A clear choice

New Zealand First held its party conference over the weekend, and among all the weirdo cooker shit and outright racism, Winston dropped another election policy: a billion dollar subsidy for gas exploration, lest we be left behind in destroying the planet.

And today the Greens offered their alternative: a billion dollar investment in renewable firming for the grid, to help our energy transition and keep power prices low:

The Green Party wants to use its ‘Super Rich Tax’ to establish a publicly owned renewable energy company called Kiwipower, to fill the gaps they say the market has failed to fill.

The party says Kiwipower could use a combination of pumped hydro, geothermal and batteries to backup more intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar, making them a far better investment.

The party’s freshly released energy election policy would also see the wealth tax used to put solar panels on more than half of all public homes within four years, give renters access to plug-in solar, and expand the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme for insulation.

It would also invest $200 million for community-owned renewable energy and commit another $80m to Māori housing.

NZ First naturally offered no clue as to where their billion dollars would come from. The Greens, after years of the media crying "how will you pay for it!?!", said so explicitly. But its also worth noting that Kiwipower is an asset, and so the "spending" is largely an exercise in moving money from one column of the government's books to another. Ditto the mass installation of solar on state houses. And given what we know about home insulation, the "spending" will be more than saved in reduced downstream health costs. What does NZ First offer us? At best, a billion dollars down a black hole. At worst, the continued destruction of the global climate, with ongoing increased costs for health and natural disasters.

There's a clear choice here, and it should be obvious which one is a better deal, both for us as individuals, and for Aotearoa.

Eating Labour's lunch

Yesterday the Greens announced a significant election policy: default union membership. New employees would automatically be enrolled in a "default union", but would be able to opt out. Unions approved, of course, but what did Labour, the supposed party of the union movement think about it?

Yes, they were "non-committal". The same way they're "non-committal" about anything actually left-wing these days (when they're not actively hostile to it, like taxing the rich).

Snark about Labour useless aside, this is actually good policy. It's a nudge towards union membership, making it frictionless to join, while still respecting freedom of association. People can easily opt out, and the first month of temporary membership will cost them nothing. The big question is how many will. Union membership dropped to about 20% after National's Employment Contracts Act, and has never really recovered. This will almost certainly see a significant increase, and provide a place to build from.

The core of the Clark government's industrial relations policy was "give unions the tools, and let them fight and win gains for themselves". That worked quite well. And it will work better with stronger unions. Membership by default will enable that, but also put real pressure on the unions to deliver real benefits for those new members, to demonstrate their relevance and utility - because people are not going to stay members if membership delivers nothing. Its a direct recipe for greater union power - a thing employers actually fear.

The Ardern government's alternative was to spend years building supposed consensus with employers for "fair pay agreements" - essentially a system of centrally negotiated industry-specific awards. These would supposedly deliver to workers regardless of union membership (if employers didn't drag out negotiations and litigate to prevent them from being completed). But then after all that work and despite that supposed consensus, the current regime simply repealed them. It turns out that the employers simply lied about supporting them. Who'd have thunk it?

The same can happen to any replacement system, or any legal tweaks a Labour-led government puts in (see National's reinstatement of the 90-day law, its removal of workplace protections for contractors, and what its doing to the Holidays Act). But the beauty of the Greens' proposal is that it is insulated against such moves. While a new government can repeal the law, union members will remain members until they decide not to be. So the boost to union power will survive a change of government, in a way that laws don't. And the concessions unions win in the interim, and the legal minimums they have written into their contracts "just for certainty" will survive too, and be that much harder to get rid of.

The Greens putting this out there puts the pressure on Labour to support it. And if they don't, or if they want to play silly buggers and pretend not to so they can "surrender" it in coalition negotiations, voters can vote for the party which will deliver the policy they like. If Labour doesn't like that, maybe they should start living up to their name, rather than being NeoLiberals in red ties.

Climate Change: Incoherent

Two weeks ago, Climate Change Minister Simon watts was sending shitty letters to local authorities warning they were doing too much to adapt to climate change. Now, he's introduced a law to require them to do so:

Councils will have to come up with adaptation plans for communities at high risk from climate change hazards, under a proposed law change.

The Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, introduced to Parliament on Wednesday, will require councils to plan at least 30 years into the future, and spell out the likely cost.

[...]

Climate Change minister Simon Watts said for the first time, councils would be required by law to plan how high-risk communities in their area will prepare for the impacts of climate change.

This is utterly incoherent with their previous warnings, and it suggests that the regime simply has no idea what it is fucking doing. And of course, they're still leaving the question of who will pay for this completely up in the air - while constantly criticising councils for raising rates to cope with regime spending demands. Instead, like many things, its just been punted to next term, in the clear hope that another government will take the hit for it.

But while this piece of law is welcome, the rest of it isn't. Other nasty changes in the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill include:

• removing consultation requirements for Emissions Budgets and Emissions Reduction Plans, allowing everything to be done in secret without public input;
• removing all policy requirements from Emissions Reduction Plans, removing He Pou a Rangi's role in advising on them, and weakening monitoring;
• allowing the government to dictate He Pou a Rangi's recommendations on ETS limits and price control settings;
• removing the requirement that emissions budgets and decisions relating to them and Emissions Reduction Plans be consistent with the Paris Agreement and 1.5 degree limit. This in particular is contrary to international law.

So, do everything in secret, cut the public out, and return to the "good old days" where the government promised action then did nothing - which is what the law was meant to end. This is a total repudiation of the Zero Carbon Act. It is also the end of any pretence of bipartisanship on climate change - instead, National has returned to soft denial (accepting the problem, but refusing to act). Which means that the next government should end that pretence as well, and just implement real policy. Make the polluters scream! The louder they scream, the more of them who go bankrupt, the better!

National's New Zealand

How bad are things under the Luxon regime? We already knew that we had the worst wage growth in the world, with wages 6.4% below 2021 levels - which shows the lie of National's "economic growth". But what does that mean in reality? The Press headline from today speaks for itself: "Police are dealing with a new type of shoplifter - ‘everyday people’ who just need to eat":

A year ago, Sergeant Melissa Shaw’s retail crime team was set up to curb retail theft in Christchurch.

Shaw expected to deal mainly with drug addicts who repeatedly steal to fund their next hit. And there have been those.

But then came the surprise: A growing cohort of thieves who were not drug addicts, not kleptomaniacs, not youths.

They were parents and elderly people with no criminal histories, without the money to keep up with rising living costs, who stole food and clothing for themselves and their families.

And that's where we are now: normal people having to steal to get buy, because National's "rockstar economy" doesn't provide for them, and instead funnels everything upwards into the pockets of Luxon and his mates.

We desperately need to get rid of this government. So in November, vote for regime change!

Climate Change: Fixing the climate won't cause economic argmageddon

Parliament is currently hearing submissions on the regime's corrupt bill to protect polluters from liability for the damage their pollution is causing. Z Energy - one of the bill's instigators, whose lobbying efforts were unlawfully hidden by the Prime Minister's office - is doing some pretty heavy PR on this, in a desperate effort to convince people that this law benefits the public rather than just those polluters. As part of this, they've released the obligatory lobbying document promising economic armageddon!!!! unless they are immediately granted full and complete immunity for their crimes:

Three of the defendants - Z Energy, Fonterra and Genesis Energy - commissioned a report by an independent economist, Dr Niven Winchester.

It examined the potential economic and emissions impacts of legal remedies sought in the case.

Winchester concluded if an immediate cessation order was applied to the defendants in the case, GDP would decline by $21.9b (0.9 percent) over five years (2028-2032), with 2028 alone seeing a $7.5b (1.6 percent) fall.

The full report is here. The relevant table, on p12, is reproduced below:

The first think to note from this is that the $21.9 billion figure is cumulative economic impact, the sum of all the projected "losses" over 5 years. The actual figure for 2032 is $2.3 billion, or 0.5% lower than the projected base case. The second thing to note is that the report helpfully includes tables showing projected emissions reductions (table 4) and carbon prices (table 3), and when you do the maths, it turns out that the avoided emissions, if priced at the prices provided, offset 80% of that cumulative loss, and over 90% in early years ($7 of $7.5 billion in 2028; $5.2 of $5.7 billion in 2029; $3 of $3.5 billion in 2030; its frontloaded because prices decline as emissions return towards the projected path). The maximum projected net "loss" is $1.2 billion in 2032 - about 0.25%.

Plus of course there is the obvious: GDP is currently $450 billion. It is projected to be higher than that in all but the first years of the projected DFA scenario, and even that qualification disappears once the price of avoided emissions is included. In other words, this report shows that we can take radical action to rapidly cut our emissions, using the harshest method imaginable - an immediate, court-enforced order for large polluters to immediately reduce their pollution to net zero - and still be better off than we are now.

I do not think that is the optimum pathway; I prefer a managed transition. But in the absence of proper government policy, its the pathway we have left. And it still works. Its very bad for Fonterra, Z, and Genesis, of course, which is why they're lobbying so hard against it. But the rest of us are still massively better off because of it.

Unmentioned in this analysis of course is the cost of the storms, floods, fires, and other disasters, which are only growing to go worse if Fonterra, Z, Genesis etc continue polluting. But they only affect actual people, not suits and corporate bottom lines, so of course the ghouls ignore them. But you don't need to hire expensive lobbyists to tell you that the weather is now an ongoing shitshow, and we need to do what we can to stop it getting worse. And if making major polluters liable for the damage their pollution causes is what it takes, I am all for it.

Another outrageous abuse of the OIA

Two weeks ago the Ombudsman released his final opinion on the Prime Minister's unlawful hiding of information around his corrupt climate impunity law, and he was not impressed. As a followup, The Post filed another OIA with the Prime Minister, seeking correspondence between the PM, his "forgetful" adviser, and the Department of Internal Affairs (which hosts Ministerial Services and his his nominal employer). But the regime clearly wants to bury this information, because they have extended the request for 64 working days:

However, it was not until last week when branch performance director Penny Langley wrote back to extend the statutory timeframe by 64 working days.

Langley said “the consultations necessary to make a decision” meant DIA could not reasonably respond within the original deadline.

The extension, dated July 3, means the request is not due to be answered until October 7.

...which means that when they are inevitably late, or announce that a decision has been made but release will happen later, there will be no time to force release before the November 7 election.

This is an outrageous abuse of the OIA. It is also prima facie unlawful. The OIA is clear: extensions must be "for a reasonable period of time having regard to the circumstances". what's "reasonable"? The Ombudsman is equally clear:

Where Parliament has specifically mandated third party consultation on OIA requests, those parties have been required to respond ‘within 10 working days’. In its review of the official information legislation, the Law Commission suggested a minimum 5 working days’ notice. From this, it can be inferred that 5–10 working days would generally be regarded as a reasonable period of time within which to provide comment.

While the Ombudsman notes that more or less time might be appropriate depending on the circumstances, it is difficult to imagine circumstances which would justify 64 working days, and those which can be imagined - the person simply being unavailable for a protracted period of time - would also make it perfectly reasonable for the agency to simply make the decision itself without consulting at all.

DIA of course refuses to provide any justification for its decision, which in itself seems to be a violation of s23 OIA, and invites the natural suspicion that there is none (or rather, none which would withstand public scrutiny).

The Post has no doubt complained to the Ombudsman already about this, but for the rest of us its a reminder of how extensions are routinely abused, and how you should immediately complain about them. And if you're not sure about what to say, I have specific guidance for extension complaints here.

The bidding war on solar

Last month National announced its solar power policy. It was the bare minimum, a version of the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme expansion advocated by Rewiring Aotearoa, but with the problem that no sane person would trust them to actually deliver on it. Because while they want the positive PR from announcing a solar policy, they don't actually want to spend any time on implementation when they could be doing more important things, like climate change denial and culture war bullshit, instead.

Today it was Labour's turn. And they've announced the same core policy - the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme - backed up with additional loans through lines companies, support for community batteries, and support for renters to get plug-in solar. Which is all good, and unlike National there's no doubts about implementation. Labour will actually do what it promises, at least if there's still a public service to do it with. Not least because their expected coalition partners, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, will hold them to it (and push it further).

Speaking of the Greens, while they haven't yet announced their solar policy, their 2023 version was twice as generous as Labour's. I'd expect them to be starting from that baseline, and then adding on extra support for renters and community ownership. In the meantime, they're pointing out that with the three largest parties in parliament all supporting the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme, the House can and should just legislate the required tweaks to allow it to be used for solar, rather than making people wait until after the election. But then, that might make National actually deliver on their promise, rather than treating it as a meaningless soundbite.

In a democracy, everyone gets to vote

Its election year, so Winston is back on his bullshit, spewing racism in an effort to pander to his voting base of mostly old, mostly white racists. His latest idea? That only citizens should be allowed to vote:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has announced a policy to restrict voting rights to only those with New Zealand citizenship.

Peters announced the policy at a public meeting in Warkworth on Sunday afternoon.

Currently, legal residents living in New Zealand continuously for a year or more, and whose visa does not require them to leave within a certain time are eligible to vote.

Announcing his new policy on Sunday, party leader Peters said voting "should be a privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand, and who have made the commitment to make New Zealand their home and their future".

"If you haven't made that commitment or sworn that allegiance, we are happy to let you live here permanently, but why should you get a say in how this country is run or governed?" he said.

To which the short answer is "because they live here, you disgusting zombie".

The longer answer is that Aotearoa has a long tradition of recognising that everyone who lives here should have a say in the future of this place. Its been the case for over 50 years now, and its part of our democracy. And one of the reasons for it is that we were late to establish our own citizenship, and thus had to deal with a huge population of migrants from the old imperial center, who had made lives here, belonged here, but never had to do any formal paperwork to do so. And so, when we had to seriously grapple with that in the 1970's (thanks to Britain deciding that people it had invaded and oppressed and passed laws saying they were British whether they liked it or not, suddenly weren't British after all, especially if they might actually want to exercise their right to live in Britain), the easiest way of doing so was simply to delete the words "He is a British subject" from the 1956 Electoral Act, reducing the qualification to simply being "ordinarily resident in New Zealand" (plus the usual stuff about living here for a year and in the relevant electorate for a month etc). And then, once we'd passed our own citizenship legislation, the law assumed the form we know today, recognising voting rights for New Zealand citizens as well as permanent residents.

Ironically, the group protected by that transition - old British migrants who came here in the 1950's and 60's - are one of the cores of NZ First's support today. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of them still aren't citizens (because they have never had any need to be; they live here and they belong here).

The other irony is that when Winston talks about how voting "should be a privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand", he would effectively exclude almost all native-born New Zealanders from the electorate. Because if you were born here, you've never had to do anything of the sort! The only people who have actually "sworn allegiance to New Zealand" (in reality, to a foreign monarch who lives on the other side of the world) are immigrants who have made a conscious choice to become citizens, and weirdos (soldiers, police officers, and MPs). That might be Winston's vision of a perfect democracy, but it isn't mine - or, I think, Aotearoa's. In a democracy, everyone gets to vote. Its that simple. And people who try and undermine that need to be de-elected.

More lightning legislating

The House has been in urgency this week, as the regime struggle against the clock to pass its agenda. In addition to the inherent abuse of urgency, this has led to other abuses, with parliament once again returning to being "the fastest legislature in the west" to ram things through. And now there's another one: National has rammed its corrupt bill to protect polluters from liability for the climate change they are causing - the same bill a Ministerial Adviser violated the Public Records Act and hid the lobbyists' draft of from the OIA - through its first reading and sent it to committee. The committee report back date? 30 July. So the committee will have less than a month to "consider" this corrupt atrocity against the rule of law, turning it into little more than a rubber-stamp for Cabinet.

Submissions are open, and due by 9.00am, Monday, 13 July 2026 (note the dirty time chosen; you need to have this in by 12 July to be safe). So we have less than ten days to submit on this corrupt violation of constitutional norms. And this is what National calls "democracy".

The opposition has committed to repealing the bill if it becomes law, so any benefit Fonterra and Z Energy get from their corrupt lobbying will be transitory, lasting only until the repeal bill is passed and Mike Smith (or someone else) files a new case against them. Its probably worth supporting that in your submission, so Labour knows they're doing the right thing. Again, National's over-reach and abuse of power creates the potential to push back, and so we should push back hard, and demand not just repeal, but that polluters have absolute liability for the damage caused by their pollution. Fonterra and Z and their polluting mates have undermined our democracy to protect their profits. We need to punish them harshly for that, just so they don’t do it again.

Climate Change: Overdoing it?

Climate change is here, causing increasingly severe weather. In April, Wellington was flooded by extreme rainfall, making 40 homes uninhabitable and killing one person. Auckland suffered similar floods in 2023. We had more weather-related states of emergency in the first two months of 2026 than in the whole of 2025, and the number has only increased. A severe weather warning affecting multiple regions is issued every two weeks. But weirdly, the minister for climate change and local government thinks councils are doing too much to stop this, and has sent them a shitty letter demanding they pretend its not happening:

Wellington’s mayor has slammed a climate mitigation letter from the local government minister as “tone deaf”, in a city where a man died in flood waters and other residents scrambled for their lives mere weeks ago.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts’ letter to mayors, regional council chairpeople and council chief executives around the country started arriving in in-boxes about 6pm on Tuesday.

In it, he insinuated councils were “gold-plating” climate initiatives and building for worst-case scenarios at ratepayers’ expenses.

[...]

Asked for examples of problem initiatives, Watts’ office highlighted a Greater Wellington Regional Council regional flood hazard assessment, which produced a map showing where is prone to flooding risk. Areas severely flooded in April, such as Emerson St in Berhampore, were identified as being at risk.

The last bit makes it crystal clear why Watts is doing this: because clearly identifying climate change risks means some people's property values will drop. People with houses in flood zones might not be able to insure or sell them, and developers who have hoarded coastal property won't be able to develop it and might lose money. So to protect the imaginary property values of the rich, we all have to ignore what is happening before our eyes and pretend that everything is perfectly normal.

This is, simply, bullshit. And if Watts gets his way, more people will die. But Watts doesn't care. Weirdly, he seems to think none of this bad weather will affect him in any way.

Climate change is an existential threat to future for humanity. The regime has clearly chosen a side in that struggle, and it is the side of polluters and devastation. They have moved from passively not giving a shit to actively trying to stop people from doing anything about it. If we want a future, we need to throw this climate quisling regime out of office, and elect a government which will protect us, rather than protecting polluters.

Completely unsurprising

Back in May, we learned that climate polluters had bought themselves an exemption from the law (an exemption that will be passed through its first reading and sent to select committee under urgency this week), lobbying the Prime Minister in secret for a special law change in their favour. The Ombudsman has now completed their investigation of the failure to release that lobbying, and they are not impressed:

The Ombudsman has released a damning report into the failure of the Prime Minister’s Office to release a written briefing its chief policy adviser had received ahead of a controversial law change.

His report reveals that the adviser - who received the briefing note in hard copy and to his personal email address - was personally consulted on the request for information, but did not provide it.

The Ombudsman has referred the matter to the chief archivist and says it is “surprising” that the adviser does not recall the meetings in which the document was handed over.

The Ombudsman is being polite here. Because it is very clear what happened: the ministerial adviser lied to protect himself and his boss. And then he lied to the Ombudsman about lying, pretending he didn't remember. And the only people surprised by that are people who have to pretend, by virtue of their position, that the government gives one wet fart for the law.

The adviser's initial actions, in getting official documents sent to his private email account and then failing to create a full and accurate record, were a crime. That crime needs to be prosecuted. And while we're at it, we need to make non-compliance with the OIA a crime in its own right, defined as a "corrupt practice" in the Electoral Act, so that Ministers convicted of breaking it will be automatically removed from parliament.

Meanwhile, the next time anyone in power whines about trust in government declining, they can blame the Prime Minister and his staff. Because they've shown conclusively that those in power are corrupt, untrustworthy criminals. And only a fool would trust them.