A guest post from Owen Jennings:

Everyone seems to have an opinion on Christopher Luxon’s future.  Why not?  He is Prime Minster, after all.  He has to be open to scrutiny.  

But, is what we are encountering the normal, hurly burly of politics and strong media coverage?  Or is there some other force at play?  Some homework, using Artificial Intelligence, suggests there is and it’s something that should concern every New Zealand voter.

In a ChatGPT analysis of the Herald – the country’s leading print media and a self-determined, major opinion former – the results on opinion pieces showed:

Tone                                          Luxon                     Hipkins

🔴 Negative                      73%                         50%

🟢 Positive                         14%                         30%

Luxon is three times more likely to receive a bad rap than Hipkins.  He gets five negative articles to every positive one while Hipkins gets less than two.  They have similar numbers of news items and similar numbers of opinion pieces.  That is not just difference at the margins – it is heavyweight bias.

We know that opinion pieces are more prominently placed, more interpretive, more influential, and more memorable.

The Herald does not claim to be neutral, but it does state very clearly it provides balanced journalism.  The numbers above show it fails woefully and dangerously.  ‘Woefully’ because it doesn’t come anywhere close to a balance and ‘dangerously’ because it holds a highly responsible position as a leading media outlet.  It is in danger of being interpreted as running a deliberate and planned campaign to oust Luxon and, with him, the current Coalition.  

The mainstream media has lost a huge amount of credibility in the last few years.  That is due, in no small measure, to its inability to get anywhere near balance in its output.

We are not the Third Reich nor are we expecting a banning of junior reporter’s attempt at writing opinion columns.  But we have every right to a professional and more obvious adherence to the norms of balanced journalism.

If you click on the link you’ll see Pauls Valley High School (in Oklahoma) principal Kirk Moore tackle an armed intruder. Moore was wounded and shot, but probably saved many of his students from being murdered.

We all like to think we would be brave enough to do what Moore did, but to rush an armed gunman takes huge courage – you are doing something that not even trained soldiers and police officers do.

He is a massive hero, and shows how one person can make such a difference.

World War I saw around 1 in 100 humans on the globe killed. World World II saw the death of around 3 in 100 humans. It is almost impossible for those us alive today to understand what death on that scale is like.

We truly owe previous generations a huge debt for their sacrifices. We will not forget them.

RNZ reports:

Auckland mayor Wayne Brown referred to an RNZ staff member of Indian descent as “a Muslim terrorist” and commented on his beard as the man escorted him into the building for an interview.

Brown said the comments were a “fumbled attempt at humour”.

RNZ said the man was greeting Brown as he arrived at RNZ’s Auckland offices for an appearance on the Afternoons programme on Monday.

The staff member apologised to Brown for the wait, mentioning security being tight in the building, an RNZ spokesperson said in a statement.

“The Mayor responded with a comment along the lines of ‘security can’t be very tight if we’re being escorted by a Muslim terrorist’,” the RNZ spokesperson said.

Referring to a stranger as a terrorist because of their skin colour is racist. It is disgusting. It isn’t funny. I’m not sure if it would have been better or worse if the man actually was Muslim, but it doesn’t matter. It is simply racist and wrong.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s revenue spokeswoman won’t say whether the party’s capital gains tax proposal goes far enough.

When asked repeatedly whether the party’s property-focused CGT went far enough, the furthest Deborah Russell would go was to say she was “very comfortable” with the policy.

She was asked six times to say whether it went far enough, but declined to say it did.

Russell yesterday faced criticism from National – who accused her of opening the door to more taxes should the party return to power.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins, meanwhile, hosed down suggestions the party was contemplating additional taxes.

Of course they are. They need the money. And they need the Greens and TPM to govern, both of whom want to tax everything that moves. The Greens have proposed $90 billion of extra taxes!!

This is significant, with Peters ruling out Labour, not just Hipkins. It reinforces the only route to power for Labour is with Te Pati Maori.

People will debate whether or not you can trust what Peters has said. He did famously wave a no sign up at a press conference repeated times, and the actual answer it transpired was yes – he did know of Owen Glenn’s donation.

Personally I would be surprised if Peters did go with Labour. Not because I particularly trust him, but because 90% of his current support comes from people who voted for National, NZF or ACT in 2023. He would face a huge backlash if he turned around and put Labour in.

The Herald reports:

Labour is promising to support the Government’s free trade deal with India but is warning exporters could have their market access revoked if New Zealand can’t fulfil a $33 billion investment commitment. 

Leader Chris Hipkins revealed his party’s position at Parliament today, having spent weeks meeting with officials to better understand the deal which requires Labour’s support to pass it through the House given New Zealand First opposed it.

Full credit to Labour and Chris Hipkins for putting the country ahead of politics, and supporting the deal. We should be grateful that at least in trade policy, we have bipartisan co-operation.

In return for a measly 200 extra migrants a year, we get enhanced access to a market of almost 1.,5 billion people. It’s a great deal.

NZ First has opposed every free trade agreement NZ has signed with an Asian country. Their opposition to the India FTA has nothing to do with the details of the agreement. A 0.004% increase in our population in exchange for fewer export barriers is a no brainer.

• Playing whale songs to kauri trees
• A horror graphic novel
• A prayer
• A virtual reality game
• finger painting by 9 year olds

This is not a joke. What is even worse than the fact this all happened, is the silence by almost all legacy media over this.

Shayne Currie reports:

One of New Zealand’s biggest news organisations is appealing a precedent-setting court decision, in which a man convicted of assaulting his partner convinced a judge that an online news article about him and the attack should be removed.

The district court judge agreed the man, who did not receive name suppression at the time of his conviction in 2018, had suffered “emotional distress” as a result of the story.

Yeah having people know you bashed your partner can be distressing. It’s known as a consequence.

One media lawyer said the Harmful Digital Communications Act – which the man had used in his case – was being increasingly cited against news media in ways that the lawyer believed Parliament had not intended.

HDCA was meant to be about protecting young people from bullying. Not to allow convicted violent criminals to hide their offending.

The man – who punched his partner in the face twice before she grabbed his testicles to stop the assault

Smart way to stop it!

Judge Greig said the man’s conviction was entered on August 8, 2018. “Seven years after his conviction, the article remained available online. The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004, however, mandates that this conviction is spent and consequently, [the man] is now deemed to have no criminal record.”

The man had asked the news organisation several times in 2025 to have the online article removed, without success.

The clean slate law is not meant to allow for censorship of accurate news reports of the time.

The Herald reports:

A major education union is seeking legal advice in a bid to exempt state schools from the Official Information Act after an Auckland law student sent an onerous “system-wide” records request to nearly 2500 schools.

So the union thinks schools should be exempt from transparency laws. Why am I not surprised.

Spanz president Louise Anaru also wrote a scathing letter of complaint last month to University of Auckland (UoA) Vice-Chancellor Dawn Freshwater after law student Regan Cunliffe sent a mass request for details of school trustees’ use of personal devices to 2422 state and state-integrated schools.

She wrote that Cunliffe’s request was not a simple exercise to establish how a particular school managed its records.

“It is a carefully designed, system-wide exercise intended to map legislative non-compliance across the school sector.

That sounds like an excellent use of the OIA. We should know if there is a problem with legislative non-compliance.

Cunliffe’s latest OIA sought information on policies and procedures regarding trustees’ use of personal devices and accounts for board business.

This sounds like a simple request. You either have a policy, which you can send him. Or you don’t have a policy, and you say you don’t.

In 2018, Cunliffe uncovered what he said was a nationwide failure by schools to properly protect children, after discovering his own child’s school lacked a required child protection policy. 

After extending the investigation to other schools, OIA responses revealed patchy compliance with the Vulnerable Children Act.

Sounds like Regan is performing a public good.

Versions of below have been in media around the world in the last two weeks.

“In its 2026 assessment, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development highlighted the world’s most educated countries, pointing to strong higher education access and sustained investment in learning.

Top-ranking nations combine high university completion rates, robust research output, and effective links between academia and industry. Beyond literacy, education now reflects a broader culture of continuous learning, shaping economic growth, innovation, and social mobility.

1. Canada

Canada ranks first, with a high proportion of adults holding tertiary degrees. Public investment and policies that support access have shaped its system. Institutions such as University of Toronto and University of British Columbia attract students from different regions. The country maintains a structure that allows both domestic and international students to participate in higher education.

2. Ireland

Ireland has moved up in global education rankings in recent years. A growing workforce and sustained funding have supported this shift. Trinity College Dublin remains a central part of the country’s academic network. Links between universities and industry continue to influence research and employment outcomes.

3. Japan

Japan’s system places focus on structured learning and technical skills. Students perform well in science and mathematics across global assessments. University of Tokyo plays a role in research and academic output. The country maintains consistent standards across its education levels.

4. South Korea

South Korea continues to record strong academic results. Students often rank high in international testing, especially in STEM subjects. Seoul National University reflects the country’s focus on academic performance. Education remains linked to economic planning and workforce development.

5. United Kingdom

The United Kingdom remains a major centre for higher education. Institutions such as the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge draw students from across the world. The system combines long-standing academic structures with ongoing research activity.

6. Luxembourg

Luxembourg ranks among the most educated countries despite its size. Its multilingual system supports learning across different languages and cultures. Government support and cross-border collaboration continue to shape its education framework.

7. Australia

Australia remains a key destination for international students. Universities such as the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University contribute to research output and global rankings. Education exports also play a role in the country’s economy.

8. Sweden

Sweden’s system centres on access and balanced learning. It supports both academic study and practical skills. Lund University is part of a network that contributes to research and development. Policies focus on equal access across social groups.

9. United States

The United States continues to lead in research and innovation. Universities such as Harvard University and Stanford University influence global academic rankings. The country attracts students due to its wide range of programmes and research funding.

10. Israel

Israel completes the list with a strong focus on science and technology. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem supports research across several fields. Education remains linked to the country’s role in global technology development.”

Yes – it is of note that NZ is not in the top ten … as RNZ noted: “How good is the school system? According to an internal Education Ministry document it’s “fair” and we’ve been fooling ourselves that it’s “great”.

Also of note – for all of those who yell FINLAND every-time change is imposed … they do not feature either.

[email protected]

Tax Justice Aotearoa have published their wishlist for a Labour-Green-TPM Government, and it can be summed up as tax everything. They Wishlist includes:

• Increase the tax rate from 33% to 50% for those earning over $150,000
• A 3% surcharge on increase on corporate tax
• A digital services tax
• A 1% annual trust tax
• Increase trustee tax rate to 50%
• A capital gains tax at the same rate as income tax (up to 50%)
• An asset tax of 1% to 2%
• A death tax
• A gift tax

Just imagine paying 50% tax on everything you earn, then 15% on everything you spend, then 2% on everything you save, and then 50% on anything you give to your kids and finally 50% when you die, if you have anything left by then!

The final list is:

1. Marama Davidson (nc from 2023)
2. Chlöe Swarbrick (+1)
3. Teanau Tuiono (+2)
4. Tamatha Paul
5. Julie Anne Genter (-1)
6. Lan Pham (nc)
7. Hūhana Melanie Lyndon (+3)
8. Lawrence Xu-Nan (+8)
9. Ricardo Menéndez March (-1)
10. Francisco Hernandez (+7)
11. Kahurangi Carter (+3)
12. Steve Abel (-3)
13. Tania Waikato
14. Craig Aaron Pauling
15. Scott Willis (-3)
16. Rohan O’Neill-Stevens
17. Bhen Goodsir
18. Yasmine Serhan
19. Louise Hutt
20. Mike Davidson (-1)

On the current poll average the Greens would get 11 seats. This would mean they lose Steve Abel, Scott Willis and Mike Davidson.

They would successfully have eliminated all white males from caucus.

The AUT Trust in Media survey had this graph:

It shows many NZers who are on the right are allergic to Radio NZ, TVNZ, Stuff, The Spinoff and Three News. Those newsrooms could consider what they could do to change that.

It was good to see overall trust in the media has risen from last year. I suspect part of this may be the rise of AI fake videos and graphics. So often now I see stuff on social media that looks legitimate, but I check it out and it is fabricated. But media companies may have biases, but they don’t generate entirely fake content – so if a journalist is sharing something, I do have higher trust in it.

Christopher Luxon did the smart thing, and put his leadership to the vote. Caucus in a secret ballot voted they had confidence in his leadership. The job of everyone in National now is to buckle down and do everything they can to stop a Labour-Greens-Te Pati Maori Government.

There have been 99 public polls since the last election. Zero of the 99 polls show Labour can form a Government without Te Pati Maori.

Too much is at stake, to risk NZ’s future with a lack of discipline.

A guest post by Michael Littlewood:

Is anyone else a little tired of articles that tell us we aren’t saving enough for our retirement, or that the country can’t afford New Zealand Superannuation (NZS)? Most seem fuelled by KiwiSaver providers or financial advisers who tell us we don’t know what we are doing; also that we need the government to force us out of our apparent indifference. Or even that the financial sky is falling in, or will be.

Instead of acting as the voice for financial service providers, why don’t reporters do some research; ask some questions; demand answers?

1. Future cost of NZS: The Treasury tells us that the net cost of NZS in 2060 will be 6.0% of 2060’s estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP), up from a current net 4.5% (2025 – NZSF-model-BEFU 2025). Will that really be unaffordable? Regardless of today’s debate, 2060’s taxpayers will decide whether 6.0% is too much to pay for NZS in 2060, just as taxpayers today seem to think that a net 4.5% is about right.

But what are other countries now paying?

The average cost of state pensions in the OECD today is a net 7.4% of those countries’ GDPs (Pensions at a Glance 2025). Somehow, taxpayers in those countries choose (and manage) to pay today quite a bit more than we expect to pay in 2060 (23% more). So, why is the estimated 2060 cost of NZS a particular problem? Is it because the Treasury says it is? Or is it just a question of future spending priorities And do we need to make those decisions today?

By the way, the presence, or absence, of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund doesn’t change any of this. The cost of NZS today and tomorrow is, and will be, the benefits actually paid. Those are unaffected by the workings of the NZSF.

2. KiwiSaver balances: Regardless of the amount of money in KiwiSaver and the endless analyses of average balances today and at our expected retirements, where is the evidence that Kiwis are actually under-saving for retirement? KiwiSaver is such a small part of the total net household assets of all New Zealanders (just 3.9%, according to Household financial data Table 1-5A December 2023, StatsNZ) that discussing KiwiSaver balances by themselves is virtually pointless. There was, of course, no evidence to support the 2026 lift in total contributions to 7% of employees’ pay, nor to the next increase to 8%. Those seem to be ‘answers’ to an unidentified problem.

And how much of the money now in KiwiSaver comes from ‘other’ savings (see point 5 below)?

3. How much is enough saving? Many commentators say that New Zealanders won’t have enough to live on when they reach retirement with endless calculations of average balances, average contributions and some guesses about investment income and the expected cost of living. These guesstimates are really pointless. Is anyone asking actual New Zealanders how much they want to have saved when they reach retirement?  How much do they have now? Oh and by the way, when do New Zealanders expect they might want to stop working?

Journalists should also note that private savings have nothing to do with the expected cost of NZS (point 1 above). We don’t have a means-test. Or is ‘more private savings’ code for a future means-test?

4. Do we know whether our retirement income framework is working? We do not know if today’s retired have the retirement they were expecting (or need). Until we have statistics that drill down to actual households to figure out what their retirement income aspirations might be (or have been), their current state of preparedness and their expected position at their chosen retirement ages, we will never know.  Asking New Zealanders what they think is pointless. For example, one couple’s aspiration might be to continue working after age 65 while they are able and then retire to live on NZS alone. That couple does not need anything in a KiwiSaver account and there can be no public policy justification to say that our couple should be saving specifically for retirement. 

The Retirement Commissioner now acknowledges that we need a longitudinal study of New Zealand households to find out what’s really happening (Review of Retirement Income Policies, 2025) but that didn’t stop the Review’s making many recommendations to change the way we do things, such as ‘more KiwiSaver’. Talk about firing policy shots in the dark!

5. Does anyone remember SoFIE? Before KiwiSaver started, StatsNZ tried to uncover some answers to questions 3 and 4 through a longitudinal study: Survey of Family Income and Employment, which ran from 2002 to 2010. SoFIE looked at what actual households were doing over an eight-year period. The Treasury wrote a series of reports based on SoFIE that, in summary, concluded:

• New Zealanders were probably slightly over-saving for retirement before KiwiSaver started in 2007 (Treasury report from 2004: Saving for Retirement: New Evidence for New Zealand; from 2007: Are Kiwis saving enough for retirement?  Preliminary evidence from SoFIE; and from 2009: Saving Rates of New Zealanders: A Net Wealth Approach); 

• Of KiwiSaver contributions, about one-third were ‘new’ savings, the rest being effectively transferred from other financial assets (Treasury report 2011 KiwiSaver: An Initial Evaluation of the Impact on Retirement Saving);

• KiwiSaver members seemed to have accumulated less net wealth than non-members (Treasury report 2014KiwiSaver and the Accumulation of Net Wealth). 

The authors of those reports will tell you that there were significant difficulties with the later tranches of data but we knew from SoFIE, before KiwiSaver started, that New Zealanders were probably saving ‘enough’ for retirement. That’s the only time we have ever asked or tried to answer those questions. So, was KiwiSaver the answer to a problem we didn’t have? Why have taxpayers spent billions of dollars subsidising KiwiSaver?

Any KiwiSaver provider which suggests we aren’t saving enough for retirement has no evidence to back that up. They might be right but we don’t know; and the Retirement Commissioner doesn’t know either. We can’t answer those questions today unless we have a new (better) SoFIE.

6. The obsession with ‘total remuneration’ employment contracts: This isn’t the right place to run all the arguments about whether employers should be ‘allowed’ to pay their employees under the principles of ‘total remuneration’. But if we needed to make anything compulsory on this, I strongly believe that ‘total remuneration’ should be the only acceptable way of forcing employers to behave in any particular way. The alternative ‘pay + benefits’ approach either saves employers money (by avoiding contributions for non-members) or shows that employers haven’t thought through the consequences of their current remuneration strategy. Either conclusion is, at best, unedifying. ‘Pay + benefits’ is simply unfair on employees who can’t, can’t afford or don’t need to join KiwiSaver.

7. KiwiSaver won’t/can’t fix the ageing ‘problem’: Today’s NZS is a claim on today’s economy.  So are today’s retirement savings (for current retirees). The same applies to tomorrow’s NZS/retirement savings. The answer to the population-ageing ‘problem’ is to grow the economy by more than we currently expect so that we can meet all those expected claims.

The mix between public and private provision doesn’t much matter unless you argue that KiwiSaver itself will grow the economy so that more KiwiSaver means more growth. The trouble with that line is with the evidence, or lack of it. Economists tend to suggest that the links between savings and investment and then between investment and growth are tenuous at best. It’s even possible that the links run the other way – more growth leads to higher savings so that savings are a consequence of growth, not a cause.

Getting really specific – how precisely will more KiwiSaver help the economic issues raised by an increase in the claims, both public and private, on tomorrow’s economy from an ageing population?

8. Why can’t KiwiSavers access their savings? I think KiwiSavers should have free access to their savings whenever they wish. After all, whose money is it? KiwiSaver providers of course like the restricted access but why does the government make rules about that?  Now that tax breaks have been largely withdrawn, what business is it of the government to tell savers they must wait until age 65? Doesn’t the government trust the owners of those savings to make decisions that are in the savers’ own best interests?

9. No KiwiSaver provider will agree with any of this: It really is pointless to ask KiwiSaver providers what changes they would like to see in the current regime. They will, of course, support strengthening the current contribution regime and further restricting access to savings. They are in the business of growing their schemes as their own incomes depend on more money and more members for longer. All that makes them deeply self-interested in calling for New Zealanders to do more under KiwiSaver.

In conclusion

A suggestion: why don’t journalists ask providers/advisers what they think about items 1 to 8 above? Don’t they trust New Zealanders to behave sensibly with their own money? Perhaps a SoFIE of the late 2020s might just produce similar answers to SoFIE of the 2000s. Just perhaps, New Zealanders might already be saving enough for retirement.

Stuff reports:

The Government is weighing changes to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, with Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith signalling disestablishment is currently his preferred option.

Goldsmith says no final decision has been made, but confirmed the Government is considering whether to retain the authority, redefine its role, or scrap it entirely, NZ Herald reported. …

Speaking at a public meeting in Waikanae, Goldsmith said the Government would “probably” land on scrapping the authority, the NZ Herald reported. He later reiterated to Newstalk ZB that disestablishment was where he was leaning.

While not a final decision, this is good news.

CBC reports:

• Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals have secured a majority government with wins in all three byelections.
• The Liberals were just one seat shy of a majority after five opposition politicians broke ranks to join the ruling party in recent months.

You need 172 seats for a majority. At the election they won 169, meaning they needed the lunatic NDP’s seven seats or secessionist’s 22 seats to govern.

They now have 174 seats. This is probably good for Canada, as not being reliant on the NDP can only be a good thing.