While Māori business success is worth celebrating, the Crown’s quiet offloading of Treaty obligations onto non-Māori citizens is tilting the market—and it’s time we talked about it.
————————-
There is much to celebrate in the Māori business renaissance. The recent announcement of the Investment Summit on Māori Business Success, hosted with fanfare and optimism by the New Zealand Government, marks yet another milestone in the growing visibility and sophistication of Māori enterprise. The summit’s purpose—to connect Māori businesses with investors and unlock future capital—was noble. Its language was hopeful. Its ambition clear.
Māori businesses are blossoming across sectors. From land-based industries to tech startups, from iwi-owned agribusinesses to boutique cultural exporters, the Māori economy is carving out a strong identity built on heritage, resilience, and innovation. Such strength deserves applause. No rational observer would wish failure upon any business community—let alone one that is shaking off the shackles of historic dispossession.
But economic growth does not happen in a vacuum. When investment is drawn disproportionately into one sector or group because of legislative scaffolding rather than merit alone, we must ask whether the playing field remains fair. The current policy architecture in New Zealand increasingly suggests that success for Māori businesses is being primed not just by effort, strategy, and creativity, but also by a regulatory and fiscal environment that shifts risk, cost, and treaty responsibility onto others. And this comes with consequences.
This is not a complaint about Māori. Nor is it a hidden racial critique. Let that be stated clearly and early. Māori success in business is something to be admired and emulated. Rather, this is a critique of how the Crown, in its anxiety to atone for historical wrongs, has created a market environment in which non-Māori businesses may find themselves subsidising their own competitive disadvantage.
Consider the practical mechanics of treaty implementation. As the Crown broadens its application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi across law, policy, and procurement processes, we see increasing examples of obligations being imposed not on the Crown itself, but on individual citizens, councils, contractors, and service providers. Whether it’s local government consultation practices, education curricula, or regulatory frameworks that demand “alignment with iwi aspirations,” a notable trend emerges: the cost of Treaty compliance is being offloaded.
When these obligations are written into legislation or funding criteria, Māori businesses—by virtue of their identity—are naturally positioned to meet them with ease. Non-Māori businesses must then retrofit themselves with external consultants, cultural advisors, and compliance officers simply to keep pace. What began as a moral commitment by the Crown risks transforming into a bureaucratic and financial burden borne disproportionately by others.
This divergence is already observable in public procurement. Many government tenders now include language requiring demonstrated commitment to Te Tiriti principles, co-design with iwi, or track records of engaging Māori stakeholders. For Māori-owned enterprises, such criteria are either inherent or administratively straightforward. For others, it becomes a costly box-ticking exercise, one often characterised by performative consultation and superficial alignment.
Over time, this has a gravitational effect on capital. Investors—who are rational, bottom-line-driven actors—are drawn toward businesses that can move seamlessly through regulatory and funding gates. Māori enterprises, under this configuration, become attractive not just for their performance or potential, but for the compliance discount they enjoy. This is not a consequence of Māori manipulation, but of Crown abdication.
One might argue that this imbalance is simply a form of redress. That after decades—or centuries—of economic exclusion, it is right and just that Māori businesses be given a tailwind. That argument holds some moral appeal. But if the cost of redress is passed not to the Crown that caused the harm, but to fellow citizens who did not, then the policy ceases to be reparative and becomes redistributive in a dangerous way. It risks breeding resentment, and—more gravely—undermining the legitimacy of the redress itself.
Already we hear murmurs across New Zealand’s SME sector. Business owners are frustrated not because Māori are succeeding, but because they are succeeding under different rules. Not because Māori are advantaged, but because others are increasingly disadvantaged by policy tools that favour cultural alignment over commercial merit. This is not an appeal for sameness, but for fairness. Not for the flattening of difference, but for the recognition that fairness requires shared responsibility, not selective imposition.
The Government’s framing of the Māori Investment Summit was itself revealing. Minister Willie Jackson spoke of Māori as “natural entrepreneurs” and “guardians of economic potential,” invoking an identity-infused rationale for why Māori businesses deserve not only attention but preferential treatment. But where does this leave the dairy farmer in Southland? The toolmaker in Hamilton? The immigrant-owned café in New Plymouth? They are not invited to investment summits. They are not beneficiaries of treaty-driven procurement policy. They are citizens too—but find themselves slowly edged out of the national narrative about economic aspiration.
What then is the solution?
It begins by recognising that two wrongs do not make a right. Correcting past injustices should not create new injustices—however subtle—in the present. The Treaty obligations must be upheld by the Crown through its own mechanisms, not by exporting its obligations to private actors. Where Māori success requires investment, let that investment come through principled, transparent Crown channels—grants, equity instruments, capability-building—without distorting the commercial field on which all others must operate.
Secondly, we need courage to separate cultural recognition from economic policy. Cultural identity is vital. But when policy frameworks begin to reward identity over competence, the market begins to warp. We must not allow the principle of equity to become a proxy for preferentialism. If we do, we do not elevate Māori—we reduce the dignity of their achievements by framing them as state-dependent.
Thirdly, there must be compensation mechanisms where legislation imposes treaty duties onto non-Crown entities. If a council is compelled to fund cultural engagement plans to fulfil a duty the Crown has towards Māori, that cost must be reimbursed. If a contractor must hire an iwi liaison to qualify for a government tender, that is a treaty cost, not a commercial cost, and should be treated as such. Only in this way can we restore a sense of economic balance.
Finally, we must re-centre the idea of a shared future. Māori prosperity is essential to New Zealand’s wellbeing. But so is the prosperity of every other community. If the state gives the impression—however unintentionally—that one group’s success must be purchased by another’s restraint, we poison the well of social cohesion. The economy is not a zero-sum game, but legislation and procurement rules can make it feel that way.
We are all walking forward together. There is no virtue in resentment, but neither is there virtue in silence when imbalance emerges. New Zealand cannot afford a business environment where cultural taxonomy determines access to capital, or where Treaty compliance becomes a barrier for non-Māori innovation.
If Māori enterprise is to lead, let it lead by example, by excellence, and by ingenuity—not by the crutch of Crown overcompensation. And if the Crown is sincere in its obligations, let it bear the costs itself, not defer them onto the shoulders of private citizens and businesses merely trying to build, compete, and contribute.
For when one part of the market is lifted by genuine success, we all win. But when one part is lifted by the state while another is weighed down by regulatory obligation, the market becomes not a forum for exchange but a theatre of inequality.
We can do better than that. And Māori business, if left to shine on its own terms, surely will.
On February 13, 2025, Hamit Coskun set fire to his copy of the Quran outside the Turkish embassy in London. Coskun—an atheist who fled persecution from the Turkish authorities in 2022—was there to protest Islamic extremism in his home country. For this act, he was assaulted and knocked to the ground by a bystander, kicked by another passerby, and charged with a “religiously aggravated public order offense” by the Crown Prosecution Service.
At his sentencing, a UK district judge told Coskun that his protest was “provocative,” concluding that he had been driven by “a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.” But in the account below, Coskun insists that he was attacking ideas, not people. He warns that the same religious authoritarianism he fled in his home country is now infecting his adoptive country, too.
So he got assaulted and beaten up for what should be a lawful act, but for good measure he was prosecuted also.
Although the man who assaulted me is being prosecuted separately, the Crown says his action helped to prove my guilt. It argued that because I was attacked, my behavior must not have been peaceful. Under this logic, “disorderly” no longer depends on conduct, but on how offended or aggressive someone else chooses to be in response.
This is like the logic that saw Lucy Rogers arrested for her peaceful counter-protest. The more violent someone may be against you, then you should be arrested as a consequence!
If every protest against Islam is presumed to be a protest against Muslims, if criticism of doctrine is redefined as hatred of believers, then space for lawful criticism of that religion—or any religion—collapses. My case turned on that blurring of categories.
I think the Church of Latter Day Saints was stated by a fraudster and is basically a big con. However I also think individual Mormons are some of the best people around. You can have a negative view of a religion, and not at all have a negative view of individuals in that religion.
To be fair, somewhat harder with Scientology!
The Free Speech Union funded my defense and stands ready to provide any assistance needed to get this judgment overturned. Because this is no longer just about me. It is about whether Britain still believes that no religion is beyond criticism, especially when it shapes public life and political power. That was the principle I was imprisoned for defending in Turkey, and it was the principle I was defending outside the Turkish consulate. I have no intention of abandoning that fight.
A research proposal on cosmic inflation from an acclaimed German quantum physicist is rejected because she did not address the relevance of her findings to “sex, gender, and diversity.” Could it be because… there is none?
A respected peer-reviewed physics journal publishes a paper on introductory physics courses that identifies whiteboards as complicit “with white organizational cultures, where ideas and experiences gain value (become more central) when written down.” No mention of blackboards.
A collection of 67 papers published in the Journal of Chemical Education includes “Decolonizing the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum” and “Integrating Antiracism, Social Justice and Equity Themes in a Biochemistry Class.” What’s next—the Periodic Table of Intersectional Elements?
And we wonder why faith in institutions is falling.
We have made so much moral progress since the Enlightenment—particularly since the civil rights and women’s rights movements that launched the modern campus protest movement in the first place—that our standards of what is intolerable have been ratcheted ever upward to the point where many people are hypersensitive to things that, by comparison, didn’t even appear on the cultural radar half a century ago. Thus it is that modern moral crusaders have forgotten how far we’ve come since the abolition of slavery, the elimination of the death penalty in most countries, the franchise for all adult citizens, children’s rights, women’s rights, gay rights, animal rights, and even the rights of future generations to inhabit a livable planet. In other words, most of the big moral movements have been fought and won, leaving today’s moral crusaders with comparatively smaller causes to promote and evils to protest, resulting in demands for safe spaces and trigger warnings, and paroxysms thrown over microaggressions and misgendering trans people.
The fight for mandatory trigger warnings!
In his magisterial overview of this movement, The End of Woke, Andrew Doyle documents that most of the claims made by far-left progressives are endorsed by a slim margin of people—only around 8% of the population of both the UK and the United States, according to a poll conducted by the organization More in Common.
But they get backed by a complaint or scared media, and kowtowing corporates.
The liberal tradition that evolved out of the Enlightenment is grounded in individual autonomy. It is the individual who is the primary moral agent because it is the individual who survives and flourishes, or who suffers and dies. It is individual sentient beings who perceive, emote, respond, love, feel, and suffer—not populations, races, genders, groups, or nations. Historically, immoral abuses have been most rampant, and body counts have run the highest, when the individual is sacrificed for the good of the group. Rights protect individuals, not groups; in fact, most rights (such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution) protect individuals from being discriminated against as members of a group, such as by race, creed, color, gender, and sexual orientation.
Contrary to this liberal tradition, collectivism holds that individuals are expendable parts of a larger whole: the band, tribe, state, nation, religion, class, race, ethnicity, gender, and countless intersectional variations on these collective cohorts. As such, individual identity is lost to what Andrew Doyle calls identitarian collectivism, for which “the illiberal left and the authoritarian right both share this habitual inclination towards collective thinking.”
Matt Goodwin looks at how current migration trends will change the UK, if unchanged. Key findings:
The proportion of the UK that is “White British” will drop from 73% today to 57% in 2050 and 34% in 2100
The non-white proportion will increase from 20% to 59% by 2100
19% of the UK will be Muslim by 2100
Hard to imagine that Japan would (for example) have an immigration policy where native Japanese would become a minority in Japan within two generations.
Prominent New Zealand leaders Helen Clark, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Sir David Carter, Dr Don Brash, Mr Carl Worker, and Mr David Mahon have placed a full-page open letter in Stuff and NZME newspapers expressing grave concern about New Zealand’s foreign policy direction.
The open letter, co-signed by the group of influential New Zealand figures, cautions Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, and his Government, against taking an adversarial stance against China as part of an alignment with the United States.
“While good relations with the United States must be maintained, we see considerable disadvantage to New Zealand in becoming part of defence arrangements, including the associated prospective AUKUS Pillar Two, which are explicitly aimed at China,” said former Prime Minister Helen Clark.”
For many years, New Zealand has maintained a balanced foreign policy, building strong relationships with both the United States and China. That has served our national interests well. Recent moves by the Government, however, suggest an increasing willingness to align New Zealand with the United States in a way that could harm our relationship with China.”
First of all AUKUS is probably dead as far as NZ is concerned. Trump doesn’t see allies, just cost centres. He will not see any benefit in the US sharing military technology with New Zealand. Hell, he may even renege on the deal with Australia. The chance of NZ being invited in, is minuscule now I would say.
The characterisation of recent foreign policy changes as being aligning with the US against China is misleading, in my opinion. First of all the changes started under the Ardern Government (which they deserve credit for). They started because Russia launched a war of aggression against Ukraine, and China has been a cheerleader for them. The decade long project of believing trading with authoritarian states would make them more benign has (sadly) failed. China has itself become much more aggressive.
The change in NZ’s stance has zero to do with the US. It is to do with how Russia and China have behaved. In fact the US is itself becoming very unreliable, and hence NZ’s future is probably not with AUKUS, but a looser collection of alliances with Australia, UK, the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea etc.
The letter specifically addresses recent actions, including the authorisation of New Zealand naval vessels through the Taiwan Strait, the strengthening of defence ties with the Philippines amid tensions in the South China Sea, and visits to Taiwan led by Government parliamentarians.
Why would we not have MPs visit Taiwan, and not have better defence ties with the Philippines? We’re not a vassal state of China.
KiwiSaver is about to change again. The Budget announced an increase in the minimum employee contribution (from 3% to 4%) over three years and in the matching minimum contributions paid by employers.
The government is also cutting its own contribution from a 50% match to the first $1,042.86 of members’ contributions to 25%. So, the maximum taxpayer subsidy drops from $521.43 a year to $260.72. It will also be income-tested so that the highest paid employees (receiving more than $180,000 will lose that.
Whether or not these changes are a good idea, I want to address the lessons that employers might take from the latest changes.
The first obvious lesson is that, whenever a government gets involved in the saving decisions of employees, change is a constant and that has direct consequences for employers. Since KiwiSaver was first announced in 2006, there have now been five[1] changes of significance. All will have resulted in significant administrative cost to employers. One possible lesson from this is that employers should aim to stay away from their employees’ decisions about whether to save for retirement.
The second lesson is that governments really shouldn’t be telling employers how or how much they should be paying their employees. Aside from some minimum requirements, the employer should be setting the total cost and agreeing with employees how they want to receive that.
In theory, the employer should be indifferent to employees’ decisions, as long as the total of direct and indirect pay is unaffected. But that leads us into a contentious subject: the tussle between ‘pay + benefits’ and ‘total remuneration’.
Some definitions:
‘Pay + benefits’ says that employers set basic wages/salaries and then separately decide what other non-cash benefits are available (such as subsidised superannuation, medical insurance, death/disablement insurance). The employer leaves it for employees to decide which extra benefits they want. The total compensation each employee receives will depend on value of the benefits chosen by the employee.
This can be thought of as the ‘traditional’ way that employees were paid.
‘Total remuneration’ says that the employer sets the total it is prepared to spend on a particular role but then lets each employee decide how to receive that total. A ‘good’ employer might offer help to the employees’ making appropriate choices but the employer won’t mind whether it’s all paid in direct wages/salary or part direct/part indirect.
We don’t know how many employees are paid on the different bases. Some suggest that 40% of all employees are on ‘total remuneration’. I think that should be 100% for reasons I discuss below.
But, with respect to the latest KiwiSaver changes, the difference matters:
Under pay + benefits, each KiwiSaver member paying the minimum 3% of pay will eventually pay 4%, as will the employer. So the member’s total compensation will increase by the employer’s 1%. Take-home pay will reduce by the additional member’s contribution of 1%.
Under total remuneration, the extra 1% from the employer will come out of the employee’s ‘total remuneration’ so that take-home pay will fall by about a combined 2%. It’s a bit more complicated as KiwiSaver’s contributions are based on the direct taxable pay so, if 4% of the total remuneration is deducted (the employer’s eventual mandatory contribution), before-tax pay is now 96.15% of the starting 100% and both the employer and employee will pay 4% of that (4% of 96.15% + 96.15% = 100%). Also, the employer’s contribution is taxed under slightly different rules to direct pay. Regardless, the employer doesn’t pay any more in total to get that job done.
To some (the Retirement Commissioner included) this looks as though employees have been chiselled out of money they should be getting on top of their regular pay. The Retirement Commissioner wants the practice outlawed – she wants the employer’s contribution to be a genuine addition to direct pay, as a ‘reward’ for making the commitment to KiwiSaver.
That is the wrong way of looking at things.
Consider two employees, both doing exactly the same kind of work and offering the same value to their employer. In one case (pay + benefits), the employer doesn’t know what ‘total compensation’ is until the employee decides whether to contribute to KiwiSaver.
We don’t know what proportion of all employees who work for pay + benefits employers, are not contributing to KiwiSaver but, for every such non-contributor, the employer saves, soon-to-be, 4% of their pay.
The position is different in a total remuneration environment. There, both parties know what the employee will receive in total. Whether the employee contributes to KiwiSaver doesn’t affect the total. The employer pays the same.
Given that both employers are paying market rates for that particular role, the total employment costs must be higher for the total remuneration employer. The pay + benefits employer is better off in total by the number of non-contributors.
Pay + benefits seems impossible to justify as an HR strategy. How can the employer explain that the total compensation is greater for contributing members over non-contributors, both doing the same job? Employees might have good reasons not to save through KiwiSaver. Here are some possibilities: they can’t afford to join; they don’t want their savings locked up until age 65; they don’t trust such a long-term programme; they have other saving priorities (such as paying off debt) or they may not need to save any more for retirement.
Also, some employees are not allowed to join KiwiSaver, or the employer does not have to contribute to KiwiSaver. Those over 65 are one group; also, those who do not have permanent residency but are able to work. It seems unfair that non-permanent residents cannot qualify for the employer KiwiSaver contribution and gives a perverse incentive to employ foreigners.
Under pay + benefits, both those groups are penalised. With total remuneration, both can be treated fairly.
But, most important of all, whether an employee contributes to KiwiSaver should have no bearing on the total amount the employee receives for the job done. And it’s wrong that the government has any kind of role in deciding that total or how it should be paid.
Employers who haven’t thought about all this before now might be encouraged to do that by the government’s 2025 decision to change the KiwiSaver rules again. If they want protection against further regulatory intrusions into their pay policies, shifting to total remuneration should insulate them. Much more importantly, it will treat all employees on a common basis, regardless of their private saving needs.
For an employee on total remuneration, the only material advantage of saving through KiwiSaver will now be the government’s annual subsidy of just $260.72 ($0 for pay of more than $180,000). For that, the employee must give up access to those savings until age 65. Employees could reasonably decide that any subsidy doesn’t compensate for that loss of flexibility. Most KiwiSaver providers offer parallel, accessible saving options at a similar cost so there is no particular advantage, from an investment perspective, in saving through KiwiSaver.
The KiwiSaver changes announced in the 2025 Budget might have some unintended long-term consequences.
[1] The original model (2006) was a modest member-only, voluntary contribution model with the $1,000 ‘kickstart’ as the only government incentive. That changed (#1) with the introduction of compulsory member and increasing employer contributions in the final version coupled with significant tax breaks (May 2007). The annual fee subsidy and employer tax credit were removed and contributions capped in 2008 (#2) but resumed increases in 2013 (#3). The ‘member tax credit’ was halved in 2012 and the kickstart was removed in 2015 (#4) Now the ‘government contribution’ is halved and will be income-tested (#5).
The UN nuclear watchdog’s board of governors on Thursday (local time) formally found that Iran isn’t complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years, a move that could lead to further tensions and set in motion an effort to restore United Nations sanctions on Tehran later this year.
The facility at the heart of Iran’s nuclear ambitions was engulfed in flames on Friday, according to social media images geolocated by CNN and Iranian state television.
That seems a lot more effective than sanctions!
Multiple Iranian state media outlets have confirmed that Major General Hossein Salami, the head of the country’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was killed Friday morning during Israeli strikes.
The IRGC is one of the most powerful tools wielded by the Iranian state, overseeing its ballistic missile development, crushing dissent at home and projecting Iranian and military operations in the Middle East region.
Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown has expanded his Fix Auckland campaign from one candidate to two with the addition of deputy Desley Simpson, now he is recruiting a team to gain influence on the council.
The treaty that Brown reached with Simpson, seeing her decide against challenging the mayor at October’s election, is intended to be a forerunner to the Fix Auckland slate for council seats.
Brown says he alone was Fix Auckland in 2022 but now wants a team. “She will be standing for Fix Auckland and we look forward to others joining us.”
This is a very significant move, as it means Desley will be dropping the C&R ticket which she has been elected on previously. Will Fix Auckland stand against C&R or co-operate with them?
A right-leaning councillor, Sharon Stewart, is retiring from the Howick ward and that seat alongside fellow ward councillor Maurice Williamson, could be a possible joint Fix Auckland ticket.
The Whau ward councillor, Kerrin Leoni, is contesting Brown’s mayoralty so her ward seat could yet be another Fix Auckland target, having swung between C&R and Labour candidacies in past elections.
Manurewa-Papakura ward councillor Angela Dalton, who had a strong personal following as a former local board chair, is also retiring, leaving an opening that could fit Brown’s intentions. Dalton’s Papakura colleague, Daniel Newman, has supported Brown’s major initiatives.
A ticket which reduces the number of high spending Councillors would be a good thing. But if Fix Auckland and C&R end up splitting the vote, then it may backfire. Ideally all the non-left tickets should co-operate rather than compete.
A Judicial Conduct Panel will inquire into and report on the alleged conduct of acting District Court Judge Ema Aitken, Acting Attorney-General Paul Goldsmith says.
“Judge Aitken’s alleged conduct at the Northern Club on 22 November 2024 was the subject of a preliminary examination by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.
“The Commissioner recommended a Panel be set up to inquire into what happened. I have accepted that recommendation.
This is no surprise. It would be almost improper for the Acting AG to substitute his opinion for that of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.
The Panel will have three members. The composition is:
1 or 2 judges or former judges
0 or 1 lawyer who is not a judge or former judge (depending on if two or one judges are appointed)
1 lay person
It will be chaired be a retired judge or a judge.
The Panel has the powers of a commission of inquiry and can inquire into not just the matter referred to it, but other matters concerning the conduct of the Judge that arise.
The Panel has a binary role. It ends either that the conduct justified removal from office, or that it doesn’t. There is no middle ground. It can’t censure or fine, or partially uphold. It is either removal or non-removal.
If the Panel does not recommend removal, the matter ends. If they recommend removal then the Acting Attorney-General has absolute discretion whether or not to remove the Judge.
As Judge Aitken is an Acting District Court judge, the Acting AG can remove her directly via notice to the Governor-General. A more senior judge would require a vote in Parliament before removal.
And so, New Zealand universities have the chance to do well while doing good.
The case is simplest for students who have not yet begun US studies and are stuck in limbo with a pause in America’s processing of F-1 student visas, or who just want to get out of the US.
New Zealand could clearly advertise that any student accepted into an American university but who are having second thoughts about it will face simplified processing for a New Zealand student visa. And students who already have their American F-1 student visa could also be offered speedier, simplified NZ student visa processes.
Students part way through their US degrees but nervous about being there next year may prefer to spend a couple of semesters here as study-abroad rather than as a full transfer. New Zealand’s universities already handle study-abroad. It’s a well-trodden path. Reminding students in American universities that this option is available could be very worthwhile.
Tuition fees in the US are much higher than here. Simplified Immigration New Zealand processes for students already accepted to US universities should mean lower processing costs. The processing charge enabling Immigration New Zealand to do the job should be small when compared with the tuition fee difference between the two countries. …
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s pledge to double export earnings had seemed more than a little aspirational.
But international education is an export service. The world’s biggest provider of that service is in disarray.
Doubling the number of international students served by New Zealand universities would previously have meant lowering standards. Now it could mean attracting excellent students who wouldn’t have previously considered New Zealand – while helping a lot of people put into very bad circumstances.
Doing well while doing good seems worth trying.
This is an excellent idea, that the Government should pursue with urgency. We do indeed have a huge opportunity as foreign students in the US face great uncertainty. Having them enrol in NZ universities would benefit them and benefit us.
A guest post by Nice Hanne of the Free Speech Union:
Courage comes in all shapes and sizes.
I saw this for myself last Friday in the Manukau District Court when I went to support Portia Mao on behalf of the Free Speech Union.
Don’t let Portia’s appearance or gentle demeanour fool you. This pint-sized Kiwi-Chinese journalist isn’t backing down to anyone or anything.
Portia is a fierce defender of free speech. Coming to NZ over twenty years ago in search of a democratic society to call home, Portia has earned a reputation amongst the NZ Chinese community for her uncompromising stand against foreign interference by the Communist Party of China (CCP). Exposing the increasingly brazen intimidation tactics and influence peddling in NZ politics by emboldened supporters of the CCP, some dissidents have already paid a heavy price for calling out this anti-democratic agenda.
Last year it was Portia’s turn. As a result of working with journalists at Stuff to expose CCP influence in NZ, Portia was shocked to find herself subject to a District Court interim order after she criticised an aspiring East Auckland political candidate for his strident pro-CCP views.
Prevented by law from speaking out about the issue and unsure how to challenge the judge’s interim order, Portia reached out to the Free Speech Union for help.
We connected Portia with Callum Fredric (a fantastic Auckland-based barrister who really cares about this cause).
And we began a fundraising drive to support Portia’s legal challenge. Many of you contributed with donations and messages of support which allowed Portia last month to challenge the court order in a bid to have it overturned.
How could a NZ journalist be silenced in this way under NZ law?
Portia was targeted using a poorly drafted law. The Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA), passed in 2015 (and originally designed to protect vulnerable young people from online harm) is now being appropriated by cynical adults to suppress legitimate political expression from their critics.
To be clear, being punished under the HDCA is not the same thing as defamation. Rather, the HDCA is concerned with subjective claims of ‘harm’ – this means that truth is not a valid defence.
The HDCA is an almost-perfect political censorship tool. It allows authoritarian sympathisers and potential agents of foreign governments to silence Kiwis who dare to speak up for democracy. It then also threatens heavy financial penalties for those organisations, such as news or social media platforms, which share the journalist’s work.
Yep, you’re reading that right. In our rush to protect kids from horrible online influences we’ve somehow denied our society not only a fundamental civil liberty, but its best defensive weapon against foreign interference.
Handing a club to the opponents of democracy; should we really be surprised they’re bludgeoning us over the head with it?
The HDCA is also a radical departure from traditional legal principle in that it allows for the emotional subjectivity of a complainant to substantiate their own claim that “harm” has been caused.
Just so we’re clear, this means that to establish whether certain digital communications deserve censoring, all that is required is for a self-proclaimed victim to strenuously maintain the digital communication in question was “grossly offensive” to them. No specialist or clinical expert is even needed to endorse this self-diagnosis.
What can Kiwis do about this problem?
We need more Kiwis to realise what’s going on. We’re now waiting for a decision in Portia’s case from the judge, and as soon as we have it we’ll be sure to publicize it. But her case is not the only example of this kind. We have evidence to suggest that dozens of similar abuses of the HDCA have occurred but have largely gone unreported.
Not only is the FSU campaigning for legislative reform of the HDCA, but we’re also calling on – and calling out – those in positions of power who aren’t saying or doing anything about the foreign interference Portia is trying to combat. Because if those people in charge are too afraid, how can we expect anyone else to speak up?
Many politicians have chosen to remain quiet. Either intimidated or simply hoping they can wish away the problem, many are nervous about upsetting a major trading partner. This issue is not your run-of-the-mill “ambiguous ethics of trade” dilemma. This is political interference happening on NZ soil. Apparently, it’s easier for some to forget that free speech – not a free trade agreement – is the lifeblood of a democracy.
Free speech allows our nation to flourish domestically and empowers us to exercise independence from the unprincipled and often ruthless whims of authoritarian governments like that of China.
We can’t leave a few brave souls to fight this situation by themselves. A small principled voice, though mighty like Portia’s, will not be enough to combat the growing influence of foreign and domestic censorship.Many voices, however, even in a small country, will make it loud and clear to those who interfere in our democracy that free speech in NZ is non-negotiable.
After spending $23m but failing to modernise the births, deaths and marriages registry, officials are having another go.
The Department of Internal Affairs has written off $22.9m on the project abandoned last year, returned an unspent $58m to the Crown and remains locked in a dispute with the Australian company DWS over the contract it terminated in late 2023.
“Although some of the work completed will be able to be used for a future civil registration system replacement project, from an accounting standards perspective, it [decided] should impair (write off) all capital costs incurred to date,” DIA told RNZ.
So $23 million wasted. Has anyone been held accountable for the failed project?
For months, Democrats scarred by the politics of the issue sought to sidestep President Donald Trump’s immigration wars — focusing instead on the economy, tariffs or, in the case of deportations, due process concerns.
In this citadel of Democratic politics, party officials from the governor’s mansion to city halls are suddenly tearing into Trump on immigration again, inflaming a debate that worked to Trump’s benefit in 2024 — but where Democrats believe they now have a political opening.
No they don’t. Having Democratic officials complain that Trump is too aggressively deporting illegal aliens just reminds people of the porous border they had under Biden. Gallup has only 16% of Americans saying they want more immigration.
The next day, when Trump announced the Guard’s deployment, Democrats rushed to take a stand in a fight shifting from deportations to the deployment of the Guard. Gov. Gavin Newsom blasted the measure as “purposefully inflammatory.” And when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened to deploy the U.S. military, too, Newsom posted on social media, “This is deranged behavior.”
I am no Trump fan, but he is playing the Democrats for suckers here. He deployed the National Guard hoping it would be decried by Newsom and co. The average American doesn’t sympathise with rioters interfering with law enforcement, especially as they wave Mexican flags.
The country’s natural gas supply is running out faster than previously thought.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment said previous forecasts showed annual gas production falling below 100 petajoules (PJ) by 2029, but revised forecasts indicated that level would be reached by next year.
A petajoule or PJ is a unit measurement of energy use commonly used for large-scale energy use, with one petajoule equal to one million billion joules.
MBIE also said as of January this year, natural gas reserves were down 27 percent compared to last year – also falling faster than previously estimated.
“In 2024, natural gas proven plus probable (2P) reserves reduced from 1300 PJ to 948 PJ,” MBIE head of data service delivery,” Karlene Tipler said.
Wow, so banning future gas exploration was such a genius idea. If we don’t get more renewables consented (possible now due to fast track), we’ll be importing a lots more coal.
Wellington City Council is being called on to review its rating system over fears high costs are driving investment out of the capital and dragging down an already struggling local economy.
Newly released figures show Wellington’s average commercial rates bill is $47,881. That compares to $20,716 in Auckland, $18,059 in Christchurch, $24,768 in Hamilton, and $25,670 in Tauranga.
That’s an astonishing difference. Almost two and a half times of Auckland and Christchurch.
Arcus said the Chamber’s analysis shows Wellington businesses are paying about 48% of the city’s rates burden, compared with Auckland and Canterbury where that number is closer to 30%.
No wonder so many businesses are closing in Wellington, with the joint burden of fewer carparks and massive rates.
On average, Auckland council rates for commercial land use are 0.72% of the building’s Capital Value. In Wellington, this is 1.5% for both city and regional council rates.
Those 20% rates increases add up, plus the massive business:residential differential.
In 2023, Wellington City Council officers agreed the city’s commercial rates differential was too high, recommending it be brought down from 3.7:1 to 3.25:1.
That proposal was voted down by councillors.
And Councillors wonder why businesses are closing.
The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) has confirmed Adrian Orr resigned as Governor as he wanted more funding for the central bank than the Government was willing to provide.
The bank said in a statement released under the Official Information Act that its board – chaired by Neil Quigley – conceded a lesser amount of funding was fine.
“This led to Mr Orr’s personal decision that he had achieved all he could as Governor of the Reserve Bank and could not continue in that role with significantly less funding than he thought was viable for the organisation,” the RBNZ said.
“Mr Orr and Professor Quigley entered discussions which led to Mr Orr’s decision to resign. The matter was distressing for Mr Orr.
Distressing? Distressing for taxpayers maybe. The Reserve Bank had unprecedented growth in staff numbers and expenses under Orr, and he found it distressing that the Government wouldn’t;t give him even more money?
From 250 staff to 660, and he says it wasn’t enough to do the job. Incredible. And when his own Board backed the Government, he got in a huff and quit.
The headline (note journalists do not write the headlines) makes you think DPMC is sacking one third of their staff.
The actual story further down is:
A broad restructure of the 247-strong Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) is under way, a spokesperson has confirmed, and it is proposed that 77 existing jobs ‒ 57 occupied, 20 vacant ‒ be disestablished, but 65 new roles created.
The organisation’s total headcount will therefore drop by 12 people.
So 12 out of 247 is a 5% reduction in staff numbers, and with 20 vacancies in fact not a single person may lose their job.
I was pleased to see the Government announce the speed limit for Transmission Gully would be consulted on increasing to 110 km/hr. New motorways are built to safety standards where this is a safe speed.
I was puzzled though as to why NZTA said that a 10 km/hr increase for a 27 km motorway would only save 18 seconds. The answer is they assume the actual average speed limit would only increase by 2 km/hr. This seems to suggest that the actual posted speed limit has little impact on how fast people drove, and they just drive to the conditions.
Also of interest is that they predict the number of serious crashes would not change, and the number of minor crashes would change from just 18 over five years to 19 over five years.
About half an hour into Auckland Council’s debate on upzoning the city centre last week, mayor Wayne Brown looked up with a puzzled look on his face. He didn’t get why planners were telling his councillors they should vote to limit building heights on Karangahape Road. The area, he noted, was right next to a new train station on the rail line his council and the government have just spent $5.5 billion upgrading. “The whole point of this, as I understand, is to get more jobs and residents near this expensive railway, the City Rail Link. It doesn’t go far enough,” he said. …
Not satisfied with just voting to stop some construction around the City Rail Link, they wanted more stringent limits in place. Albany councillor Wayne Walker led the charge, moving an amendment to add heritage protections to an empty gravel pit down the end of Karangahape Road. He won the backing of Waitematā councillor Mike Lee, who speechified incomprehensibly about short-term parking and “standing up to vested interests”.
At this point, something seemed to break inside Brown. He proposed an exchange: if Walker and Lee were successful in putting heritage protections on an empty site 600 metres from a new rail station, he would move to enable unlimited density near their homes in Whangaparāoa and on Waiheke Island. Councillors laughed nervously. Deputy mayor Desley Simpson started patting his shoulder and urgently making a cutting motion near her neck. But Brown wasn’t done. “To vote to have an empty site turned into a historic building is to demean the value of historic buildings, so you are actively working against preservation,” he said. “This is stupidity.”
Heh, you can imagine the reaction when Brown threatened a vote on unlimited density on Waiheke!
The threats paid off. Brown won the battle. Walker and Lee were voted down, 20 to 2.
