"Tough on crime, tougher on everyday people. #nzcomedy #standupcomedy

Tāmaki Makaurau I’m bringing my comedy show to you in two weeks! 16-17 September, Basement Theatre, tickets in bio!

Also I appreciate the “people with disabilities” line might make some feel uncomfortable. The purpose of that line is to make people aware that our current government is making life harder for people with disabilities. My intention is to punch up but I apologise if you found that offensive 🙏"

Source IG orinruaineprattley: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dcpm78wT3fB/

OPINION: To the 11,700 Air New Zealand staff

I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister’s unusually blunt assessment of Air New Zealand’s latest financial result.

“It’s clearly a very poor performance,” he said.

But it was what followed that caught my attention. Air New Zealand, he said, needed to explain what had caused such a significant loss and, more importantly, what it was going to do to build a better business.

“We expect them to very quickly turn it around and get the company growing again and performing strongly.”

Fair enough. But surely New Zealanders are entitled to expect the same from the Prime Minister when it comes to running the country.

So how is he doing?

Before answering that, let’s afford him the same consideration I think he should have afforded Air New Zealand.

What did he inherit? What has happened that he couldn't control? What can he control? And what is he doing about it?

Plenty of New Zealanders would prefer to fly our national airline but, increasingly, that is becoming difficult to justify.

I understand that.

Last week a same-day return flight from Dunedin to Wellington cost me $1,333.75. The week before, Dunedin to Christchurch and back cost $857.75.

$2,191.50 for two short domestic flights. Neither was on a jet. Both were full. And with fewer flights available, there weren't many other options.

I noticed something else on the invoices. Of that $2,191.50, $285.86 was GST.

A business may be able to claim that back. Most New Zealanders flying to visit family, attend a funeral or simply travel around their own country can’t. That part of the ticket price doesn't go to Air New Zealand.

It goes to the Government.

So, what else sits behind the price we pay to fly in this country? A $336 million pre-tax loss is a serious number. But numbers need context.

Global engine problems left expensive Air New Zealand aircraft sitting on the ground. Air New Zealand puts the impact on its latest result at around $190 million.

War in the Middle East drove fuel prices higher, taking another $135 million off the result. Maintenance costs increased by $139 million. Aviation-system costs - fees, levies and airport charges - increased by another $142 million.

Air New Zealand’s CEO, Nikhil Ravishankar, has to manage the airline's response to all of those things. But he doesn't control any of them.

And that's where I struggle with the Prime Minister's criticism.

He knows this business. He knows the people who work in it. He knows exactly what it is like to sit in the chair now occupied by Nikhil Ravishankar.

He sat in it.

When Christopher Luxon became chief executive of Air New Zealand in 2013, he inherited an airline whose earnings were already improving strongly. In the financial year before he took over, Air New Zealand made a net profit after tax of $71 million. In Rob Fyfe’s final six months as CEO, normalised earnings before tax had risen from $33 million to $139 million.

Luxon went on to deliver some outstanding results at Air New Zealand. He deserves credit for that. But he inherited an airline that was already climbing.

Nikhil Ravishankar didn't.

And surely the former CEO understands better than most that the number at the bottom of a financial statement doesn't tell you everything about the performance of the people responsible for it.

There is another reason this matters.

New Zealand taxpayers own 51 percent of Air New Zealand. We are the majority shareholder. The Prime Minister represents us. So perhaps the first call should have been to the new CEO of the company we own, to understand what was happening and what we could do about it.

That conversation could have started by extending Nikhil Ravishankar the same courtesy I extended the Prime Minister at the beginning of this column.

What have you inherited? What has happened that you couldn't control? What can you control? And what are you doing about it?

Then perhaps a couple more.

What can we fix together? What do you need from us to get our airline growing again and doing the job we need it to do?

Aviation-system costs could be a good place to start because that is something the government can influence.

Air New Zealand says it, and its customers, share of those costs reached $1.2 billion in the past year, $142 million more than the year before. Airport charges are part of that and in NZ, Wellington provides an interesting example of how those charges can be used.

Wellington Airport already discounts charges to encourage airlines to grow passenger numbers. Fair enough. Competition should be good for travellers. But look at where that competition occurs.

Jetstar flies from Wellington to Auckland, Christchurch and Queenstown.

Air New Zealand flies those routes too; plus Blenheim, Dunedin, Gisborne, Invercargill, Napier, Nelson, New Plymouth, Rotorua, Tauranga and Timaru.

Three destinations versus thirteen.

Prime Minister chasities Air New Zealand for losses, but no assistance

The Commerce Commission has explained why competitors aren't rushing to those regional routes. They are more expensive to operate. Many of the costs are incurred simply taking off, landing and having an aircraft on the ground.

So when Wellington Airport offers discounted charges to attract additional capacity on those three profitable routes, why not offer Air New Zealand the same discounted rate for the capacity it already provides on them?

Then let them compete on equal terms.

Air New Zealand isn't just flying three routes out of Wellington. It is maintaining a network of thirteen, including regional routes the Commerce Commission tells us are considerably harder to make work. Perhaps helping it compete more effectively on the profitable parts of that network will help keep the rest of it viable for those of us who need to travel across the motu.

Auckland provides another example of why these costs matter.

Earlier this year, The Economist published an international comparison of 2024 airport charges that ranked Auckland the most expensive, ahead of Heathrow, Frankfurt, JFK, Singapore, Paris, Dubai and Seoul.

Last year the Commerce Commission also found Auckland Airport's charges too high, including $190 million in excess profit. They subsequently cut those charges, but airport costs clearly have an impact on our airline.

In 2025 Air New Zealand paid Auckland Airport $265 million. By 2032 that is scheduled to climb to $735 million.

Place that in the context of a $336 million dollar loss.

And that’s just one airport.

Which brings me back to the question I think sits behind all of this. What do we actually expect Air New Zealand to do? If all we want is an airline that flies the most profitable routes, the market can probably provide that. But Air New Zealand does something more.

It connects us across the whole country and is our gateway to the world.

I agree with the Prime Minister. Air New Zealand has to run the best business it can. But as the majority shareholder, we have a responsibility to help make that business work. What can they fix? What can we fix? And what can we fix together?

That should be the goal. Making sure the national airline we own can do the job we need it to do.

For all of us.

Sir lan Taylor is the founder and managing director of Animation Research.

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.

Remember this in November. You, as a citizen and voter, are unimportant compared to big business

It seems that coincidentally 🤔 Rio Tinto had their Tiwai Point supply discussion / contact timed to our election cycle in order to apply pressure for the jobs

This election they've been very quiet. What's going on?

I'm sure you'll find this interesting... The electoral history of Winston Peters

With election right around the corner, I’ve been trying to work out what I actually want politically, rather than which colour team pisses me off the least. I keep coming back to one principle: the New Zealand economy and government should exist primarily to improve the lives of New Zealanders.

That does not mean shutting ourselves off from the world. Trade, immigration, foreign expertise and investment can all be enormously valuable. But they are tools, not ends unto themselves. The test should always be a simple: “does this make New Zealanders better off?”

1. Make healthcare and education national priorities

Healthcare should be one of the things a wealthy, functioning society simply gets right. You should be able to see a GP promptly, get necessary surgery before your condition becomes disabling, and enter an emergency department without finding a system permanently in crisis. Fund primary care properly, build capacity, train more clinicians and pay enough to retain them. A healthy population is also a more productive one.

Education deserves the same seriousness: strong literacy and numeracy, supported teachers, vocational education, apprenticeships, serious universities and greater respect for technical and trade careers. We also need to stop educating people for Australia. It is absurd to spend enormous sums training scarce professionals, watch them disappear across the Tasman, then import replacements. Nobody should be trapped here, but bonded scholarships, student-loan forgiveness after NZ service, rural incentives, better pay and stronger career pathways are reasonable. Make New Zealand somewhere talented New Zealanders want to stay.

Education also has a civic purpose. Young people should leave school able to distinguish reporting from opinion, interrogate a statistic, ask who funded a “think tank” and recognise how algorithms reward outrage. That is not teaching them what to think. It is teaching them how not to be conned.

2. Keep strategic assets working for New Zealand

Competitive private markets are excellent where genuine competition exists. Where it does not, particularly with essential infrastructure and natural monopolies, public ownership or aggressive regulation should prevent monopoly and duopoly profits from being extracted from captive consumers.

New Zealand spent decades selling assets on the theory that private ownership would make everything more efficient. Maybe some things did. But we also sold the dividends, capital appreciation and strategic control. Norway deliberately converted national wealth into wealth for future Norwegians. New Zealand should do the same. Labour’s proposed Future Fund is a step in the right direction, but I would be far more ambitious. New Zealand should become richer as a country, not merely a place containing some very rich individuals.

3. Stop allowing New Zealanders to be shafted for basic necessities

The supermarket duopoly is indefensible. Food is not a luxury, and Kiwis experience the problem every time they do the weekly shop. When two groups dominate groceries, families have little ability to vote with their wallets by shopping elsewhere.

Government needs to be far more aggressive. Break structural bottlenecks, force fair wholesale access, remove barriers to entry, help Costco-style challengers expand and actively court hard-discounters such as Aldi. If private competition still fails, trial publicly or community-owned supermarkets, as proposed in New York. Not because government-run shops are inherently virtuous, but because affordable food matters more than protecting the margins of an entrenched duopoly.

I would also examine a domestic-supply obligation for key foods we produce exceptionally well. New Zealanders should not find our best meat, dairy, fruit or seafood going to whichever overseas buyer pays most while locals get second-rate product at eye-watering prices. Exports matter, but the highest possible dollar should not outrank every social objective. A reasonable share of excellent NZ produce should remain available here at fair prices.

The same principle applies to banking, energy and other highly concentrated sectors. Foreign ownership is not automatically bad, but neither should government shrug while profits generated from essential NZ economic activity are funnelled offshore. Markets are a means, not sacred institutions.

4. Tax productive activity less and economic rents more intelligently

I do not want high taxation, I want intelligent taxation. Working, employing people, building businesses and inventing things are productive. Holding scarce land while its value rises because everybody else builds roads, schools and businesses around it is different.

That is why land-value taxation and other taxes on economic rents deserve serious consideration, especially if they fund lower taxes on productive activity. Opportunity’s interest in land taxation is one of the more interesting ideas in current NZ politics. We should move capital away from bidding up existing houses and toward productive enterprise.

5. Immigration should exist solely to benefit New Zealand

This is where I most clearly part company with much of the modern left. To be clear, I am not anti-immigration. Immigration brings ideas, skills, food, customs and perspectives that enrich New Zealand. A sensible amount keeps a society dynamic.

But immigration policy should exist solely to benefit the receiving country. Full stop. There are deliberately limited humanitarian exceptions, refugees being the obvious one, where we choose to help because it is the decent thing to do even with no direct economic return. Outside those exceptions, however, the ONLY question should be: what does admitting this person contribute to New Zealand?

Need oncologists, engineers, specialist nurses, scientists, scarce tradespeople or entrepreneurs bringing genuine expertise? Absolutely. Someone for an entry-level job a New Zealander could learn quickly? Hell no. If employers cannot recruit, the answer is to raise wages, improve conditions, invest in equipment or train somebody. Importing low-skilled labour reduces the pressure to make exactly those improvements.

New Zealand is a small country. Housing, hospitals, schools, roads, water and the natural environment have finite absorptive capacity. Immigration should therefore be selective and adjusted to infrastructure, labour-market and environmental conditions. Of course immigrants we admit should be treated decently and protected from exploitation, but fair treatment of migrants and tight control of numbers are entirely compatible positions.

The Greens seem incapable of making that distinction clearly. Their current manifesto strongly emphasises welcoming pathways, settlement and migrant rights, but gives much less attention to the more fundamental question of how many people NZ should admit and why. That initial decision belongs to New Zealanders.

6. Protect our civic culture from imported culture wars

One of New Zealand’s strengths is that the things uniting us are far greater than the things separating us. I do not want us importing the poisonous US political culture in which every disagreement becomes tribal warfare and people increasingly inhabit different versions of reality.

The beginnings are visible: outrage-driven politics, religious provocateurs, ideologically funded “think tanks”, algorithms rewarding anger, and attempts to turn ordinary disagreements into existential culture wars. We should recognise where that road leads before the door opens wider.

A healthy democracy needs a shared factual foundation. News organisations should be free to criticise governments from any direction, but accuracy, transparency and editorial independence matter. The Government’s plan to disestablish the Broadcasting Standards Authority and rely more on industry self-regulation concerns me, even if the old system needed modernising. Foreign ownership of influential media should also be transparent and treated as a legitimate public-interest concern.

This connects directly back to education. People should be equipped to spot bullshit before someone monetises or radicalises them with it. Vigorous disagreement is healthy. Imported culture wars are not. We should argue about New Zealand’s actual problems, not inherit somebody else’s.

7. Measure what actually matters

If we import another 200,000 people, total GDP will rise. Fine. But if GDP per person, real disposable income, productivity, housing affordability, healthcare access, educational achievement and infrastructure per person do not improve along with it, that is a failure of policy.

Bhutan is very different from New Zealand, but its Gross National Happiness philosophy captures something worth remembering: economic output is a means, not society’s highest calling. A wealthy society that is unhealthy, poorly educated, unaffordable, bitterly divided and incapable of agreeing on basic facts is not succeeding by the metrics that matter to most Kiwis.

Why these policies belong together

This is not a random grab-bag of left-wing and right-wing ideas. Rather, my attempt at a cohesive philosophy. Train and retain New Zealanders, and we need fewer imported workers. Restrict low-skilled immigration, and employers have stronger incentives to raise wages, train and automate. Better healthcare and education create a healthier, more capable workforce, while critical thinking makes society harder to manipulate. Land-tax reform redirects capital from speculation. Breaking oligopolies stops gains disappearing into monopoly profits and leaving the country. Strategic assets and a sovereign fund turn today’s prosperity into tomorrow’s national capital. Selective immigration strengthens productive capacity rather than simply adding pressure to housing and infrastructure.

Then judge the whole system by one question: are ordinary New Zealanders becoming better off?

So how do the current parties measure up?

National

National is almost the philosophical antithesis. Its reflex remains lower taxes, smaller government, private capital, foreign investment and faith that growth will solve the rest. New Zealand has spent roughly forty years trying variations of that model while selling assets, tolerating concentration, watching infrastructure lag population growth and losing skilled Kiwis to Australia. At some point, take a look at the fucking scoreboard. A country is not a company whose purpose is minimising overhead and maximising quarterly returns. Disestablishing the BSA in favour of greater self-regulation also looks badly timed as media fragmentation and misinformation grow.

ACT

ACT has a habit of correctly diagnosing a problem, then prescribing more of the philosophy that helped create it. However, its immigration thinking is more serious than I expected, and I agree migration categories should continually justify themselves. I have no objection in principle to a leaner state, or to fewer politicians. In fact, I would happily trade some of the political layer for stronger ministries staffed by capable experts with the freedom to do their jobs. What leaves me cold is ACT’s instinct to push more public functions into private hands and reduce the state’s role where I think it still matters. Looking at forty years of that approach and deciding we simply did not go far enough is not my idea of reform.

NZ First

NZ First may be the most frustrating. They talk about foreign-owned banks, supermarket power, stronger borders, economic sovereignty, rail and resilience. Sometimes sounding remarkably close to the argument I’m making here. Then they spend a full parliamentary term enabling National and ACT. Who you put into power matters way more than what you say at a public meeting.

Labour

Labour’s instincts are probably closer to mine. The Future Fund, stronger healthcare support and apprenticeships are all worthwhile. But where is the organising idea? Labour offers individually sensible policies without explaining what it wants the NZ economy to become. I do not want National-lite with nicer public services. I want a coherent twenty-year vision.

Greens

Economically, the Greens probably track closest. Strong public services, challenging concentrated corporate power, public-interest energy and greater willingness to tax wealth all fit. Then they reach immigration and lose me. A party that recognises ecological limits everywhere else seems to have a remarkable blind spot when it comes to population growth. Their immigration policy appears ideologically committed to expanding welcoming pathways, settlement and the interests and aspirations of migrants, rather than addressing the more fundamental question: how many people should NZ admit, and why?

Opportunity

Opportunity may be the most intellectually interesting. Land-value taxation, infrastructure, productivity and shifting capital away from housing speculation are exactly the structural questions I want discussed. I am less convinced by its instincts on foreign capital, immigration and public ownership, but at least it questions parts of the current model rather than merely managing them.

So this is the party I want

Call it social democracy, economic nationalism, Scandinavian-style capitalism or something else. I want top-notch universal healthcare; excellent education and vocational training; a strategy for retaining the people we pay to train; competitive markets where competition works and public ownership or aggressive regulation where it does not; a sovereign investment fund; taxation that rewards productive activity over rent-seeking; environmental limits taken seriously; a civic culture based on facts rather than imported culture wars; and immigration designed solely around New Zealand’s interests.

Above all, I want a government willing to say that economic growth is not the ultimate objective. The objective is a healthier, better educated, more secure, more cohesive and more prosperous population living in a country worth handing to the next generation.

I do not believe this is radical thinking, and I suspect it would appeal to many New Zealanders who currently feel politically homeless.

Would you vote for that? And if not, which part do you actually disagree with?

I cannot understand why any regular taxpayer would vote for a party so openly acting in the interests of millionaires and billionaires.

I’m shit-posting now, but I reckon if the next leader of the Nats had the guts to rule out the Epsom deal with ACT, they would pull enough centrist voters off Labour/NZ First than they would lose in Parly support.

The company has in the past been responsible for taking around 30 to 40 percent of all of New Zealand's natural gas production.

ln recent years the country's natural gas production has declined rapidly with little new supply coming on board.

The company, which employs around 200 people, not including contractors and suppliers, said it would work closely with employees, contractors, suppliers, customers, and government stakeholders during the transition period.

Stuff article

RNZ article

Article

That is being run by an ex RBNZ guy and an Atlas Network affiliated economist from Cypress or wherever else they found him

Willis wrote the terms so that it would be released 6 weeks before the election and will be intended to malign Labour

Yesterday at a media conference, Luxon also repeated Simeon Brown's white lie that National hired over 2000 nurses during their tenure - the real number as we know is 54 FTE and National are taking credit for the nurses Labour hired.

Just as they took credit for the houses Labour built and started.

Willie Jackson's made contact today saying we were unfair and a bit harsh last night in our critique of his appearance on Q&A so, as is appropriate, Willie is coming on tonight to correct what he says we got wrong and allows us to seek some clarity on some questions we had that came from the interview.

Ryan Bridge hosted Chris Bishop this morning to find out is we about to borrow $1b to fix potholes? Let's look at that.

Trouble in paradise? Winston Peters has taken another crack at the Christopher Luxon's political experience, after the Prime Minister said remaining in the Paris climate agreement would be a bottom line in coalition negotiations. As an aside, our Foreign Minister is currently at the Pacific Islands Forum where climate change, and what Pacific countries are going to do about it, is high on the agenda

https://www.youtube.com/live/tF-Jo1hbWV0?si=-VTC2f9JcGNfvy2j

Article HERE

The stupidest thing about this whole report/slant is that media seem to have forgotten National have spent the last ~3 years slashing climate reduction target, ignoring the Climate Commission, ignoring warnings their policies mean we will fail Climate commitments, allowing farmers to pollute more, allow more shit into our waterways, make it legal for forestry to pollute and not clean up, and bring in fossil fuel supportive policies and funding - but now we are at election time, Luxon claims he cares about the Climate Agreement.

And let's not forget National wanted to sell and privatise over 60% of our natural conservation lands - for profit.

It's just utter bullshit.

But it also shows Luxon is paving the way for an agreement with TOP which will have a bottom line about Climate.