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.

Radio NZ reports:

The Police Commissioner says he takes “very seriously” anything that undermines the public’s trust and confidence in police.

It comes after RNZ revealed pornography found on the work computer of former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming is being investigated as alleged objectionable material, RNZ understands.

Many people don’t understand what it means if something is objectionable material. They think it is just like porn, but slightly more hard-core. This is not the case. It is defined as basically the following:

• the exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or
• the use of violence or coercion to compel any person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or
• sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person; or
• the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or
• bestiality; or
• acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.

This takes the issue from merely a workplace conduct issue to a serious criminal issue. McSkimming has not been charged, let alone found guilty of anything, so it is important not to jump to conclusions. And this is all on top of the allegations around inappropriate conduct with a young staffer.

McSkimming was widely considered the frontrunner to be appointed Commissioner if Labour had retained Government. Hipkins appointed him Deputy, and made him the senior to Tania Kura in the line of sucession.

Two former Labour Police Ministers have spoken highly of McSkimming, even after these revelations. Stuart Nash said:

“I knew Jevon very well … if you’ve been in the police 30 years and you’ve risen to the rank that he has, you’ve impressed some very good, very competent, very capable people over the time”, Nash told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking Breakfast.

“And he rose almost to the top, so he’s a good man.”

Umm, I’d hold off saying that until the outcome of the investigations.

He was perplexed by news reports indicating McSkimming resigned after porn was allegedly found on his work computer.

“[That’s] the thing I don’t quite understand if I’m brutally honest … every bloke listening to this show knows there are ways to watch porn without watching on your work computer.

Thanks for the advice Stu on how best to watch porn. You may work well in NZ First alongside Shane Jones 🙂

And the other former Labour Police Minister said:

Labour’s police spokesperson Ginny Andersen – a former Police Minister – told reporters she was also unaware of any issues related to McSkimming when she held the portfolio.

Andersen said McSkimming was always hard-working and “a pleasure to work with”.

Personally I wouldn’t comment on how someone was a pleasure to work with while they are under criminal investigation. I would just say “It is inappropriate for me to comment while investigations are ongoing”

The Privileges Committee has recommended the following consequences for the MPs who disrupted the House, being

• Rawiri Waititi 21 days suspension
• Debbie Ngarewa-Packer 21 days suspension
• Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke 7 days suspension
• Peeni Henare apology (previously decided)

These are all sensible recommendations, fitting the circumstances for each MP.

The most important thing to understand is this is not punishing MPs for doing a haka. Hakas are often done in the House. I have been there for them. So are waiatas. The reason for the suspensions are two critical factors.

The first is that they disrupted the House (which had to adjourn for 30 minutes) while the vote was underway. This is very serious stuff. Preventing MPs from voting on a bill is a contempt. In fact this is what many of the January 6 protesters were charged over in the US – preventing Congress from voting to certify the election. If they had done the haha *after* the Speaker had announced the result of the vote, it would be far less serious.

The second is that they left their seats, and crossed the floor to face ACT MPs, in what was clearly intimidatory behaviour. To quote the report:

If that doesn’t get a lengthy suspension, nothing will.

So again if they had waited until after the vote was done, and had done the haha from their seats, I doubt there would have been any consequences at all. This is not about the haka. This is about stopping Parliament from being able to vote, and intimidating other MPs.

Julie-Anne Genter was found in contempt merely for crossing the floor and waving a report at a Minister. She didn’t get suspended because she apologised, and she didn’t seek to intimidate.

It is worth noting that Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi have refused to apologise or concede they did anything wrong. If they were not suspended, then they would do it again and again.

It could actually be worse for them. The Speaker could have named them at the time of then disrupting the vote, which would see them suspended under SO 94 and if they had refused to leave the chamber, then under SO 95 they would be suspended for the entire calendar year!

Sad to see that opposition MPs of the Privileges Committee did not see what happened as that serious. Labour MPs said there should only be a 1 or 2 day suspension, and the Green Party blames the victims (ACT MPs) for being intimidated by gun emulation aimed at them saying this just shows their cultural ignorance! The Greens amazingly go further and say the rules of Parliament should be changed retrospectively to allow the TPM MPs to do what they did, and then judge them against the new rules!!!!

I’m pleased that the majority have handed down more than a slap with a wet bus ticket. Anything less would not have acted as deterrence, but encouragement.

The 2025 Green Budget includes the following:

• Increase welfare payments by 26% to young unemployed persons to $395 a week
• Pay $395 a week to students
• A wealth tax
• A death tax
• A tax rate of 39% on income over $120,000 (which with GST will mean you effectively will have half of every dollar over $120,000 going to the government)
• A new top tax rate of 45%
• Increase company tax by 5%

So basically taxing NZ families, dead people and companies more, in order to give more money to people not working.

While bringing up my three wonderful children we had:

• no TV.
• no playstation.
• limited screen time to 30 minutes a day (which was hardly ever used).
• no cell-phones (I did not even have one until Feb 2024).
• read a massive amount of books.
• the two boys and a girl were/are high quality academics, all were active in sports (including one becoming a Queen’s Guide – awarded by Jerry Mateparae).
• My – then wife – and I prioritised experiences for our family above aquiring assets.
• We made all of these decisions with minimal government interferance or assistance (i.e. none).

One of the big, apparant, positives for National/ACT is being free from the “nanny state”. I have no doubt that children and young people are threatened and negatively impacted by social-media. But – the priority should be empoweing parents through information … not trying to implement an external ban (that will be unworkable).

Alwyn Poole
[email protected]