Anyone familiar with this guy knows hes an absolute nutbag. Google him if you want some entertainment.

I will say that in general I actually like it when non-politicians can shake things up where we have stale bureaucracy. But this guy is unhinged and more importantly, unproductive for Dunners.

I thought its a great post to show just how wrong things can go at local level. Our local governance is absolutely susceptible to nutjobs like this guy and there is not really a solution for it.

Kudos to those who voted this guy in!

Bit of a blow for the region, but it looks like oil and gas exploration is starting again after the uncertainty that Labours ban bought to the industry.

Pragmatic Lally we'll need either gas or coal to help get through the winter demand gap for the foreseeable future, so this isn't terrible news.

The National Party has abandoned, delayed, or heavily modified over 25 major campaign pledges from the 2023 election trail. Driven by coalition compromises and worsening economic forecasts, the government walked back signature promises spanning tax cuts, healthcare, climate infrastructure, and welfare.

Tax & Government Finances

The Foreign Buyers Tax

What changed: National promised to lift the ban on foreign buyers for luxury homes over $2 million. They planned a 15% tax to fund their tax cuts. New Zealand First blocked it entirely during coalition talks. National had to scrap the tax completely and find funding through public sector cuts instead.

The 2026/27 Budget Surplus Target

What changed: Finance Minister Nicola Willis explicitly promised a return to a budget surplus by the 2026/27 financial year. She later abandoned this timeline due to economic deterioration. The official target was pushed out to 2028/29.

Online Gambling Tax Revenue

What changed: National campaigned on closing offshore gambling loopholes to pull in $179 million annually. Independent experts warned the numbers were inflated. The actual revenue fell significantly short, leaving a massive funding hole.

The $250 Fortnightly Tax Cuts

What changed: Campaign ads guaranteed that an "average-income family with children" would get $250 a fortnight in tax relief. Post-budget analysis revealed only about 3,000 households nationwide actually met the strict criteria to receive the full amount.

Health & Disability Services

The 13 Cancer Drugs Pledge

What changed: National promised to bypass Pharmac to directly fund 13 specific cancer treatments by reinstating $5 prescription fees. They completely left it out of Budget 2024. Following fierce public backlash, they U-turned a month later, instead giving Pharmac a general $604 million boost to cover the drugs.

The Third Medical School

What changed: To fix the doctor shortage, National promised a new medical school at Waikato University. The policy was stalled by a clause in the ACT coalition agreement. This clause mandates a full cost-benefit analysis before any funding is approved.

Three-Day Post-Natal Hospital Stays

What changed: National guaranteed a three-day post-natal stay for all new mothers who wanted it. The policy stalled because the government failed to fund the 175 extra hospital beds and staff needed to deliver it.

The Dunedin Hospital Upgrade

What changed: National campaigned heavily on delivering vital regional health upgrades and fixing hospital infrastructure. Citing budget overruns, they announced massive downscaling and funding cuts to the Dunedin Hospital project, sparking major local protests.

Infrastructure & Energy

The 10,000 EV Chargers Rollout

What changed: A headline "Electrify NZ" policy promised $170 million in direct capital to build 10,000 public EV chargers by 2030. The direct funding was scrapped. It was replaced with a smaller $52.7 million private loan scheme, severely slowing down the installation pace.

The Second Waitematā Harbour Crossing

What changed: National promised to fast-track construction on a second Auckland harbour crossing early in their term. Due to multi-billion dollar deficits in the Land Transport Fund, the project remains stuck in the planning and consultation phases.

Pay-As-You-Go Roading Infrastructure

What changed: National promised a $24 billion transport package funded by private equity and public-private partnerships without toll hikes. Private capital did not arrive as expected. The government had to introduce aggressive tolling plans across several regional highways instead.

Offshore Wind Permits

What changed: National promised to implement offshore wind regulations and commercial permits within exactly one year of taking office. Official briefings later confirmed this timeline was logistically impossible, delaying the permits significantly.

Housing & Social Welfare

KiwiSaver for Rental Bonds

What changed: National promised to let young renters transfer KiwiSaver funds to pay for residential rental bonds. The Housing Minister later confirmed the policy was abandoned because the legal framework was too complicated.

Kāinga Ora Social Housing Expansion

What changed: National promised to fix state housing waitlists and deliver social housing more effectively. Instead, following a government review, they paused or cancelled roughly 3,500 planned state homes.

The Bipartisan Housing Density Accord

What changed: National originally signed a historic agreement supporting Medium Density Residential Standards to force councils to allow three-story townhouses. Facing suburban voter backlash, leadership walked it back and gave councils an opt-out clause.

The First Home Grant

What changed: While they did not campaign on cutting it, National completely axed the First Home Grant program in Budget 2024, removing a key piece of structural support for first-time buyers.

Raising the Superannuation Age

What changed: National campaigned on a long-term plan to gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. New Zealand First blocked the policy entirely during coalition negotiations, locking the age at 65.

Winter Energy Payments

What changed: National promised an efficient welfare-to-work pipeline. Instead, systemic processing errors within the ministry caused vulnerable citizens to miss out on their Winter Energy Payments, forcing a public apology from the Prime Minister.

Transport & Environment

No New Fuel Taxes

What changed: National strongly condemned Labour’s planned fuel hikes during the campaign. However, their long-term transport plan revealed a 12-cent per litre fuel tax hike scheduled for January 1, 2027, followed by successive annual increases.

Public Transport Costs

What changed: The party campaigned on easing everyday costs for the "squeezed middle." Instead, they cut public transport subsidies, which directly increased fare prices for youth and students.

Lifting the Live Animal Exports Ban

What changed: National explicitly promised to lift the ban on live animal exports. The government later issued a total U-turn, officially announcing that live animal exports will not resume this term.

The Two-for-One Farming Regulation Rule

What changed: National promised to cut two farming regulations for every new one introduced. This strict formula was dropped during coalition talks and replaced with a generalized, slower regulatory review framework.

Feral Cats Predator Target

What changed: In a live televised debate, Christopher Luxon promised that feral cats would be added to the Predator Free 2050 list. Official conservation reviews later excluded them due to feasibility issues.

Law, Order & Governance

500 Extra Frontline Police Officers

What changed: National pledged to deliver 500 extra frontline police officers within their first two years. Due to massive recruitment bottlenecks and high staff attrition, they had to formally extend the delivery deadline with their coalition partners.

The Under-16 Social Media Ban

What changed: National pushed heavily to introduce a swift ban on social media for minors under 16. Both ACT and New Zealand First fiercely opposed the ban. The internal coalition friction delayed the bill so long that it ran out of time before Parliament rose.

Shielding Frontline Services from Cuts

What changed: National guaranteed that public sector cuts would only target back-office roles. The strict multi-billion dollar baseline cuts forced ministries to freeze frontline vacancies and cut support roles that keep doctors and teachers active.

Regional Deals Framework

What changed: National promised mayors stable infrastructure funding partnerships through "Regional Deals." They later backtracked by legally capping local council rates and blocking local revenue tools like accommodation levies.

Dismantling Co-Governance

What changed: National promised to completely dismantle co-governance frameworks in local government. To avoid massive legal gridlock with iwi, they heavily softened their stance in several regional agreements, drawing criticism from right-wing commentators.

My rant here - I fucking HATE what this demonstrates.

This demonstrates that both major parties are the same moa turds, just different consistencies. Both pledging freezing revenue streams while borrowing to cover it.

Fucking public will eat it up too, kicking another can down the road along with all the others.

The Mātike Mai Fund would be used to set up and resource an independent Mātike Mai secretariat, fund Māori-led "constitutional kōrero" across the country and begin a Māori Constitutional Convention to facilitate formal talks with tangata Tiriti, local government and the Crown.

I'll take it, we need to have a proper conversation and if this is how we get it, ok.

Fellow co-leader Rāwiri Waititi said Te Tiriti was "above this House and it is above every law

Depends on what we want Te Tiriti to say. Might need some definitions written down and agreed to first..

This year's influenza is brutal, I know a few parents with young bubs in hospital.

Serious consideration needs to be given to offshore screening, let's keep it out.

Curious what the community take on this is. What is the problem being solved for with the change?

Mummy and daddy are fighting! Lol

I run KiwiValues, a small NZ political compass site. Side project, about 550 responses so far. I've started writing up what the data actually shows, and one finding keeps nagging at me, so I want to check it against this sub's intuitions.

I grouped respondents by the party they say they usually vote for, then averaged how much each group agrees with "We should invest more in public transport" on a scale from -1 (strongly disagree) to +1 (strongly agree):

Greens +0.9, TOP +0.7, Labour +0.7, NZ First +0.5, National +0.2, ACT +0.2.

Not one group averages against it. Even the ACT and National voters in my sample land on the agree side of neutral.

Here's why I'm suspicious of my own result. The sample skews young and online, badly. You can see it in the group sizes: 169 Green voters answered, and only 20 National voters. Young renters in cities are exactly the people you'd expect to want better buses and trains regardless of party. So maybe I haven't measured "NZ agrees about public transport" at all. Maybe I've measured "young online people agree about public transport, and party membership doesn't change that within the demographic."

The counterpoint is that the same respondents split hard when the question changes. On heavily taxing wealth, my Green voters average +0.8 and my ACT voters -0.8, about as far apart as the scale allows. So the sample can disagree with itself just fine. It chooses not to on transport.

The full write-up is here, with charts and the caveats spelled out (it's directional, not a poll): https://kiwivalues.nz/research/what-supporters-agree-on/. Same pattern shows up on a few other questions: keeping religion out of schools, spending on preventive healthcare, and believing parties can be bought by special interests.

What I'd like this sub's read on: if voters of every party lean pro transport investment, why does transport spending stay one of the sharper left/right divides in actual party policy? Are the parties out of step with their own supporters, or is my sample just not capturing the National/ACT voter who hates the idea? And for the demographics point, would you expect this consensus to survive proper reweighting to the real population?

New poll, Who dis?

OPP Surge getting harder to ignore.

Disclaimer: This is AI generated images and I can barely make it do what I want.

In order to understand how USD system work we need to look how current system was created.

Picture 1: Petrodollar. In 1973 USA made an agreement with oil producing countries that in exchange of protection they trade oil on USD and invest profits into USA financial market. That created a first constant intake of USD into USA. But that was not enough. USA was creating USD to pay for wars and trade deficit, but not enough USD were moving back to USA.

So, we had https://www.markethistories.com/en/the-volcker-shock-breaking-inflation-at-any-cost-1979-1982 The Volcker Shock.

Picture 2: FEDS raise interest rates to 20%, creating demand for USD, Capital start to flow into USA seeking passive profit. This created conditions for insane profits from USA financial market. Average grow of USA stock market between 1985 to 2025 is 12%. Almost no productive investment can beat that, except monopoly profit or extremely cheap workforce. So, this Capital flow become self sustaining. Capital start to flow into USA financial market, creating self sustaining baubles. The worse world economy performs - the bigger grow. For example, in Covid time stock markets grow at 20-25%.

And now Oil shock slowing down world economy push even more profits into USA financial markets. But now there is an opposite processes. Petrodollar mostly stooped and even reverse. The more sanction USA put, the less USA financial market attraction. I do not claim USD is not used in trade, it does, even more then before. But flow of Capital into USA financial market begin to have problems. it is shrinking geographically, currently balanced by inability of Capital to invest into real economy. But eventually this process will be broken.

NZ deeply invested into USA financial market. Kiwi saver, many funds and individuals. It is very attractive, but deny our economy access to Capital. Who will invest into NZ when passive income is soo big?

I want all parties and individuals to consider this.

My take here is going to seem cold, but pensioners complaining about their untested super and supports not being enough is a hard pill to take when by average, pensioners are asset rich and often have significant equity.

Means testing the pension and offering more to pensioners who actually need it by stopping payments to those who don’t makes a lot of sense to me.

Sickness beneficiaries and disabled people IMO have a way tougher time at present than pensioners.

The same generation that made bank out of the housing booms and saved loads of $ through decades of cheap rates by deferring infrastructure costs. Now they feel a little pain like the rest of us and it demands attention?

I think this article summed his strategy up pretty well to be honest. I am glad to see them not shy from the frustration that his approach causes for those on the left.

Shane Jones pretending he has morals.

If they start growing kiwifruit on fishing boats he would be singing their praises….

We just started it, but we never got the funding and resourcing in place. That's what they're saying: 'look, if we can just get the funding resourcing', so I'm saying, well, what if we do that?"

Jackson pointed to alternative approaches which were more centred on "devolvement" – handing greater resourcing and control directly to Māori providers.

One obvious criticism of the MHA was that it duplicated the bureaucracy, which seems to be what Willie is saying.

I think it's a shame that the idea behind the MHA, healthcare in a more holistic manner, got sacrificed on the alter of politics. You can't just treat the body and ignore the wairua, the mana, the mauri.

I made this post last year in another sub but the issue of ‘race-based’ prioritisation in health services has just appeared again in comments in this sub. The timing is interesting given it’s election season and this issue first made an appearance during the 2023 campaign.  Conversations on this topic are frustrating because I have insight into waiting list management and the narratives are generally uninformed. So here I am with a comprehensive explanation of surgical waiting list prioritisation and the equity tool reported on so widely. Yes it's long, but if you've ever wondered what goes on when hospitals book people for surgery this will give you an idea.

Back in 2023 media began reporting that Health NZ had implemented a policy to prioritise Māori for surgery above anyone else based on their ethnicity alone. You might remember headlines like “Auckland surgeons must now consider ethnicity in prioritising patients for operations”. The story even went international on the Guardian and ABC News Australia. After NACT1 took power the programme was squashed but it was only at that point RNZ offered comprehensive coverage of the facts based on findings of an evaluation report.

The thing that caused this issue is a tool/algorithm called the Equity Adjuster. Media tended to portray this as a nationally implemented practice by Health NZ for surgical waiting list management. That’s not the case. Before we talk about it, there’s important stuff to know about how surgical waiting list prioritisation and booking works in general.

Surgical wait list prioritisation is always done by surgeons using standardised scoring tools (CPAC) based on clinical indicators that don’t include ethnicity. The type of indicators included in the CPAC differ depending on the discipline and procedure but it’s things like the level of function a person has, how much pain they’re experiencing, other medical conditions involved, risk factors for surgery. A few CPAC tools also include non-clinical factors like the person’s ability to work, look after their family, or drive safely. The important point is that priority for surgery in New Zealand’s public health system is always determined by CPAC score as assessed by a medical professional. Nothing else.

When people are added to the booking list they’re assigned a priority based on how clinically urgent their case is – P1 is highest, P4 is lowest. If you’re a P4 you’re unlikely to be accepted onto the list at all because our hospitals simply don’t have the capacity. Some hospitals consider this priority as need for 'review' rather than actual need for surgery. In some specialties demand is so high P3s and sometimes P2s don’t make it either. The reason lower priority patients don’t make it is because government sets performance targets for hospitals to treat everyone within four months. That’s not possible within current capacity so wait lists are rationed. How long you actually wait depends on how many people with higher clinical priority are ahead of you but it’s not typical for someone to languish on a booking list for more than a year because there are consequences for the hospital when that happens.

Booking an operating list isn’t as simple as starting at the top of the wait list and working your way down. Multiple factors are considered like the surgeon’s scope, duration of different procedures, equipment required, surgical ward capacity, the patient’s fitness for surgery. Theatre and booking staff select a mix of procedures from the list to maximise theatre time and treat as many patients as possible. People from P1 are selected first but not always in order of waiting time because of different procedure requirements. Gaps are often filled by lower priority patients if no others fit. Sometimes patients are contacted and they decline because of unavoidable family or work commitments. So you find someone else. Some patients need pre-assessment for surgical fitness and they're not. So you find someone else. Long waiting, lower priority patients are sometimes booked to satisfy performance targets. Sometimes lists are cancelled last minute and people are slotted in elsewhere. It’s frankly a fucking nightmare that includes a not insignificant level of subjective decision making but this is the baseline method for surgical booking at all NZ hospitals. It’s driven by priority and performance - no ethnicity involved.

Behind all this, a long-acknowledged, independently evidenced problem in our health system is the disproportionate extended surgical waiting time for people experiencing high levels of deprivation AND Māori and Pacific people, even when adjusted for things like age, gender, employment. It’s been studied extensively and the cause is not behavioural, it’s systemic – the patients are not at fault and it’s often a result of process and system bias. The scale of the problem is such that it has a flow-on effect to other public services with increased cost for government due to lost productivity and an increased need for social supports. Not to mention the impact on the person themselves.

To address that problem, Auckland developed an equity tool to sit alongside CPAC and adjust for things like deprivation and ethnicity. The tool did not only apply to Māori and Pacific people. It was not a national policy intervention adopted by all of Health NZ, it was simply being trialled in one area then later trialled in two other regions. The evaluation report for the tool perfectly describes how it works.

“The Equity Adjustor assigns a score that increases with each day on the waiting list based upon multiple factors including clinical severity (P=Priority; P1-P4), the specialist service in question, time already spent on the waiting list, ethnicity, deprivation and residence in a metro Auckland/non-metro Auckland location […]

The tool score influenced the timeliness of being contacted for booking, but did not explicitly address the timeliness of the procedure or appointment itself. Clinical and service ‘over-ride’ is allowed in both tools. Tool use is not enforced or required by services.”

So, the algorithm does not adjust priority based on ethnicity alone. It’s a multi-factor tool that sits alongside CPAC, which is still the primary clinical prioritisation tool used to order people on the list. The adjuster’s purpose was to highlight patients who might otherwise be overlooked in the Jenga puzzle of scheduling a theatre list. But applying it was optional. The team could ignore or override it when planning a list. It meant proactive contact for booking, not actual booking or straight to the top of the list. Not across the country, just in three hospitals. Not quite the massive race-based surgery grab it’s being portrayed to be. Technical documentation for the tool is on Health NZ's website.

“The Review Panel’s overall conclusion is that an adjustment tool is legally and ethically justifiable in the context of demonstrable status quo inequities”

The evaluation highlighted a number of flaws impeding the tool’s success and recommended it remain in place while improvements were made. Except none of that happened and nobody is using it at all now because a handful of surgeons (I’m informed some weren’t even working at hospitals using the tool) got their balls in a bunch without full understanding of the intervention. The media shitstorm that ensued was ultimately its death cry. The sad thing is, stopping it really only hurt low income working people or the poor, because the tool was designed to address inequities driven by deprivation across all ethnicities as well as Māori and Pacific people. But we know how much our current government loves to hate on povvos.

If you've made it this far and you still plan on peddling 'race-based' prioritisation BS in this sub, well, best of luck. The facts are not on your side.

A bit of a surprise to see this coming from ACT, but a welcome one. Mussel Bay in the Hauraki Gulf infamously depleted its mussel stock about a decade ago. Overfishing is a huge problem and needs to be addressed.

More election sugar.

While removing supports from 18-19 year old like the article yesterday, now National will do students a favour and allow them to lower their minimum payments from 12 to 10%.

We won’t do anything to help students with the crushing cost of living, but we will allow them to lengthen their payoff period and reduce minimum payments.

I mean this will help folk really living hand to mouth with loans, but it’s just spreading their payments rather than actually supporting.

Some gems from the article:

From November 2026, the government will end Jobseeker payments to 18 and 19-year-olds whose parents earn more than $65,000.

In October last year, it was estimated that around 4300 young people would become ineligible for support as a result.

This will really help with the cost of living eh?

"This legislation reinforces the expectation that young people who are not in employment, education or training should be financially supported by their parents, not by taxpayers through the welfare system," she said.

If you are the parent of an 18-19 year old, you are now expected to still be financially responsible for supporting them. You are not going to still get child support payments to support that same 18-19 year old though eh? funny that...

"Importantly, it does not apply to homeowners who are receiving New Zealand superannuation, veteran's pension, supported living payment, or the emergency benefit that is the equivalent to the supported living payment.

"The partner or spouse of a recipient of one of those benefits will also not be impacted by the change."

So just fucking the young adults while protecting the free ride for pensioners eh?

Interesting video that popped up on my feed. Sharing for those who want to hear from Quilae Wong, leader of the Opportunity party, about what they stand for. I'm not affiliated with, nor do I volunteer for Opportunity, but I am incredibly interested in a potential new party shaking things up

It's probably a fairly inconsequential thing, but I find both of the main parties slogans to be pretty uninspired this year. At least there was a bit of open-endedness to "Getting NZ back on track", since NZ being "back on track" could mean quite different things to different groups of voters.

I think the Green's "For all of us" might be the dullest - it could easily be the tagline for a healthcare provider, bus network, or HR department.

Act's "Unlocking NZ's potential" is probably the best of the current election ones - I'm no Act fan, but I can at least see some overlap with their goals of less (or at least more up to date) regulation and red tape, lower taxes, and greater property rights

Government of fiscal responsibility, more tax loopholes.

<<The ACT party wants to allow people to make tax-free profits from cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin, as long as they hold onto it for more than a year.

It would also make it easier to use crypto for small purchases by creating a tax exemption for such low-value transactions.

Inland Revenue says 355,000 New Zealanders use crypto, with $36 billion worth of transactions recorded.

Under the current rules, investors have to calculate tax on profits every time they sell or swap their assets.>>

Some people (looking at you ACT party) will hate this but it’s a perfect example of a targetted initiative for a specific issue. Māori, particularly young Māori, are overrepresented in unemployment stats and underrepresented in university entrance. As the article says, programmes like this aimed at trade qualifications have been successful at creating more options and a bridge to higher education for Māori in the past.

If we want to see unemployment ease with people in sustainable work developing valuable skills to withstand AI replacement, targeting the group with the most to gain is a good move.