New Zealand's Very Expensive Military Gamble

There is a particular kind of recklessness that masquerades as strategic vision. It does not announce itself as folly. It arrives dressed in the language of security partnerships, capability upgrades, and alliance obligations, and it is precisely this brand of recklessness that now defines the Luxon government's approach to New Zealand's military procurement.

The National-led coalition has committed approximately NZ$2.7 billion to the purchase of five Sikorsky Seahawk helicopters and associated military assets from the United States.

In August 2025, RNZ reported:

Watch: Judith Collins and Winston Peters reveal new $2.7b planes and helicopters

The purchases are the first that were forecast in the Defence Capability Plan unveiled in April, setting out an expected $12b in spending on defence assets over four years, $9b of that being new money.

The plan overall lifts New Zealand's defence spending to more than 2 percent of GDP over the next eight years.

There is a fundamental and largely unexamined question concerning these significant military acquisitions: what precisely does New Zealand receive in return for spending billions of dollars on American hardware, from an administration that has demonstrably withheld already-purchased, already-paid-for weapons from other allied nations the moment it suited Washington's political interests?

The answer, on current evidence, is very little. When the Trump administration ordered a freeze on military transfers, the consequences were not merely theoretical. Weapons already loaded onto trucks in Poland for onward delivery to Ukraine were stood down. Ammunition purchased using funds specifically appropriated by Congress for the purpose was simply not delivered.

Countries that had paid in good faith were left without the equipment they had contracted for and were offered no refund. These were not adversaries. They were partners, customers, and in several cases treaty allies who had done everything Washington asked of them.

New Zealand confirmed through MFAT that it had zero input into the Trump administration's Foreign Arms Sales Task Force priority partner list and did not even know whether it appeared on it. That the directive came with not only incentives but obligations: priority partners were expected to share production costs more substantially. New Zealand was apparently expected to pay more, without being consulted about whether it was considered a priority partner at all.

In April 2025, RNZ reported:

Officials don't know if NZ is on US priority weapons trading partners list

The NZ Defence Force is competing to get arms under its new $12 billion Defence Capability Plan in a world market where military spending is surging.

The NZDF talked with US lawmakers in April about potential opportunities to buy from the US, Official Information Act papers showed.

A foreign arms sales taskforce newly set up by Trump said it sought international input before launching its first six initiatives last month, including new legislation aimed to help lower the barriers that limit the proliferation of high-tech arms.

MFAT said: "New Zealand has not had any input into the taskforce."

 

That situation has since worsened. In February 2026, Trump signed a new executive order formally establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy, directing the Secretaries of Defense and State to develop clear priority partner criteria within 90 days and produce a prioritised sales catalogue within 120 days.

The order makes explicit that countries investing more heavily in their own defence and occupying a critical geographic role in US strategic plans will receive preferential treatment.

Despite increasing the military budget to 2% of GDP by 2032/33, as requested by the Trump administration, New Zealand has still received no public confirmation that it appears on that list. 

Official papers meanwhile show that 60 percent of the NZ Defence Force's $6 billion in arms currently on order is sourced from the United States. New Zealand has committed billions to a supplier whose formal priority framework it had no input into, whose criteria it may not meet, and whose list it may not even appear on.

This is the arrangement the Luxon government has chosen to deepen, at a cost of billions of dollars, during a period in which the geopolitical reliability of the United States as a supplier has been placed in serious and documented doubt. The pattern is not obscure. It is structural. American arms transfers have been converted from security commitments into instruments of political leverage, withheld when recipients pursue independent foreign policies, dangled when compliance is required, and apparently non-refundable in either case.

Meanwhile, the broader context in which New Zealand is making these procurement decisions has shifted considerably. The United States and Israel have conducted military operations across at least six countries in the past year, including strikes inside Qatar, a US Major Non-NATO Ally hosting the largest American air base in the region, without Doha's consent and with Qatar notified so late that it had no practical opportunity to prevent the attack.

The lesson for smaller allied nations is stark: allied status under the current Washington-Tel Aviv axis confers no guaranteed protection, and may offer no recourse whatsoever if the political winds change.

Against this backdrop, Winston Peters signed New Zealand's name to a joint statement expressing readiness to contribute to military efforts in the Strait of Hormuz, a strait closed in direct response to an American-led war launched without UN authorisation, and then spent the following week insisting the commitment meant nothing of the sort.

A functioning foreign minister cannot sign a document on a Friday and disclaim its meaning on a Tuesday. The commitment was made when New Zealand's name appeared on the paper.

What the Luxon government has managed, with impressive efficiency, is to spend billions locking New Zealand into military dependency on a supplier that does not consider us a priority, to sign documents attaching us to a war we had no hand in starting, and to do all of this without extracting a single meaningful concession in return. Not a tariff exemption. Not any guarantee of equipment delivery. Not a formal security guarantee. Not even confirmation that our name appears on the correct list.

Deference to Washington, as former Prime Minister Helen Clark and others have noted plainly, is not only distasteful. It is not working. And two and a half billion dollars' worth of helicopters, purchased from a government that views arms transfers as political bargaining chips, does not constitute a defence policy. It constitutes a very expensive gamble on the continued goodwill of an administration that has shown, repeatedly and in writing, that it does not feel especially obligated to honour its side of the arrangement.

New Zealand deserves better than that. It is not clear that this government has even noticed.

New Zealand Signs Up for Trump's War of Aggression

In a move that can only be described as complicity in an illegal war, the Luxon government has added New Zealand's name to a joint statement calling on Iran to cease its closure of the Strait of Hormuz and declaring the signatories ready "to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait."

The language sounds measured, even bureaucratic. It is neither. Examined carefully, the statement represents a significant departure from this country's independent foreign policy tradition, and it was made in the service of a war New Zealand had no hand in starting and no business joining.

The context is not complicated, whatever the government's communications staff might prefer. 

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Iran, killing the Supreme Leader and targeting nuclear sites, civilian and military installations. Iran responded by returning fire and closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately twenty percent of the world's seaborne oil normally passes. The US then launched a military and propaganda campaign to reopen the strait. New Zealand signed a statement expressing its willingness to assist with that effort. The causal chain here is not ambiguous.

What, precisely, did Luxon commit the country to? The joint statement expresses a readiness to contribute to "appropriate efforts," which is language deliberately vague enough to mean almost anything while binding the signatories to a political position that is entirely clear. Within days, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was telling Fox News that the signatory countries were working to "implement President Trump's vision" of reopening the strait. Rutte named New Zealand explicitly, alongside Australia, Japan, South Korea, the UAE and the NATO alliance itself.

On Tuesday, the ODT reported:

Peters denies NZ has signed up to secure Strait of Hormuz

Over the weekend, the government joined 19 other countries in condemning Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the Gulf.

In a collective statement, the countries including the United Kingdom and Germany, expressed "deep concern" about the escalating conflict. The statement also expressed its signatories would be ready "to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait".

They called on Iran to immediately cease threats, laying mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block commercial vessels from travelling through the Strait of Hormuz.

Winston Peters, cornered, insisted that Rutte had "probably been misinformed" and that the statement was "specifically narrow." Christopher Luxon attempted to clarify that any actual contribution would still require Cabinet approval. These reassurances collapse under scrutiny. A foreign minister cannot sign a document on behalf of his country and then disclaim what the document's chief proponent says it means.

The statement exists. New Zealand's name is on it. The framing of the exercise, as Donald Trump's vision being collectively implemented, was provided by the Secretary-General of NATO.

The legal position deserves examination. New Zealand's participation in any military operation would ordinarily require a United Nations mandate. No such mandate exists here. Labour leader Chris Hipkins was correct to note this plainly in Parliament, observing that the commitment was broad and that any support should follow a UN mandate that has not been sought. The UN Secretary-General called for the strait to be opened through multilateral means. The US-led operation is proceeding without that multilateral foundation. New Zealand's statement of readiness to contribute aligns the country with an unlawful, unilateral military enterprise, dressed in the language of freedom of navigation.

This is where Five Eyes becomes relevant. New Zealand's intelligence-sharing obligations under that arrangement have long created an asymmetry in this country's capacity for genuine foreign policy independence. When our signals intelligence apparatus is woven into a shared network dominated by Washington, "independence" in practice often means independence on issues Washington does not care about. The Hormuz crisis is an issue Washington cares very much about. The pressure on Five Eyes partners to close ranks is structural, not merely diplomatic.

The government's preferred framing is that New Zealand's concern is purely economic: fuel security, supply chains, cost of living. These are real concerns, and the closure of the strait has caused genuine hardship. But the remedy for an energy crisis created by a war that the United States started is not to join that war. New Zealand's fuel vulnerability is not Iran's doing. It is the consequence of the US-Israeli strikes, launched without New Zealand's knowledge or consent, in the name of a strategic agenda this country has never endorsed.

 

There is a direct line from Luxon's signature on that joint statement to the Trump administration's campaign to reshape the Middle East by force. The government wants to describe that line as dotted, provisional, not yet fully binding, like a contract initialled but not yet executed, subject to Cabinet review before anything concrete follows. It is not dotted. Signing a joint statement alongside a number of other allied countries, which was then cited by the NATO Secretary-General as evidence of collective support for Trump's strategic "vision" isn't provisional in any meaningful political sense.

The commitment was made the moment New Zealand's name appeared on the document. Cabinet approval for any subsequent military deployment is a domestic procedural step, but it does not undo the political signal already sent to Washington, NATO, and Tehran. That signal is one of solidarity with a military operation that lacks UN authorisation, serves American and Israel's strategic interests only, and has already cost thousands of innocent lives. New Zealand should not be on that list, and the government has not yet honestly explained to the public why it chose to put us there.

It is little wonder, then, that faced with mounting domestic criticism, Peters moved to try and distance himself from the implications of what he had already signed. A foreign minister who endorses a collective statement of military readiness on a Friday and spends the following Tuesday insisting it means nothing of the sort has not changed the country's position. He has merely changed his description of the government's support for an illegal war.

Also on Tuesday, RNZ reported:

Winston Peters says New Zealand not 'rushing to contribute military forces to this conflict'

The Foreign Minister says people shouldn't be alarmed that "somehow we're going to be engaged in some military exercise" following statements by the head of NATO including New Zealand as one of 22 countries "coming together" to secure the Strait of Hormuz.

It comes as Labour raises concerns about the "broad nature" of a joint statement New Zealand was part of over the weekend, and what the commitment may open the country up to.

Winston Peters said there had been "scaremongering" from critics who say the government is "rushing to contribute military forces to this conflict".

"What absolute crap, what absolute nonsense - New Zealand is not a party to this conflict, and we have absolutely no intention of joining it," he said at Parliament on Tuesday. 

  

What we are witnessing is the collision of three failures of political character. Donald Trump, having launched an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign state without UN authorisation, is now leaning on smaller allies to launder his campaign as a collective enterprise. Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government has conducted an extensive project of regional destruction, has found in Trump an accomplice willing to undertake what previous administrations would not start. And here in Wellington, Luxon and Peters have obliged them both, attaching New Zealand's name to their unjustifiable war of aggression and then, when challenged, pretending they had done no such thing.

Peters' assurance that New Zealand has "absolutely no intention" of joining the conflict would carry more weight if he had not already signed a document expressing readiness to do exactly that. These are not statesmen navigating a crisis. They are politicians managing a communications problem, while the bodies mount and the fires burn, and New Zealand's good name is spent in the service of an empire that does not particularly care about our country at all.

New Zealand's Housing Crisis Needs a CGT Cure

The Labour Party has finally released it's long-anticipated capital gains tax (CGT) policy, and despite the resulting and predictable right-wing backlash, it's a thoroughly researched and measured approach, targeting profits from the sale of residential and commercial investment properties at a flat 28 per cent rate, commencing July 1, 2027, exempting family homes, farms, and inheritances.

The revenue, projected at $385 million in its first full year rising to $1.35 billion thereafter, would fund a "Medicard" granting every New Zealander three free GP visits annually. This is no radical upheaval, but a pragmatic alignment with global norms...a quiet assertion that untaxed windfalls from non-productive bricks and mortar should shoulder some burden for the public good.

On Wednesday, 1 News reported:

 

'Bring it on': Hipkins targets Luxon in capital gains tax debate

National has been poised to jump on Labour's long-awaited tax policy and has already pushed out a series of attack ads on social media.

Asked about those ads, Hipkins said he was more than happy to debate Christopher Luxon about his personal finances.

"Bring it on. He sold four houses last year and made more money, tax free, from doing that than he made in the prime minister's salary, which he paid tax on every dollar of.

"Why should he be able to make more than $600,000 in one year from flipping properties whilst the people who go out and work hard every day for a living pay tax on every single dollar that they earn?"

However, as with any whisper of equity in our overheated fiscal debates, the response from the governing coalition has been a cacophony of outrage, a theatrical overreaction befitting a Shakespearean farce. Christopher Luxon, from his perch in Malaysia, decried it as "a tax on every single business in New Zealand," a handbrake on growth that would inflate consumer prices. Finance Minister Nicola Willis echoed the Prime Minister's alarmism, branding it a "terrible idea" that burdens small enterprises. ACT's David Seymour invoked "tall-poppy politics," while New Zealand First dismissed the rollout as a "trainwreck."

The problem for the incumbents is that their fear-mongering, dressed as fiscal prudence, is being laughed out of the room. Their reflexive defence of the status quo where capital accrues to the few while the many scramble for scraps is clearly not supported by the majority of New Zealanders, particularly those who haven't secured a family home yet.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins rightly countered those who want the housing crisis to get worse by succinctly pointing out that it's "the most progressive tax change in a generation," a simple mechanism to redistribute the fruits of speculation towards healthcare for all.

The right's hysteria ignores a plain truth: New Zealand stands anomalous among OECD peers in shunning a comprehensive CGT. Only Mexico joins us in this outlier status; the rest, from the United Kingdom to Canada and our trans-Tasman kin, levy such taxes on capital gains, often at rates exceeding 20 per cent, without precipitating economic Armageddon. Denmark tops the scale at 42 per cent, Norway close behind at 37.2 per cent, yet their economies hum with innovation and productivity those within New Zealand's current government can only dream of.

These nations prove that taxing unearned gains does not stifle enterprise; it channels investment from speculative housing towards ventures that build lasting wealth and safeguard society from the dysfunction of rampant inequality. In our own backyard, the absence of such a levy has fuelled a property obsession, distorting capital away from productive ends and into the hands of flippers who treat homes as mere commodities. Non of their hoarded wealth trickles down.

Worse still is the National Party's parade of disinformation, a deliberate sleight of hand to obscure the proposal's narrow scope. Luxon and Willis peddled the myth that it ensnares "every business," when Labour's design spares shares, KiwiSaver, and most commercial operations unless tied to property sales. This is not oversight; it is calculated distortion, echoing past disinformation campaigns where National accused opponents of "tax and spend" follies. The truth, as Deloitte's Robyn Walker affirms, is a "sensible middle ground" that mirrors the 2018 Tax Working Group's pragmatic recommendations.


On Tuesday, RNZ reported:

What you need to know: Seven questions about a capital gains tax

The minority view of the report said it agreed there was a strong case for extending taxes to untaxed capital gains.

But it said the comprehensive capital gains tax as proposed in the group's wider final report would outweigh the benefits.

"In our view a comprehensive approach would impose efficiency, compliance and administrative costs that would not be outweighed by the increased revenue, fairness perceptions, and possible integrity benefits of the broader approach. Instead we support a more moderate approach of extending current rules taxing gains, to property categories, only to the extent that benefits clearly exceed costs."

Robyn Walker, tax partner at Deloitte, said Labour's proposal was a sensible middle ground that mirrored that view.

"I think it's a good compromise, I guess, and it means that hopefully we're not like in the weeds on the details of capital gains taxes for the next 12 months, which even as a tax person, I don't want to do that."

 

The right-wing's fear tactics betray a deeper unease: the proposal unmasks the coalition's own indulgences. Consider Luxon himself, whose property portfolio has been a study in untaxed bounty. Before entering politics, he amassed seven Auckland holdings. Recent sales, a Grey Street, Onehunga unit for a tax-free gain potentially exceeding $250,000, and another Onehunga unit netting $295,000, have swollen his coffers, all shielded from capital levies. His on-paper gains topped $4.34 million last year alone, a sum nearly nine times his parliamentary salary.

Luxon claims transparency, yet his property flips evaded scrutiny under the old bright-line test. This is the man decrying a CGT as a growth-killer, while his government eases the very rules that once curbed such unproductive profiteering.

Under National's watch, the bright-line test, Labour's 2021 extension to 10 years, was slashed to two years from July 1, 2024, allowing quicker flips without tax. Interest deductibility for rentals, phased out by Labour to cool speculation, has been restored: 80 per cent from April 2024, full by 2025. These tweaks supercharge flipping as a "business," rewarding those who treat housing as a casino rather than a human right.

Many coalition MPs ledgers brim with numerous investment property assets. 33 National MPs command a whopping 117 investment properties, making their own personal interest, not the public good, their driving philosophy. National's coalition partners aren't much better. ACT's Parmjeet Parmar for instance lists seven Auckland holdings, making property value increases a paramount driver in all policy development. Scandals abound, from David Seymour lying about his three properties while claiming he couldn't afford one on an MPs salary to numerous National MPs in 2013 shielding rentals in superannuation schemes to recent trust-shuffles, like National MP Carl Bates' 25 properties tucked away pre-election, evading the pecuniary register. Trusts, those opaque veils, largely conceal Member's spousal assets and valuations, rendering parliaments so-called transparency a farce.

Flipping houses shouldn't masquerade as legitimate enterprise in a nation where shelter is a cornerstone of dignity and a requirement for survival. Speculating in property has birthed a deepening crisis: Stats NZ reports homeownership at only 66.0 per cent, with young Kiwis (25-29) at just 44 per cent, down from 61 per cent in 1991. The median multiple (house price to income) hovers at 7.7, "severely unaffordable", with Auckland at around ten times what the average household earns. Median prices linger at $761,000 nationally, $909,000 average value, while rents strain at $635 per week. 51 per cent of Kiwis cite high prices as the paramount barrier, 49 per cent the rental squeeze. Renters, 83 per cent aspiring to own, despair: 62 per cent deem it unattainable. They have given up on the Kiwi dream of owning a house and having a family or will be moving abroad.

A CGT is no panacea, but it is a vital corrective, curbing the frenzy that prices families out and starves public services, an issue compounded by those in positions of power, which is a vital step to safeguarding New Zealand's future. The coalition's propaganda, laced with Luxon's own gains and their asset-hoarding mentality, rings completely hollow. It's time to tax the flippers, not those who aspire to home ownership. Only then might we reclaim a housing market for the many, and not just the vested few.

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.

They're Distracting You From Their Policy Failures

In a political landscape increasingly defined by distraction and dysfunction, the National-led coalition has descended into a quagmire of trivial pursuits and economic neglect. The latest offerings from Winston Peters and David Seymour exemplify this trend: Peters’ pointless push to legislate the countries name as, well, New Zealand, and Seymour’s obsession with deregulating the placement of backyard sheds. These aren't the actions of a government focused on the pressing issues facing Aotearoa; they're the desperate ploys of government MPs scrambling to stay in the headlines while the economy teeters and ordinary Kiwis bear the brunt.

 

On Friday, the NZ Herald reported:

 

Making ‘New Zealand’ country’s official name added to NZ First’s ever-changing list of bills

New Zealand First’s stack of publicly announced Member’s Bills has grown yet again, with the party today proposing legislation to make “New Zealand” the official name of the country in law.

The legislation – which still needs to be picked from the ballot of Member’s Bills – comes in response to the party’s unease over the use of “Aotearoa”, including in Parliament. 

 

...

It’s the eighth Member’s Bill the party has announced this year, but due to the rules of Parliament, NZ First is only able to have four in the ballot at any one time.

Only MPs who aren’t ministers – NZ First has four backbenchers – can have Member’s Bills and they can only have one in the ballot at a time.

This has meant the party has had to shuffle out several of the bills it has previously announced, but which remain on NZ First’s website as “Our Member’s Bills”.

For example, the “Conscience Acts Referendums Bill”, which was revealed in March to remove conscience votes in Parliament and instead require some particular legislation to go to a national public referendum, no longer appears on Parliament’s website.

Let’s start with Winston Peters' bungling, whose proposal to enshrine “New Zealand” as the country’s official name is another play for the bigoted vote. The name is already codified in law, used globally, and etched into our national identity. This legislative stunt serves no practical purpose and diverts parliamentary resources, which could be better utilised to try and fix the countries more pressing issues, such as homelessness and the cost of living crisis. It reeks of Peters’ trademark populism, a distraction from the coalition’s inability to address substantive issues it appears to have no intention of actually solving.

Similarly, David Seymour has championed easing rules on shed placement, arguing that shrinking section sizes justifies this change. While Seymour frames this as a win for homeowners, it’s a policy so niche it barely registers against the backdrop of people's economic hardship. There's no record of any New Zealander ever being fined for having a garden shed in the wrong place, leading one to wonder: is this really the best use of ministerial time when 112,496 people face severe housing deprivation? These trivial policies are part of a broader pattern of headline-grabbing stunts designed to mask the coalition’s lethargy on substantive issues such as Gaza. They're trying to distract you from their economic mismanagement as well.

Furthermore, the government’s decision to overhaul the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is another knee-jerk reaction, rushed through without robust research or consultation in an attempt to take the focus off of the consequences of their policies, such as declining achievement rates, a decline that's largely the result of our reduced living standards. But instead of actually doing anything to make sure children and young people are in a position to actually learn and reach their full potential, the coalition is more concerned with saving money by providing inedible school lunches.

Education Minister Erica Stanford’s plan to replace NCEA, a system in place for over 20 years, with a new framework lacks evidence of its efficacy. Only 56% of students passed NCEA literacy and numeracy writing tests in June 2023, and 64% passed reading, yet the coalition offers no data to suggest their overhaul will improve these figures. They're again using the opportunity to blame Labour for unworkable NCEA changes brought in by the John Key led National government. This move appears less about educational reform and more about diverting attention from the cost-of-living crisis, where consumer inflation remains stubbornly high and domestic price pressures show no signs of easing, which is having a detrimental effect on young people's ability to learn.

The coalition’s economic mismanagement is also starkly evident in the escalating wave of business liquidations and mounting mortgage stress. Since the National-led government took office in November 2023, business liquidations have surged, with 2,976 companies entering liquidation in 2024 alone, a 27% increase year-on-year, driven heavily by the downturn in construction, hospitality, and our retail sectors. Non-performing loans have also risen, with 485,000 consumers in arrears as of May 2025, including 21,900 mortgage holders behind by over 30 days. With New Zealand’s GDP contracting by 2.1% in the year to September 2024, despite a population growth of 1.2%, and net core Crown debt reaching $175.5 billion (42.5% of GDP) in June 2024, the economic outlook is grim. Treasury forecasts debt to climb to $192 billion by mid-2026, and economists warn that ongoing austerity and global trade shocks, such as Trump's 15% tariffs, could push liquidation rates higher, with small-to-medium enterprises (97% of New Zealand’s businesses) particularly vulnerable to further closures.

Meanwhile, mortgage holders face mounting pressure as interest rates, which rose sharply from 2.58% in August 2021 to a peak of 7.5% by January 2024 under the previous Labour government’s tenure, have only modestly declined under the National-led coalition. As of July 2025, the average one-year fixed mortgage rate sits at 4.97%, a drop of about 170 basis points since the Reserve Bank began cutting the Official Cash Rate (OCR) from 5.5% to 3.25% since August 2024. It's little wonder that the major banks are making record breaking profits ($7.22 billion in 2024) given they aren't always passing on the Reserve Bank's monetary stimulus. This relief is marginal for many, as debt-servicing costs remain elevated.

The National-led government’s trickle down economics and tax cuts, which disproportionately benefit higher earners, have failed to stimulate any meaningful economic recovery. Wage growth, slowing to 3.7% in June 2025 from 6.9% in June 2023, lags behind living costs, with inflation at 2.7% in June 2025 (up from 2.1% estimates) and essentials like rent, food, and utilities consuming 62–98% of disposable income for many low-income households. This mismatch exacerbates financial strain, as the coalition’s focus on fiscal restraint over investment stifles demand and deepens hardship for ordinary Kiwis.

David Seymour’s rhetoric about “saving” even more money (read less money in your back pocket), through further cuts and policy tinkering, such as his Regulatory Standards Bill, is a hollow promise that threatens to deepen New Zealand’s economic woes. Far from delivering efficiency, the bill imposes $50–60 million annually in administrative costs, as estimated by MBIE, due to mandatory Consistency Accountability Statements and a new Regulatory Standards Board that duplicates existing oversight mechanisms. Seymour and other coalition MPs have falsely claimed that the holy grail of artificial intelligence will somehow magically streamline these processes to reduce costs, yet experts like Victoria University’s Andrew Lensen has categorically debunk this claim, noting AI’s need for human oversight limits cost savings. Even if AI had the ability to streamline the government's processes, their failure to adapt is in stark contrast to their dishonest rhetoric, especially in respect to the National led government slashing $1.5 billion from public sector budgets, including innovation and digital transformation programmes. There's no question that since taking office in November 2023, the coalition has stifled AI development critical for economic resilience. By cutting and deregulating without researching long-term impacts, Seymour’s latest iteration of an already defeated bill undermines worker protections and environmental standards, standards that are there to ensure that taxpayers don't always foot the bill for things like the extractive industries environmental pollution. This reckless approach pulls money from an already struggling economy, money that could be going towards more productive sectors such as business innovation and housing security.

Westpac’s senior economist Satish Ranchhod warns that domestic inflation pressures will persist, yet Seymour’s policies seem poised to deepen hardship for the 120,000 already deprived children struggling to get by amid the cost-of-living crisis. It's becoming more aparent with every press release that this “Coalition of Chaos” government thrives on distraction, not delivery.

From Peters’ name game to Seymour’s shed obsession, their policies are an excercise in irrelevance. Meanwhile, the real issues, rising homelessness, the cost of living crisis, hungry children, business failures, and mortgage stress, go unaddressed. With 65% of New Zealanders believing the economy is rigged for the rich, the coalition’s focus on trivialities only fuels discontent. Aotearoa deserves better: a government that tackles the cost-of-living crisis head-on, not one that rearranges the deck chairs while the economy continues to burn.

Luxon Doesn't Think the Proud Boys are Terrorists

In a highly questionable move, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has allowed the Proud Boys, a far-right group with a track record of extreme violence, to slip off the New Zealand terrorist watch list. Despite advice from the NZ Police and other government agencies, Luxon’s administration opted not to renew the designation under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, effectively decriminalising support for a group linked to the January 6 US Capitol riot that caused nine deaths, including the deaths of five police officers.

Earlier this month, RNZ reported:

It's no longer illegal to be a proudly violent Proud Boy

It started as a fringe movement in the United States - a group of self-described "Western chauvinists" known as the Proud Boys.

A bunch of them were jailed after the 6 January US election riots, and they have now been pardoned by President Trump.

Their legacy of far-right extremism, violent rhetoric, and polarising influence has raised questions not just in American courtrooms but on Kiwi shores too.

"They have been organising in New Zealand, although they deny that is the case," Stuff investigative journalist Paula Penfold tells The Detail.

"Now, the terrorist designation that they were given [in New Zealand] in 2022 has been allowed to expire, and we don't yet know the reasons for that to have been allowed to happen, we don't yet know whether the Proud Boys are still active in New Zealand, but we think it's pretty important that our authorities should find out."

Founded in 2016 by Gavin McInnes, the Proud Boys quickly gained notoriety for their involvement in violent street clashes, their role in the 6 January Capitol riots, and their unwavering embrace of conspiracy theories.

This decision, shrouded in secrecy, raises serious questions about the National-led government’s priorities and its troubling alignment with extremist ideologies. As we dissect this choice, we must also confront broader patterns of complicity, from ACT’s flirtations with white supremacists to National’s cosy relationship with Trumpian politics, and the urgent need to curb the influence of fascists in Aotearoa.

The Proud Boys’ designation, established in 2022, was a response to their role in the Capitol riot and their crypto-fascist tactics. Yet, Luxon’s inaction suggests a troubling dismissal of his own agencies expert advice and previous decisions made by the Jacinda Ardern administration.

Why would he take such a risk? Evidence points to political expediency. National’s coalition with ACT and NZ First, the most right-wing New Zealand government in decades, may be reluctant to alienate conservative voters by targeting far-right groups. 

But questions remain. Why would, for instance, the National coalition of chaos fail to designate the Proud Boys, a group who murders police officers, as terrorists while putting other white supremacist groups on the list?

Last week, the NZ Herald reported:

Extremist white supremacist group behind race war plots remains on NZ terrorism watchlist

A violent neo-Nazi hate group with international reach has been relisted as a terrorist entity by the New Zealand Government, amid ongoing efforts to prevent extremist ideologies from taking root or operating within the country.

The Base is a white supremacist “militant accelerationist paramilitary group” that advocates for the violent overthrow of existing governments to establish white “ethnostates”.

The group’s ideology is said to be “rooted in extreme racism, antisemitism, and the belief in an impending race war”.

It is active in the US and Canada, with reports of training cells in Europe, South Africa and Australia.

The group, also known as TB, was first designated as a terrorist entity in New Zealand in June 2022 alongside another US group, the Proud Boys.

The decision also appears to align with diplomatic pressures from the Trump administration, which has pardoned Proud Boys members, even those who murdered police, and downplayed their threat. Many Proud Boys are reportedly linked to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), engaging in human rights abuses by abducting law abiding migrants and detaining them in concentration camps without due process. Allowing such individuals, some convicted of killing police, freedom to travel to New Zealand is reckless and indefensible. Clearly, fascists with blood on their hands should be barred from our shores, full stop.

This isn’t an isolated incident. The National-led government’s flirtation with extremism is part of a broader and uglier pattern. ACT leader David Seymour, for instance, has accepted donations from individuals openly advocating for violence against Muslims, including those boasting about bombing mosques. Such associations aren't mere oversights; they signal a willingness to court extremist support for political gain.

Similarly, the recent invitation of James Lindsay, a US commentator who peddles debunked “white genocide” conspiracies, to speak at ACT’s 2025 Rally underscores how far-right ideologies are being promoted and platformed by our right-wing politicians. Lindsay’s rhetoric, cloaked in free speech dogma, fuels division and emboldens white supremacists to hate on minority groups.

 

In 2022, Salon reported:

Meet James Lindsay, the far right’s “world-level expert” on CRT and “Race Marxism”

In a Feb. 5 appearance on Glenn Beck’s talk show — which Beck called “probably the most important podcast perhaps that we’ve ever done” — self-proclaimed critical race theory expert James Lindsay issued a dire warning. While discussing dark right-wing theories about “The Great Reset” and Democratic-run reeducation camps for the unvaccinated, Lindsay warned that a severe reckoning was at hand for the world’s elites: “It’s coming for them. They’re going to lose all of their power. They’re going to be exposed for crimes the likes of which we’ve never seen in human history.”

...

In 2018, as a math PhD running a business that fused massage therapy with martial arts, and a supporting character in the foundering New Atheism movement, Lindsay became a national name by pulling off a deft hoax that made liberal academics look dumb. Along with two co-conspirators, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian, Lindsay drafted 20 fake research papers with outlandish premises — to research canine “rape culture” at dog parks, or a proposition that men use dildos on themselves to overcome transphobia — and submitted them to a series of often obscure scholarly journals.

Around a third of the papers were accepted, and in 2018, the hoaxers, all of whom then called themselves liberals — although Boghossian was closely associated with accused white supremacist and “race realist” Stefan Molyneux, who has argued that Black people are “collectively less intelligent” than other races — revealed the experiment as an exposé on the terminal wokeness of academia, particularly the identity-oriented fields that the three called “grievance studies.”

 

When government-aligned parties amplify such divisive voices, they legitimise hate, undermining the social cohesion Aotearoa prides itself on.

Luxon’s government also helps to promote extremist views while also mirroring the Trump administration’s playbook, particularly in its erosion of indigenous rights. National’s coalition has pushed unpopular policies like the review of the Treaty of Waitangi, which undermines Māori sovereignty and echoes Trump’s marginalisation of Native American communities. This alignment isn’t coincidental.

As Trump pardons Proud Boys and weakens democratic norms, National’s soft stance on far-right groups suggests a shared ideological drift. Both governments prioritise appeasing conservative bases over protecting marginalised communities, whether it’s Māori here or migrants in US detention (concentration) camps. This convergence is a stark warning: when leaders downplay extremism, they pave the way for its normalisation.

The need to reduce white supremacist influence in New Zealand has never been more urgent. The Proud Boys, with their history of violence and ties to authoritarian regimes, are not a theoretical threat. Their lapsed designation risks emboldening local white supremacist sympathiser.

Aotearoa must not become a haven for fascists or a stage for their propaganda. Luxon’s government must reverse course, heed the advice of their security experts, and reinstate the Proud Boys’ designation as terrorists without further delay. Beyond that, it must reject the influence of extremists, whether through donations to ACT or invitations to divisive figures.

New Zealanders deserve a government that stands firm against hate, not one that cuddles it for political points. This is a moment for vigilance. The National-led government’s actions, ignoring advice, platforming extremists, and aligning with Trump’s racist agenda, threaten the values of inclusivity and justice that define Aotearoa. We must demand accountability, reject fascism in all its forms, and protect our communities from those who would divide us. The Proud Boys belong on the terrorist watch list, and white supremacists belong nowhere near our politics.

Politicised COVID Inquiry Targets Labour

In the grand theatre of New Zealand politics, the Coalition of Chaos has turned the second phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned into a stage for partisan point-scoring, rather than a genuine pursuit of truth. This expanded inquiry, set to conclude by February 2026, is being framed by right-wing politicians as a necessary deepening of scrutiny into New Zealand’s pandemic response.

Unfortunately, the reality is far murkier. The coalition, driven by New Zealand First’s anti-mandate rhetoric and bolstered by selective public submissions, is misleading voters about the inquiry’s origins and purpose, using it as a cudgel to attack the Labour Party, particularly former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her successor, Chris Hipkins, while falsely claiming Phase Two covers entirely new ground.

The coalition’s narrative, as trumpeted by ACT Party leader David Seymour and Minister Brooke van Velden, suggests Phase Two emerged organically from public demand for answers on vaccine mandates, the 2021 Auckland/Northland lockdowns, and socio-economic impacts. This conveniently glosses over the obvious political machinery at work. The inquiry’s expansion was heavily shaped by coalition agreements with New Zealand First, whose election campaign leaned hard into anti-mandate sentiment.

Another fail @chrishipkins. The terms of reference were driven by public consultation. The people have a lot to say about your hapless, and often cruel reign as COVID Response Minister. pic.twitter.com/8cgVe1kWAQ

— David Seymour (@dbseymour) July 8, 2025

While many of the 13,000 public submissions during the first inquiry did highlight concerns about lockdowns and vaccines, as noted on the inquiry’s website, these were filtered through a coalition lens eager to spotlight Labour’s supposed missteps. The second inquiries February–March 2024 consultation period, ostensibly for public input, was more a formality rather than a driver, with the terms of reference reflecting the coalition government's priorities over any broad public consensus.

The terms of reference for Phase Two appear deliberately crafted to sidestep scrutiny of decisions made during the 2017–2020 period when New Zealand First was in coalition with Labour, revealing a calculated effort to shield their own record while targeting Labour’s. 

The inquiry’s focus, as outlined in the 25 June 2024 Beehive announcement, zeroes in on the 2021 Auckland/Northland lockdowns and vaccine mandate decisions, conveniently post-dating New Zealand First’s time in government. This omission is glaring, given that early pandemic responses, such as initial border policies and economic support measures, were shaped under the Labour-NZ First coalition.

By limiting Phase Two to later decisions, the coalition avoids examining New Zealand First’s role in those formative policies, while amplifying criticism of Labour’s 2021 actions under Ardern and Hipkins. This selective framing, driven by New Zealand First’s influence in the current coalition, ensures that their past governance escapes the spotlight, allowing them to posture as critics of Labour’s pandemic strategy without facing accountability for their own contributions.


On Monday, the NZ Herald reported:

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour on Ardern, supermarket duopoly, and minimum sentences

Seymour told Herald NOW’s Ryan Bridge that although the Royal Commission is an independent body and they cannot direct it, if it were up to him, he would absolutely make sure Ardern fronted at the inquiry.

“Now, we need to get to the bottom of what happened, who it affected, not just because of history, but because there will be more epidemics in my and your lifetime.

“She was the key decision-maker through that period. But whether she does is up to her, whether she’s requisitioned by the commission is up to them. I just make the observation that this stuff’s important and all voices should be at the table.”

This politicisation, which is arguably a complete waste of taxpayers' money, is most evident in the coalition’s attacks on Ardern and Hipkins. By focusing Phase Two on vaccine mandates and lockdown decisions, issues Labour championed, the coalition is effectively predicating a conclusion that paints the former government as heavy-handed before findings are even released. 

The inquiry’s terms, as outlined in the 25 June 2024 Beehive announcement, zero in on the “justification” and “equity” of the 2021 lockdowns, areas where Labour’s policies faced public backlash and have already been highlighted in the previous inquiries findings.

This is no accident. National, ACT and New Zealand First are weaponising the inquiry to rehash controversies, framing Ardern’s leadership as divisive and Hipkins’ stewardship as bumbling, despite Phase One’s report already acknowledging the complexities of those decisions. The coalition’s claim, echoed in van Velden’s unhinged statements, that Phase Two covers entirely new ground is therefore misleading. 

The Auckland/Northland lockdowns and vaccine mandates were examined in Phase One, albeit more broadly, as part of public health responses. Phase Two’s narrower focus, decision-making processes and equity impacts, revisits these issues with a clear intent to amplify Labour’s perceived failures.


Yesterday, Stuff reported: 

 

Paddy Gower: The Covid inquiry should call Jacinda Ardern - and she should answer its questions

How good would it be if Dame Jacinda Ardern fronted up to the Covid inquiry?

It would be really good for New Zealand, in my opinion.

The inquiry reopened this week, and it has the ability to call Ardern to answer questions about the Covid response.

In my view, the inquiry should call her - and she should appear.

For Jacinda Ardern, engaging with this politicised inquiry risks lending legitimacy to a politically charged exercise. Her leadership during the pandemic, while not flawless, was globally lauded for its early decisiveness, saving an estimated 20,000 lives. The coalition’s attempt to rewrite history clearly serves their more unhinged electoral base, not the public good. In my opinion, Ardern, who has said she will supply evidence, should otherwise largely ignore Phase Two, focusing instead on her post-political work. 

The inquiry’s findings are unlikely to shift public memory of her tenure, which remains anchored in New Zealand’s low death toll and community resilience. Responding to criticism risks entangling her in a coalition-scripted culture war, where facts will be secondary to optics.

This inquiry reeks of the same cynicism seen throughout the government's propaganda, pandering to a vocal minority while distorting broader truths. New Zealanders deserve an inquiry that seeks lessons, not vendettas. By using Phase Two to attack Labour, the coalition undermines the Royal Commission’s integrity, while misleading the public about its origins and purpose. Ardern, and the country, are better served by looking forward, not indulging a backward-looking political stunt.

Bob Vylan Censored While Gaza Genocide Ignored

The recent blacklisting of British punk-rap group Bob Vylan, following their provocative chant of “death, death to the IDF” at Glastonbury 2025, exposes a chilling double standard in Western governance.

The swift and heavy-handed response, launching a criminal investigation, revoking the band’s visas, cancelling future concerts, and seeing them dropped by their agency, stands in stark contrast to western government's silence on Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza. 

This is not merely an attack on free speech; it's a grotesque display of selective outrage, where dissent against a genocidal military machine is punished while mass starvation and slaughter is ignored.


Yesterday, The Irish News reported:

Police investigate Bob Vylan over ‘death to IDF’ call at gig before Glastonbury

Punk duo Bob Vylan are being investigated by police after allegedly calling for “death to every single IDF soldier out there” at a concert one month before Glastonbury.

The pair are already being investigated by Avon and Somerset Police over their appearance at Worthy Farm when rapper Bobby Vylan led crowds in chants of “death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)” during their livestreamed performance at the Somerset music festival last weekend.

In video footage, Bobby Vylan, whose real name is reportedly Pascal Robinson-Foster, 34, appears to be at Alexandra Palace telling crowds: “Death to every single IDF soldier out there as an agent of terror for Israel. Death to the IDF.”

Bob Vylan’s chant, raw and unfiltered, was a cry against the Israel Defense Forces’ documented brutality, which has seen over 56,000 Palestinians killed since October 2023, many of them women and children. The United Nations has described Israel’s actions as consistent with genocide, yet Western governments continue to arm and defend Israel while condemning artists who dare speak truth to power. 

Bobby Vylan’s words, far from inciting violence, we're a justified response to a military force that has shot unarmed Palestinians seeking food aid, with soldiers admitting to using “unnecessary lethal force” against civilians. This is the real scandal, not a musician’s chant, but the West’s complicity in a humanitarian catastrophe.

Silence is not an option. pic.twitter.com/i5ubnDntUo

— Bob Vylan (@BobbyVylan) July 1, 2025

In New Zealand, the hypocrisy is equally glaring. Free speech advocates like David Seymour, who once championed unfettered expression, have been conspicuously silent or contradictory when it comes to Bob Vylan’s case. Seymour’s libertarian rhetoric falters when the speech challenges Israel, revealing a selective commitment to free expression that bends to geopolitical convenience. 

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Winston Peters has sat on his hands over what is clearly a terrorist group, the IDF, as New Zealand quietly removed the Proud Boys from its terrorist list, despite their history of violent assaults, including the January 6 Capitol riot in the US, which caused the deaths of nine people, including police officers.

Today, RNZ reported:

It's no longer illegal to be a proudly violent Proud Boy

Then, in 2022, the New Zealand government took a bold stance, listing the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity, a move that made global headlines and was praised by anti-extremism campaigners.

"It was big news... and what it would mean in practice was that anyone who supported or funded or participated in Proud Boys actions here was committing a criminal act, imprisonable by up to seven years, so it was a big deal," Penfold says.

But then last month, without any fanfare, the group slipped off the list of designated terrorist entities.

The only statement on the move was released on the website of the New Zealand Gazette - the newspaper of the government. Penfold describes it as bland and brief.

"The designation had been made under the Terrorism Suppression Act... and every three years that designation will expire unless the prime minister seeks to extend it."

When asked why he didn't extend it, a response to Penfold from the prime minister's office "didn't specifically answer that", but she was told "the Proud Boys remain on the radar... and if any new information comes to hand, they will consider it."

"Those who monitor terrorist organisations and far-right extremist groups... are really concerned at this step that the designation has been allowed to lapse", Penfold says.

So as New Zealand grapples with the rise of conspiracy-fuelled protests and declining trust in democratic institutions, the Proud Boys' shadow, although faint, may still be felt.

 

The government should not be ignoring the Proud Boys' role in spreading white supremacist propaganda, propaganda that has lead directly to people dying. This leniency towards far-right extremists, who've incited and committed real violence, contrasts sharply with the heavy-handed crackdowns on pro-Palestinian voices.

Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch mosque shooter, was radicalised on websites like 4chan and 8chan, where white supremacist narratives, including the "Great Replacement" conspiracy, festered in unmoderated forums. These same platforms, known for their extremist subcultures, were also used by the Proud Boys to propagate their "Western chauvinist" ideology, share memes, and recruit members, creating an overlapping digital ecosystem of hate.

Other white supremacist figures linked to the Proud Boys and similar online spaces include Dylann Roof, who massacred nine Black worshippers in Charleston in 2015 and was active on sites like Stormfront...and Patrick Crusius, the 2019 El Paso shooter, who posted a manifesto on 8chan echoing the same anti-immigrant rhetoric embraced by Proud Boys, which is earily similar to the rhetoric used by Donald Trump to justify the illegal ICE abductions. The shared use of these platforms underscores a broader network of far-right radicalisation fuelling violent acts.

On Tuesday, the NZ Herald reported:

Christchurch mosque attacks: Podcast questions lone wolf theory

Tarrant was asked to join the Lads Society, an Australian white nationalist and Islamophobic extremist group, in 2017.

Following Tarrant’s attack in Christchurch, the group’s members posted to a closed social media channel.

Some celebrated the attack, others questioned if it was a false flag, possibly to restrict firearms access in New Zealand.

“This one’s not a false flag. Take my word for it,” the group’s founder Thomas Sewell said.

“He seems to know more than the others,” another member replied.

“What do you mean, take my word for it. That almost sounds like you know the cobber.”

Sewell then responded – Tarrant had “been in the scene for a while”.

Sewell later compared Tarrant to Nelson Mandela, saying he would be imprisoned until “we win the revolution”.

 
In stark contrast, the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group for spray-painting planes and buildings with red paint is another grotesque overreach. This non-violent protest group, which seeks to disrupt western arms supplies to Israel, is branded a threat to national security, while Israel’s starvation policies and bombing of civilians in tents and aid sites go unchallenged.

In Gaza, hundreds have been killed near food distribution hubs, with Israeli soldiers openly admitting to treating starving women and children as a “hostile force.” Western governments offer tepid criticisms at best, while their actions, continued arms exports and diplomatic support, enable the carnage.

The hypocrisy extends beyond individual cases to systemic patterns of enforcement. Across Western nations, authorities deploy extraordinary measures against pro-Palestinian demonstrations while showing remarkable restraint toward far-right rallies that openly promote racial hatred. Police forces that brutalise peaceful protesters demanding an end to the collective punishment in Gaza then turn their attention to escorting white supremacist marches safely through diverse communities.

Free speech advocates who once championed absolute protection for controversial expression now perform intellectual contortions to justify censoring criticism of unjustified military actions. These same voices, who defended the rights of Holocaust deniers and racial provocateurs under abstract principles of open discourse, suddenly discover compelling state interests that justify silencing uncomfortable truths about contemporary violence.

UK PM Keir Starmer has condemned Bob Vylan’s “Death to the IDF” chant at Glastonbury, calling it “appalling hate speech” and saying no artist should incite violence or make threats on stage.

🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/hdtNygFZAk pic.twitter.com/HJlqAKruoQ

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 29, 2025

This selective censorship reveals the true nature of Western liberal democracy's commitment to free expression: it extends only as far as speech that doesn't threaten established power structures or challenge strategic geopolitical relationships. Artists, activists, and ordinary citizens who dare name ongoing atrocities face swift punishment, while actual violent extremists operate with relative impunity.

The Bob Vylan controversy thus represents far more than an isolated incident of artistic censorship. It exemplifies a broader authoritarian drift wherein Western governments abandon foundational democratic principles when confronted with dissent that threatens preferred narratives. When free speech becomes conditional upon political convenience, democracy itself withers.

This is the West’s moral collapse: a world where punk bands are vilified for decrying genocide, but white supremacists and war criminals are indulged. Bob Vylan’s blacklisting isn't just an attack on art; it's a warning to all who dare challenge the status quo. As socialist Jewish activist Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi noted, suppressing outrage against a “televised genocide” only fuels its expression. If New Zealand and its Western allies truly valued free speech and justice, they would hold Israel to account, not silence those who speak for the oppressed.

David Seymour Wants More People to Die From Cancer

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

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

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

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

Today, Newsroom reported:

 

Seymour’s ‘light up’ message alarms tobacco researchers

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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


Last year, Newsroom reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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