Majority of Voters Think Budget 2025 is Terrible

The latest Talbot Mills Research poll has dropped a bombshell on the National-led coalition’s Budget 2025, and it’s not pretty. According to the NZ Herald, only 22% of Kiwis think this budget is good for New Zealand, while 33% reckon it’s outright bad. On a personal level, it’s even grimmer, only 9% believe it’ll benefit them, with 34% saying it’ll make things worse. 

David Talbot, the poll’s director, didn’t mince words: this is the worst budget reception in nearly 30 years of tracking. For a government that campaigned on economic competence, this is a slap in the face from voters who are clearly unimpressed with Nicola Willis’ fiscal fanfare.

On Saturday, the NZ Herald reported:

Budget 2025 tests poorly with voters, according to Talbot Mills Research poll.

The Government’s recent Budget has tested poorly with voters, according to the results of a new Talbot Mills Research poll.

Asked whether they thought the Budget delivered on May 22 will be good for New Zealand overall, bad, or would not make much of a difference, 33% said it would be bad and just 22% thought it would be good.

“We’ve been measuring New Zealanders’ reception of government budgets for nearly 30 years. This is the worst we’ve ever recorded,” said David Talbot, director of Talbot Mills Research.

“Across all three dimensions: overall, economic, and personal, it was judged by Kiwis to be net negative, and in each case the worst since our tracking began in 1996.”

Participants were also asked whether they thought the Budget would be good for the New Zealand economy, bad or would not make much of a difference.

The results showed 30% believed it would be bad for the economy and 27% thought it would be good. In terms of whether they thought the Budget would be good for them personally, bad or make not much of a difference, 34% of respondents said it would be bad and just 9% thought it would be good.

Nicola Willis called Budget 2025 “responsible,” claiming it’s steering New Zealand toward recovery. The people polled, representing a majority of New Zealanders, say otherwise. With 30% of respondents saying it’s bad for the economy and only 27% seeing it as a positive, the coalition’s big plan, centred on tax breaks for businesses and slashing public spending, is nothing more than a corporate handout dressed up as progress. The $6.6 billion “Investment Boost” for businesses, allowing a 20% immediate tax deduction on new assets, might thrill the boardrooms, but it’s left ordinary Kiwis cold.

The gutting of KiwiSaver contributions, now halved to about $260 annually, is another kick in the teeth for workers trying to save for their future. Willis’ claim that this will somehow help first-home buyers is laughable when employers are expected to offset higher contributions with lower wage increases. So much for “making New Zealanders better off.”

The coalition’s obsession with austerity and tax cuts for the wealthy reeks of trickle-down economics, a tired playbook that’s failed time and again. Meanwhile, means-testing Best Start and projecting a measly $200 million surplus by 2029 (using their cherry-picked Obegalx measure) shows a government more interested in micro-management and balancing books than addressing the cost-of-living crisis hammering households.

The poll’s damning verdict reflects a public that’s not buying the spin. With 78% of Kiwis in other Talbot Mills polls saying economic conditions are “poor” or “not so good,” it’s clear the coalition’s priorities are misaligned with what the country requires.

This budget’s failure isn’t just a policy misstep; it’s a political disaster for Christopher Luxon’s government. The coalition’s rhetoric of “strong fiscal management” is crumbling under the weight of public discontent. Talbot Mills’ data suggests a deeper malaise, voters aren’t just skeptical; they’re angry. If Luxon and Willis think they can coast to 2026 on corporate tax breaks and road cone hotlines, they’re in for a rude awakening.

The left must seize this moment. Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori need to hammer home the coalition’s disconnect, offering a vision that puts people over profits. Budget 2025’s polling debacle is a clear signal: Kiwis want a government that fights for them, not one that leaves more Kiwi families further behind.

Brooke van Velden's WorkSafe Cuts Endanger More Kiwi Lives

Even before the 2010 Pike River disaster, where 29 miners perished due to systemic safety failures, we’ve known our workplace safety record in New Zealand is a national disgrace. But instead of increasing protections, this government is slashing WorkSafe’s resources and watering down the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 2015, all in the name of “business clarity.”

Let’s look at the numbers. New Zealand’s workplace fatality rate is appalling! Around 50-60 deaths annually, with 400-500 serious injuries and 750-900 deaths from work-related ill health. That’s roughly 1,000 deaths a year since Pike River, totalling 10,000 lives lost, plus 420,000 injuries. Compare this to Australia, where the fatality rate is 60% lower, or the UK, where it’s a staggering 500% lower, despite similar risk-management frameworks. Our injury rate? 1,200 per 100,000 workers, compared to Australia’s 899 and the UK’s 692. We’re not just lagging behind on workplace safety; we’re a global embarrassment.

The coalition’s response? Gut WorkSafe, our primary regulator, with 180 roles on the chopping block in the latest restructure, following 113 redundancies last year. This decimates expertise; health specialists, inspectors, and advisors who help businesses navigate safety obligations. Instead of strengthening enforcement, the government’s pushing “flexible” regulations, letting businesses off the hook for "proactive" risk management. There’s no question that the HSWA 2025 reforms are more free-market deregulation dogma, prioritising profit over people.

Today, RNZ reported:

 

Brooke van Velden shifts WorkSafe's focus from enforcement to advice

The government is shifting its work and safety regulator's priorities from enforcement to advice, saying this will help address concerns about underfunding and a "culture of fear".

First steps include updating more than 50 guidance documents and launching the hotline - announced in March - for reporting excessive road cones.

The restructure goes much deeper than that, though, with Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden issuing a new letter of expectations, rearranging the regulator's finances and redefining its main purpose in legislation.

The government has cut $2.2 million from the agency's funding since 2023 - a 1.6 percent cut from $141.1m to $138.9m - with heightened inflation over that time further increasing costs.

We also need to talk about New Zealand’s no-fault Accident Compensation Corporation system. While a lifeline for some injured workers who meet ACC's ever stricter criteria for cover, it's predominantly a get-out-of-jail-free card for unethical businesses. Unlike Australia, where targeted sector-specific safety measures have slashed accidents, our system lets negligent employers dodge accountability. Companies pay into ACC, but there’s no real sting for repeated safety failures, no punitive fines or mandatory audits to force change. This leaves high-risk industries like construction, agriculture, and forestry, where most fatalities occur, free to cut corners. Māori and Pasifika workers, disproportionately harmed, bear the brunt of this negligence...perhaps one of the reasons the ACT Party-led government is reducing workplace safety oversight.

The coalition’s austerity fetish and ACT’s neoliberal idiocy are driving this race to the bottom. Workers face rising workloads, stagnant wages, and now, weaker safety nets. We need more inspectors, better training, and enforceable regulations, not a return to the pre-Pike River days of employer self-management, which clearly failed spectacularly. New Zealand must adopt Australia’s proactive approach: real-time regulator feedback, sector-specific interventions, and hefty penalties for non-compliance.

This government’s priorities are clear…profits for the few over safety for the many. But what people need to realise is that every cut to WorkSafe, every softened rule, is a step toward more coffins. Kiwi workers deserve better. We need a system that holds dodgy bosses who cut corners to account, not one that lets them gamble with more worker’s lives.

PM 'comfortable' with Chris Bishop's Overt Racism

The National Party’s ongoing disregard for New Zealand’s multiculturalism has been laid bare once again, this time by another profoundly unbecoming display of prejudice. At the Aotearoa Music Awards, Chris Bishop, the leader of the house, was recorded on camera deriding Stan Walker’s performance of Māori Ki Te Ao as “a load of crap,” a blatant act of cultural contempt he cannot deny. Despite that obviously inappropriate outburst, the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed Bishop's overt racism, which underscores the National Party’s persistent disregard for New Zealand’s multicultural values.

When questioned by RNZ, Luxon callously dismissed the incident with a laugh, declaring himself “comfortable” with Bishop’s feeble apology. In my opinion, such levity in the face of undeniable bigotry reveals a leader bereft of moral fortitude, unfit to uphold the values of an inclusive Aotearoa, and therefore unfit to hold office.


Today, RNZ reported:

 

Luxon 'comfortable' with Chris Bishop's response after Aotearoa Music Awards 'rant'

Luxon told Morning Report he spoke to Bishop over the weekend about this and other issues but there was no need to step in.

"I didn't have to say anything really. He'd already come out publicly and said he could have kept his thoughts to himself and I'm quite comfortable with that.

"I just got his side of the story about what he said and it was exactly as reported. He corrected it well before I got to him ... he just acknowledged he should have kept his thoughts to himself.

"The bottom line is your listeners aren't losing a lot of sleep over what a politician sharing his opinion on some music was about."

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour defended Bishop's behaviour and said people would make up their own minds about the remarks.

"Just because you become a senior minister, it doesn't mean you should stop having opinions and it might well be that, based on [what] Chris saw in that moment, he was correct. It may be that people will agree with him."

 

Bishop’s recorded remarks cannot be dismissed as a mere lapse in judgement. His attempt to deflect blame, claiming his scorn targeted “political” Toitū te Tiriti flags, is a transparent ploy to obscure the cultural disdain embedded in his words. Veteran musician Don McGlashan, who witnessed Bishop’s tirade firsthand, described it as an attack on the very essence of the event, a celebration of New Zealand’s diverse musical heritage which has lead to domestic and international success.

Luxon’s decision to laugh off this racist incident, rather than condemn it, is not only unbecoming of a Prime Minister but a damning indictment of his leadership. By failing to hold Bishop to account, Luxon signals tacit approval of behaviour that undermines the dignity of Māori and, by extension, the multicultural fabric of our nation. This sorry episode isn’t just an aberration either, but a part of a troubling pattern within the National Party and its coalition partners, which consistently undermines New Zealand’s multicultural ethos.

Chris Luxon’s rhetoric condemning so-called Māorification, a term invoked to disparage Māori cultural resurgence, has fuelled hostility toward Māori rights, framing their cultural expressions as a threat to national identity. This sentiment was starkly evident in the unprecedented suspension of Te Pāti Māori MPs, for performing a protest haka against the Treaty Principles Bill in November 2024. The haka, a profound expression of Māori identity, was deemed “intimidating” by a National-led Privileges Committee, resulting in unprecedented suspensions, the harshest penalties in New Zealand’s parliamentary history.

🔥 Here’s Stan Walker’s “load of crap” at the Aotearoa Music Awards - and the now very public reaction from embattled Leader of the House & Senior Cabinet Minister Chris Bishop, including his deeply embarrassing schooling from New Zealand music royalty, Don McGlashan… pic.twitter.com/oiXdWYt2ig

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) May 31, 2025

The Prime Minister’s flippant response to Bishop’s recorded racism, laughing as though it were a trivial matter, betrays a profound lack of moral courage. A leader of integrity would have publicly censured Bishop, recognising that such behaviour from a senior minister is an affront to all New Zealanders who value unity and respect. Instead, Luxon’s mirth emboldens other politicians within his government to be ever more overtly racist.

New Zealand deserves a Prime Minister who confronts racism with resolve, not one who laughs at its exposure. Luxon’s failure to lead with principle in this moment will be remembered as another stain on his tenure, a testament to a government more concerned with political expediency than the values that bind our diverse nation together.

What Happens If Israel Murders Greta Thunberg?

The whole world’s watching, and it’s holding its breath. Greta Thunberg, the climate warrior turned Palestinian advocate, is aboard the Madleen, a Freedom Flotilla Coalition vessel aiming to break through Israel’s brutal blockade of Gaza and deliver aid to a starving population. This isn’t just a humanitarian mission, it’s a direct challenge to Israel, who is backed by a complicit United States intent on funding a genocide. But what happens if Israel, in its reckless arrogance, murders Greta on this peace ship? And let’s not mince words: the threat’s already out there, with posts by prominent US politicians practically calling for Israel to attack.


Yesterday, The Guardian reported:

 

Greta Thunberg joins aid ship sailing to Gaza aimed at breaking Israel’s blockade

The climate campaigner Greta Thunberg and 11 other activists have set sail for Gaza on a ship aimed at “breaking Israel’s siege” of the devastated territory, organisers have said.

The sailing boat Madleen – operated by the activist group Freedom Flotilla Coalition – departed from the port of Catania in Sicily, southern Italy, on Sunday.

It would try to reach the shores of the Gaza Strip to bring in some aid and raise “international awareness” of the continuing humanitarian crisis, the activists said at a press conference on Sunday, before the vessel departed.

“We are doing this because, no matter what odds we are against, we have to keep trying,” Thunberg said, bursting into tears during her speech.

“Because the moment we stop trying is when we lose our humanity. And, no matter how dangerous this mission is, it’s not even near as dangerous as the silence of the entire world in the face of the livestreamed genocide.”

 

Let’s not forget, Israel’s got form here, and it’s bloody. In 2010, the Israeli military stormed the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla carrying aid and activists. In international waters, Israeli commandos killed nine activists, including one shot four times in the head. A tenth died later from injuries. The UN called it “excessive and unreasonable” force; Israel shrugged, claiming self-defence.

In 2018, the Al Awda and other flotilla vessels faced similar aggression, boarded, seized, with activists beaten and detained. These weren’t isolated incidents but a pattern: Israel targets those who dare challenge its blockade, leaving a trail of dead and wounded peaceful protesters. Greta’s mission sails into the same crosshairs.

US senator issues a death threat to Greta Thunberg and other humanitarian activists. pic.twitter.com/eJQGRX5mIo

— B.M. (@ireallyhateyou) June 1, 2025

Back in 2023, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee sneered that those pushing for Palestinian statehood should “carve it out of the French Riviera” instead of Gaza. It’s a dog whistle, plain and simple, a nudge to the far-right zealots who see dead activists as collateral damage in their stupid holy war. Huckabee’s words aren’t just rhetoric; they’re a green light for violence against anyone daring to stand with Palestinians. If Israel takes that shot, the fallout would be seismic.

The world would erupt. Greta’s a global icon, her defiance a symbol of resistance against oppression the world over. Her death would galvanise millions of climate activists, human rights defenders, and ordinary people fed up with Israel’s impunity. Protests would choke cities from Stockholm to Sydney.

Social media, already buzzing with outrage over Gaza’s unending military enforced famine, would explode. Israeli embassies would be targeted. Governments, especially in Europe, would face unbearable pressure to act, with sanctions, boycotts, and severed ties with Israel. Even the UN, currently sitting on its hands, might muster a resolution or two to try and dissuade Israel from pursuing their atrocious genocide.

But don’t hold your breath for the US or Israel to care. Peace negotiations? They’re a sham. Israel’s “Witkoff outline” for a Gaza deal is a non-starter, with Hamas calling out its “complete bias” toward Tel Aviv. The US, meanwhile, plays good cop while funnelling billions to Israel’s war machine. Since October 2023, the US has approved over $14 billion in military “aid” to Israel.

This isn’t just support, it’s complicity in what the Center for Constitutional Rights correctly calls a “genocide” that’s killed over 52,000 Palestinians, including more than 16,500 innocent children. The US vetoes UN ceasefire calls, shields Israel from ICC probes, and keeps the bombs flowing. It’s not just enabling genocide; it’s bankrolling it.

If Greta’s killed, the US will wring its hands, maybe issue a limp condemnation, but don’t expect accountability. Trump’s sycophantic team of idiots would dodge, citing Israel’s “right to self-defence,” while the war machine, a juggernaut the US economy relies on, churns on killing woman and children. The world, however, won’t stay silent. Greta’s death would be a tipping point, exposing the US-Israel axis of evil as not just indifferent to peace but actively hostile to it.

Ruth Richardson Gets Damehood for Wrecking New Zealand

In a move that’s left many gobsmacked, Ruth Richardson, the architect of the infamous “Mother of All Budgets,” has been named a Dame Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2025 King’s Birthday Honours. The Honours Unit, Cabinet and the King must have rocks in their heads.

 

This accolade, meant to celebrate service to Aotearoa, feels like a slap in the face to the countless New Zealanders who bore the brunt of her ruthless economic reforms. Far from deserving a Damehood, Richardson’s legacy is one of deepened inequality, shredded social safety nets, and a callous disregard for the vulnerable.

As Finance Minister from 1990 to 1993, Richardson championed the neoliberal blitz known as “Ruthanasia.” Her 1991 budget slashed welfare benefits, privatised state assets, and deregulated markets with a zeal that made even some of her National Party colleagues wince. The fallout was immediate and brutal. Child poverty rates skyrocketed, with a 1996 study showing that the proportion of children living below the poverty line doubled from 14% in 1982 to 29% by 1994, as a direct consequence of her austerity.

 

Unemployment surged to 11.1% in 1992, the highest since the Great Depression, as her policies gutted public sector jobs and left thousands struggling. Income inequality widened dramatically, with Richardson helping to ensure that New Zealand is one of the most unequal nations in the world to this very day.


Today, RNZ reported:

Two former finance ministers receive King's Birthday Honours

Former National MP Ruth Richardson. Photo: Supplied

Two former finance ministers have been appointed Companions of the New Zealand Order of Merit at this year's King's Birthday Honours.

Ruth Richardson and Steven Joyce, both former National MPs, have been honoured for their services as Members of Parliament.

Three other former MPs - Ian McKelvie, Anae Arthur Anae, and Dover Samuels - have also received Honours.

'Early and decisive course correction was imperative' - Richardson

Richardson was well aware that an interview about her King's Birthday Honour would include questions on her time as finance minister.

The economic reforms she oversaw - and the 1991 'Mother of All Budgets' - made significant changes to social welfare and public services, the effects of which are still felt by many.

Richardson started by saying in 1991 New Zealand was at huge risk, and was drowning in a sea of debt and perpetual forecast deficits.

It’s true. When Ruth Richardson became Finance Minister in 1990, New Zealand faced a fiscal crisis, with public debt at 48% of GDP and deficits projected to persist. The National Party’s earlier policies under Robert Muldoon (1975–1984), particularly the debt-fueled “Think Big” projects, increased debt from 5% to 40% of GDP, exacerbating the crisis. Inefficient state enterprises and Minister's high spending further strained finances, setting the stage for Richardson's decision to make the poor pay for her parties financial failures.

Richardson’s defenders, including herself, claim her 1991 'Mother of All Budgets' and Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994 set a global standard for fiscal prudence. But at what cost? Her policies prioritised trying to balance budgets over human welfare, forcing austerity that crippled health and education services. Hospital waiting lists ballooned, and schools struggled as funding dried up.

 

New Zealand's social fabric tore apart, homelessness spiked, and food banks became a grim fixture in communities. Her reforms didn’t just trim fat; they cut into the bone of a society already reeling from Roger Douglas’ earlier experiments. But what makes this all the worse is that she’s never acknowledged the harm she caused.

Impact on Health Services and Hospital Waiting Lists

The 1991 budget introduced user-pays requirements in hospitals, shifting costs to patients for services previously funded by the government. This was part of a broader restructuring that reduced public spending on health.

A 2015 review noted that Richardson’s reforms caused “severe financial strains on hospitals,” leading to operational challenges. Hospital waiting lists grew significantly in the early 1990s, with a 1993 study reporting a 20% increase in elective surgery wait times from 1990 to 1992, attributed to reduced funding and increased demand on under-resourced facilities.

By 1994, some hospitals reported waitlists exceeding 12 months for non-urgent procedures, a stark contrast to pre-1991 levels. The introduction of user charges also deterred low-income patients from seeking care, exacerbating health inequities, as documented in a 1996 Health Services Research report. These outcomes align with claims that austerity “crippled health services” and caused hospital waiting lists to balloon.

Impact on Education and School Funding

Education funding faced similar cuts, with schools required to adopt user-pays models, such as increased parental contributions for basic services. The budget reduced per-pupil funding by approximately 5% in real terms between 1991 and 1993, according to Ministry of Education data. Schools in low-income areas struggled most, as they relied heavily on government grants.

A 1994 report from the New Zealand Educational Institute highlighted that many schools deferred maintenance, cut staff, or reduced programs, leading to larger class sizes and reduced educational quality. These struggles support the claim that schools faced significant challenges as funding “dried up” under austerity.

Social Impact, Increased Homelessness, and Food Banks

The budget’s deep welfare cuts, unemployment benefits reduced by $14 weekly, sickness benefits by $27.04, and family benefits by $25–$27, severely impacted low-income households. A 2015 Treasury report noted that welfare-reliant households saw their income drop from 72% to 58% of the national average between 1990 and 1993. Child poverty doubled from 15% in 1990 to 29% in 1994, and income inequality rose, with the Gini coefficient increasing from 0.30 to 0.33 by 1996. These economic pressures tore at the “social fabric,” as communities faced increased hardship.

Homelessness surged as housing support was cut amid rising costs. A 2017 European Journal of Public Health study noted that austerity policies in the early 1990s, including New Zealand’s, increased homelessness risks by reducing subsidies and social services. By 1993, estimates suggested a 30% rise in visible homelessness in urban centers like Auckland, with no comprehensive national data due to under-reporting. Food banks, virtually non-existent before the 1980s, became entrenched, with the Salvation Army reporting a 50% increase in food parcel distribution between 1991 and 1994.

I guess it's entirely appropriate that Ruth is being honoured today. After all, we are in the middle of another permanent scarring of the economy for stupid ideological reasons. Let's have a quick look [🧵1/n] pic.twitter.com/SyKff5JBxL

— Musical Chairs (@MusicalChairs14) June 1, 2025

Awarding Ruth Richardson a Damehood whitewashes her terrible legacy. It’s a tone-deaf endorsement of policies that prioritised corporate interests over people, leaving a generation, those who survived, scarred for life. The honours system is meant to uplift those who’ve served the nation, not those who’ve divided it and made it poorer. Richardson’s recent support for the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which again undermines Te Tiriti, only underscores her disconnect from New Zealand's shared values.

This isn’t about rewriting history…it’s about accountability. Honouring Richardson glorifies a chapter of financial pain and increased inequity for New Zealand. If we’re to celebrate true service, let’s recognise those who’ve rebuilt what her policies broke, not the architect of the wrecking ball. Shame on the honours committee for this misjudgment, and shame on Ruth Richardson for believing that she deserves this Damehood. All she really deserves is our scorn.

Fast-Track Corruption Will Ruin New Zealand

The Fast-track Approvals Bill, rammed through Parliament like a bulldozer through a native forest, has raised a number of questions about just how much the pockets of coalition politician's are being lined. This isn’t governance; it’s a garage sale of our environment, with corrupt politician's like Shane Jones, Chris Bishop and Simeon Brown holding the cash tin.

Let’s cut to the chase. Companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects in New Zealand donated more than $500,000 to the National, Act, and NZ First political parties and their candidates in 2022 and 2023. Coincidence? Hardly.

 

Here's a few of the "donations" from companies associated with the fast-track process:

 

Melrose Private Capital: Donated $84,680 to New Zealand First in 2024 (two donations: May and September 25). Part owner of Taharoa Ironsands, a sand mining project south of Kawhia, Waikato, included in the fast-track process.

Fletcher Building: Donated $7,200 to the National Party in 2023 for tickets to a dinner event. Holding company for Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure, associated with quarry projects in the fast-track process.

Winton Land Limited: Director Christopher Meehan and related entities donated $206,154.23 to National and ACT in 2023, including $103,260 to the National Party and $50,000 to ACT from Meehan personally, and $52,894.23 to the National Party in 2022 from Speargrass Holdings, another company directed by Meehan. Winton’s Sunfield development project in Ardmore, Auckland, is part of the fast-track process.

Vipan Garg: Donated $5,135 to the National Party in 2023.

Winton Land Limited: Director Christopher Meehan donated $103,260 to the National Party and $50,000 to ACT in 2023. Speargrass Holdings, another company directed by Meehan, donated $52,894 to the National Party in 2022. Winton’s Sunfield development project in Ardmore, Auckland, is part of the fast-track process.

Russell Property Group: Donated to the National Party in 2022 and 2023 (specific amounts not detailed). Director Brett Russell also donated $35,000 to the National Party in 2024, 10 days after the fast-track project list was announced. Associated with a fast-track project, though specifics are not fully detailed.

Gibbston Valley Wines: Donated to the National Party (amount not specified). Directors are linked to the Gibbston Valley residential project in the fast-track process.

Sanford: Donated to New Zealand First (amount not specified) in 2024. Associated with aquaculture projects in the fast-track process.

McCallum Bros: Donated to New Zealand First (amount not specified) in 2024. Associated with mining/quarrying projects in the fast-track process.

Kings Quarry: A finance company associated with its director and half-owner donated $50,000 to New Zealand First and $5,000 to Shane Jones in 2023. Included in the fast-track project list.

Last year, RNZ reported:

$500,000 in political donations associated with fast track projects

Companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects gave more than $500,000 in political donations to National, Act and New Zealand First and their candidates, RNZ analysis shows.

The projects include a quarry extension into conservation land and a development whose owner was publicly supported by National MPs during a legal battle with Kāinga Ora.

This is the kind of money that buys more than a few campaign billboards, it buys influence, access, and, apparently, a free pass to gut environmental protections. The Fast-track Approvals Bill, sold to us as a way to “get things done,” seems to have a hidden clause: “things” include auctioning off our natural heritage to the highest bidder.

 

On Monday, The Press reported:

 

Mining company granted exploration permit in Marlborough Sounds

An Australian mining company has been granted an exploration permit for a remote and rugged area of the Marlborough Sounds, sparking concern from residents.

Sams Creek Gold Limited, owned by Siren Gold, sought the five-year permit for an operation named Queen Charlotte, to explore the potential for mining in an area from Endeavour Inlet and Resolution Bay north to Port Gore and Titirangi Farm Park, and includes a section of the renowned Te Araroa Trail.

The land also includes the historic Endeavour mine which was a major source of antimony, a heavy metal used in alloys and electronics, until it closed down in 1901. At the time it was New Zealand’s largest antimony mine.

 

Siren Gold Limited is connected to Kings Quarry through their shared involvement in the Sams Creek Gold Project in New Zealand. Siren Gold, an exploration company focused on gold and antimony projects, holds an 81.9% interest in Exploration Permit 40338 for the Sams Creek project, with OceanaGold owning the remaining 18.1%.

Kings Quarry, owned by the Semenoff Group and linked to Siren Gold via an unnamed director and half-owner, is associated with this project, as a finance company tied to this director donated $50,000 to New Zealand First and $5,000 to Shane Jones in 2023, coinciding with the project’s inclusion in New Zealand’s fast-track approvals process. Siren Gold’s recent five-year exploration permit (EP 61605) for antimony and gold at Endeavour Inlet in the Marlborough Sounds raises even more questions about political interference in the consenting process.

 

The coalition’s mantra of “streamlining” is starting to sound like a euphemism for “strip-mining.” This bill, which passed in December 2024, lets ministers green light projects with barely a nod to environmental safeguards or public input. Mining companies, developers, and other big players are lining up for a slice of New Zealand. The 149 projects handpicked for fast-tracking read like a wish list for the government’s corporate mates, not a plan for New Zealand’s future. They want to sell our environment, degrading it into a wasteland that nobody will want to see.

Here's @jacktame grilling Chris Bishop over the new fast-track process that will allow the government to override court decisions that have blocked large-scale projects for environmental reasons: pic.twitter.com/3RLNeCBTqc

— Nick (@StrayDogNZ) March 10, 2024

The fast-track legislation is poisoning New Zealand's corruption perception index scores and ruining our tourism industry, a $10 billion economic pillar already faltering under New Zealand's tarnished image. By fast-tracking projects like mining near Punakaiki’s Pancake Rocks, it threatens the “100% Pure” brand that entices global visitors to our shores. With international criticism from the UK and EU, perceptions of unsustainable development are keeping eco-conscious tourists away, hitting regional economies hardest.

So why isn’t this front-page news? Why aren’t our media outlets screaming about a government that is running a pay-to-play scheme? Nearly 27,000 public submissions, mostly opposed, and thousands marching in protest should’ve giving the government pause for thought. Instead, we get radio silence while ministers like Shane Jones, Chris Bishop, and Simeon Brown play fast and loose with the taxpayers wallet and our democratic process. The Ombudsman called out the Department of Conservation for unlawfully withholding advice on this bill, yet the coalition just shrugs and carries on. It’s governance by arrogance, with a side order of cronyism.

 

In May, RNZ reported:

 

Ministers continue to make decisions on fast-track projects after parties take donations linked to applicants

Ministers Shane Jones and Chris Bishop continued to make decisions about several fast-track projects despite their respective parties receiving donations linked to the applicants.

One political scientist says such donations could be perceived as a conflict of interest and erode public trust in government.

…

Political donation data released last week shows NZ First received donations from seafood company Sanford, mining company McCallum Bros and the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust.

National received donations from Russell Property Group and the company's director, Brett Russell. It also received a donation from Gibbston Valley Wines, which has directors linked to the Gibbston Valley residential project. Projects from these companies are included in the Fast-track legislation.

…

Shane Jones, a NZ First MP, assessed projects put forward by an advisory group which fell into mining, quarrying and aquaculture. He declared a conflict of interest for eight projects, and stood aside for these. He did not declare a conflict of interest for applications from Sanford, McCallum Bros, or the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust.

…

Chris Bishop, a National MP, assessed projects related to housing, land development and infrastructure. He stood aside for one project, the assessment of Winton's Sunfield development as he had advocated for it in the past. He did not stand aside for the assessment of Russell Property Group's Beachlands South, or Gibbston Village.

Let’s not mince words: this is corruption, plain and simple. When donations from companies set to benefit from a bill line up so neatly with its passage, it’s not just a red flag…it’s a flashing neon sign saying "CORRUPTION". The coalition’s claim of “no private benefit” is laughable when the evidence clearly shows otherwise.

New Zealanders deserve better than a corrupt government that treats policy like a commodity. We need transparency, accountability, and a full investigation into these donations. Who paid what, and what did they get in return? If National and NZ First want to “get things done,” they can start by coming clean. Until then, the only thing they’re fast-tracking is public distrust.