Labour’s co called Future Fund is nothing like Singapore’s Temasek Holdings.

There are decent pros and cons towards a country having an investment fund. We already have one – the NZ Super Fund. Their job is to get the best returns on their assets.

Labour is proposing basically a giant corporate welfare fund, which can will either lend money to, or invest in NZ companies. Beyond doubt, they will pick favoured industries for the fund. So it will just be another version of the corporate welfare we already have.

Temasek Holdings invests around the world. It has 14 global offices from China to Mexico to the UK to France etc. Only around 27% of its investments are in Singapore.

The Government currently gets around $1.5 billion a year in dividends from various companies. These are currently used to fund health, education, police etc. Labour is promising to take that $1.5 billion and instead stick it in a corporate welfare fund. So they will need to either increases taxes by $1.5 billion a year, or borrow more for health, education, police etc.

Andrea Vance reports:

The Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Market Research poll of 1000 adults, conducted in early October, found 14% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “New Zealanders may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track.”

This is higher than I hoped for. It is a small minority, but not a tiny minority. However better than the US where almost 30% agree with a nearly identical question.

Supporters of Te Pāti Māori were the most likely to endorse the idea, with 26% agreeing or strongly agreeing.

Among ACT supporters, 20% agreed, while support fell to 16% among Labour, 13% among National, 10% for New Zealand First and 8% among Green voters.

The breakdown by party is interesting, but also small sample sizes so should be taken with caution. For example the MOE for TPM at around 13%.

Having said that, the constant violent imagery and rhetoric by TPM leaders makes their result not particularly surprising.

The poll also found a strong undercurrent of social tolerance: 80% of New Zealanders said they have friends with different political views, a result consistent across most parties.

This is almost identical levels to the same question in the US. Personally I think 80% is a bit low.

Just over half (53%) of respondents agreed that all immigrants who came to New Zealand illegally should be deported.

What I found interesting is that there is greater support in NZ for deporting all illegal immigrants, than there is in the US.

Stats NZ reports:

Aotearoa New Zealand’s consumers price index (CPI) increased 3.0 percent in the 12 months to the September 2025 quarter, according to figures released by Stats NZ today. …

Local authority rates and payments, up 8.8 percent, was the largest upwards contributor to the quarterly rise (28 percent of the 1.0 percent quarterly rise).  

The Government should implement their rates cap policy as a matter of urgency.

The left and many media claim that large rates increases were necessary due to under-investment in core infrastructure such as water. Now while it is true more needs to be spent on water infrastructure, they overlook that there is a huge amount of spending on discretionary and wasteful stuff.

Here’s the list I have been keeping, just for Wellington City.

1. $593 million on social housing capital (most councils don’t do social housing)
2. $510 million for a sludge minimisation facility at Moa Point
3. $330 million on rebuilding the town hall so we have another music venue
4. $325 million on social housing operational (most councils don’t do social housing)
5. $240 million on Civic Square 
6. $236 million on food recycling (will cost $19,000 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions reduction)
7. $189 million on Te Matapihi library (the three existing CBD libraries are great)
8. $180 million on the Takina convention centre (which somewhat is managing to lose money on every exhibition it hosts)
9. $160 million on cycleways
10. $139 million on removing cars and redeveloping the Golden Mile
11. $55 million to upgrade destroy Thorndon Quay
12. $42 million on renovating St James Theatre
13. $32 million to Reading Cinemas (attempted but failed)
14. $13 million on a carpark building

That is a staggering $3 billion, which equates to around $38,000 per household.

Now most councils aren’t quite as fiscally laxative as Wellington, but all of them will have large expensive non-core projects. Rates increases are a choice, not a necessity.

The Government announced:

The Government is exploring ways to free up capital locked in its investment in Chorus, to redirect into capital projects of more use to New Zealanders.

National Infrastructure Funding and Financing (NIFFCo) will investigate the feasibility of selling the debt and equity securities it holds in Chorus.

These debt and equity securities were purchased as the Crown’s funding contribution to the delivery of the Ultra-Fast Broadband initiative, that was completed in 2022. 

Minister of Finance Nicola Willis says that with the completion of the Ultra-Fast Broadband initiative there is no longer a policy reason for the Crown to own these securities.

Absolutely not. I’m a shareholder in Chorus, as I decided to buy some shares. But I don’t want the Government to be having capital locked up in commercial companies, instead of schools and hospitals etc.

A great example of media bias in this The Post story about the failure of Tory Whanau to get re-elected to Council. This is meant to be a news story, not a column. But look at how they mix opinion and fact.

But Whanau’s personal problems were overshadowed by the bigger problems she inherited as mayor, including a massive infrastructure deficit thanks to years of neglect by previous councils.

The part in bold is an opinion, yet it is expressed as an uncontested fact. This is an example of why media trust is disappearing.

But she also inherited a CBD that was in desperate need of investment

Again, that is an opinion, presented as a fact.

This would be fine in an opinion column, but not fine in a so called news story.

Like many, I had never heard of Bari Weiss before 2020. She was employed for probably around $100,000 a year as an op-ed staff editor. She resigned after alleged bullying by other journalists because of her views.

She went to Substack and set up a newsletter which morphed into The Free Press. It grew to around one million subscribers including 150,000 paid subscribers. They grew to 25 staff, and she just sold it to Paramount for $150 million. This shows that there is a very good commercial model for quality journalism. I am one of those who pay to subscribe. They have such fascinating and well researched stories.

She has also been appointed as Editor-in-chief of CBS News , which will no doubt go down with some of their journalists as well as a bbq at a vegan retreat.

Judith Collins released:

We regret even more that the strike appears to be politically motivated by the unions.

What else could possibly explain that in early October, when we were trying to negotiate with the secondary teachers’ union, the number one item on their agenda for a meeting with Education Minister Erica Stanford was Palestine.

Palestine.  Not terms and conditions. Not student achievement. Not the new curriculum. Palestine. That’s not what students or parents should expect.

I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m not.

CNN reports:

Top Virginia Democrats have sharply criticized attorney general nominee Jay Jones but are stopping short of calling on him to leave the race after newly revealed text messages showed he suggested that a colleague be shot.

Gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger and lieutenant governor nominee Ghazala Hashmi called Jones’ texts inexcusable, as did Virginia’s two Democratic senators.

Don’t you love the double speak – saying his texts were inexcusable, yet they still think he would suitable to be Attorney-General!

Let’s look at what he texted:

“Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, hitler, and pol pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head,” the text reads in part, referring to Gilbert and the two dictators.

Actually that part isn’t that bad. This is a sort of meme/joke which you hear a lot. Normally it is Hitler, Stalin and someone else – a bad taste way of saying how much you dislike someone.

What is more disqualifying is saying about his opponent:

• “I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves”
• Hoped their children would die so they feel pain personally, so they move on policy
• Said the parents are evil and breeding little fascists

It is one think to do a bad taste meme. But he seriously argues for the death of children to teach the parents a lesson. The fact the Democrats won’t unendorse him is a mistake, and hopefully one the voters will punish them for.

My view on the politics of US shutdowns is simple – the side that makes demands, and votes against a clean continuing resolution tends to eventually be blamed for it, and backs down.

The Republicans use to demand less spending or they would shut the Government down. That at least made some political sense.

The Democrats policy is to demand more spending, or they shut the Government down. Good luck with that one.

An interesting research note from Eric Crampton and at the NZ Initiative on the benefits of devolution on development. It details how Canadian First Nations have transformed their economic fortunes and have built thousands of new homes after gaining powers for planning, zoning, tax, and infrastructure finance.

A couple of examples:

The Squamish Nation’s 6,000-apartment development in downtown Vancouver is helping to solve the city’s housing crisis on its own terms.

An hour away from Vancouver, near Chilliwack, the Ch’íyáqtel (Tzeachten), has built over 1,600 homes. It has reversed its economic position from 90% reliance on government funding to 90% own-source revenue.

Crampton concludes:

The Initiative’s report argues that this incremental, opt-in approach could provide a practical path to realising a form of tino rangatiratanga, through local devolution, while delivering real benefits for all New Zealanders.

This is a form of tino rangatiratanga we should all support – allowing iwi to develop their own rules for their own land.

An interesting poll of Jewish Americans that shows they have a large variety of views on Israel and the Middle East. They are nota homogenous bloc. Key findings are:

• 61% say Israel has committed war crimes
• 68% disapprove of the Netanyahu Government
• 94% say Hamas has committed war crimes
• 46% aprove and 48% disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza
• 47% say US support for Israel is at the right level, 32% say it is too supportive and 20% not supportive enough
• 39% say Israel has committed genocide in Gaza
• 56% are emotionally attached to Israel
• 80% are concerned about civilian deaths in Gaza
• In terms of who is responsible for the war continuing, 91% say Hamas, 86% Netanyahu and 80% Israel
• 69% say Israel is not doing enough to allow food into Gaza
• 59% believe a way can be found for Israel and Palestine to co-exist peacefully
• 62% want Gaza governed by an elected Government, only 4% say Hamas would be acceptable

The Herald reports:

The Green Party’s director of communications, Louis Day, has resigned just weeks after its now-former chief of staff, Eliza Prestidge-Oldfield, made the same decision.

My first reaction to this story was this is not significant, as a year out from an election is the normal time political staff will leave, or commit through to the election.

But then I read more closely.

In an email to journalists, Day said that after taking time off over the parliamentary recess, he felt now was the right time to step away.

“I felt that now was the right time for me to move on from Parliament and take a bit of a break before finding a new challenge for my career.

If someone is leaving with no job to go to, this suggests things are not great.

According to his LinkedIn, Day started his director of communications role in June 2024 after working as a senior press secretary, press secretary and research and policy adviser.

This is also interesting – he was promoted just last year. Again a bit unusual to leave so soon after being promoted.

Konstantin Kisin writes:

The Trump plan is a roadmap to peace which delivers every single anti-war and pro-peace objective: an immediate end to the war, Israeli withdrawal, the release of over 2,000 Palestinian detainees in exchange for just 20 remaining living Israeli hostages, delivery of aid, re-opening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt, a non-Israeli and non-Hamas administration of Gaza, an economic development package, a commitment against the displacement of Palestinians, no annexation, no occupation and US-mediated talks between Israel and the Palestinians to achieve “peaceful and prosperous co-existence”.

To my complete lack of surprise, however, many of the most prominent campaigners against “genocide” who have graced our airwaves for the last 2 years have either stayed silent or openly called for Hamas to reject the deal.

I never heard John Minto demanding Hamas accept it.

Liam Hehir writes:

So lawmakers have looked at the gap and thought about the fact that what you watch or listen to on the internet may not be subject to any official standards regime. And, so far, they have decided to leave that gap in place. If the legislature considered and declined to extend the Broadcasting Act to the internet, should an appointed Authority do it via creative interpretation?

Against that backdrop, the BSA’s unilateral move to assert authority over internet content really does look like it’s driven by policy rather than any compelling legal reasoning.

I have asked Crown Law if the BSA ever got a legal opinion from them over their decision.

If there is genuine ambiguity about whether an internet stream is “broadcasting” under the Act, NZBORA requires the interpretation that favours freedom of expression. The BSA’s favoured interpretation brings The Platform under a regulatory regime that can sanction or censor content after the fact. That certainly impacts freedom expression.

This is a key aspect, and affects not just The Platform. If I do a podcast, the BSA could try to censor what I say on a podcast, fine me for it, for even demand the podcast cease for a period of time.

Chris Lynch writes:

The BSA’s claim that it has jurisdiction over digital-only content is legally indefensible. In a provisional ruling, the Authority declared that “broadcasting receiving apparatus” now includes computers and mobile phones, and that “other means of telecommunication” includes the internet. In doing so, it has effectively rewritten the Broadcasting Act without the consent of Parliament.

It is Parliament’s job to change the law, not the BSA’s.

David Harvey also does a great analysis:

When this matter came to my attention it piqued my interest. I taught Law and IT as well as Media Law part-time for 18 years at Auckland Law School. This was familiar territory to me.

There are some problems with the approach that the BSA has adopted. …

The starting point in that discussion is the Law Commission report of 2013. I have indicated the relevant passages from the report after each statement

The report observed that the BSA has jurisdiction over traditional broadcast content, including radio and television, as defined under the Broadcasting Act 1989. (para. 8.6) However, its jurisdiction does not extend to online-only content, such as internet radio or on-demand streaming services, unless the content is also broadcast in a traditional format. (para 4.4)

So the decision by the BSA is contrary to the view of the Law Commission.

All radio transmitters in New Zealand must either be licensed by a radio licence, spectrum licence or general user licence, or have an exemption from licensing Broadcasting Standards Authority. You need a broadcasting licence if you want to broadcast on radio or television in New Zealand.

Does The Platform have a broadcasting licence? No, because they clearly are not a broadcaster.

From a procedural point of view the BSA has made a significant error. Although it describes its decision as a provisional interlocutory decision what it should have done was notified the Platform that it had received Mr Fanselow’s complaint which raised a jurisdictional issue. It should have called for submissions from the Platform as well as from Mr Fanselow (or perhaps an amicus curiae and indeed other interested parties) as to whether the BSA had jurisdiction.

After it had heard such argument it could have made an informed decision giving full reasons.

Yes, they made a secret in principle decision rather than call for submissions on the wider issue.

If you have quarter of an hour to spare, I would recommend reading the speeches in Parliament marking the death of New Zealand’s 35th Prime Minister. I’ve extracted a few quotes below.

Christoper Luxon

I didn’t have the privilege of knowing Jim well personally, but since becoming Prime Minister, I received a few quiet phone calls from him. They were short, sincere, and thoughtful. He offered encouragement, perspective, and advice—advice that I took seriously. I also remember campaigning with him in a bar in Waikanae and him still holding court in a room full of people, sharp as ever, fully engaged, loving politics, and very much enjoying himself. He’d just turned 87.

In closing, I want to use Jim’s own words, written just a few weeks ago after the death of his friend Tā Tumu Te Heuheu. He said, “He was, in simple terms, a very good person who was interested in helping others. Farewell, old friend, and may God welcome you home.” Those words now speak for Jim himself. Thank you.

Chris Hipkins

He would refer to me as young Chris even once I’d become Prime Minister, and he had a knack for offering his insights and wisdom without ever coming across as patronising or condescending. He did seem genuinely interested, not just in my political career, which he clearly had been following, but in the political careers of emerging politicians across the House. I think perhaps it’s a wisdom that you get after you leave this place, that recognition that Governments come and Governments go, but the good interests of the country do rest with whomever the Government happens to be at any given time. He remained a mentor and a friend to anyone in this House who sought out his guidance.

He sacked Winston Peters from his Cabinet and then formed New Zealand’s first MMP coalition with Winston Peters as his Deputy Prime Minister, a Government that transpired to be remarkably stable, much to the frustration of the then Labour Party Opposition. 

Winston Peters

It’s often said that Jim Bolger was the last Prime Minister without a university degree. Well, for our sakes, we must hope that that is not true for the future. Jim learned his craft on the farm and in the town halls, and he applied it to the highest elected office in this country. In his earliest years in Parliament, he earned the title “The Woolshed Orator.” Jim Bolger was a man of good character, strong morals, and family values; he called for a decent society in 1990, and he did so for good cause. He was, in his own words, “a red-blooded Irishman by descent, but a very practical Kiwi by practice.”

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer

Mr Bolger knowingly expanded political capital for the nation’s progress and to address historical injustices. His disposition is described by many who we also spoke to as magnificent, as inclusive, and as, indeed, a proud Irishman—earning him the nickname “Spud”. For us, Mr Bolger is regarded as the greatest Prime Minister since Michael Savage. He had a legacy that affected the whole country. He heard and saw te iwi Māori.

Gerry Brownlee

I first met Jim Bolger in 1987, and through the subsequent years, saw him at many party functions and was a great admirer of his. He came to a campaign function for me in 1996. Perhaps demonstrating the sort of gentle Irish charm that he had and the warmth that he exerted, when meeting my mother, who was only 5 foot 3 and a very, very petite woman, he looked at her and said, “How on earth did you end up with a brute like that?”

A great speech where Casey Costello calls out the nonsense from Benjamin Doyle that Parliament is hostile if you’re not a “cis straight white man”.

Casey of course is not white or a man. Neither are either of the Green Party co-leaders. Now was Georgina Beyer who had an uneventful parliamentary career. Doyle blames his failings on his demographics rather than his judgment.

Incidentally only 44 of the 122 MPs elected at the last election were cis straight white men.

The crown accounts for last financial year are an improvement on the previous year (inherited from Chippie and Grant). Key metrics are:

• Deficit dropped from $8.4b to $4.4b
• Spending as a % of GDP dropped from 42.9% to 42.1%
• Core crown expenses down from 33.1% to 32.5%

Still a long way to go to get back to surplus and spending under 30% of GDP (a level which Labour and Greens in 2017 agreed was a cap). But finally it is heading the right way.

It is heartening to see Winston Peters, David Seymour and Todd Stephenson lash the Broadcasting Standards Authority for their secret decision to expand their regime to the Internet. Winston may have been using hyperbole in comparing them to the Stasi, but they deserve odium for what they are attempting to do. Their conduct is so bad faith and outrageous that I believe the Government should sack the entire board.

Let’s deal with their secret decision in two parts – the substance and process. Both are damning.

Their claim that you can read the Broadcasting Act requirement that a broadcasting receiving apparatus is any Internet capable device rather than a television or radio is preposterous. One reason broadcasters have been treated differently is they were granted (paid for) a chuck of the telecommunications spectrum for their exclusive use. When you apply for a chuck of the spectrum, you agree to the conditions of using it for broadcast. This is not the case for people who simply produce video and audio over the Internet.

There can be no doubt the BSA is acting in bad faith in declaring The Platform is a broadcaster, because if they truly believed that they would have not waited until a complaint to make this determination. The Broadcasting Act says all broadcasters must:

• broadcast at least one notice per day for each day of broadcasting about the BSA procedure
• provide an annual return of revenue by 31 July to the BSA and pay an annual levy

Did the BSA ever ask The Platform to provide an annual return? Did they ever write to them when they first set up and say “We think you are a broadcaster, so please make sure you inform people of the BSA complaints process”?

No they did not.

They claim in an RNZ story:

The Authority’s chief executive Stacey Wood told RNZ it decided in 2019 that it also regulated online broadcasts.

“This position has been public and published since 2019.

If this is the case, why did they never ask any online broadcasters to file returns? Why did they never e-mail Bomber Bradbury and demand he informs his podcast viewers of the BSA complaints process, and that he must file an annual return to them?

So the substance of their decision is ridiculous, but their process is what is truly damning.

If they really think the law supports them having jurisdiction over anyone who produces video or audio content over the Internet, they should publish a discussion paper listing the pros and cons. The discussion paper could then become a white paper. Affected parties should be able to submit on it. They should give notice of when their interpretation would take effect, so people know when they have to start filling in annual returns and that they are now subject to the BSA. They would do a major information campaign.

Instead of doing all this, they made a secret in principle decision that The Platform comes under their juridisction. By doing so they would then set a precedent that would be binding on every producer of video and audio content in NZ, and it would have all happened behind closed doors.

There can be no confidence in the Broadcasting Standards Authority for their secret power grab. The board should go, or the whole organisation should go.