Bankrupting local government

Local government in Aotearoa is in a crisis. For decades, Boomers have voted to Keep Rates Low, running the infrastructure paid for by previous generations into the ground, while refusing to invest in more (or even repairing what they have). The bill for that is coming due in all sorts of ways - shit on the streets in Wellington, a lethal campylobacter crisis in Hastings, no money to maintain council housing. So rates are going to have to go up. But Boomers still don't want to pay. So National's solution is simply to outlaw rates increases.

I'm struggling to describe the stupidity of this. Rates pay for things. Things we actually need. And those things get more expensive with time, thanks to inflation and population growth. Meanwhile, central government keeps loading costs on councils, with demands for roads, fast-track projects with no infrastructure support, and the never-ending cycle of vetoing and over-riding planning documents, wasting millions of dollars in planning and consultation costs. And now the regime plans to effectively forbid local councils from keeping up with that. Which means declining council services - roads, rubbish, sewage, social housing, parks, libraries - and of course nothing new unless something is cut. It is a recipe for stagnation and decline, central government sabotaging local government, preventing it from meeting its statutory obligations to its people.

As for the "why", apart from the obvious one of pandering to greedy, freeloading Boomers, there's another equally obvious underlying agenda: privatisation. Local councils still own stuff - ports, airports, electricity lines companies, buildings, land. Strangling them financially by diktat will force them to sell that stuff to National's donors and cronies, finally achieving the mass-looting they've been slavering for since the 1990's. And if everything has to be destroyed so the billionaires can steal what is ours, well, that's a price their collaborators in the National Party are willing to pay.

This is not a good policy for New Zealand. It is being sold on short-sighted greed, and being used to deliver public assets into private hands. We need to stop it. And the way to do that is to vote the regime out in November.

No way to run a country

Twenty years ago I joined a protest march over the Manawatū River. Fonterra and local farmers were using the river as a sewer, making it one of the most polluted in the western world, and people were sick of it. The march was a success: the state of the river became a serious issue in subsequent local body elections, and Horizons, the regional council was forced to act. They began a series of public consultations on cleaning up the river, and in 2010 they introduced the One Plan, which set limits for pollution, particularly nitrogen.

Basically, farmers wouldn't be allowed to shit in the river anymore, and they hated it. So they engaged in their usual tactic of predatory delay, dragging the plan through the courts on any excuse in an effort to prevent its implementation. But their appeals backfired, with the Environment Court strengthening the plan and the High Court upholding that. Even then, Horizons tried to rubberstamp pollution, until the courts stopped that as well, and made them actually enforce the law. But the Council's reliance on a tool called Overseer to calculate nitrogen loads caused further litigation, which eventually resulted in a change to the plan.

Which brings us to "Plan Change 2". It updates the nitrogen limits in the One Plan to account for Overseer's software change, and sets out pathways by which farmers who currently exceed them can get temporary consents. Like the One Plan itself, its the result of a careful process of consultation and consensus-building, and has been approved by the Environment Court. It should be becoming active any time soon. But it won't - because the regime has decide to simply overturn it by legislative fiat to protect its donors and cronies and let them keep on shitting in the river. Twenty years of democratic action and tens of millions of dollars in planning costs and legal fees gone, because one man - Andrew Hoggard - never liked the outcome, and decided to abuse his ministerial position to put his thumb on the scale, outside the normal process.

It's not just the One Plan - Hoggard will also be over-ruling Waikato Regional Council's similarly long-consulted rules to protect the Waikato, outraging Tainui (who view it as undermining their Treaty settlement). Its not just rivers - they're also stomping all over local councils who, after consulting their communities in accordance with the law, decided to use the RMA to regulate inshore fishing to mitigate its destructive effects. And it continues a trend displayed on climate change, transport, Māori representation, of the Beehive arbitrarily overturning court decisions and/or well-consulted local government decisions to impose their own views from above, without consultation or evidence, usually at the behest of some deep-pocketed industry lobby and tens of thousands of dollars in "donations". That's just how this regime operates. Its an affront to democracy, the rule of law, and local decision-making. Instead, we have arrogance, dictatorship and corruption.

This is no way to run a country. Local decision-making should mean exactly that. We can't have our lives micromanaged by Wellington, intruding into our lives and vetoing our decisions at the behest of lobbyists or their own weirdo freak ideology.

We need to overthrow this regime. Vote it out in November, prosecute those responsible for their corrupt practices and ban them from office, and reform the system so that it cannot happen again.

An urgent move to not fix anything

National's corrupt Muldoonist fast-track legislation has a problem: in addition to being corrupt and Muldoonist, it allows developers to buy approval for projects where there isn't the infrastructure to support them. For example, the recently approved Delmore development in Ōrewa, which will require wastewater to be trucked out for the forseeable future, because there's no sewage connection there. Normally councils deal with this sort of problem by charging developers a development contribution to pay for the required infrastructure - something the right absolutely hates. But fast track bypasses all that, with the result that fast-tracked developments are artificially cheap, effectively subsidised by other residents. Which in turn means other areas get starved of their infrastructure or face higher rates to pay for the costs of ministers' special projects.

To their credit, National recognises this inability to make fast track projects pay for their infrastructure is a problem. They consider it so urgent a problem that they plan to fix it with completely out-of-the-blue committee stage amendments to an unrelated local government bill. But - and here's the kicker - they won't actually fix it. According to the Beehive press release,

The amendments will not apply to fast-track developments that have already been approved or where a substantive application has already been lodged with the EPA.

So, its "urgent" enough to "justify" doing further violence to our democratic system - but not urgent enough to actually fix. I guess they wouldn't want their pet developers to feel ripped-off, that they hadn't got their money's worth from their "donations". So we get performative bullshit instead.

Meanwhile, I remember when National thought development contributions held up development and discouraged growth. I'm glad to see they've finally realised that they actually pay for necessary things rather than just being made up by councils to spite the Mighty Lords of Real Estate. I wonder when they'll realise that about taxes?

A state-assisted corruption scheme

Politicians defend their practice of taking huge bribes from the rich in the form of election "donations" by saying that its all out in the open: we can see who is buying them, we can see what they do in exchange and make sure that there is no "undue" influence (as opposed to the "due" influence they have paid for?), and so there is no problem. This is obviously false, and the current regime's actions and the flood of money they have received from fast track applicants, polluters, honours recipients, and other parties with a direct financial interest in their decisions shows that. But even if it were true, there's still a problem: because New Zealand law still allows parties to receive vast amounts of money in total secrecy, so we do not in fact get to see who is buying them after all.

The mechanism is called "donations protected from disclosure", and it has seen nearly half a million dollars funnelled to right-wing parties this election cycle (weirdly, no left-wing party has ever received a cent). It was initially introduced as an ugly compromise in Labour's Electoral Finance Act, to cover their failure to fully eliminate secret donations. And while National repealed the EFA, it kept that part of the law because it was useful to them. The theory is that the donations are made in total secrecy, so there can be no influence - and if you believe that, I have a bridge over Cook Strait to sell you. What it is in practice is the government laundering money for large donors who wish to exercise their influence in secret, or do not wish to suffer the reputational damage of their political views. It is, in effect, a state money laundering scheme to hide corruption.

There are two fundamental principles underlying election finance law: the rich must be prevented from buying government, and any funding that is permitted must be totally transparent. This government money laundry violates both. It allows secret influence, and worse, makes it a crime to expose it. That should not be permitted. This corrupt law must be repealed.

The best "democracy" money can buy

The Justice Committee has reported back on the bill Fonterra and Z Energy bought from National to grant them impunity for their ecocide. After a bullshit process where the public were given only ten days to make submissions, the committee has obligingly rubberstamped the regime's constitutional atrocity.

93% of the 623 submitters were opposed, with only 2.6% (largely major polluters) in favour. National calls this "democracy". What it is in reality is corruption, the best "democracy" money can buy.

Labour and the Greens have promised to repeal the law if elected. They need to go further, with an independent inquiry into the corruption which created it, and prosecutions for those responsible. They also need to protect our legislative process against this sort of abuse in future, with restrictions on political donations, full transparency around lobbying, restrictions on the use of urgency, short submission periods and short report-back times. Because what this incident shows is that our entire political system needs to be cleaned out and cleaned up. And if Labour and the Greens won't deliver that, they're inviting much worse anti-establishment politics and growing public alienation from the political system.

No freedom to question power

That, apparently, the Free Speech "Union"'s definition of "freedom of speech":

The Free Speech Union ‒ which exists to defend free speech ‒ has attacked a journalist for asking Health Minister Simeon Brown questions over email, after it obtained questions sent by a Post reporter about one of his appointments.

On Monday, The Post’s national affairs editor Andrea Vance emailed a series of questions to Health Minister Simeon Brown about his appointment of Dr Manoja Kalupahana to the Medical Council.

The appointment was gazetted on Friday and put on the Beehive website on Monday morning.

Before an answer was received and within three hours of the query going to the minister, the Free Speech Union issued a press release attacking Vance for even asking the questions.

The context here is that Kalupahana is an unprofessional racist weirdo, and that seems to have been treated as a qualification for public office by Simeon Brown. Meanwhile, from their past record, the FSU seems to exist primarily to protect such repulsive people from the natural consequences of their actions (which include people naming and shaming them for being exactly what they are). And that now extends to attacking the media for trying to get a public explanation for why such weird appointments have been made (the answer to which is probably "the FSU talked to ACT, who talked to Brown, and suddenly someone gets a fat board salary and a platform to sabotage a public institution").

But whatever influence peddling is going on behind the scenes, its a pretty weird definition of "freedom of speech" which says that the media can't question those in power. Some might take it as suggesting the FSU wasn't interested in freedom of speech at all, but merely using it in bad faith as a weapon to wage their weirdo far-right foreign-funded culture war on the rest of us.

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.

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.

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.

This seems awfully familiar...

Last year, we saw almost-Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming convicted for possessing child sexual abuse material. The conviction was an accident, something which came up during an investigation of McSkimming's past history of alleged sexual abuse. McSkimming had worked hard to gaslight his colleagues and discredit his victim, with the result that the police as an institution (and a bunch of very senior police officers as individuals) dragged their feet and systematically looked the other way on complaints about him, protecting their own while persecuting his victim. But eventually, an audit of his computer system turned up his criminal activity, and he became impossible for them to protect.

But there's a sequel. Because around the time new Police Commissioner Richard Chambers was denouncing his former colleague, people were complaining about him. And the police and IPCA sat on it for six months, not bothering to actually investigate it until early June. And the only reason we know about it at all is because it was leaked to RNZ. Which sounds exactly like the sort of foot-dragging that happened with McSkimming. From the police's response, you'd get the impression that they would have kept the whole thing secret if they could.

This isn't good enough. The police need to retain public trust, and that means they must be seen to be trustworthy and to obey the law. If something calls the trustworthiness of the Police Commissioner into question, the public deserve to know about it. And if he's actually under investigation, he needs to stand down and let someone else do the job - because its pretty obvious that he can't. It's that simple. And if this is too hard for police - if they can't follow the basic norms of ethical behaviour we expect from other public officials - then they should fucking quit. Otherwise people will draw the natural conclusion: that they're a corrupt shitshow interested in protecting themselves over the public, and we're better off without them.

Good riddance

Shame Jones' corrupt Fisheries Amendment Bill is dead:

Controversial fisheries reform led by New Zealand First minister Shane Jones is being abandoned until after the election.

Jones, appearing before a select committee in his role as Oceans and Fisheries Minister, told MPs his “much-beloved bill could use some more panel-beating” and as such, would not be progressed in this term of government. The Fisheries Amendment Bill had caused division within the coalition, particularly with National which faced a backlash from recreational fishers over changes to minimum legal-size limits for commercial fishing operators.

Plus of course there's the quota changes, which let fishers over-fish; the restriction of judicial review, so we'll never be able to force the Minister to follow the law; and of course the absurd secrecy for camera-footage, which existed solely to protect criminal fishers from public scrutiny. The entire bill was bought and paid for by fishing industry donations, the public could see that, and they responded with utter revulsion.

And now its "delayed", which basically means dead. But if we want it to be gone for good, we need to throw the corrupt regime which advanced it out of office.

Time to end MPs' property rorts

Last week we had the unseemly sight of Social Development Minister Louise Upston cutting housing for the needy, while being paid $1,000 a month to live in an apartment she already owns. It was "all within the rules", of course - because politicians write the rules to suit themselves - but it was all a bit Marie Antoinette. And its not just her. Politicians have claimed over $2.5 million so far this term to live in their own houses - a practice which makes it clear how low the ethical standards of our rulers are.

As Thomas Coughlan points out, it is entirely right and proper that MPs are paid, and paid expenses, for doing their jobs. But this is taking the piss. And if you made expenses claims like this in a normal employment situation - demanding to be compensated for living in your own fucking house, in some cases the house where you had always lived - you would be fired, if not prosecuted.

The practice of rorting expenses delegitimises parliament, and it delegitimises the political class as a whole. They're nothing but thieves and fraudsters, unfit to rule over us. Once again, they are earning their reputation...

So what can be done? Coughlan has a good suggestion:

The obvious fix is a simple one: ban related party leases for electorate offices and Wellington accommodation, and tidy up Parliament superannuation scheme rules to ensure MPs aren’t using private super schemes to build property portfolios.

It’s this particular issue that’s at the nub of most expenses scandals in the past decade or so: an MP claiming an awful lot of money to rent accommodation that they or a related entity own.

It’s within the rules now. But it shouldn’t be.

It is blatantly obvious that we need to do this, and blatantly obvious why: because it is a naked conflict of interest. It is dishonest, and it is corrupt. I'd throw in preventing MPs from effectively moving their place of residence after election in order to access a higher allowance. If you live in or near Wellington already, then that's where you live for the term, and we're not going to pay for you to pretend to live elsewhere so you can campaign and/or get a holiday home (this means you, Andy Foster).

MPs complain constantly about how the public perceives them. I suggest that if they don't want to be viewed as corrupt and dishonest, they should stop behaving that way, and amend the rules so that they can't. Its that simple. And if they don't, the public will continue to hold them in the contempt they deserve.

A crime

Last week, we learned that climate polluters had been writing our climate laws, and trying to hide the evidence by handing over their demands in hardcopy (which was then conveniently "lost" and so unavailable to an OIA request). That was highly suspicious, suggesting a deliberate attempt to thwart the Public Records Act and its requirement to create and maintain full and accurate records of official business. And now it gets worse, with news that prime ministerial staffer and former far-right lobbyist Matt Burgess was getting official documents sent to his private email account.

Once is suspicious. This however suggests a pattern of behaviour to hide public records, a deliberate non-compliance with the Public Records Act. And that is a crime. While the penalty is pathetic, he needs to be prosecuted, pour encourager les autres. Failing to do makes a mockery of the law.

But that's not enough. We clearly need law reform here to protect transparency. This must include explicit penalties in the OIA, stronger (and matching) penalties in the Public Records Act, and a tweak to the Electoral Act declaring violation of either to be a corrupt practice - meaning anyone convicted will be automatically removed from parliament. Add a legal principle of absolute ministerial responsibility for the actions of their subordinates, and we would finally have proper incentives for open government.

If Ministers refuse to do this, it is effectively an admission that they are guilty. The question is, how shameless is how political class?

Taking the piss

National is busy cutting social housing, which has resulted in increased scrutiny of politicians' housing entitlements. First, there's Social Development Minister Louise Upston, who is being paid $1000 a week to live in her own house while cutting payments to everyone else. She's "comfortable" with that, and of course she is - because she's being paid $1000 a week when she doesn't even have a mortgage! But the worst case so far is NZ First's Andy Foster. Foster is a former mayor of Wellington, and he's lived there for over twenty years. But now, for entitlement purposes, he's suddenly contriving to "live" somewhere else, so he can trouser more money from the rest of us:

Despite owning a home in Wellington for 26 years, Foster is claiming a $36,400 per year taxpayer-funded accommodation subsidy intended for non-Wellington MPs. Foster’s parliamentary expense reports show he claimed $22,700 in 2025, starting with $3,100 in the April-to-June quarter, followed by the maximum possible amount of $9,800 in every quarter since. He confirmed to The Spinoff that he continues to claim the allowance.

MPs are eligible for the accommodation subsidy if they live “outside the Wellington commuting area”. In 2025, Foster purchased a second home in Wairarapa, where he intends to run as a candidate in the 2026 election. He now lists the Wairarapa property as his “family home”. Foster still owns his Karori home and stays there during parliament sitting blocks but told The Spinoff it was “no longer my primary place of residence”.

At this stage, I must point out that this is not theft and it is not fraud, because - as the politicians love to say - it's "all within the rules" (which the politicians wrote to suit themselves). I must also point out that paying MPs to live in Wellington so they can do the job properly is good. We don't want only rich people or people who live in Wellington to be able to be MPs. But in this case we're not paying Foster to live in Wellington. Instead, we're paying him to not live there, so he can campaign for election elsewhere. And that's just taking the piss. Its not necessary for him to do his job, and arguably is an unlawful use of parliamentary funds for a political purpose (subsidising his election campaign).

MPs rorting their expenses like this delegitimises parliament and is one of the reasons they regularly feature below real estate agents on public trust surveys. Fortunately there are solutions. They clearly can't be trusted to manage their own accommodation arrangements ethically, so its time Parliamentary Services bought an apartment block to house them. And if this results in them being less comfortable than they are at present, they will only have themselves to blame.

(And while we're at it, we should do the same for ministerial housing, and electorate offices. If these thieves can't help themselves from double-dipping, then the decision needs to be taken completely out of their hands, and suitable workplaces and accommodation provided for them).

Naked corruption

That's the only way to describe today's exposure by RNZ that over $1 million in political donations is linked to fast-track applicants. But it gets worse:

More than $1 million in political donations linked to fast-tracked projects have been made since 2022.

An RNZ analysis of the latest donation data reveals $400,000 was donated to National and NZ First in 2025 from people or entities linked to fast-track projects. Labour received $8620.

The introduction of the fast-track approvals process was part of NZ First's coalition deal with National. Since 2022 almost 90 percent of donations from people or entities also linked to projects have gone to the two parties.

Since the act came into effect in 2024, a total of 23 fast-track projects have been approved. Of these, seven are linked to people or organisations that have made a political donation.

As the latter makes clear, these companies are basically buying themselves an outcome. Thanks to Shane Jones and Chris Bishop, resource consents and the pillage of conservation land are effectively for sale in New Zealand. And the governing parties are profiting from it.

Which is why the next government will have to not just repeal fast-track, but also force all decisions to be reconsidered under the normal process, according to normal rules. Otherwise there can be no faith that decisions are not being bought. But beyond that, we clearly need a ban on large political donations, and an Independent Commission Against Corruption to perpetually investigate donors, parties, MPs, and ministers, and prosecute them for any wrongdoing. That os the only way public faith in the state can be restored.

This is why we need criminal penalties in the OIA

Last night TVNZ revealed an outrageous act of corruption by the Luxon regime. Earlier in the month, Luxon had promised a law to prevent polluters being sued over their pollution - a direct attack on the rule of law to benefit favoured donors and cronies. Now it turns out that they were given that law by the polluters themselves. The polluters had lied about that to the courts, and Luxon's office had lied about it in an OIA response:

Official documents released Sunday, and seen by RNZ, reveal a briefing document provided to the Prime Minister's office regarding Smith's case against Fonterra and other major emitters.

Z Energy confirmed to RNZ it had provided a document to government in 2024 and Fonterra confirmed it had done the same with a hard copy.

Smith explained the defendants in his case had been ordered to release documents relating to their lobbying efforts by the end of March 2026, but the briefing note was only released this month, through the discovery process in the High Court.

The documents also showed the information was not disclosed by the Prime Minister's office, when requested as part of a separate Official Information Act request by an environmental group.

The polluters' non-compliance with court-ordered discovery is something for the courts to resolve. But the Prime Minister's non-compliance with the Official Information Act should concern us all. If taken at face value, Luxon claims to have no idea what is happening in his office, and also to be violating the Public Records Act, which requires him to create and maintain full and accurate records of his affairs (including when lobbyists slip him a policy "suggestion" - something which, as it requires the exercise of ministerial power, can only be official business). That's bad enough - bad enough to be an actual crime, though the penalty is derisory even for deliberate official wrongdoing. But the alternative - that he did know, and had complied fully with the record-keeping requirements of the Public Records act, and instead had simply lied in that OIA response - is worse. Because obviously, if Ministers and officials can simply lie in response to a request for official information, there might as well not be a law at all.

And this is why we need criminal penalties for the OIA: because we can not tolerate that sort of lying, and so it needs to be deterred. And that means both ensuring a principle of absolute ministerial responsibility for OIA responses, so that ministers cannot hide behind their minions, and defining the offence of lying in a response of destroying or hiding or not creating records to evade one as a "corrupt practice" in the Electoral Act, so that any Minister convicted is automatically removed from Parliament. The question is, what Minister will stake their career on proper ethical behaviour and following the law?

Climate Change: Putting polluters above the law

That's the only way to describe the regime's plans to outlaw civil climate suits against polluting companies:

The government announced on Tuesday it would amend climate laws to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

The change will prevent findings of liability in torts - a type of civil case where one person or entity claims another has caused them harm.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said it would apply to current and future cases - stopping a landmark case against Fonterra and five other major emitters in its tracks.

The actual policy is an ACT party member's bill, which has been hanging around on the ballot for a while. I guess they just got sick of waiting.

If this passes, polluters will be able to lobby the government to prevent action on climate change, pollute with abandon, destroy the global climate, inflicting harm on people all over the world - including in Aotearoa - and face no consequences whatsoever. The courts will be specifically forbidden from doing what the government refuses to do. And this, despite well-established legal principles around public nuisance and negligence.

If someone nearby starts a fire which burns your house down, there's a legal remedy. If they build a shitty dam, collect a pile of water, then deliberately or by negligence release it and flood your neighbourhood, there's a legal remedy. But the regime is saying that there will be no legal remedy for climate change. Someone can literally burn the world, and there will be nothing legal you are allowed to do about it.

This is a naked case of regime corruption, of them serving the interests of big donors and polluters. And its just another example of the need for the next government to pass an Omnibus Repeal Bill, to revoke everything this corrupt, tyrannical regime has done.

If the government wants to avoid private suits over climate change, the solution is simple: have a robust climate change regime which actually reduce emissions. If they don't, then they only have themselves to blame if people pursue other strategies to do the job for them.

Orcs want to pillage Te Wāhipounamu

Te Wāhipounamu is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a taonga of Aotearoa's conservation estate. So naturally, the orcs in the Beehive want to dig it up and despoil it:

The Green Party says the government's decision to grant a prospecting permit on heritage land is unacceptable.

It comes after a permit was approved within Te Wāhipounamu, one of the country's three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

The permit covers 157 square kilometres, and allows prospecting for all minerals except uranium.

Green Party list MP and resources spokesperson Steve Abel said heritage sites had long been ruled out for mining, and should remain that way.

But the problem here is that, legally, they're not ruled out for mining. Bits of them are, if they're national parks, nature reserves, wilderness areas, or other areas protected by Schedule 4. But Te Wāhipounamu includes land not protected by such status, and the New Zealand state has repeatedly rejected extending it. In 2017 Labour's Ruth Dyson put up a bill to explicitly protect World Heritage Sites by adding them to Schedule 4. National voted it down. And in 2023 the Greens put up their own bill, which (among other things) would have protected all state land managed by DoC under Schedule 4. Labour voted that one down. And in 2025, when stewardship land on the west Coast was reclassified, Tama Potaka refused to extend national parks or further protect land within Te Wāhipounamu. Which rather invites the question of whether he knew about this application, and whether he made his decision in order to advantage the applicant. But given that its going to court, I guess we'll get to find that out...

What this tells us is that we need greater protection for taonga land and ecosystems. Once this tyrannical, destructive regime is voted out in November, the next government needs to make it a priority to protect our natural heritage, as part of the project of undoing every shitty thing that it has done. And that means urgently expanding national parks and fully protecting World Heritage Sites under Schedule 4. In the meantime, I guess we've just got to hope that any exploration activity permitted by this "consent" is delayed.

Climate Change: Madness

Over the last few days Wellington has been hammered by torrential rain and floods, and one person is still missing dead. So naturally its the perfect time for a bunch of Aussie grifters to announce a huge, high-emissions project, a Southland lignite-to-urea factory:

Australian company Victorian Hydrogen has applied to explore for lignite on 3141 hectares of Southland farmland in the hopes of eventually setting up a 1.5 million tonne per year urea fertiliser production plant.

The executive director of Victorian Hydrogen, Allan Blood, said the proposed $3 billion lignite-to-urea project would give New Zealand’s agricultural sector self-sufficiency.

The project is expected to apply for approvals under the fast-track regulatory process. Blood said key milestones would include applying for regulatory consents and engaging with landowners, completing initial geological and hydrological studies by spring 2026 and progressing to detailed engineering design, and a targeted three-year pathway from the conclusion of studies currently underway, to full production.

Unmentioned: the emissions from the project. But the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment looked at this when Solid Energy was proposing similar insanity back in 2010; they found that making urea from lignite produced 1.3 tons of carbon for every ton or product (compared to 1.1 tons for making it from natural gas at Kapuni, or 0.8 tons for making it from natural gas in the Middle East). So 1.5 million tons of urea a year from lignite is 2 million tons of carbon dioxide - a figure completely inconsistent with our future carbon budgets.

Why are they looking at Southland? Because their plans to do it in Australia have fallen through: the state government won't give them consents, and no-one will sell them coal anyway. Whereas Aotearoa has corrupt politicians willing to grant consents for "donations", and a policy of explicit pollution subsidies, so the grifters will be paid to destroy the climate. Interestingly, those subsidies are justified on the basis of preventing "emissions flight", but as Middle East production is in fact cleaner than domestic, it seems that it is in fact a perverse incentive for dirty production.

While America's latest Middle east war and the resulting disruptions in international fertiliser flows are being used as a justification here, if consented this factory won't be producing before 2030. By which time you would expect those disruptions to have been resolved. So its an opportunistic grift, presenting a dirty "solution" to a problem which won't exist when it is complete, aimed at collecting huge subsidies. It should not be permitted to progress. And if the present regime corruptly grants it fast track approval, it should be legislatively revoked by the next government. We simply cannot afford this madness.

Naked corruption

Its election year, so the big parties are already collecting big donations from rich people wanting corrupt favours. But the disclosure threshold for those donations is set at an appallingly high $20,000. Meanwhile, National is nakedly selling access to Ministers for $8,000, and to the prime Minister for $10,000:

The National Party is offering the public a chance to sit next to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon over dinner at a cost of $10,000.

It’s led to criticism from one academic, labelling the event “cash for access”, but the party says it’s a form of fundraising used by many parties.

The “Mainland Dinner” will be hosted by party president Sylvia Wood at Christchurch’s Town Hall next month.

Tables for the dinner start at $5000, which the party calls the “silver” tier.

The “gold” tier will get you a table with either a Cabinet minister or Wood at a cost of $8000.

The most expensive table, the “platinum” tier and where Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will be seated, is priced at $10,000.

This is simply naked corruption. But its all below the disclosure threshold, so there's no requirement to declare it, or for the purchasers of policy to be identified to the public.

The media would be doing Aotearoa a favour by infiltrating someone into this dinner, photographing everyone sitting next to a Minister, and then doorstopping them and asking them what they wanted for their money. And if that deters future corrupt donations, good.