

— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) March 9, 2026

The war is not supported by the American people, and the Trump administration has done and said little to justify its belligerent actions. The varying and contradictory rationales from Trump's useful idiots have only offered the public simple incoherent jargon, and run contrary to available evidence.

New Zealand cannot afford to observe this catastrophe with the polite detachment of a small nation that prefers not to make a fuss. The economic consequences of a destabilised Middle East, surging oil prices, disrupted shipping lanes, and rattled global markets, land here with the same weight as anywhere. But beyond the economic, there is a moral obligation that this country has historically been willing to honour. We have a tradition of independent foreign policy that this moment demands we exercise again. But sadly our current spineless leadership is so vacuous as to appear like they're in support of Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war of annihilation.

Every missile that falls on a school, every village left without clean water, every use of illegal weapons, every civilian death that Trump waves away with a fresh denunciation of people he knows nothing about, each of these is a brick in the wall of resentment that will define how the world regards complicit Western nations for decades to come. History is not made only by those who pull triggers. It is also made by those who stay silent while the triggers are being pulled.

This is the dumbest kind of war: illegal, unjustified, racist, politically motivated, and conducted by a man who cannot name the school or desalination plant he has just ordered destroyed. New Zealand should oppose this war. Our politicians should say so, clearly and without any apology. 

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.

There was no rational reason to have a 2nd phase of the #NZ Royal Commission on #COVID_19 when the original Commission brought down a comprehensive & objective report. It seems even clearer now that phase 2 was always intended to be a witch-hunt. #nzpol https://t.co/2cW8GRA2pw pic.twitter.com/5wJjo0dJSZ

— Helen Clark (@HelenClarkNZ) August 14, 2025

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.

Can we get a better Prime Minister? One who understands plain english?https://t.co/nvNpMiNWqv

— Greg Presland (@GregPresland) August 14, 2025

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.

National is Trying to Steal the Election

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

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

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

On Monday, Newsroom reported:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yesterday, RNZ reported:

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Plunket - Arsehole of the Week

Sean bloody Plunket, once a prominent voice in New Zealand’s media landscape, has descended into an ugly caricature of his former self, a broadcaster whose penchant for provocation has long overshadowed any claim of journalistic integrity.

His latest foray into controversy, a tweet mocking the humanitarian crisis in Gaza by referencing “anorexia” in a manner that denies Israel is murdering children through mass starvation (another war crime), marks a new low in a sad career littered with offensive outbursts.

The disgusting now deleted anorexia tweet not only drew rightful condemnation from all corners of New Zealand's politisphere, but also provided further justification for millionaire Wayne Wright Jr to have apparently cut Plunket's funding back in March 2024. This incident, however, is merely the latest in a long line of deplorable statements that have exposed his disregard for decency.

It’s official. @SeanPlunket is a complete fuckwit. To be making fun of the starving children in Gaza is absolutely despicable.

The Platform is for drop kicks! @theplatform_nz 🖕 pic.twitter.com/kJE8jPZlte

— 🌼 Random Kiwi 🌼 🇳🇴🇳🇿🇺🇸 (@RandomKiwiNZ) July 27, 2025

Plunket’s history reads like a catalogue of conceited moralising and divisive hot takes. In 2024, he compared Māui dolphins to “Down syndrome kids” and declared they “deserve to die,” a remark that sparked yet another public apology from the deluded washed up has-been. His 2021 claim that a Māori iwi “did not care about child abuse” during a COVID-19 discussion led to a Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint, a fine for MediaWorks, and his exit from MagicTalk, where colleagues later described a toxic workplace rife with homophobic, misogynistic, and transphobic rhetoric.

In 2023, he waded into the culture wars swamp, asking Prime Minister Chris Hipkins to define “what is a woman” in a press conference stunt that went viral for all the wrong reasons. That same year, he amplified anti-transgender activist Posie Parker (aka Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull), decrying counter-protests as “mob rule” while prioritising white female callers, revealing a clear ideological bias against a marginalised group.

His social media presence is equally peppered with reprehensible and dangerous rhetoric. Plunket’s received numerous Twitter suspensions, most notably in 2023 for breaching “hateful conduct” rules by sharing the banned Christchurch mosque shooter’s manifesto and private court information about David Farrier’s protection order. He again became an apologist for genocidal Israel in 2023 by retweeting a baseless theory blaming incest for “sickly children” in Gaza, further cementing his reputation for peddling harmful and dishonest narratives designed to blame the victims.

Misinformation is a recurring theme: in April 2023, he shared a fake ad claiming Jacinda Ardern hid a speaking engagement, only retracting it after it did the damage he intended. Plunket then falsely alleged Stuff was somehow biased because it received funding from Ngāi Tahu, a claim debunked by Stuff’s owner, Sinead Boucher. Rather than fostering free speech through open discussion, these incidents highlight the dishonesty of an unprincipled hack only interested in divisive rhetoric to gain the public's attention.

I struggle to think of a more odious New Zealand broadcaster than Sean Plunket

— Liam Vincent (@liamvincent26) July 27, 2025

Plunket’s fall from relevance is stark. Once a fixture on Radio New Zealand and TV3, his departure from mainstream media and retreat into fringe outlets such as The Platform, his own online echo chamber with regular appearances by New Zealand's most deluded cookers, signal a career in terminal decline. The loss of advertisers, funding, and public trust, underscored by legal battles, like a 2025 Employment Relations Authority ruling against him for workplace aggression, reflects badly on an old man terribly out of step with the ethical requirements that modern journalism demands. His provocative style, once a drawcard, is now so unhinged that it alienates more than it engages, leaving him preaching to a shrinking choir of similarly deranged contrarians desperately battling with their own insignificance.

In a media landscape that increasingly values accountability and empathy, Plunket’s brand of shock-jock vitriol is an anachronism. His disgusting Gaza tweet, mocking a preventable humanitarian catastrophe, isn't just a moral failure but a professional one, proving he no longer commands any semblance of respect for the profession. New Zealand deserves journalists who inform rather than inflame, and Plunket, with his track record of cruelty and misinformation, is no longer fit for that role. His legacy is one of squandered potential, a cautionary tale of how chasing controversy can reduce a once-respected voice to irrelevance.

The Coalition of Chaos' Assault on Electoral Fairness

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

Today, RNZ reported:

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last year, RNZ reported:

 

Government rejects four voting changes as review lands

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

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

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

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

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

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.

NZ Must Implement a Four-day Work Week

New Zealand finds itself at a critical juncture. With productivity growth stagnating and our brightest minds departing for greener pastures abroad, the time has come for bold shift in policy direction. The solution may be counterintuitive: working less to achieve more through the implementation of a four-day working week.

Today, RNZ reported:

 

Four-day work week reduces burnout and improves job satisfaction - study

Working a four day week reduces burnout and improves job satisfaction, a new study has found.

The research out of Boston College in the United States tested the effect of reducing employees hours to a four-day week with no reduction in pay.

The study held six-month trials reducing the working hours for 2896 employees across 141 organisations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland and the USA.

The outcomes of the trials were then compared with 12 control companies that did not transition to the shorter work week.

The researchers found that employees with a reduction of eight hours or more per work week self-reported experiencing larger reductions in burnout and improvements in job satisfaction and mental health, as compared with those at companies that maintained a five-day work week.

A small change in physical health was also seen, but the researchers said they expected this was less significant because changes in physical health take time to manifest.

 

The international evidence is compelling and mounting. Belgium became the first country in Europe to legislate for a four-day week in 2022, with Belgian employees winning the right to perform a full workweek in four days instead of the usual five without loss of salary. Microsoft Japan's pioneering trial delivered remarkable results, with overall employee productivity boosted by 40%. Across multiple studies, almost half of respondents said productivity improved either slightly or significantly, with the vast majority of organisations expressing strong interest in continuing such arrangements.

These overseas cases demonstrate a fundamental truth that traditional workplace orthodoxy has long resisted: productivity is not merely a function of hours worked but of focused, engaged, and well-rested human capital. Countries from Spain, Iceland and South Africa to the United States, Germany and Italy are implementing trials and witnessing tangible benefits including reduced healthcare costs, lower employee turnover, and enhanced recruitment capabilities.

New Zealand's productivity crisis demands urgent attention. The world has been experiencing a productivity slowdown, from which New Zealand has not been exempt, and this matters because sustainable improvements in our living standards depend upon our productivity. Recent Treasury analysis reveals the stark reality facing our nation: when an economy fails to become more productive, real wages stagnate and living standards suffer.

New Zealand Productivity

The National-led government's approach to addressing this challenge has been fundamentally misguided. Rather than investing in innovative workplace policies that could enhance both productivity and worker wellbeing, we've witnessed a regression towards policies that actively undermine both. The dismantling of fair pay agreements, weakening of worker protections, and pursuit of austerity measures that reduce public investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure represent a backwards step that will inevitably worsen our competitive position.

These regressive policies have created a demoralising environment for New Zealand workers. Employment law changes that strip away hard-won rights, combined with wage policies that fail to keep pace with inflation, send a clear message: that worker wellbeing and prosperity are secondary considerations to short-term cost-cutting measures. This approach is economically self-defeating, as it not only means less revenue circulating within the economy, it also drives our most talented individuals offshore where they can access better working conditions, higher wages, and more progressive employment practices.

The brain drain accelerating under current policies represents not merely individual career decisions but a national crisis of human capital flight. When our best and brightest seek opportunities in jurisdictions that value work-life balance, offer competitive remuneration, provide better housing opportunities, and implement forward-thinking workplace innovations like four-day working weeks, New Zealand loses the very talent we've trained and need to drive productivity improvements and economic growth here in Aotearoa.

A four-day working week represents more than workplace reform; it constitutes a strategic economic intervention. By reducing working hours while maintaining productivity levels, we create conditions for enhanced innovation, reduced stress-related health costs (particularly relevant as our workforce ages) and improved retention of skilled workers. The model offers particular appeal to younger generations who increasingly prioritise workplace flexibility and well-being alongside traditional career advancement.

The path forward requires political courage to challenge conventional wisdom about workplace organisation. Rather than pursuing policies that treat workers as expendable and a cost to be minimised, we must embrace approaches that recognise human potential as our nation's greatest asset. A four-day working week pilot programme, implemented across selected public and private sector organisations, could demonstrate the productivity gains and wellbeing improvements that international evidence suggests are achievable.

New Zealand cannot afford to persist with outdated workplace models whilst competing nations embrace innovative approaches to human capital management. The choice is stark: continue with regressive policies that drive talent offshore and suppress productivity growth, or adopt progressive workplace reforms that enhance both economic performance and citizen wellbeing. The four-day working week offers a tangible pathway towards reversing our current trajectory and building a more prosperous, equitable future for all New Zealanders.

The Persistent Stain of Sexism Within the NZ Police Force

The New Zealand Police have long prided themselves on being a cornerstone of community trust, tasked with upholding law and order with impartiality. Yet, recent allegations of a pervasive "boys' club" culture within the Northland detective ranks expose a troubling undercurrent of sexism that undermines this mission. Senior police manager Bridget Louise Doell, with three decades of service, has laid bare a toxic workplace marked by gossip, exclusion, and bullying during an Employment Relations Authority hearing in Whangārei. Her claims of being sidelined by a predominantly male detective team reveal a systemic issue that not only harms individuals but also cripples the operational efficacy of the police force.


Today, RNZ reported:

Senior police manager alleges 'boys' club' culture among Northland detectives

A senior police manager alleges she was met with swirling gossip, private group chats and a pervasive "boys' club" culture when she stepped into a leadership role overseeing the predominantly male detective team in Northland.

The allegations now form the basis of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) hearing in Whangārei this week.

Bridget Louise Doell, a senior police officer with three decades of experience, was seconded to the crime area manager role in 2020, overseeing senior detectives in the criminal investigation branch (CIB) at Whangārei police station.

The role involves operational oversight of inspectors, but Doell's evidence has been that the transition was met with resistance.

Over the next three years, she claims she was sidelined by detectives, describing a toxic workplace culture marked by gossip, exclusion from key decisions, and repeated allegations of bullying.

Doell’s experience is not an isolated incident. A 2021 Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report found that a quarter of police staff had faced abuse, bullying, or harassment, with sexism and a "boys' club" culture identified as significant drivers. The report highlighted shocking examples: female officers being demeaned as "the girls" or assigned menial tasks, and one case where a topless photo of a female officer was circulated without consent. These behaviours, often dismissed as "banter," foster an environment where women are marginalised, their contributions undervalued, and their authority undermined. Such a culture erodes morale and deters capable women from pursuing leadership roles, weakening the force’s diversity and perspective.

The operational impact of this sexism is profound. Effective policing relies on trust, both within the force and with the public. When female officers like Doell are excluded from key decisions or face resistance from subordinates, as she alleged when detective inspectors bypassed her to meet with the Crown Solicitor, it disrupts the chain of command. This undermines case management, delays justice, and risks errors in investigations. The 2021 IPCA report noted instances where bullying officers failed to provide backup to colleagues in the field, a direct threat to operational safety. If officers cannot rely on their team due to discriminatory attitudes, the ability to respond to emergencies or complex investigations is compromised.

Historical cases further illustrate the depth of the problem. The 2007 Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct, sparked by Louise Nicholas’s allegations of sexual violence by officers, exposed a culture of cover-ups and misogyny. Despite promises of reform, the persistence of similar issues nearly two decades later suggests a failure to address root causes. In 2014, a police unit faced scrutiny after two staff were suspended for sending lewd footage to a colleague, alongside bullying allegations. These incidents reflect a pattern where sexist behaviour is not just tolerated but normalised, eroding public confidence in the police’s ability to handle sensitive cases, particularly those involving gender-based violence.


Last year, RNZ reported:

Female police officer harassed by senior, investigation flawed - IPCA

A senior police officer sexually harassed a female officer, but an internal investigation process was flawed, the independent police conduct authority has concluded.

The woman officer complained to police at the end of a two-month secondment where she was in the senior officer's section under his supervision, prompting an internal police investigation as well as an investigation by the independent police conduct authority (IPCA).

She said the senior officer - labelled as Officer A in the IPCA report - had frequently made inappropriate comments towards her, including some that were sexual. And that this had increased to the point she was concerned his behaviour could become physical and felt unsafe working with him, the IPCA said in a summary report.

In 2021, Star News reported:

 

'Boys club': Sexism, bullying, nepotism highlighted in review of police culture

Nepotism, cronyism and gaslighting have contributed to pockets of toxic culture in the New Zealand police, a new report into bullying and abuse has found.

Despite issuing scathing criticisms and outlining stories of abuse and harassment, the Independent Police Conduct Authority said recent police reforms show promise.

Two interviewees said when they were out in the field and radioed for immediate backup because they were at risk, bully officers failed to provide back-up.

"The interviewees subsequently verified that these other officers had been in radio contact and not involved in any other urgent job," the IPCA added.

In 2017, Stuff reported:

Lynley Tulloch: Police standards, sexism and social sadism

This programme of reform in 2007 was intended to shape the future direction of the police service. The report stated that police misconduct must be "dealt with professionally, expeditiously, and in a manner that gives both complainants and the general public no reason for concern".

Just this year another report was released documenting the police response to this Commission of Inquiry. Commissioner Mike Bush acknowledged that police deserved scrutiny over their behaviour. He said that there had been a lot of work done in attitudinal change in police culture over the past 10 years.

Clearly nothing, despite a number of investigations and reports, has really improved. The cost of this culture extends beyond internal dysfunction. Public trust is the bedrock of effective policing, yet how can victims of sexual assault or domestic violence have faith in a force that struggles to confront its own biases? The IPCA has acknowledged progress under Police Commissioner Andy Coster, with action plans to address toxic behaviours. However, the recurrence of these issues in Northland suggests that reforms are either superficial or inconsistently applied. Without rigorous, transparent processes to root out sexism, the police risk perpetuating a cycle of distrust that directly creates inefficiency.

To restore faith, the New Zealand Police must prioritise systemic change. This means not only disciplining offenders but also dismantling the structures that enable a "boys' club" mentality. Leadership must model inclusivity, and recruitment and promotion processes should actively counter bias. Even though the Police are desperate for new recruits, the operational stakes are too high for half-measures. A police force that fails to respect its own cannot hope to protect and serve the public with integrity. Until sexism is confronted head-on, the stain on the force’s reputation, and its inability to deliver justice, will only worsen.

Tama Potaka Hides Homelessness Report as Crisis Deepens

In a move that reeks of political obfuscation, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka has sat on a critical homelessness insights report for over a month, refusing to make it public while claiming he’s still “seeking official advice” on its contents. This delay isn't just bureaucratic dawdling; it’s a calculated attempt to bury inconvenient truths about the National-led government’s role in exacerbating New Zealand’s homelessness crisis.

On Wednesday, Stuff reported:

Labour pushes for Potaka to release homelessness briefing amid concerns over rising numbers

Labour is demanding the release of a government briefing on homelessness, warning it may confirm that record-level homelessness has worsened under the National-led coalition’s watch.

“Everyone is saying that homelessness is going up at unprecedented levels,” Labour’s housing spokesperson Kieran McAnulty said. “Given that he [Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka] is the only one - alongside the prime minister and the minister of housing - that is denying homelessness is going up, I’m not surprised he’s pretty reluctant to release the report.”

Potaka received the latest homelessness insights report from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) last month, part of a regular six-monthly series monitoring the effects of government housing policy to reduce the number of people living in emergency housing through toughening the entry criteria.

But he has yet to make the document public, saying he is still seeking official advice on its contents, although he has acknowledged anecdotal evidence pointed to a rising trend.

 

As the streets of Auckland and Wellington swell with those left without shelter, the government’s refusal to release this data speaks volumes about it prioritising optics over people.

The Coalition of Chaos' policies have systematically dismantled the safety nets that once offered hope to the most vulnerable. Their aggressive push to slash emergency housing numbers, celebrated by them as a 75% reduction in households living in motels (from 3,141 in December 2023 to 591 by January 2025), masks a grim reality.

While Tama Potaka trumpets that 2,124 children have moved from motels to “homes,” the government admits it doesn’t track where 20% of these families, roughly 510 households, have ended up. The evidence points to a spike in rough sleeping, with Auckland Council reporting a 53% rise in people living on the streets between September 2024 and January 2025. Wellington’s Downtown Community Ministry also noted a 33% increase in rough sleepers from October to December 2024.

Changes to emergency housing eligibility have tightened the screws on those already at breaking point. Stricter criteria mean applicants are increasingly declined or deemed ineligible, with some turned away because their decision to flee domestic violence was seen as “contributing” to their homelessness, a grotesque misinterpretation that Potaka has publicly disavowed but still persists.
 

On June 16, Stuff reported:

Tama Potaka denies blame on homelessness, as Women’s Refuge raises alarm

Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka is denying his policies are to blame for reports of increased homelessness or domestic violence victims being denied emergency housing.

...

Women’s Refuge says access to emergency housing an issue

Potaka was also questioned about reports the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had denied emergency housing to women attempting to escape domestic violence.

Last week, Stuff heard from charities across the country that raised concerns about difficulties accessing emergency housing for people leaving violent homes.

The Ministry of Social Development’s scrapping of the first phase of its “early interventions” programme, meant to prevent homelessness, was ludicrously justified by an overwhelming workload tied to Jobseeker benefit changes, leaving vulnerable Kiwis to fend for themselves. These policies, coupled with the government’s refusal to reinstate a legal obligation for MSD to grant emergency housing, have created a revolving door of hardship.

Compounding this crisis is National’s gutting of state housing. Thousands of planned public housing builds, with Kāinga Ora halting the development of 212 housing projects that would have delivered 3479 new homes, have been cancelled, with funding for community housing providers slashed to a measly 750 new places annually. This is a far cry from the ambitious programmes under the previous government, which, while not perfect, recognised the need for a robust public housing stock to address the 112,496 people (2.3% of the population) estimated to be severely housing deprived in the 2023 Census.

#BHN Is the Govt hiding homeless numbers | Cost of living gets worse | Seymour wants karakia gone https://t.co/HW9RyR409y

— Pat Brittenden (@patbrittenden) July 17, 2025

National’s preference for private sector solutions and community housing providers, while starving Kāinga Ora of resources, has left a gaping hole in the housing safety net. Mainstream media, with few exceptions, have been complicit in this silence, generally failing to hold Potaka and the government to account for withholding this report.

This lack of scrutiny allows National to manipulate the narrative, presenting their emergency housing cuts as a success while ignoring the human cost. Worse, the government’s broader pattern of dismantling statistical transparency, evident in their lax tracking of where families go post-emergency housing and cancelling of future Censuses, suggests a deliberate strategy to obscure data as homelessness and other social conditions worsen.

New Zealand deserves better. Potaka’s refusal to release this report isn't just a failure of transparency; it’s a betrayal of the approximately 100,000 Kiwis, including 60,000 Māori, grappling with homelessness. The government’s policies, stricter emergency housing rules, cancelled state house builds, and a punitive welfare system, are driving people to the streets. It’s time for accountability, not obfuscation. But we are unlikely to see any change for the better while National is in power.

Managed Retreat gets Mentioned in the News

The Nelson Tasman region, battered by relentless storms, stands as a stark reminder of New Zealand’s vulnerability to climate-driven disasters. The floods of June and July 2025, which inundated homes, crippled infrastructure, and forced evacuations in areas like Tapawera and Motueka Valley, have exposed the government’s woeful inaction on flood risk management.

Despite the growing threat of climate change, with over 400,000 buildings at risk nationwide and property assets worth more than NZ$135 billion exposed, the current administration’s response remains a patchwork of half-measures. This failure to confront the crisis head-on, particularly in Nelson-Tasman, risks not only livelihoods but also a looming collapse in property values.


On Thursday, RNZ reported:

 

Almost 15,000 properties could be damaged by floods in next 35 years - report

A report prepared for the government says 14,500 properties worth $12.9 billion could be expected to experience at least one damaging flood by 2060.

The country should expect the equivalent of last month's Tasman District floods "basically every year", according to the author, with between 300 and 400 homes a year seeing "significant damage" from water reaching at least 30cm above the floorboards.

...


An independent expert panel has recommended that homeowners whose houses are flooded or damaged by weather events should not expect buy-outs, and individuals should be responsible for knowing the risks and making their own decisions about whether to move away from high-risk areas.

The panel suggested a transition period of 20 years before people are on their own when it comes to property losses, to provide people with time to make decisions and spread any cost.

The panel did not recommend any coordinated retreat from at-risk areas and critics called the recommendations "unworkable".

The science is unequivocal. NIWA’s coastal flood maps project that 72,065 New Zealanders live in areas susceptible to so-called once-in-a-century floods, which are currently occurring on a monthly basis, with 675,500 in broader flood-prone zones also at risk. Nelson Tasman’s recent deluge, causing millions in damages, underscores its place among high-risk regions like Gisborne and Porirua. Height maps reveal low-lying areas near rivers like the Motueka are especially vulnerable to inundation, exacerbated by rising sea levels. 

Unfortunately, the government’s approach to managed retreat, relocating communities from flood-prone areas, is essentially non-existent, with only lip service being provided to the idea of ensuring people's safety through relocation. The absence of a national strategy leaves local councils scrambling, with Nelson Tasman residents facing uncertainty and inadequate support.

Managed retreat is not a novel concept; it’s a necessity acknowledged globally as climate impacts intensify. In New Zealand, research suggests towns like Gisborne may need retreat within 10–15 years, with other areas in the Nelson Tasman region potentially following by 2040–2050. However, the current government, led by a coalition seemingly allergic to proactive policy, has failed to advance meaningful legislation or funding frameworks.

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has dodged calls for clear directives, leaving communities to fend for themselves. This inertia is not just negligent, it’s a betrayal of those bearing the brunt of increasingly frequent storms.

The economic fallout of this inaction is already looming. Nelson Tasman’s property market, once buoyant, faces a grim future as flood risks deter buyers. With hundreds of thousands of buildings across the country at risk, a potential market crash is likely in vulnerable regions. In Nelson Tasman, where recent floods highlighted systemic vulnerabilities, property values are likely to plummet as insurance premiums soar and buyer confidence erodes. 

The government’s refusal to prioritise managed retreat only amplifies this risk, leaving homeowners to face financial ruin without a clear path to safety.

The social cost is equally dire. Families displaced by floods in Nelson Tasman have received little more than temporary aid, with no long-term plan for relocation or adaptation. The government’s failure to engage with communities concerning managed retreat, despite recommendations from expert groups, reveals a callous disregard for those most affected. The 2023 weather events, costing up to $15 billion, should have been a wake-up call. Instead, the right-wing administration clings to short-term fixes, ignoring the need for systemic change to protect vulnerable populations.

This is not governance; it’s abdication. The National-led government’s reluctance to confront the reality of climate-driven flooding, particularly in regions like Nelson Tasman, is a policy failure of staggering proportions. Managed retreat, though complex and costly, demands national leadership, not the current patchwork of local efforts. Without swift action, the economic and social toll will only grow. The government must act now, legislate, fund, and plan for managed retreat, or condemn communities to a future of uncertainty and loss. The clock is ticking, and New Zealanders are waiting.

Reality Check Radio’s Unhinged Petition

Reality Check Radio’s petition to prosecute former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, alongside Chris Hipkins, Ashley Bloomfield, and a cadre of public health experts, is a bewildering display of political theatre. 

Launched on the cusp of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand’s Covid-19 response, this campaign is less a call for justice and more an exercise in targeted misinformation. It’s a stunt so utterly divorced from reason that it demands a meticulous dismantling, not merely for its audacity, but for its dangerous attempt to rewrite a legacy of effective leadership. 

Far from a legitimate grievance, this petition reveals the lingering obsession of a vocal fringe, unable to reconcile Ardern’s global acclaim with their narrative of victimhood.

Yesterday, The Standard posted:

 

Reality Check Radio needs a reality check

It is strange that Jacinda Ardern should continue to live rent free in so many right winger’s heads.

This thought came to me when I discovered a petition run by Reality Check Radio demanding that Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Ashley Blomfield and a host of others be summonsed to appear at stage two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid 19.

The advert is really cute and gives the impression that they can be charged and tried by the inquiry.

This is clear from the picture used depicting Ardern, Hipkins and Blomfield standing in a Court dock.

The petition’s premise is as theatrical as it is baseless: it suggests Ardern and her colleagues should face trial for their roles in New Zealand’s Covid-19 response, complete with imagery of them in a courtroom dock and language branding them as “offenders.” This isn't just a misunderstanding of the Royal Commission’s purpose (it's an inquiry, not a court) but a deliberate attempt to inflame public resentment. The Commission’s terms of reference, expanded for its second phase, focus on evaluating vaccine mandates, safety, lockdowns, and tracing technologies. It’s a review of policy efficacy, not a criminal tribunal. To suggest otherwise is to peddle a lie.

The right-wing’s unhinged obsession with Ardern fuels this petition’s lunacy, with commentators like Chris Lynch and Cameron Slater still frothing at the mouth, painting her as some sort of tyrannical overlord. Lynch, in his based rants, has called Ardern’s memoir tour a calculated rebranding, accusing her of “control, exclusion, and distrust,” as if she single-handedly plunged New Zealand into chaos. Slater, the idiot blogger who's slander caused his own demise, has long spewed vitriol, labelling her a “pretty communist” and peddling conspiracies that would make a flat-earther blush.

Their rhetoric, along with the well-funded Reality Check Radio propaganda, often echoed by the likes of misogynists like Mike Hosking, who once scoffed at Ardern’s leadership as “style over substance”, reveals a collective right-wing derangement syndrome that requires serious disinfecting. These right-wing pundits, clutching at straws to demonise a leader who steered New Zealand through crises with global acclaim, look like petulant children throwing tantrums over a game they’ve already lost. Why do they still view Ardern as a political threat? Perhaps it’s her enduring global stature, evidenced by a 2023 Harvard fellowship and ongoing UN engagements, that unnerves them, a reminder that her influence persists despite their relentless attempts to tear her down.

Reality Check Radio’s claims hinge on a narrative that New Zealand’s Covid response was a catastrophic overreach. They point to vaccine mandates as draconian, ignoring that the first inquiry found mandates were broadly effective, though applied too widely and for too long. The numbers don't lie: New Zealand’s vaccination rate reached 95% for first doses by December 2021, with 4 million fully vaccinated. This helped to keep the Covid death rate down to just 0.07 per 1,000 people by mid-2022, compared to 2.7 per 1,000 in places like the United States. The mandates, while contentious, saved an estimated 20,000 lives. To paint this as criminal is to spit in the face of those who survived because of it.


In 2023, the Guardian reported:

New Zealand’s globally praised Covid response saved about 20,000 lives, new research shows.

Government’s strategy, which included closing the border, meant death rate was 80% lower than in the US, according to the New Zealand Medical Journal

The report, published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, looks at the impact of the nation’s strategy, which included an almost complete international border closure for two years and strict lockdowns for days or weeks at a time.

The petition also vilifies lockdowns, claiming they were unnecessary. Yet, New Zealand’s initial elimination strategy kept cases to 1,166 by September 2020 (a per capita rate of just 0.23 cases per 1,000 people) while the UK saw over 400,000 cases, or 5.97 per 1,000. The second Auckland lockdown, critiqued for its duration, still reduced transmission rates by 80%, per Ministry of Health data. These measures bought time for vaccine rollouts and uptake, sparing hospitals from the collapse seen in other countries. To call this criminal negligence is to ignore the global context: countries without lockdowns, like Sweden, saw mortality rates of 1.45 deaths per 1,000 by mid-2022, five times higher than New Zealand’s 0.29 per 1,000. Far from reckless, these policies were a calculated shield against catastrophe.

Reality Check Radio’s inclusion of experts like Siouxsie Wiles and Michael Baker as “offenders” is particularly insidious. These scientists provided evidence-based guidance that led to New Zealand’s enviable outcomes, among the lowest excess mortality rates globally at 0.4% compared to 5-10% in many other Western nations. Their crime, it seems, was informing policy that worked too well for the conspiracy-minded morons to stomach.

This petition is not just a misguided cry for accountability; it’s a cynical ploy to erode trust in institutions and inflame division. By framing Ardern and her team as villains, Reality Check Radio taps into a vein of resentment, amplified by misinformation that saw violent threats against Ardern triple in her second term. It’s a shameful attempt to rewrite a history where New Zealand’s successful response was lauded globally, with a 2021 OECD report ranking it among the most effective. 

The real offence lies in this petition’s reckless assault on reason, a desperate bid to keep Ardern in the crosshairs of a right-wing vendetta. Reality Check Radio must retract their nonsense before it further poisons public discourse.