The Jackal


14 Aug 2025

A Parliamentary Travesty: Brownlee's Authoritarian Overreach

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

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

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

Yesterday, 1 News reported:


Swarbrick kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is Brownlee using the exact same language:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published by the Jackal



13 Aug 2025

Butter Should Be Cheaper in New Zealand

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

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


On August 6, Stuff reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nowhere, not immediately at least.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published by the Jackal



10 Aug 2025

National's Education Failures and Assault on Māori Language

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

On Friday, 1 News reported:

 
Fury as ministry cans kids book for too many Māori words

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

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

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


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

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

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

On Friday, RNZ reported:

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

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

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

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


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

In July, RNZ reported:

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

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

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

It was also struggling with repeated requests for changes.

...

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published by the Jackal



9 Aug 2025

Hobson’s Pledge Steals Kuia’s Image to Promote Racism

In a move that exhibits their complete disregard for basic human dignity, Hobson’s Pledge, the divisive lobby group led by Don Brash, has once again stirred outrage. Their latest billboard campaign, which opposes Māori wards, used the image of Rotorua kuia Ellen Tamati without her consent. The billboard featured Tamati’s striking portrait alongside the slogan, “My mana doesn’t need a mandate. Vote no to Māori wards.” For Tamati, a respected elder, the shock of seeing her image co-opted to push a message she fundamentally opposes has been deeply distressing. Her whānau are furious and exploring legal options.

 

On Wednesday, the NZ Herald reported:

Rotorua kuia’s image used in Hobson’s Pledge billboard without consent, family outraged

The family of a Rotorua kuia whose image was used on a Hobson’s Pledge billboard without her permission say the political lobby group has trampled on her mana.

Ellen Tamati’s photograph showing her moko kauae appeared on the Hobson Pledge’s billboards with the words: “My mana doesn’t need a mandate, vote no to Māori wards”.

The widow’s family said their nan “fundamentally disagrees” with the billboard’s message and Hobson’s Pledge never asked her permission.


This shameful act wasn’t a solo effort. Ani O’Brien, former advisor to Judith Collins, and Jordan Williams, co-founder of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, orchestrated this stunt through their Campaign Company for Hobson’s Pledge. Their involvement ties this incident to a broader network of right-wing activism that thrives on stoking race-based division while cloaking it in calls for “equality.” The Campaign Company, also tied to other Hobson’s Pledge ventures like the “We Belong Aotearoa” website, seems all too comfortable peddling narratives that undermine Māori rights while hiding behind a veneer of inclusivity.



Don Brash, the figurehead of this debacle, is no stranger to controversy. His track record includes the infamous “Iwi versus Kiwi” campaign from his National Party days in 2005, a divisive tactic that pitted Māori against non-Māori in a crude appeal to Pākehā anxieties. That campaign, much like Hobson’s Pledge’s current efforts, framed Māori rights as a threat to national unity, conveniently ignoring the Treaty of Waitangi’s guarantees of tino rangatiratanga and equal partnership. Brash’s obsession with dismantling Māori electorates, the Waitangi Tribunal, and any semblance of Treaty-based governance has been a consistent thread, widely condemned as racist by figures like Andrew Little, Willie Jackson, and the New Zealand Māori Council.

The use of Ellen Tamati’s image, taken by photographer Rafael Ben Ari at Waitangi Day 2025 and licensed for editorial use only, isn't just a legal misstep, it’s a profound violation of her mana. Tamati, who wears her moko kauae with pride, was horrified to learn her face was plastered across billboards in Rotorua, Hamilton, Whangārei, and Christchurch, falsely suggesting her endorsement of a racist campaign she categorically rejects. Her granddaughter, Anahera Parata, spoke of the emotional toll, with Tamati isolating herself, “devastated” and “emotionally drained” by the betrayal.
 

On Wednesday, RNZ reported:

Rotorua kuia caught up in Hobson's Pledge's anti-Māori ward campaign

Anahera Parata is mamae that her Nan is the main feature.

"All my life, I have only ever known Nan to be pro Māori, a very staunch supporter of Te Paati Māori, everything Māori. Even at her age she's still giving back to her iwi.

"To me that's damaging, not just to Nan but to our whole iwi - I can't imagine being Nan having to face our iwi when her face is being plastered over billboards supporting a message that none of us believe in.

"I'm very hurt and angry. I don't know how they think it's right... it's illegal. You picked the wrong whānau," Parata said.


The Advertising Standards Authority received over 30 complaints about Hobson Pledge's billboards, and legal experts suggest the misuse may even breach the Fair Trading Act, given the image’s restricted licensing. Yet Brash and O'Brien's response, while the cowardly William's remains silent, is a half-hearted apology and hollow claim of ignorance about the image’s copyright limitations.

This incident lays bare the callousness of Hobson’s Pledge’s tactics. By exploiting a kuia’s image, they’ve not only trampled on her dignity but reinforced their pattern of fearmongering and division. Their campaigns, from opposing Māori wards to pushing for the “restoration” of public ownership of the foreshore and seabed, consistently misrepresent Māori rights as a zero-sum threat to others. The backlash, including from Te Pāti Māori and the Māori Journalists Association, underscores the harm caused.

It’s time to call out Brash, O’Brien, Williams, and their ilk for what they are: architects of a divisive agenda that seeks to erode Māori rights. It's time to call out Hobson's Pledge for the racists they actually are.

Published by the Jackal



Karen Chhour Claims Failed Boot Camp was a Success

The New Zealand Government’s military-style youth boot camp pilot, trumpeted as a cornerstone of their “tough on crime” agenda, has collapsed into a predictable quagmire of failure. Despite clear evidence of past boot camp failures and explicit warnings from various experts, Children’s Minister Karen Chhour and her coalition partners have persisted, touting success in a programme where seven of ten participants reoffended, one died, and three were incarcerated youth justice facilities. This is more than a policy blunder, it’s a glaring example of a government so disconnected from reality that it portrays calamity as achievement.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

Bootcamp re-offending rate revealed: 80% allegedly offended within the year

Most of the teenagers who took part in the military-style bootcamp pilot went on to allegedly re-offend within the year, the ministry has confirmed. But that doesn’t mean the Government views this as a failed experiment.

The Government had, for months, refused to confirm how many of the bootcamp participants had gone on to allegedly re-offend. But on Friday, a week after the pilot finished, Oranga Tamariki deputy chief executive Iain Chapman confirmed the alleged re-offending rate sat at about 80%.

...

Children’s Minister Karen Chhour has since introduced a bill to continue the MSA programme, including giving the Youth Court power to force young people to participate in it.

“Zero re-offending was never going to be realistic, but the goal of this programme has always been to provide meaningful supports and an opportunity for these young people to make better choices,” she said.

That bill was expected to pass in time for a new cohort to start next year.


Yesterday, RNZ also reported:

Minister, OT hail boot camp success despite majority reoffending

Seven of the 10 young men involved in the controversial military-style academy (MSA) boot camp pilot reoffended, according to Oranga Tamariki.

But the agency and its Minister is calling the programme a success, after eight of the original 10 participants successfully completed the first 12-month pilot.

During the pilot, which has just concluded, participants ran away, one was kicked out of the programme and another was killed in a three-vehicle crash.

 

Let’s rewind. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care laid bare the horrors of earlier boot camp iterations, like the Te Whakapakari Youth Programme, where young people endured physical, psychological, and sexual abuse under the guise of rehabilitation. Research from as early as 1983 showed a 71% reoffending rate within a year, climbing to a staggering 92% by 1988. The 2010 Military Activity Camp (MAC) was no better, over 80% of participants reoffended within 12 months.

Experts, from Victoria University’s forensic psychologists to the Children’s Commissioner, screamed from the rooftops that these programmes don’t work. They exacerbate trauma, entrench anti-social attitudes, and fail to address the root causes of youth offending: poverty, family harm, and systemic inequity. Yet, the coalition of chaos government ignored these numerous warnings, resurrecting a failed model with a glossy new name: Military-Style Academies.

The results? Predictably dire. Seven of the ten young men in the pilot reoffended, two landed back in youth justice residences, and one tragically died in a car crash. Another absconded during a funeral, only to be arrested for attempted armed carjacking. Karen Chhour, with breathtaking audacity, somehow calls this a success.

Her crocodile tears over the death of a participant, just like her tears over ‘unsafe workplaces’ and ‘bullying behaviour’ in Parliament, ring hollow when she refuses to pause the programme or acknowledge its systemic failures. To claim, as she does, that “zero reoffending” was never the goal is a pathetic sidestep. What, then, if not to rehabilitate, is the point of a rehabilitation programme that funnels vulnerable youth back into crime or, worse, to their graves? What is the point of a boot camp that results in higher reoffending rates than would be seen by doing nothing?



Chhour’s assertion that families are “overwhelmingly positive” about the programme is laughable when weighed against the reality: participants running away, reoffending, and facing incarceration. Her defence, that these young men, mostly Māori, are too complex to expect better outcomes, smacks of defeatism and cultural insensitivity. It’s a convenient excuse for a minister who has consistently failed to deliver, on anything.

Chhour’s tenure as Minister for Children has been marred by serial incompetence, nowhere more evident than in her mishandling of Oranga Tamariki’s communication breakdowns. Her failure to be informed of a second abscondee from the boot camp pilot, described by her own words as “unacceptable” exposes a staggering lack of oversight. Oranga Tamariki’s acting chief executive, Andrew Bridgman, dismissed this as a “simple mistake” within a “big bureaucracy of 4000 people,” but Chhour’s inability to ensure basic communication channels function properly reflects her broader inadequacy. She was left in the dark about critical incidents, including absconding participants, until media scrutiny forced the issue into the open, undermining her claims of accountability.

This isn’t an isolated lapse, Oranga Tamariki’s systemic failure to communicate effectively with providers, as highlighted by the Public Service Association, saw long-standing services blindsided by funding cuts, with Chhour callously labelling them as “abusing funds” without any evidence to substantiate her claims. Her refusal to engage with the Children’s Commissioner on use-of-force powers in boot camps further underscores her aversion to scrutiny and collaborative governance.

Chhour’s failures extend beyond Oranga Tamariki to her role as Associate Minister of Police, where her oversight of firearms reform has been equally dismal. Charged with strengthening gun control in the wake of the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks, Chhour has failed to register her own weapons while presiding over a stalled Firearms Registry she wants to get rid off, with only 30% of licensed firearms owners registered by mid-2024, despite a five-year deadline. Her inability to drive compliance or address loopholes in the Arms Act has left communities vulnerable, with illegal firearms still circulating among criminals. This mirrors her approach to youth justice: loud promises, minimal delivery, and a refusal to heed expert warnings or accept her own limitations.
However, this government’s disconnect extends well beyond beyond boot camps. Their obsession with punitive measures, extending Young Serious Offender designations to younger teens, slashing community support funding, and ignoring evidence-based interventions, shows a callous disregard for what actually reduces youth crime: early intervention, whānau support, and trauma-informed care...not to mention worthwhile employment, social cohesion and secure housing.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s “try something different” mantra is a hollow soundbite when the “something” is a recycled failure that costs $51 million over four years while Māori youth, who make up 80-85% of the cohort, bear the brunt. The coalition’s claim of success isn't just ludicrous, it’s a betrayal of vulnerable young people and a slap in the face to survivors of past boot camp abuses. Chhour and her government are not just out of touch; they’re wilfully blind, peddling a failed experiment as progress while the evidence, and the human cost, shows otherwise.
Published by the Jackal



8 Aug 2025

A Four-Year Term Would Further Erode Public Oversight

In a move that reeks of further disdain for democratic accountability, New Zealand’s National-led government is making moves to implement a four-year parliamentary term, a proposal that would further erode the public’s ability to hold governments to account. This audacious bid, championed by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, comes at a time when the coalition is railroading through a slew of socially destructive policies that no one voted for.

In February, 1 News reported:

Govt announces four-year parliamentary term legislation to be introduced

The Government has agreed to introduce legislation that would allow the parliamentary term to be extended to four years - subject to a referendum - Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says.

Previously, coalition partners New Zealand First and ACT have both voiced support for four-year political terms, and the proposed Bill was modelled on the ACT Party's draft Constitution (Enabling a 4-Year Term) Amendment Bill.

The current three-year limit is entrenched — meaning it can only be overturned through a supermajority in Parliament or a referendum.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has previously indicated the Government planned to propose a referendum for four-year Parliamentary terms at the next election, and has been critical of the current three-year term which he said pushed governments into short-term decision-making.


On Wednesday, the NZ Herald reported:

NZ Government allocates $25m for referendum on four-year parliamentary terms

The Government has set aside $25 million for a referendum on four-year parliamentary terms, pencilled in to run alongside next year’s election.


The three-year term is a vital check on power, allowing voters to reverse course before ill-conceived policies wreak havoc. It’s a mechanism that can keep governments honest, or at least, as honest as they can be. Extending the term to four years would not only shield government's from scrutiny but also entrench their reckless agenda, leaving Kiwis to bear the consequences of decisions made without any mandate.

Why the rush to reduce oversight? Perhaps because this coalition knows their policies lack legitimacy. From tax breaks for tobacco companies to slashing essential services, the National-led government is implementing measures that were conspicuously absent from their campaign promises. The electorate didn’t vote for this economically damaging agenda, they voted for vague assurances of “getting back on track,” not a wrecking ball through our social fabric.

Take the tax breaks for tobacco companies, extended to three years in a move that blindsided health advocates and the public alike. This wasn’t a policy National, ACT, or NZ First campaigned on; it was a backroom deal that prioritises corporate profits over public health. The repeal of smokefree legislation and $300 million worth of tax breaks to increase cancer rates is a stark example of this government’s priorities.

Meanwhile, essential services like healthcare, education, and social housing are being gutted. The 2025 Budget saw $11 billion redirected from pay equity, KiwiSaver, and Best Start to fund tax cuts that disproportionately benefit landlords and multinationals. These cuts hit the most vulnerable hardest, with low-income earners, Māori, women, and the self-employed bearing the brunt, as highlighted by Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson.

The coalition’s disdain for voters is palpable, and further highlighted by their often negative rhetoric. Luxon’s infamous quip referring to New Zealanders as “bottom feeders” betrays a corporate arrogance that views the public as mere “customers” rather than citizens with rights. ACT leader David Seymour’s dismissal of those who missed voter registration as “drop kicks” further reveals the coalition’s contempt for the electorate and people's right to vote.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis had the gall to even suggest Kiwis should be grateful that unemployment, now at 5.2%, hasn’t climbed higher. This patronising rhetoric underscores a government that sees itself as above the people it serves, pushing policies that serve narrow interests while ignoring the broader public good.

The coalition’s socially destructive agenda extends beyond tobacco and tax cuts. The dismantling of the Māori Health Authority, the minimisation of te reo Māori in public services, and the push to reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi through ACT’s controversial bills are moves that inflame division and undermine decades of progress. These policies, driven by David Seymour and Winston Peters, were not endorsed by voters but are being foisted upon the nation under the guise of coalition necessity. Talk about the tail waging the dog.

The result? A deepening recession, rising unemployment, higher inflation (CPI 2.7% compared to 1.8% forecast), and growing public discontent, with polls showing National’s support plummeting. A four-year term would only embolden this type of neoliberal government to double down on its unmandated agenda, with the passage of time and lolly scrambles towards election time somewhat shielding them from the electoral consequences of their negative policy decisions.

Adding insult to injury, the proposed referendum on a four-year term is itself a waste of taxpayer money, a waste of taxpayers money that only a paywalled article is reporting on. Talk about a complete failure of the fourth estate. Nobody asked for this vote; it’s a pet project of a government already haemorrhaging public trust and money. At a time when essential services are being significantly cut and cost-of-living pressures are squeezing households and closing businesses, funnelling resources into an unrequested referendum is yet another example of this coalition’s skewed priorities.

The three-year term ensures that voters can relatively swiftly correct course when governments veer into chaos. Luxon’s coalition is banking on an extra year to entrench policies that prioritise corporate mates over ordinary Kiwis, all while dismissing public discontent as the grumblings of “bottom feeders” and "drop kicks". If this government truly believed in its vision, it wouldn’t fear facing the electorate every three years.

The push for a four-year term isn’t about stability, it’s about evading accountability. New Zealanders deserve better: a democracy that listens, not one that lectures.

Published by the Jackal