One of the most common questions I get asked by audiences is whether NZ First will go with National or Labour after the election. My response is that there is no reason to not take Winston at his word when he says he has ruled out Labour.

But now a speech by Winston has given extreme doubt over his pledge not to go with Labour. In terms of how he will pay for his Marxist plan to nationalise the BNZ, he says:

A limited tranche of the NZ Future Fund and ACC investment, structured as a commercial equity at arm’s length and a market rate of return.

Now there is no NZ Future Fund. However one of Labour’s few policies is to create a NZ Future Fund. So Winston’s speech refers to using a fund that can only possibly exist if he puts Labour into power.

So do we trust what Winston said in his speech ruling out Labour, or what Winston said in his speech pledging to use a fund that will only be created if he puts them into power?

Or do we think that the reference to the NZ Future Fund is a mistake that wasn’t caught by any of the NZ First researchers, press secretaries or Winston himself?

UPDATE: NZ First have said Winston was referring to a future fund which he supported at a NZF conference in October 24. This future fund can’t be found under NZF policy on their website (I did check). Of interest though is Winston said:

It would be ring-fenced, he said, “from politicians and ring-fenced from political interference

Yet now he is saying it would be used to buy BNZ, which is of course the opposite of ring fenced from politicians.

This clip from The Thick Of It sums the policy up perfectly.

Winston Peters announced that NZ First wants to go down the path of Karl Marx and nationalise the BNZ, basically because it was once owned by the Government around 40 years ago.

The BNZ constitutes around 20% of the equity and revenue of National Australia Bank which has a market cap of around $137 billion. So the minimum you would expect to pay is $29 billion. Imagine wanting to spend $29 billion to buy back an asset from 40 years ago.

And then imagine what would happen to BNZ when their is a change of government and Chloe Swarbrick is Finance Minister and will appoint Golriz and Darlene as directors!

I thought it would be hard to find a worse policy than the Greens asset tax, but Winston has managed it.

The Government announced:

The Government’s unprecedented contract with Z Energy for close to 90 million additional litres of diesel, equivalent to around nine days’ supply, has been signed, Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones say.

This will make a real difference.

They also announced:

“Modelled scenarios indicate that it is highly unlikely we would ever get to Phase 3 or 4 of the Fuel Response Plan, but as a prudent Government we are ensuring that New Zealand is prepared for whatever the global environment brings. It is better to have a plan you don’t use, than to need one and be caught short. 

Nicola Willis said the chance of moving to Phase 4 is less than 10%. In fact it is possible (not probable) that we may never go beyond Phase 1.

If we do go to Phase 4, the categories are:

• Critical users – priority and uncapped access. This includes emergency services, health, schools, courts, money services and lifeline utilities.
• Food and freight – uncapped access to fuel, subject to demand reduction requirements based on fuel‑saving plans. The Government would monitor adherence to fuel-saving plans through spot checks.
• Commercial and community users – same access as food and freight, but higher savings targets in their fuel-saving plans. This includes businesses and organisations other than food and freight.
• General public – transaction limits at the pump aimed at reducing overall fuel use by an amount greater than what is expected for other groups.

All looks pretty sensible, except I do wonder why media are included as a critical user, with a higher priority than food providers.

The Guardian reports:

A rightwing provocateur’s plan to register the “Free Palestine party” and use it to funnel votes to conservative parties in Victoria’s state election has renewed concern over the state’s voting system.

Avi Yemini, a former Israeli soldier and self-styled investigative journalist who creates content for his YouTube channel, Rebel News Australia, on Tuesday announced plans to register the party, which he said would “flow our preferences on to parties that want to free Palestine from Hamas” in the November poll.

This is a hilarious genius move.

The Guardian reports:

A Reform government will not put any migrant detention facilities in any constituency with a Reform MP.

Nor will we put them where Reform controls the council.

And of the remaining areas, we will prioritise Green controlled parliamentary constituencies and Green controlled councils to locate the detention centres.

Put simply, if you vote in a Reform council or Reform MP, we guarantee you won’t have a detention centre near you.

If you vote Green, there’s a good chance you will.

This is totally unprincipled (and probably illegal), but also very funny.

Radio NZ reports:

Deakin University associate criminology professor Dr James Martin told RNZ the Australian approach had relied on enforcement to suppress the black market.

“This has been really ineffective,” he said. “We’ve got between 50-60 percent of all tobacco and nearly all vaping products in Australia now come from criminal suppliers, and it’s generated an absolutely black market.

Roughly AU$7 billion {NZ$8.5b) was spent on illicit nicotine products a year, Martin said.

“That’s around 40 percent of entire illicit drug economy, more than cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy and heroin combined.”

So in Australia the black market tobacco industry is bigger than cannabis, cocaine and heroin!

And this is what some public health activists would have us become, as they push failed policies.

The Spectator reports:

A terror attack on a synagogue was “not anti-semitism” but was “revenge” for Israel “murdering people,” according to a video promoted by a Green Party council candidate.

Sabine Mairey, a Green candidate for Clapham Town ward in Lambeth, south London, posted the video, by David Spevak, an American Jewish anti-Zionist, on her Facebook page last month. It’s still there at the time of writing.

Mairey was used by the Lambeth Green Party to launch its election manifesto this week, and is quoted in the party’s press release. The video on her Facebook page is posted with the caption “Ramming a synagogue isn’t anti-semitism. It’s revenge.” She cannot claim that she posted it without knowing what it says.

So this Green candidate basically said it is okay to kill Jews anywhere, because of what the Israeli Government has done.

By this logic, it would be okay to kill Muslims anywhere, as revenge for what a Muslim Government has done in another country.

Or okay to kill Hindu Indians anywhere, because of what the Government of India has done.

ABC reports:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui held a hearing Monday afternoon to discuss the treatment of suspect Cole Tomas Allen, after stating in a court order he has “grave concerns” about Allen’s treatment, which he described as seemingly unprompted solitary confinement over several days.

The judge apologized at the beginning and the end of the hearing in response to Allen being held in the safe cell, which he said was tantamount to solitary confinement. 

So the guy tries to kill the President, and the Judge apologises to him because he has been in solitary confinement.

Politico reports:

Faruqui, who played a role in hundreds of cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, said Allen was being treated more harshly than those defendants, despite similar allegations of political violence aimed at members of Congress and government leaders. 

This is an idiotic comparison. The January 6 defendants basically barged their way into a building without permission. What they did was wrong, but you can’t compare that to a guy who tries to charge past the Secret Service with a shotgun so he can shoot the President.

When I was 20yo (1987) – and weighed approx. 70kg (dripping wet – with sinkers in my pockets) – I had the privilege of playing a star-studded NZ Maori rugby side. The opposition included the likes of Frano Botica, Scott Chricton, Arthur Stone, Steven Pokere, Eric Rush, Charlie McAlister, Hika Reid and – scariest of all – the rugby TERMINATOR – Buck Shelford.

I was not frightened until – 20 minutes before the match – I was outside the changing rooms getting a sprig change and had the misfortune of hearing Buck Shelford’s pre-game speech to his players. I admired every word. I respected every sentiment. I either wanted to change sides (but unlike David Seymour I have no Maori heritage) or I wanted to go home and have a lie down.

Keep in mind that Buck Shelford did not lose a single test as All Blacks captain and could play with an exposed testicle.

There are many forms of leadership but a key indicator of effective leadership is that people are inspired to follow.

Jesus to Peter and Andrew: ““Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” Both men immediately left their nets and followed Him.”

Martin Luther King Jnr: “Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!”

Sir Winston Churchill: “We shall fight them on the beaches … “

The very latest political poll in NZ has the following stats re preferred Prime Minister:

Chris Hipkins: 77% do not want him to be PM.

Christopher Luxon: 80% do not want him to be Prime Minister.

Winston Peters: 83% do not want him to be Prime Minister.

Chloe Swarbrick: 90% do not want her to be Prime Minister.

David Seymour: 93% do not want him to be Prime Minister.

Rawiri Waititi: 97% do not want him to be Prime Minister.

It did make me consider that we have a MASSIVE leadership vacuum. When Buck did his speech, I was ready to charge into their changing room and declare my allegiance (even if it was self-preservation). I am hoping that when Churchill inspired Britain that, if around at the time, I would have picked up a pitchfork and ran towards the Channel.

What would our leaders’ speech have been?

Hipkins: “Helen? Jacinda? Mummy? Anyone but Trevor!”

Luxon: “A KPI moving forward would be to bench mark our response to operationalising our defence with a line in the sand”.

Winston: “We shall fight them on the race courses. We shall fight them on the fishing boats.”

Shane Jones (guest appearance): “We shall use incomprehensible language and all manner of self-aggrandisement to talk that hind wheel off their tanks.”

Seymour: “When they challenge me I will steal their tanks and drive them up the steps of Parliament to protest … umm … umm … school lunches … but they better not share then with the hungry.”

Swarbrick: “We will welcome all immigrants, even if they are on massive warships, carrying guns, driving tanks – and/or have very restrictive social laws/expectations.”

Waititi: “You are all welcome to a hangi at JT’s. We will not confirm or deny if Willie will be there.”

It is interesting that Trump gets vilified in our media for currently having an approval rating of around 40% when that would be a dream for NZs current leaders.

It would be interesting to know which current world leader kiwis would prefer to be in charge of our nation. Maybe you could indicate in the comments:

Donald Trump.
Vladimer Putin
Xi Jinping
Keir Starmer
Anthony Albanese
Mark Carney
Kim Jong Un
Emmanuel Macron
Taylor Swift

[email protected]

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has confirmed his party will campaign on lifting the age of eligibility for superannuation at this year’s election, although he declined to mention specifics. 

Luxon confirmed the policy on Kerre Woodham Mornings on Newstalk ZB. National had previously said it would run on some kind of policy to make superannuation more affordable, although it had not yet confirmed that policy. 

“We will go to the election with another election policy around superannuation and lifting the retirement age for sure,” Luxon said. 

Asked when he would want to implement the policy, Luxon said he would “want to do it as soon as we get back in the second term”.

This quite likely does not mean National will campaign on lifting the super age next year. Luxon’s 2023 superannuation policy was to begin lifting the age in 2037, phasing the age increase over a period of time.

In 1992, when the age last started to increase the average NZer would live until 76 – so 11 years of NZ Super after 65.

Today life expectancy is 82, so 17 years of NZ Super – a 55% increase in years of NZ Super.

We are doomed fiscally if we do not life the age for NZ Super. Chris Hipkins commendably said he was open to possible means testing.

Think if Luxon and Hipkins got together and announced they would both support a gradual increase in the age of eligibility from 2040. They would get huge plaudits for putting the country first.

Karl du Fresne writes:

But the big surprise – one that even had the stranger next to me turning to me with a look of disbelief – was Mallard’s claim that the protest camp was funded by Russia. Yep, that’s right: Mallard reckoned someone paid for millions of dollars – yes, millions – worth of camping equipment that mysteriously turned up in Parliament’s grounds. Protesters suddenly had money to spend and he had no doubt that money came from offshore – Russia, he said. 

Whoa! That came completely out of left field. My astonishment was shared by my fellow  journalist David McLoughlin, who was also at the session and like me, thought Mallard’s claim was bizarre. No explanation was offered as to why Vladimir Putin should spend millions paying for anti-vax protesters to camp in comfort in the most distant capital in the world. Payback for New Zealand supporting sanctions against Russia following the Ukraine invasion, perhaps? Not totally implausible, but it’s the sort of far-fetched scenario that only an over-active imagination might come up with. Neither was it clear why the allegation had never emerged before. 

Certainly there was feverish talk in 2022, some of it from the excitable, conspiracy-obsessed Sanjana Hattotuwa of the Disinformation Project (remember them?), about alleged Russian-sourced disinformation. Canada too was identified as a source of malevolent anti-vax propaganda, Jacinda Ardern noting the supposedly incriminating evidence that Canadian flags were being flown in the protest camp. But Russia spending millions on tents and sleeping bags? That was a new one. 

Surprisingly, despite two political journalists being on stage with Mallard when he made the allegation, nothing has been reported, at least to my knowledge. Here was a former senior government politician – the Speaker of the House of Representatives and subsequently ambassador to Ireland – alleging malign foreign interference in our domestic affairs. I would have thought there was a story in it (“Russia funded Wellington protest camp, says Mallard”), but apparently not. Perhaps Cooke and Hurihanganui decided it was just Mallard running off at the mouth and not worth taking any further. But previous generations of political reporters, their news antennae twitching furiously, would have been pursuing him for elaboration. 

What, if anything, should we make of it? For me it had echoes of former Waitakere mayor and Labour grandee Bob Harvey’s startling allegation in 2000 – similarly unsubstantiated – that the CIA was involved in the death of Norman Kirk, which had even his friend Helen Clark looking sideways at him. Mallard’s claim has the same slightly loony, off-the-wall quality. If he has evidence, he should front up with it. Otherwise people will be justified in concluding it was a case of Mallard in Fantasyland.

I look forward to all the media stories exploring the claim that Russia funded the anti vaccine mandate protest at Parliament. Maybe the Government should hold a Commission of Inquiry where the former Speaker can present his evidence.

Newsroom reports:

Media lawyer Steven Price questions how the Media Council could be placed to pick up the slack, on top of its existing workload.

“They have just got a bunch of volunteers who meet and sit, I don’t know, four times a year. That’s it. They take turns drafting the decisions. They have a staff of one, or one part-time person. How’re they going to handle it? They also have no expertise in broadcasting.”

This is actually an argument in favour. Just look at the stats.

The BSA has a staff of eight – and unbelievably six of them were lawyers. This probably explains a lot. Last year they only had 90 complaints to deal with, and the average cost per complaint was $18,500.

The Media Council runs on $325,000 compared to $1.67 million for the BSA. They dealt with 256 complaints at an average cost of $1,270.

Broadcasters currently pay $700,000 a year to the BSA. If they give even half of that to the Media Council, the Council will double its budget and only have a 33% increase in complaints to deal with.

And the Media Council don’t need expertise in broadcasting. They need expertise in media standards and complaints. That they have.

They already have 10 broadcasters as members including TVNZ, Radio NZ, Netflix, Warner Brothers and Amazon.

By Lucy Rogers

It ought to be international news, and it isn’t: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgz9k7pzggo There was a press release about this put out a day or two ago by the Israeli embassy in New Zealand (I only found out about said press release when I Googled the name of the report) and not a single New Zealand media outlet that I can find has reported on it.

This is despite the media ordinarily covering all matters Israel-related on practically a daily basis. Let’s review some examples. RNZ yesterday 13 May 2026 reported on a handful of movie stars who are allegedly being persecuted by that notorious hotbed of support for Israel known as Hollywood: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/595021/shame-on-hollywood-cannes-winning-writer-rails-at-stance-on-gaza

The same day RNZ reported on controversy caused by Israel’s participation in a Eurovision contest: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/595042/eurovision-song-contest-gets-off-to-a-tense-start-overshadowed-by-gaza

On 8 May RNZ reported on Israel killing the son of a high ranking Hamas leader (forever missed): https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/594607/israeli-attack-kills-son-of-hamas-leader-negotiating-with-trump-led-board

On 6 May RNZ reported on the UN calling on Israel to release the Gaza flotilla activists: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/594453/united-nations-demands-israel-immediately-release-gaza-flotilla-activists and on an Israeli court’s decision to extend their detention: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/594353/israel-court-extends-gaza-flotilla-activists-detention-by-six-days

There was more reporting on the flotilla activists on 3 May: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/594092/global-sumud-flotilla-calls-on-nz-government-to-intervene-after-israeli-interception

On 2 May 2026 there was reporting on the fact that one of the poor darlings on the flotilla allegedly has a concussion and a broken rib: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/594051/nzer-in-flotilla-intercepted-by-israel-has-concussion-and-possible-broken-rib-wife-says

This pattern goes on and on and on for months. But silence when it comes to the events which were the reason for Israel’s retaliation in Gaza in the first place.

The anti-Israel mob are hypocrites of the highest order. The intellectual dishonesty is truly limitless.

By the way, there was a UN report released some time ago which found that Israelis have engaged in rape of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. I do accept that this has happened, and I condemn it absolutely and unequivocally. However, it is outrageous to compare isolated examples of sexual assault committed by Israelis against Palestinians (sadly, rape occurs in any country) with pre-meditated mass rape condoned by Hamas leadership as an intentional weapon of warfare, which is what the evidence points to on October 7. Israel is a democratic state which has law enforcement systems which prosecute rape of Palestinians or rape of anyone else for that matter. The same cannot be said for Hamas.

The Post reports:

ANZ says it has lost the class action lawsuit over disclosure mistakes it made on 17,000 home loans, and may have to repay borrowers up to $125 million.

In a statement, ANZ chief executive Antonia Watson said the bank was disappointed with the court’s findings and might appeal.

The High Court has awarded summary judgment against ANZ for failures under lending laws designed to ensure borrowers understood their loan contacts and obligations.

The law that applies at the time was not a good law. The penalty of losing all fees was disproportional to the error they made. It is good the law has changed. However the law is the law, and trying to get Parliament to retrospectively amend the law to undermine a valid lawsuit was the wrong thing to do.

It is worth noting their maximum exposure has now been revealed to be only $125 million. The banking lobby tried to (and almost succeeded) in scaring MPs into a retrospective law change by claiming banks could be up for $12.9 billion, which would risk the financial stability. This can now be seen to be nonsense.

ACT have proposed six things in their immigration policy. Let’s take them in turn.

Deport serious offenders. Anyone on a residence visa who is convicted of a crime with a 10 year or more maximum sentence is deported.

No brainer.

Have skill categories expire each year

I think there is merit in regularly reviewing skill categories for skilled work visas. But an annual review will just mean needing to employ more public servants to do meaningless work. Some skill categories have had shortages for well over a decade, and will not be changing anytime soon.

A five year welfare stand down for residence visa holders

No brainer.

A $6 a day infrastructure surcharge on temporary work visas

Wow. ACT wants a new tax. This tax would be $2,190 a year or $10,950 for a five year work visa. This will probably lead to employers having to pay to cover this, so will make businesses less profitable, and increase prices.

Stronger English language requirements

Yep.

A dedicated overstayer enforcement unit 

We have 20,980 overstayers in NZ. The acceptable level should be zero. Good policy.

The Herald reports:

Five Waikato regional councillors who last year campaigned on pushing for the council to leave Local Government New Zealand have voted to stay.

Elected members voted yesterday on a motion to cancel the council’s $91,539.24 annual Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) membership.

The motion was lost in a 10-3 vote, meaning Waikato Regional Council will stay a member of LGNZ until March 31 next year. …

During the last local body elections in October, a group of eight people campaigned as the Rates Control Team.

That team included elected councillors Maher, Downard, Dunbar-Smith, Hughes, Cookson, Reymer and McGuire.

On the team’s website, it was stated that one of their policies was to “Leave Local Government NZ”.

Yesterday, of the seven, only Hughes and Reymer voted to leave LGNZ.

This is spitting in the face of ratepayers. They had an explicit policy on which they were elected to leave LGNZ, and Maher, Downard, Dunbar-Smith, Cookson, and McGuire all a few months later did the exact opposite.

There can sometimes be times when a promise can’t be met. You might campaign to keep rates to say 4% and an earthquake hits and you need to spend more on rebuilding etc.

But this was not one of those cases. It was a very simple policy, and there can be no excuse for reneging on it months after the election.

English Councillors

• Reform 1,453 (+1,451) (+72550%)
• Labour 1,068 (-1,496) (-58%)
• Lib Dems 844 (+155) (+22%)
• Conservatives 801 (-563) (-41%)
• Greens 587 (+146) (+302%)

English Councils

• No overall control 64 (+23) (+56%)
• Labour 28 (-38) (-58%)
• Lib Dems 15 (+1) (+7%)
• Reform 14 (+14)
• Conservatives 9 (-6) (-40%)
• Greens 5 (+5)

Welsh Senedd

• Plaid Cymru 43 (+20) (+87%)
• Reform 34 (+34)
• Labour 9 (-35) (-80%)
• Conservatives 7 (-76%)
• Greens 2 (+2)
• Lib Dems 1 (+1)

Scottish Parliament

• SNP 58 (-6) (-9%)
• Labour 17 (-4) (-19%)
• Reform 17 (+17)
• Scottish Greens 15 (+6) (+67%)
• Conservatives 12 (-19) (-61%)
• Lib Dems 10 (-6) (-38%)

The UK may have gone from a three party system to a five party system. And Starmer may soon be gone.

Audrey Young has done a column looking at what a grand coalition between National and Labour could look like. Grand coalitions always sound good in theory – the two centrist parties working together in the country’s interest, shutting out the parties on the margins.

But what his overlooks is governments always become unpopular over time. And if the government consists of the two main parties, then the disgruntled will go to the parties further out, eventually propelling them to power.

In Germany the two main parties are now polling only 38% between them.

In Austria they are also at 38%, Netherlands 40%, Ireland 34%. They all had grand coalitions.

So a grand coalition is a great way to destroy the two main parties, and boost the other parties.

On Patreon (paywalled) I write:

In this post, I look at which electorates may change hands, based on the change in party vote since the election.

Often any analysis is done using a simple two party swing, but that doesn’t take account of the fact that the change in support for minor parties also can impact an electorate race.

So what I have done is take the split vote analysis for each marginal electorate. Below is Hamilton East

So the National candidate got 65% of ACT voters, 30% of NZ First voters, 88% of National voters etc.

I then look at how much the nationwide party vote has changed since the election, based on an average of recent public polls.

The difference in the current polls from the election results is multiplied by the 2023 party vote for each marginal electorate to project the party vote for that electorate today. So in Hamilton East National got 42.9% in 2023. You multiply that by 29.2%/38% and get a projection of 32.9%. Then you apply the split vote analysis to project the candidate vote on the projected party vote.

This is just a data model. It is not a prediction. It doesn’t take account of factors such as how the incumbent MP has done, who the opposing candidate will be, new boundaries, a change in split voting etc. It should be seen more as looking backwards at 2023, and saying what the outcome would have been then based on the current party vote polls.

I will work on a model which takes account of the new boundaries. This is challenging as the split vote data is only available at electorate level.

But for now, here is what seats Labour on paper would now lead in, based on the change in the party vote (remainder behind the paywall)