Biden’s health has been very big news this week, around two issues – his dementia and his cancer diagnosis.

The dementia issue was front and centre because of two books released about the cover up over his declining cognitive ability. Adding to that was the release of the audio tapes of his interview with the special prosecutor:

Amid long, uncomfortable pauses, Joe Biden struggled to recall when his son died, when he left office as vice president, what year Donald Trump was elected or why he had classified documents he shouldn’t have had, according to audio Axios obtained of his October 2023 interviews with special counsel Robert Hur. …

The audio also appears to validate Hur’s assertion that jurors in a trial likely would have viewed Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Democrats and Biden’s White House blasted Hur for his observations about Biden. They repeatedly insisted he was “sharp” and that Hur was politically motivated. But the audio from the five-plus hours of interviews indicates he and co-counsel Marc Krickbaum were respectful and friendly.

Those who attacked Hur for his observations should be ashamed. It is now apparent that not only did he not exaggerate, but if anything he was relatively benign. Hur told the truth, and was assailed for it by operatives who didn’t want the public to know.

Then in the last few days we have the news that Biden has Stage 4 metastasized prostate cancer. This is terrible news for him and his family. The fact he lost his eldest son to cancer makes it more horrible.

However sympathy for Biden doesn’t negate the public interest in whether he truly had no idea he had prostate cancer until after he left office. Some cancers are very fast moving, but prostate cancer is not. The Herald reports:

In interviews with the news media, some physicians raised the idea that Biden could have known about his condition while in office, saying it was surprising that the President – who has access to some of the best health care in the country – would not have learned about his cancer earlier.

“He did not develop it in the last 100 to 200 days,” Dr Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an oncologist who served as an adviser on the coronavirus pandemic for the Biden administration, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”. “He had it while he was president. He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021.

“I don’t think there’s any disagreement about that,” added Emanuel, who noted that both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush had reported being tested for prostate cancer.

There seem to be four possibilities here. They are:

1. Biden had regular testing for prostate cancer and it never showed up and he had no idea at all that he had prostate cancer until a few days ago. This is medically very improbable.
2. Biden was never tested for prostate cancer in the last few years, and he had no idea at all that he had prostate cancer until a few days ago. This would call into question the competence of White House doctors who never thought to test for prostate cancer. To be fair you don’t regularly test men over 70 because even if they have traces, they are more likely to die of old age than the prostate cancer as it is usually so slow spreading. However the fact Biden’s cancer has metastasized shows this was a terrible decision, if correct.
3. Biden was tested for prostate cancer some years ago and tested positive. They did not want to reveal he had prostate cancer as it would add to concerns about his infirmity, so they deliberately decided not to have White House doctors regularly test for it. They figured it would probably not spread as quickly it did. If this is correct they sacrificed his life for his presidency.
4. Biden and/or his family/staff were aware he had prostate cancer and were regularly testing and monitoring it, but decided not to release this information publicly

It feels a bit yucky discussing this, as Biden is highly likely to die from the prostate cancer (however it may be years, not months). But it is a legitimate part of the discussion about where the White House staff were covering up for his infirmities – both physical, and mental.

Reasonable people could disagree about whether Biden was able to do the job of President during his first (and only) term of 2021 – 2025. But it is crystal clear that Biden would have been absolutely incapable of being President for a full second term. The fact that they tried to do so, when they must have known he could clearly not remain mentally pr physically strong enough until 2029 reflects extremely badly on the Democratic Party.

One solution could be to pass a law requiring the President to undertake a comprehensive physical and mental examination, done by a panel of doctors (not just the White House physician). Maybe extend this to major presidential candidates also.

The Labour Party can’t form a potential Government without TPM, so they appear to have decided to go all in on their behalf. Evidence:

1. After Chris Bishop calls their bluff and delays the vote on the suspension until after the Budget, Labour votes with TPM against it. They whined that it would be unfair they miss the Budget debate (despite not turning up for it last year) so Bishop delayed the vote, and Labour votes with TPM.
2. Hipkins proposed compromise of a one day suspension instead of a 21 day suspension is laughable. If Labour took it atrocious all seriously they would try and get a compromise of say 14 days – but a one day suspension would actually encourage TPM to do it again
3. Hipkins lied outright against Judith Collins saying she has said TPM displayed “uncivilised behaviour from indigenous people”. This is such an outrageous smear. She said there was a lack of civility from TPM. Hipkins made it sound like Collins had called them savages. And of course she is right that there is a lack of civility.
4. Willie Jackson basically said TPM MPs did nothing wrong if they intimidated ACT MPs, because the ACT MPs deserved it!

Personally I’m delighted. The more Labour hug the toxic TPM, the more it will doom them come the election as voters realise that a vote for Labour is a vote for Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer.

Roger Partridge writes:

Auckland Council has settled on an innovative approach to combating climate change: spend around $36 million a year on reducing New Zealand’s carbon footprint without reducing net emissions by a gram.

As The Centrist revealed this week, the Council’s food scrap collection scheme – rolled out across 470,000 homes, whether anyone asked for it or not – achieves gross emissions reductions at the bargain price of $1,440 per tonne.

That is 28 times the price of a carbon credit on New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

Fiscal insanity. It achieves nothing, for a huge cost.

First, Council ships Australian-made bins and Chinese liners to Auckland. Then, each week, it collects partially used scraps from the 35% of households that bother, loads them onto trucks, and sends them 200km south to Reporoa. Nothing says “climate policy implementation” quite like a weekly 200km journey by road to Reporoa.

Yet, even if the scheme reduces landfill methane, it doesn’t lower New Zealand’s net emissions. Under the ETS, those savings just free up carbon credits for someone else to use. The ETS cap – not Council policy – sets our national net emissions.

Meanwhile, the bins are made in Australia and the liners manufactured in China – leaving a hefty global emissions trail from production to delivery. The result? A $36 million scheme that might actually increase global emissions. But at least it feels green.

This is why you can’t believe Councils when they say there is no alternative to rates increases. They try and convince us it all goes on core infrastructure, but it is not the case.

Stuff has a very good article on the issues around former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevan McSkimming. It doesn’t cover everything, as some issues are before the courts, but there is one part I want to highlight:

More than 20 months earlier, in February 2023, a Stuff reporter received an email containing explicit allegations about McSkimming. It was the kind of thing that often drops into journalists’ inboxes, and usually lies somewhere between bluster and bullshit.

The emails about McSkimming continued throughout 2023, with further concerning allegations, but little proof that would sustain a story.

The things suggested could scarcely be immune to office whispers and gossip.

In that time, however, McSkimming’s star continued to rise.

On March 28, 2023, six weeks after allegations against McSkimming reached Stuff, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins accepted advice from officials that McSkimming was a “fit and proper” person, that he was “honest and trustworthy”, and should be appointed deputy commissioner.

Here is the question I have. If the person making allegations against McSkimming had taken them to the media six weeks before Hipkins appointed him Deputy Police Commissioner, is it plausible that these allegations were not known to anyone at Police National HQ?

Who knew at Police HQ? Did they investigate? Did they inform the PSC? Did they inform the then Prime Minister? Did they inform the IPCA?

Hipkins has insisted there were no red flags regarding McSkimming.

And the only hint of concern can be found in a letter from Hipkins’ office to the Cabinet Appointment and Honours Committee.

“Deputy Commissioner McSkimming,” it begins, before the remainder of the sentence is redacted from the document that was publicly released.

It then goes on to say: “This is not seen as an impediment to Deputy Commissioner McSkimming’s appointment.”

If the redacted section doesn’t relate to these allegations, then why not state that explicitly?

I find it hard to believe that if someone is e-mailing the media about him, that their allegations were not known to some in the Police hierarchy. Now they may not have thought them credible, but they should have investigated.

I suspect once the criminal aspects of this are dealt with (as that must take priority) there will be a need for a public inquiry into who knew what, and when.

I’ve been reflecting on the Stuff column where a journalist used the c word against female Ministers because she disagreed with a policy decision of the Government. Because I think it tells us something about arrogance and superiority.

If a reader of Stuff had submitted the paragraphs that used the c word and other insults as a comment on the Stuff website, it would never have seen the light of day. In fact their terms and conditions make it clear. There would be no debate, no discussion. They would never allow a comment which used the c word against female Ministers.

If a columnist who was not a journalist employed by the media outlet had submitted that column, there is no way it would have been accepted. The Opinion Editor would send it back to them and say something along the lines of “Are you crazy, you can’t use the c word against female politicians. Go change your column if you want us to run it”.

But because in this case a columnist was a journalist, they got together and said “yes it is okay to run it”. They have this view that anyone who isn’t a journalist who uses the c word against female politicians is being threatening and abusive, but we journalists are superior. Only we can judge when it is appropriate. When we use it, we are merely showing how passionately we think this is a bad policy, but when anyone else uses it they are being coarse and threatening.

Journalists are obviously a superior breed. Non-journalists can never use the c word. Only journalists have the training, intellect and superiority to be able to decide when you can call a female Minister a c**t.

The ABC reports:

There are concerns that former Victorian Liberal leader John Pesutto will be bankrupted after being ordered to pay costs of $2.3 million after losing his defamation battle with Moira Deeming. …

The Federal Court order handed down on Friday morning, raises the prospect Mr Pesutto will be bankrupted and forced out of state parliament.

Ms Deeming successfully sued Mr Pesutto after he moved to expel her from the party room in 2023 after she attended an anti-trans-rights rally that was gatecrashed by Neo-Nazis.

He threw his own MP to the wolves and smeared her because she attended a women’s rights rally. A court found he had defamed her. He thought she would not dare fight back against the party leader, but he underestimated her. Maybe it was her Maori ancestry that made her so tenacious, but she fought and won.

Radio NZ had a terrible article on the Privileges Committee report.

As you can see above, an incredibly biased emotive article – and one funded by taxpayers!

Richard Harman also gets it wrong saying:

Peters also will have voted for the 21-day suspension at the Privileges Committee, where voting was clearly along party lines and the coalition votes as one.

It is quite wrong to imply it was a coalition decision. National MPs on the Privileges Committee do not go to their caucus and get approval or instructions on how they vote. They decide for themselves.

A good take on this is from Liam Hehir who makes the point:

The use of tikanga to justify interference with parliamentary democracy is not a defence of culture. It is the exploitation of it. It is an attempt to elevate a partisan stunt into an untouchable act, shielded from criticism by the sacred.

Here is what it really is: the use of cultural identity as a weapon against the functioning of representative government.

It is the deliberate dragging of that very culture into disrepute by setting it up in opposition to rights that belong to everyone. It does not honour a culture to frame it as incompatible with the principles of democratic participation. And this is not the first time it has happened.

Democracy is not some Western construct. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government” including when “expressed through elected representatives.” A Parliament’s voting process is the very heart of that expression. It is not decorative. It is not optional. It cannot be paused or polluted for performance.

To attempt to disrupt it—and then justify that disruption on the basis that cultural identity overrides the rules of Parliament—is to suggest that culture and democracy are mutually exclusive. That is an insult both to democracy and culture.

Ngarewa-Packer’s “finger gun” gesture cannot be dismissed as cultural expression. Performed during a vote and directed at political opponents. It goes without saying that, had an ACT MP performed a similar gesture towards Te Pāti Māori MPs, the condemnation would have been swift and unequivocal. Standards must be applied consistently.

Two former Speakers have unusually come out and said the recommended punishments don’t actually go far enough. NewstalkZB reported:

A former Speaker believes suggested punishments for three Te Pāti Māori MPs falls short.

Parliament’s Privileges Committee has recommended suspensions for the three – for their protest haka during voting on the Treaty Principles Bill. 

Parliament will vote next Tuesday on whether to suspend the co-leaders for 21 days, and MP Hana Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke for seven.

David Carter says the haka was ‘intimidating’ and ‘unacceptable’.

“And then to refuse to appear before the Privileges Committee – again, it’s yet another contempt of the rules of Parliament.”

And also Lockwood Smith:

A former Speaker of the House is reminding MPs the rules of the House must be followed.

The Privileges Committee have suggested three Te Pati Māori MPs be temporarily suspended from Parliament, ranging up to 21 days, for their role in a haka over the Treaty Principles Bill.

Te Pati Māori says these suspensions are the longest in Parliament’s history.

Sir Lockwood Smith told Ryan Bridge members need to think before they ignore the rules.

He says the three-week suspension and missing part of the budget debate will hopefully make people take notice.

Lockwood is generally regarded as the best and fairest speaker under MMP. You have two former Speakers saying enough is enough.

Also Thomas Coughlan points out:

The attendance of Te Pāti Māori MPs is an embarrassment to Parliament and an offence to the taxpayer (Peters quite fairly pointed out that it was rich for the opposition to care so much about the three MPs’ attendance during the Budget debate next week, when they skipped it last year). The Speaker and the Greens have quietly offered to help Te Pāti Māori with basic House procedure, including getting MPs’ questions into order. Those offers have been rebuffed. As a result, in their fifth year as MPs, Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi still struggle at question time, Waititi particularly so.

The party’s voters deserve better – and frankly, so do taxpayers. There are few jobs paying $168,000 a year that would let you get away with refusing to learn the basics and would tolerate that level of regular rulebreaking.

So the co-leaders have been there five years, and they still can’t competently ask questions in the House.

This is reflected is their favourability ratings with the public. When we polled on the co-leaders in February 2025, their net favourability or approval for Waititi:

• All voters: -28%
• National voters: -39%
• Labour voters: -16%
• Undecided voters: -63%
• Women: -19%
• Men: -39%
• Under 40s: -12%
• 40 to 59: -31%
• Over 60s: -44%

If Labour want to spend the two sitting days before the Budget arguing in the House that Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer should just be getting a wet bus ticket slap for their behaviour, instead of talking about the economy, then all power to them.

Stuff reports:

The files are set against the backdrop of the global uncertainty of the Cold War. Intelligence officers were identifying subversives suspected of Soviet espionage, and were investigating whether Green had any communist affiliations or leanings that would affect his suitability for citizenship.

The evidence they found hardly seems shocking: the first record comes from a 1953 report that Green had attended a NZ-USSR film evening in Wellington and was on the NZ-USSR Society Wellington branch mailing list.

Then a 1954 Special Branch report found he “agitated” for a Communist Party speaker to address students at Auckland Teachers’ Training College. …

The principal, Sim, told the intelligence officers Green was a “complete egocentric with a contempt for authority”.

Sim would not let Green teach history because he didn’t trust him: “he had distributed a number of Russian Communist pamphlets to fifth and sixth formers until he was quickly stopped”.

So a communist teacher trying to indoctrinate students. But far worse than that.

“There has been one occasion when Green was guilty of the most sadistic treatment of a boy and [the principal] bitterly regrets that even then he failed to take a strong line. …

One word in particular leapt out: sadistic — because it rang true with his own experience of Green more than two decades later.

“He wanted me to receive and give torture whilst tied naked to a chair and also using the school cane.”

It was legal to cane pupils back then, but most definitely not to cane them naked and tied to a chair!

And Green himself won’t face justice: he died in 2022.

A pity he escaped.

Otago University announced:

The University of Otago – Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka Council has accepted the recommendations of the Working Group on Institutional Neutrality to adopt a statement on institutional neutrality, and to develop ethical investment and ethical procurement policies. …

“Our University upholds free speech and academic freedom as essential values. By not taking a University wide position on political issues not related to our core roles and functions, we ensure that our community can freely explore, discuss and engage with critical issues,” Mr Robertson explains.

I hope other universities follow this lead.

“If the University were to take a stance on political issues not connected to our roles and functions, this would place those members of the community who hold a different view in a difficult position and potentially have a chilling effect on them and their work.

“As one senior academic said during discussions – ‘the University is neutral, so that we do not have to be’.”

Exactly. Institutional neutrality empowers academics.

Our University champions free speech and academic freedom. Its institutional neutrality upholds the principle that the University best serves society by allowing its members the maximal freedom to investigate, debate, and speak on important matters.

Excellent.

Matt Goodwin writes:

There’s a national election. The mainstream parties do badly. They are challenged by an insurgent party that seems more in touch with the country. 

The mainstream parties then form a coalition, with no plan other than to keep themselves in power and the insurgent party out of power. 

Then, the intelligence services in that country put out a report. It says the insurgent party is “unconstitutional”, which gives intelligence services the right to tap the insurgent party’s phones and recruit informants within the party. 

Nobody is allowed to read the full report though. Oh, and the mainstream parties are already talking openly about banning the insurgent party altogether.

Which banana republic does this story take place in? Is it some tinpot dictatorship in Africa? An authoritarian regime in the Middle East? A fragile democracy in Latin America that is now sliding into the totalitarian abyss?

No. It’s taking place in Germany. It’s taking place in the very heart of Europe.

The AFD is more than an anti-immigration party. It used to be a Eurosceptic party but has morphed into a party that is revisionist around the Nazis, is pro-Russia and has policies such as banning the importation of kosher meat. reinstating military conscription.

But that does not mean the state should be able to tap their phones and spy on them, let alone ban them from standing for election. In fact the more they are targeted, the better they will do in the polls.

And as it happens they are now leading in some polls.

Deborah Coddington has penned a great tribute to Sir Bob Jones. She was a very good friend, and has captured Sir Bob so very well – warts and all.

The Herald reports:

The Justice Select Committee has looked at a bill that would stop children in court from being accused of consenting to sexual activity. 

Consent is still a legal defence to those charged with rape in New Zealand, even if the alleged victim was a child at the time.

The law allows for children who are victims of sexual offending to be cross-examined about whether they liked, wanted, or even enjoyed what has happened to them. 

This was highlighted in 2022, when the defence of a man charged with raping a 12-year-old girl centred around it being consensual. The victim was called a liar, blamed for initiating sex, and questioned why she didn’t report it at the time if she was raped.

“That bill would stop any child under 12 from being challenged about consent. 

This seems like a worthwhile law change, especially if it applies to those under 12.

It is slightly more complex if the young person is say 15. If one party is 16 and the other 15, then the issue of consent is something that needs to be explored to determine whether it was rape (20 year maximum) or sexual conduct with a young person under 16 (10 year maximum).

But an 11 year old is very different to a 15 year old. There is no nuance with an 11 year old.

When I was involved with South Auckland Middle School and Middle School West Auckland – I calculated that that the schools providing uniform, stationery and IT (without asking for a donation) saved the families approximately $1,200 per student per year.

My epiphany was that is each family banked that at $30 per week over the 40 week school year – after the four Middle School years they would have $6766.56 based on 5% compound interest injected monthly.

Brilliant … I thought. A great start to financing the child’s last 3 years of high school – or leaving the money in for tertiary study.

So … I asked bank after bank and none were interested (I did wonder if their approach would have been the same if I was still head of business at St Cuthbert’s). They all told me that their lack of time and resources made it difficult to come out and open 180 accounts. They also told me that conglomerating accounts would be an issue because of “money laundering” – clearly an issue when a 10 year old is putting in $30 per week.

The new policy to add financial literacy into NZ’s education is a good thing.

Even better would be a well-administered savings/investment scheme for children.

Any ideas people?

Alwyn Poole
[email protected]

The Free Press reports:

Last Wednesday, a video went viral of a white woman defending her actions after calling a 5-year-old black boy the N-word because, allegedly, the kid had tried to steal from her son’s diaper bag.

There are no circumstances in which it is okay for an adult to call a five year old black kid a ni**er.

The video spread lightning-fast from TikTok to Instagram to X. Almost immediately, the woman in question was identified by online sleuths as Shiloh Hendrix of Rochester, Minnesota. Commenters disgusted by her racism called on the internet to “make her famous.”

Now you can’t call a five year old the n word and expect no consequences. However you can also agree that some people on the Internet went too far by publishing her home address and social security number etc.

Hendrix, surely sensing an opportunity, started a fundraising campaign on GiveSendGo, a GoFundMe-like platform that self-identifies as the “#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site.” …

Meanwhile, Shiloh raised her fundraising goal to $100,000. Then to $150,000. Then to $250,000. Then she surpassed that goal. Now, Hendrix is seeking $1 million—you know, for moving expenses. Currently, she’s raised over $670,000.

She’s now at $760,000. You shouldn’t get almost a million dollars for calling a 5 year old black kid a ni**er and being called out on it. Yes you can agree her doxxing shouldn’t have happened, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

The Herald reports:

Treasury has changed its tune at the last minute and given a handful of organisations the green light to attend next week’s Budget lock-up.

The move follows a legal threat and public pressure over why organisations that had previously been allowed to see embargoed Budget documents, were suddenly barred.

While the groups are welcoming the revision, some are scratching their heads over why Treasury gave business-affiliated groups accreditation before it did the same for the Council of Trade Unions. 

Business New Zealand, the New Zealand Initiative and the Taxpayers’ Union were emailed by Treasury last night, saying they could attend the May 22 Budget lock-up at the Beehive. 

However, the Council of Trade Unions was only given the okay this morning, after it challenged Treasury, and the “right wing” organisations came in to bat for their “left wing” friend out of principle. 

The New Zealand Initiative’s Eric Crampton told Treasury he would only accept the invitation on the condition the Council of Trade Unions’ Craig Renney was accredited too. 

A lawyer for the Taxpayers’ Union yesterday sent Treasury a letter saying it would file an application for judicial review if Treasury didn’t “urgently” reconsider the group’s application to attend the lock-up, and respond by Friday. 

The lawyer claimed declining the organisation’s application was a breach of its legal rights.

I’m very pleased to see Treasury come to their senses and do the right thing. Also pleased to see the principled stand by the NZ Initiative to decline to attend if the CTU wasn’t allowed their economist to attend.

I understand the Taxpayers’ Union even considered sending Renney in one of their three spots – something which would have been both hilarious and awkward!

The TU, the NZ Initiative and the CTU don’t agree on much. But it is a good thing that they stand together on this.

Quite a few interesting things said by David Parker in his valedictory speech:

Dame Anne Salmond describes the Treaty as an exchange of gifts—tuku—between the Queen for her subjects and a rangatira on behalf of hapū. I agree with Dame Anne that Te Tiriti is not a partnership between races. She criticises both the phrase and that legal construct from the decision of Lord Cooke in the 1987 land case. I don’t think those comments from Cooke are a necessary part of the ratio decidendi of that case, and it would be helpful for the senior courts to say so if they are of that view.

I agree it would be very useful for the Supreme Court to say exactly that. Cooke actually said that it was akin to a partnership, and as noted that was not a binding view.

Kelvin Davis says that article 1 plus article 2 equals article 3. Treaty rights are substantial, but there is no Treaty right to a parallel system of Government that would breach article 1.

Does Willie agree? The Greens and TPM certainly don’t.

Now, there’s a debate about the relative merits of a capital income tax or realisation-based capital gains tax (CGT), which I’ve also advocated for, and either solution is good. And, yes, if I had my way, we would have both with appropriate credit for one against other. Capital income would not be double-taxed. That would allow everyone to get the first $20,000 income tax free, $10K immediately, and the next $10K phased in as CGT revenue grew. I’d fix interest deductibility again, and I’d let everyone inherit $1 million tax-free, be it from trusts or deceased estates. 

Good God, he wanted to implement a Capital gains Tax, a wealth tax and also a death tax!

His death tax would kick in at around the level of the median house price in New Zealand, so basically if you end up owning your own home and die, Parker would tax you!

Capital flight is exaggerated. The land, the buildings, the cows, the fish, and the trees stay; even pigs can’t fly. This means the means of production remain. 

This is a view that might have been true in 1900 or 1950 but definitely not in 2025. The means of production are no longer land and buildings. Our most successful global company Xero is not dependent on NZ land and buildings. Same goes for Zuru.

We are all hostages to MMP. Why else would so much political capital be frittered away on identity politics while others fan culture wars and size society polarisers? To be clear, MMP drives these behaviours in main parties too. Under first past the post, New Zealand became amongst the best country in the world, but MMP was meant to be better. Perhaps Dr Hooten is right and MMP gets worse over time. It’s the people’s system, not ours. As things polarise and the hard issues don’t get fixed, we should allow the people to, again, make their choice. I’d vote STV. All 120 of us would have to serve in a seat. 

I agree that STV would be a far better system than MMP. It is still roughly proportional, but it means voters, not party lists, would determine who gets to be an MP – and every MP would have to keep their electorate happy to be re-elected.

And if we become a Republic—not high on my list—please avoid giving a president executive powers.

Absolutely. They should have the same powers as the Governor-General.

ABC reports:

In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar — a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News.

Sheikh Tamim is a genius. A luxury plane for Trump’s use, which then gets donated to Trump’s library. It isn’t a bribe in a legal sense.

I can’t imagine Qatar is going to have any decisions from the US that they are unhappy with. A very good return for $400 million.

in 2017 then President trump said “The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level”. This is quite correct – they fund Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Nusra Front – and now also Air Force One!

What could NZ do to match this level of influence? Maybe gift Waiheke Island to Trump, to be turned into a Trump golf course? Or gift him Sky City to become a Trump casino?

• May 2018 – article on Ron Mark calling a female MP a petal
• Sep 2018 – column by Andrea Vance saying people need to play the ball, not the woman, decrying sexist terms against female MPs
• Jan 2019 – column by Alison Mau decrying sexist comments against women MPs, saying it forces them out of Parliament
• Feb 2019 – column by Jackie Blue calling for a parliamentary code of conduct to stamp out sexism against female MPs
• Sep 2020 – column by Alison Mau about sexist abuse of public officials
• Apr 2022 – editorial saying that gender based abuse of MPs is wrong
• Apr 2022 – column by Michelle Duff decrying a social media user using the c word against Jacinda Ardern
• Apr 2022 – article about sexist abuse against women MPs
• Jan 2023 – column by Alison Mau saying sexist abuse partly drove Ardern out of office
• May 2025 – column by Andrea Vance calling Nicola Willis and other female Ministers cu**s.

They have published numerous articles decrying sexist abuse of MPs, and then they turn around and publish a column by one of their own journalists calling female Ministers a bunch of cu**s.

The greatest sign of their hypocrisy is from this note by then then Dominion Post editor:

So the Editor of the DP explicitly wrote that we should be shocked that women elected to public office are called the c word. They did an entire front page feature on how disgusting this was.

And then a few years later, they run an article by a senior journalist calling female Ministers c**ts.

My spies within Stuff report that the decision to run the column wasn’t a mistake that slipped through the cracks because they were on a tight deadline. They held an actual meeting to discuss whether it was acceptable, and all these senior editors got together and said “Yeah it is fine to run a column by a senior journalist that calls the Minister of Finance a c**t”

How can one possibly take them seriously again?

If this happened to a Labour Minister, Action Station would be running a campaign urging an advertiser boycott of Stuff. There would be demands that the Government instruct all government agencies to no longer advertise with Stuff.

Remember Sean Plunket was forced out of his job due to an advertiser boycott started by left activists because he called Eleanor Catton an “ungrateful hua”. Now I don’t condone that, but that is a far less insulting term than the c word, yet no campaign against Stuff.

I actually feel sorry for the press gallery journalists at Stuff. They have to deal with Ministers and MPs every day, and their leadership has let them down badly by printing a column which called Ministers c**ts. None of them would have written such a column, but they have to wear it by association.

It is time for the leadership at Stuff to admit they made a mistake, and apologise.