Luxon is 100% right to keep ruling Opportunity out. The reason is that there is close to a 0% chance that Opportunity would choose a National-led Government over a Labour-led Government. All that you would achieve by going through the pretence of negotiations with them is to strengthen their hand with Labour, and to fool the people into thinking National was genuinely an option.

I asked ChatGPT to assess each of Opportunity’s 15 policies, and to state which party their policy was most compatible with, and least compatible with. The summary is below:

A version that can be shared (and please do so) is:

If I was allowed to place money on a prediction market about who Opportunity will go with, if they hold the “balance of power”, I would be quite happy to place $1,000 on a Labour-led Government at 95c or 95%.

Just reflect that every single one of their policies is closest to Labour, Greens or TPM. And every single one of their policies is least compatible with one of the current Government parties.

So Luxon is absolutely right to not pretend the outcome of who they would go with is somehow undecided.

Erick Erickson writes:

Crude exports from the Persian Gulf are back at pre-war levels. J.P. Morgan puts the 10-day average at 17.5 million barrels a day, which is 98 percent of where it stood before the war. Goldman Sachs estimates the region exported 19 million barrels a day over the past week. Brent has come off its highs to about $103, and West Texas crude is trading around $90.

The Gulf producers did it by building 3 exits where there used to be 1. Before the war, 83 percent of Gulf crude had to cross the Strait of Hormuz. In September, about 60 percent crossed the strait, 23 percent loaded on the Gulf of Oman coast, and 17 percent left through the Red Sea. Much of that Red Sea oil moved through the same Saudi pipeline Iran’s allies tried to destroy. Iran thought it held a chokehold on the world economy, and the Gulf simply routed around it.

Iran is now the one country in the region whose oil is not moving. Before the war, it exported roughly 1.7 million barrels a day. In September, satellite data showed no Iranian crude leaving by sea at all. That is the work of the American naval blockade reimposed in July.

Last week at the United Nations, Iran offered to reopen the strait within 7 days. Its price was the release of frozen funds, an end to sanctions, and an end to the blockade. The President said no. A regime that was winning would not be begging for its money back in front of the General Assembly. A government that cannot sell its oil cannot pay those who preserve its power.

Erickson has been generally critical of what Trump has done with Iran. But he is right that the blockade appears yo be the most effective tool at the moment, and Iran’s leverage is slipping. It is important for the world that ships can access waterways without paying tolls or fees.

Gareth Morgan writes:

Not All Tax Reform is the Same

Wealth taxes kill entrepreneurship – and New Zealand needs entrepreneurship these days more than ever. Our abysmal productivity record will not be reversed any other way. Real incomes cannot rise without productivity gains.

Against this backdrop the tax reforms proposed by Labour, the Greens and now Opportunity are regressive for New Zealand. There exist far better ways to facilitate productivity gains, lifts in real income per person, and equitable outcomes.

Labour proposes a capital gains tax. Capital gains aren’t income, they are increments in wealth accruing as a result either of entrepreneurship or from economic rent (unearned or surplus income accruing by virtue of limited competition, or fortuitous changes in regulation, eg; zoning of land). The selling of shares for capital gain is not income as the gain merely reflects the change in the expected tax-paid future earnings of the company. That is, they account for the effect of future income tax to be paid. Opposite for losses. Labour enters treacherous ground deeming capital gains as income and losses non-deductible – its tax proposal is a poor substitute for an efficient income tax. Rather, it will end up taxing the income to capital twice. You’d be stretched to find a better way to kill entrepreneurship – although the Greens do offer one.

The Greens unashamedly propose a wealth tax. They are not fans of private sector entrepreneurship, they have a deep belief that New Zealand’s productivity dilemma can be solved through government investment and regulation. The Greens have a fixed idea on what constitutes “excessive” wealth and deem it immoral. Their policy is to remove it via a wealth tax. They either have no understanding or no respect for the entrepreneurship required to generate wealth. Theirs is a world where public goods must be immune to the state of the private economy. And to achieve that in the face of a crowded out or struggling private sector you just keep taxing it more. Contrary to what numerous tax taskforces have highlighted, the Greens do not acknowledge that a significant driver of wealth disparity in New Zealand has been a poorly designed income tax regime. Nor do they accept the danger of them commandeering wealth is that wealth creators will move their wealth to a different jurisdiction. This hollowing out of a country’s productive capability has never been an outcome the Greens are concerned about. They offer no solution to New Zealand’s long term faltering productivity performance, productivity is not part of their vocabulary, money apparently grows on trees. A higher tax take is the free lunch central to the Greens mantra, Marx would be proud.

Opportunity – this party’s tax and benefit policy differs from that proposed by TOP2017 in a crucial way. By taxing land, Opportunity introduces a selective wealth tax. Land taxes of course were a feature of tax regimes two centuries ago when agricultural production was the main source of income for countries. These days land is just another factor or production, with no special distinction. Apart from any wealth tax being anti-entrepreneurial, the land tax of Opportunity appears to be a very poor substitute for the income tax on imputed rent that TOP2017, proposed. The TOP tax proposal was about closing a loophole in New Zealand’s income tax regime. Opportunity’s land tax is at best a poor proxy of taxing income from land, but more accurately can be described as a regressive wealth tax much like those proposed by Labour and the Greens. A properly designed land tax would be a hypothecated or corrective one, seeking only to tax economic rent.

With the TOP2017 tax on imputed rent, account was taken of taxable income already earned from capital (including property), and as well the cost of debt (interest) being a deductible expense. This was to ensure that double taxation was avoided. Opportunity’s wealth tax on land includes neither of these, making it a major step backwards in terms of the enlightenment of New Zealand’s tax regime. This alone, highlights Opportunity’s policy being far more Left than Right wing. Placing no value on private entrepreneurship as the cornerstone of wealth creation in a democratic, capitalist society is the hallmark of Left wing politics. Wealth taxes are hugely dangerous to living standards. There’s no way Opportunity can appeal to centre Right voters with its selective wealth tax.

Thankfully Opportunity has not fatally tinkered with the UBI that TOP2017 proposed. The core rationale underlying that policy is to boost the efficiency of the welfare system and to recognise that those on minimal income need their income boosted. Traditionally targeted welfare has been deployed to do that job, but it is so cumbersome and vulnerable to mis-targeting and administrative waste, that replacing that wing of central government bureaucracy as much as possible by the UBI (or a negative tax) has become a no-brainer. The economic and social efficiency gains to be achieved by having low income folk qualify directly for the UBI, is a major corrective step (bit like superannuation for all). It also addresses the well-documented growth in the disparity between productivity and real wages.

While it looks like Opportunity may have a role in the next parliament, by de-emphasising its tax reform in order to win votes, the risk is it will be swept up into a Left leaning coalition where it can readily be branded as a lookalike Green Party, so nothing special. For centre-Right voters the reason to support Opportunity will fall away quickly once the allure of its refreshingly telegenic leadership passes.

In the unseemly race to be part of the next parliament the choices for voters have been shut down thanks to the compromises already from Opportunity. For centre Right voters then, the tired old National/Act/NZ First triumvirate is looking increasingly attractive. That is a real shame and an opportunity lost for Opportunity to truly be a neutral player. Given the cost-of-living is the Number 1 issue, the important redeeming feature of the Right in New Zealand, is that it does not despise the poor anywhere near as much as the Greens despise the wealthy. Encouraging entrepreneurship as the lever for higher productivity is the priority. Pity about the unabated and vile racism from NZ First and the denial of the Treaty by Act.

I would have thought this would be a major story, that the guy who created and founded The Opportunity Party, is now harshly critical of their most central policy.

Roger Partridge writes:

Under section 93 of the Act, the Attorney-General must publish the process for recommending judges. He does so in the Judicial Appointments Protocol, reissued most recently in November 2025 under the signature of the then Attorney-General, Judith Collins KC.

For appointments to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, it provides that the Attorney-General “will … with the agreement of the Chief Justice, who, in the case of appointments to the Court of Appeal, will confer with the President and, in the case of appointments to the Supreme Court, will confer with the other Judges of that Court, settle a shortlist of not more than three possible appointees.” (Italics added.) A parallel provision governs the High Court.

The italicised words matter. “Agreement” is not consultation. A consultee gives a view the decision-maker may weigh and reject. A person whose agreement is required decides whether the process continues.

On the protocol’s words, no lawyer or judge reaches the shortlist for the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice, having conferred with the judges already sitting there, is content for the name to go forward.

This gives massive power to the Chief Justice. A Chief Justice is appointed at the personal discretion of the Prime Minister, and may serve for a long time. Dame Sian Elias did 20 years. Most do at least 10. The current Dame Helen Winkelmann will do 13 years.

And the current rules give the CJ an effective veto. No one can even be considered by the Attorney-General for the senior courts, unless the CJ agrees they make the short list.

For my 2c it would be more sensible to have the Chief Justice consulted on the short-list, but not needing to agree on it.

The WSJ reports:

Last week, a slow-burning selloff in France’s government bond market took an alarming turn as it spread across the continent, reviving memories of the eurozone debt crisis last decade. France’s 10-year borrowing cost has risen toward 5%, the highest level since 2002.

The more you borrow, the bigger the risk you become, and the higher the interest rates go.

With presidential elections approaching in the spring, leading candidates to replace President Emmanuel Macron, who is term limited, are showering voters with promises to expand government spending.

Sounds familiar? Two parties in NZ are promising over $200 billion each of extra spending.

The difference between paying 1% and 5% on your borrowing is, of course, massive. In NZ we were paying 3% in 2017, and we are now paying just over 5%.

In October 2023, Curia polled 1,000 NZers on whether they have heard of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power, and if they had a positive or negative view of them.

The results were:

• All voters: Mongrel Mob 3% positive/82% negative = -79% approval
• All voters: Black Power 4% positive/79% negative = -75% approval
• Green voters: Mongrel Mob 7% positive/82% negative = -75% approval
• Green voters: Black Power 5% positive/81% negative = -76% approval

Green voters are smart and get it. Green MPs do not.

Great article:

“Earlier this year the Ministry of Education awarded AGGS the Education Excellence Award for Raising Student Achievement after the school recorded NCEA and University Entrance results above 90% in 2025.”

“We need all the values that are important for young people to feel connected, supported and trusted. Māori students learn like everyone else. I don’t think we need to do things differently or make excuses for them.”

“In 2014 Tangaroa achieved an 88.1% NCEA level 2 pass rate, when nationally the average pass rate for Decile 1 schools hovered between 65% and 69%.”

“I knew how to lift achievement for Māori Pacific students.”

“[When I first got to AGGS] I felt there was a perception among some staff that these students weren’t as capable. I felt the students were being underserved.”

AGGS now has academic results ahead of Epsom Girls (EQI 397) and AGS (EQI 385).

To give you an idea of the progress for AGGS.

UE for LEAVERS

2022: 62%

2023: 67.1%

2024: 73.8%

2025: 84.6%

Retention until 17yo

2022: 87.2%

2023: 87.9%

2024: 89%

2025: 94.5%

Their Equity Index Number is in the high range (488) and many students will travel a long way to be on site each day.

Their ethnicity demographics in 2025 were:

21% Asian

19% European

20% Maori

72% Pasifika

(NB: Ministry stats allow double identification.)

A key thing about that part of the story is that the achievement differentials between ethnicities are minimal – as opposed to many high EQI schools.

The Minister, her MAG, the Ministry, many, many schools – should be beating a path to Ngaire Ashmore’s door.

For more information:

Each year as I do the leavers data process it reveals a range of examples such as above – and points in the direction of examples of great practice – such as AGGS.

Towards exams and final assessments in Term 4 schools also use the data for goal setting.

Many schools, and other organisations, have obtained the data this year. 

If you would like your copy – please see below. The cost is $400 plus GST and the data set will be sent immediately upon order and payment can be made in your normal time frames.

The seventeen sheets cover:

1. Base data by School Number

2. Base data by EQI

3. Listed by Size

4. Listed by L2 NCEA for leavers 2022 – 2025

5. Listed by L3 NCEA for leavers 2020 – 2025

6. Listed by UE for leavers 2018 – 2025

7. Listed by L3 NCEA to UE for leavers gap – 2028 – 2025

8. Listed by student retention until 17yo 2018 – 2025

9. Listed by Progression to L7+ degree study 2019 – 2024

10. Listed by UE results in EQI 10ths – 2021 – 2025

11. Listed by UE results with EQI coded – 2021 – 2025 (highlighted those doing well from higher EQI situations)

12. STATE only: Listed by UE results with EQI coded – 2021 – 2025 

13. National Measures – Attendance & UE Means by EQI 10ths (2022 – 2025)

14. Broad Sector Measures – Overall, Ethnicity, Gender, School Governance, School Type, Geographical Area.

15. Boys’ School Groups (Super 8, South Island) – UE and Retention 2024 – 2025.

16. UE Data for 59 Impressive Improvers – 2023 – 2025.

17. Data Summary and Goal Setting Sheet for Schools to Use. 

[email protected]

The Greens are campaigning on:

• Funding gangs to do drug rehabilitation
• Their right to campaign at gang pads for votes and selfies
• Repealing the gang patch law
• Allowing all prisoners to vote, even mass murdurers
• Abolishing life sentences for murder
• Abolishing preventive detention for repeat sexual offenders
• Allow home detention sentences for murder
• Ban imprisonment as an option for people who breach parole and bail conditions
• Have all defendants up to the age of 25 sent to the youth court instead of criminal court

This is all in their policy.

The Herald reports:

In 2017, Ngaire Ashmore walked into a school in crisis. Now Auckland Girls’ Grammar School is winning awards, fielding hundreds of out-of-zone applications per year, and 92% of its Year 13 students have gained University Entrance – compared to 48% a decade ago. 

The school’s first Māori woman principal spoke candidly to Carolyne Meng-Yee about becoming a mother at 19, challenging low expectations and the personal experiences that shaped her conviction that every student has potential – even when they can’t see it in themselves.

AGGS has an equity score of 487. This means it has a higher than average number of socio-economic barriers. It has fewer than 10% European students.

She has not just doubled their UE rate, but she has almost no difference in outcomes between Maori, Pacific and other students. So how did she do it?

The first two years were tough. There was a lot of resistance to change, and getting everyone on board — particularly the teachers — to believe every student could be an achiever was a challenge.

She overcome resistance to change, and raised expectations.

I knew how to lift achievement for Māori Pacific students.

[When I first got to AGGS] I felt there was a perception among some staff that these students weren’t as capable. I felt the students were being underserved.

She resisted the bigotry of low expectations for ethnic groups that traditionally don’t achieve as well.

Do you think the education system is still asking Māori students to fit into a system that isn’t designed for them?

I think there are things in the system that we need to do better. But I would hate to think the system isn’t working because we must have another system for Māori — because we don’t. 

[At school] we need all the values that are important for young people to feel connected, supported and trusted. Māori students learn like everyone else. I don’t think we need to do things differently or make excuses for them.

She explicitly rejects that there must be another system for Maori, and that Maori students learn differently. And she has almost 90% of Maori students at her school getting UE.

I learned that every student can succeed and that what happens outside the school gates should not define their success at school.

I think this is so important. Far too many people in education seem to think socio-economic success is destiny. They explain away everything as a function of poverty. They think that a school with a high equity number can’t be expected to get results as good as a low equity score.

This is not an argument that socio-economic factors don’t matter. Of course they do. But it is an argument that they are not and should not be determinative.

The Herald reports:

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick won’t say if she would have advised her MP Hūhana Lyndon against meeting with members of the Mongrel Mob.

After being asked the question twice, Swarbrick said she needed to “understand more of the context as to what has played out here”, although she earlier said having those types of engagements were important to understanding and addressing issues in the community.

Swarbrick’s co-leader Marama Davidson said meeting with the Mongrel Mob is “not a new thing” – she made headlines for meeting members in 2021 – and her party was “unapologetic” for engaging with marginalised communities.

The Greens seen gangs as a marginalised community. The reality is they are the ones who create victims.

Gangs are not some sort of community group or extended whanau. They are organised crime. The crime is not incidental to their existence. It is their defining characteristic. Can you name a single gang in NZ that isn’t part of organised crime?

The Greens see them as a marginalised community, and think it is fine to go to gang headquarters and campaign for their votes. There is no empathy for the law abiding New Zealanders who have been killed, raped, bashed or robbed by gang members, because in the Greens world, the gang members are the real victims – of a patriarchal racist society.

On the 2nd of October I wrote:

So the last six polls, all from different firms, have had ACT ahead of Opportunity by margins ranging from 1% to 6%, and the Herald-MOTU poll of polls says that the poll of polls means Opportunity is ahead of ACT.

On the 8th of October the Herald did an explainer, and have made some changes. Much of their explanation has nothing to do with why they had Opportunity above ACT, when every single pollster had them 1% to 6% behind. But there were some nuggets of useful info:

Well, most importantly, it means the Poll of polls is not a polling average.

Then don’t call it a poll of polls!!!

Crucially, the Poll of polls doesn’t just take polled values as is. Instead, it considers how polling values have changed in the recent past, which it uses to predict how voter sentiment may have evolved since the polls were actually conducted. The model’s predictions are then updated as new polls are included.

This seems to be saying that if a party has been going up in the polls, or down in the polls, then they predict that trend will continue. Now I’ve been following polling aggregators and forecasts for over 15 years, since Nate Silver made them famous (and prior to that Real Clear Politics). This is a very very rare practice, and would normally only occur in an environment where you have hundreds or thousands of polls, as inputs to a model.

Certainly some forecasters such as Nate Silver do include non polling information such as economic data, and even expert predictions. But they make it crystal clear that they are doing so, and in Silver’s case they provide different outputs (lite, classic, deluxe) so readers can pick between the simple polling average and that which incorporates other data.

Could you imagine what would happen if an actual polling company said “Hey National got 32% in this poll, but as they were at 30% in the last poll, they have momentum, so we are going to report they are at 34%!”

It is worth reflecting on what the actual polls since the Herald poll of polls had Opportunity ahead of ACT have said. They are:

• Roy Morgan: ACT 4.5% ahead
• Reid Research: ACT 3.5% ahead
• Verian: Act 2.0% ahead
• Curia: ACT 4.4% ahead

So if the momentum formula was a useful thing to do, then you would have expected the next set of polls to indeed show Opportunity ahead. But none of them do – the last 10 polls all show ACT ahead, but the herald poll of polls still shows Opportunity ahead of ACT.

This is not a trivial issue. Millions of people may have seen this forecast and thought it accurately reflected the state of the race.

The Herald will continue to use predictions of the outcome of a “hypothetical election held today” as the primary output of the Poll of polls. This is, after all, what we are most interested in.

However, to make it easier to understand what the model is doing, we will also publish two additional estimates. First, we will publish the model’s estimate of the polling average today to help readers understand the magnitude of pollster effects.

Second, we will publish the model’s estimate of the polling average one month ago to help readers understand the model’s sense of underlying momentum. It will also enable readers to check the model’s estimates against the most recent five or six polls.

Extra data is good, as is the explanation. But what the Herald should have done is made clear from the beginning that they were not just taking poll results and weighting them for size, recency or house effects, but also adding in an assumption about momentum (that is very dubious).

What has also been unacceptable is the refusal to actually release the formula being used, so people can judge for themselves. I do a simple polling average at Curia, and the methodology is published here.

If it is necessary to modify the underlying model to more accurately reflect voter sentiment, then we will make changes and explain the reasoning that prompted them to readers. However, at present we do not believe changes are necessary.

You’ve still got a “poll of polls” claiming Opportunity is ahead of ACT, despite the last 10 polls saying the opposite. I think changes were necessary some time ago.

Finally a note of caution. As the election gets closer, the Herald’s model will no doubt reduce the adjustments it makes for stuff like momentum, so that the final pre-election forecast is basically just a polling average (with house effects adjusted for). It is quite possible, even probably, that will be accurate. Polling averages done well, are often superior to any individual poll.

But that doesn’t mean their “poll of polls” six weeks out is at all accurate, or useful. In fact it is highly misleading. Readers should not have to read a 10 page article to understand what it is and isn’t. Do not call it a poll of polls when by your own words “it is not a polling average”.

Here is Labour’s fiscal plan:

You will see they are forecasting $365 million over four years from “reversing tobacco tax cut”.

This is the 50% reduction on excise tax for heated tobacco products. This was a minor change designed to incentivise smokers onto a less harmful product. So it is easy to calculate the “lost” revenue from the policy, as you simply double the actual excise paid on heated tobacco products, and subtract what was collected – ie the lost revenue is equal to the actual collected revenue.

Labour’s fiscal plan has $365 million from changing this excise tax back to what it was. So what has been the actual data?

A March 2026 OIA said that excise tax was $2.26 million in the 2024/25 year, which means the “cost” was also $2.26 million.

Now I wondered if there was data for the most recent 2025/26 year, so I asked. And I just got the reply. It was $3.45 million.

Labour’s fiscal plan says they will make $82 million from reversing the change, while the actual data is it will bring in $3.45 million. So the actual revenue is 4.2% of what they claim, or to put it another way their fiscal plan is out by 2377%!!

UPDATE: The fault may be Treasury’s, not Labour. It seems Treasury doesn’t even look at actual data and has kept in its forecasts a projection the HTP excise reduction will cost $82 million a year. This is clearly nonsense, as seen by the actual data.

So Treasury is under-estimating revenue data by $82 million a year. Labour is claiming that reversing the policy will magically bring in $82 million a year. It won’t. Both Treasury and Labour are wrong, as the Customs data is crystal clear the fiscal impact is less than 5% of that. But the greater blame lies with Treasury.

Also thanks to The Post who did check this out, and pointed me to the Treasury estimates.

Erica Stanford released:

New independent assessment results show primary and intermediate students made the equivalent of four months’ additional progress in mathematics between 2024 and 2026, signalling a turnaround in achievement, Education Minister Erica Stanford says.

The latest Progressive Achievement Test (PAT) data, released today by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), show statistically significant improvements in mathematics and reading comprehension and vocabulary.

“Our number one priority in education has been raising achievement and closing the equity gap, and these results are incredibly encouraging.

“It means more children are building stronger foundations in literacy and numeracy. These are significant gains and another sign that we are finally starting to turn achievement around.

This is great news, and shows the importance of bedding in the reforms, rather than passing them or scrapping them.

Wow, that is some difference. This is just such great news.

The Guardian reports:

The man accused of murdering Ann Widdecombe has been charged with engaging in conduct in preparation of acts of terrorism including against Nigel Farage. …

So this young man didn’t just (allegedly) bludgeon a 78 year old woman to death because he hated her politics, but also wanted to kill Nigel Farage because Farage had the wrong beliefs.

Where are all the hundreds of articles bemoaning the rise of the extreme violent left? Where are the taxpayer funded documentaries about them?

Political violence is not unique got any one side of politics, but the focus on only one side is what stands out.

Parliament has replaced the RMA. It is dead and buried. Replacing it are a Planning Act and Natural Environment Act. They are both vastly superior to the RMA.

But the fight is not over. The new Acts allow Ministers to issue National Policy Statements that will have huge influence in the new system. A National Policy Statement by Chris Bishop will be far far superior to one by a Labour/Green/TPM/Opportunity Government.

Labour to their credit have said they will not repeal the new laws. But they can promulgate NPSs that will make it much harder for good projects to get consented. So the election outcome will matter.

The independent review of the monetary policy response to Covid-19 is here. It seems fair and balanced. The key takeaways are:

• MPC’s initial response was praiseworthy; rapid and, for New Zealand, innovative monetary accommodation was provided
• Reserve Bank and the banks were insufficiently well prepared for policy near zero interest rates
• As inflation accelerated away from target, MPC decided to stop adding stimulus, but without sufficient urgency
• Inflation rose as far as 7.3%, 5.3% above target, and the unemployment rate fell to 3.2%, an unsustainable historic low,necessitating a costly reduction in economic growth and employment to restore stability
• The law was altered to introduce a Dual Mandate, adding scope for discretion and guiding the MPC to focus less on price stability
• the combined stimulus, while appropriate in the early stages, was too strong for too long

So Labour’s introduction of a dual mandate was a contributing factor to the high inflation we had, along with the RB being too slow to act as inflation started to increase.

The latest update from the Taxpayers’ Union bribe-o-meter:

Two of the seven parties are being fiscally responsible. Two are being irresponsible, and three are just in the money goes on trees category.

The Herald talks to Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan:

A search of Hansard shows that, besides the Speaker, his assistants and deputy, Xu-Nan is the only one who comes close and is by far the MP with the most recorded speeches and questions this term, over 1100.

“Even in the House, you’re learning from your colleagues, you’re learning from each other in the committee stage, you’re learning from ministers, and there are some fantastic ministers who really know their portfolio and are really willing to share their expertise, and those are the ones that you’ll find where the committee stage is the most enjoyable.”

He cited Chris Bishop, Nicole McKee, James Meager and former minister Chris Penk as his favourites.

“There’s such an easy-flowing dialogue and conversation. You ask a question, they respond,” he said. “They’re not there to be political. They’re there to genuinely engage and answer questions.”

His favourite committee stage the whole term was a Statutes Amendment Bill in 2025 in the name of McKee – a bill that makes non-controversial technical changes or corrects or updates a variety of acts.

What he loves most about his job is “the infinite opportunity to learn”.

This is such a good attitude for an MP to have. Quite a few MPs think their job is to create outrage on Instagram and TikTok. But Xu-Nan sees his job as both holding the Government to account, but also an opportunity to learn. We could do with more MPs like him – in all parties.