Treasury has banned from the Budget lockup numerous organisations that have been attending for many years. These include the Taxpayers’ Union, the CTU, Business NZ and the NZ Initiative.

This is the exact opposite of transparent and accountable government. It means that all these organisations will not be able to read, analyse and respond to the Budget until several hours after it has been released. In a fast moving media cycle, this makes a difference.

Being able to access the Budget lockup, means that organisations can do the following:

• Have time to read, analyse and prepare their responses
• Ask questions of Treasury officials, to explain details
• Be interviewed by media in the lockup
• Ask questions of the Minister
• Spot possible errors in the documents (as Eric Crampton has done)

There is no principled reason for this decision. It is not an issue of space. The Beehive banquet hall is huge, and there has been room for the last several decades.

The suspicion is that this is a result of the Government being angry at the CTU for misrepresenting the Minister after the last Budget. The full details are here. But if the issue is one person, it is idiotic to ban every advocacy organisation in New Zealand as a response.

Almost all the organisations banned have trained economists on their staff – something few media organisations have. In fact many media find it useful to be able to ask questions of the economists in the room.

Accountancy firms (who often do advocacy work also for clients) are still allowed in the room. But not organisations that have 200,000 supporters, or represents thousands of businesses.

Treasury should remove their unprincipled and undemocratic ban on Budget lockup attendance this week. And if they don’t, then the Minister of Finance and Opposition Spokesperson on Finance should write to them asking them to do so.

The Herald reports:

On Tuesday, the Herald was sent an email signed by “24 anonymous” EGGS students.

In the correspondence, the students raise a list of grievances, including the increase next year from five daily periods to six, 30-minute lunch breaks and allegedly banning students from wearing thermals under their uniforms. 

The email claims the school is trying to work students in to the ground.

Oh how terrible, a school that makes students work hard.

At my intermediate school, we did (off memory) nine periods a day and at secondary school six.

“We believe school should be a place that helps us grow, not one that feels controlling and stressful. We deserve an environment where we can learn and express ourselves freely, without feeling restricted by unnecessary rules. 

“We are asking for the school to rethink these changes and create a system that respects students’ needs and well-being. We want to feel safe, heard and supported, so we can thrive both academically and personally.”

If they don’t like the rules at EGGS, they could always go to another school with fewer rules.

In the days since a senior Stuff journalist published an article calling female Ministers the c word, I’ve been counting how many staunchly feminist Labour and Green MPs have come out and said something along the lines of “We totally oppose the Government’s changes to pay equity laws but condemn the use of the c word against female Ministers. Such gendered abuse has no place in our public discourse”.

All these staunch Labour feminist MPs have remained silent, no doubt following the lead of Chris Hipkins who has refused to condemn it. Where is the National Council of Women, who are normally so vocal on these issues?

Where are the articles from the staunchly feminist journalists who have written about how terrible it is that female MPs are abused?

Radio NZ reports:

Booze industry lobbyists have been granted input into the development of alcohol policies, including how to deal with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

This is framed to seem like something bad, but all it means is that the very industry being regulated gets consulted on regulations that affect them. They don’t get any special access. They simply are one of many stakeholders.

The hard left activists think that companies which make money are inherently evil and should never be allowed to have a say on regulations that affect them. But this is preposterous. Of course those impacted by regulations should be allowed to have a say on them.

Documents obtained by RNZ also show that references to a review of safe drinking guidelines were removed from an Health New Zealand website after an alcohol lobbyist complained to Ross Bell, a manager with the Ministry of Health’s Public Health Agency.

Further down you learn the reason why. Nothing to do with all powerful alcohol lobbyists. It is simply that the review was a matter for the Ministry of Health, not Health NZ. And that Ministers had not agreed to a review. So Health NZ had incorrect information on their website, which got corrected.

An October 2024 email from New Zealand Winegrowers to Bell, which copies in a lobbyist with the spirits industry, shows the extent to which alcohol lobbyists are involved in the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) strategy.

“Appreciate the link to the speech and FASD initiatives,” the wine industry lobbyist says. “We’d be interested in discussing the opportunity for industry engagement in the refresh of the action plan, as we were involved in the development of the initial plan.”

FASD affects about 1800 babies a year in New Zealand. The alcohol industry fought a 20 year battle against product labels warning pregnant women not to drink, before they finally became compulsory in 2023.

No one wants kids born with FASD. If the Government and industry want the same outcome, why would you not engage with them. This does not mean you agree with them – just engagement. Engagement is good.

As for the issue of warning labels, it is (in my view) one of those initiatives that is entirely ineffective. To think that a warning label about drinking while pregnant will have an impact, you need to believe the following:

• The pregnant woman genuinely doesn’t know she shouldn’t drink when pregnant
• She is purchasing alcohol from a bottle, rather than at a bar or restaurant in a glass
• She picks up her bottle of wine (or beer) and before drinking from it, reads the various logos and info on the label
• She sees the no drinking while pregnant logo and realises she should not be drinking, and then puts down the bottle she has purchased, and leaves it undrunk

This is a classic issue and example of why you do want to consult with industry. Sticking another logo on labels can have large compliance costs, and actually make no difference at all to FASD. I bet you there is no peer reviewed evidence anywhere that these warnings on bottles have led to a decrease of FASD.

There are many good initiatives you could take to reduce FASD. Information at Plunket. Targeted advertising. Television advertising. Whanua Ora funded programmes etc.

The story makes it seem like the industry is against reducing FASD levels, as opposed to wanting initiatives to be ones that actually will make a difference.

The documents also show that the alcohol industry has input into how the Ministry of Health spends the alcohol levy, a ring-fenced fund of $16.6 million, used to support alcohol harm reduction measures.

Bell emailed lobbyists with the wine and beer industries in November 2024, giving them information about the alcohol levy process and calling for their input.

Of course they get consulted – they pay the levy into the fund. Just as Telcos get consulted on how the Telco levy is spent.

Consultation is not decision making. It is government best practice.

Alcohol is a legal product in NZ, and is enjoyed by the vast majority of NZers. It is a minority, not a majority, that abuse alcohol. Why should a vineyard not be consulted on how a levy they pay, is used?

The documents show lobbyists from the beer, wine and spirits industries also secured a meeting with health officials on “the development of New Zealand’s position” at a United Nations meeting.

It is the job of officials to meet with any interested party, to developed positions on an issue. I am sure they also had scores of meeting with public health activists.

What this is about is the activists don’t want any contrary views to their own to be heard or considered.

A guest post by Nick Hanne of the Free Speech Union:

As commemorations of the 80^th anniversary of V.E. Day occur this week, it is worth remembering not only the 46 million lives that were lost, but also how close fascism came to permanently erasing liberal democracy in Europe. Until recently, the West found this commemoration of the end of WWII a comforting reminder that our forebears secured an unrivalled period of prosperity and peace. Liberal democracies for a good two generations have lived off the afterglow of that victory. 

But in the last decade especially the durability of that prosperity and peace has been thrown into question. Major geopolitical upheaval – foreign conflicts, trade instability, and a rapidly changing information environment – has shaken our confidence in the seemingly unlimited promises of the post-war era. Anti-democratic approaches are no longer stigmatised. Many now embrace illiberalism online, not just in fellow democracies but here too in NZ. I think many of us, deep down, have been feeling quite acutely this vertiginous slide toward the precipice. The question is how to arrest it.

Last week, my colleague Steph and I had an opportunity on the Free Speech Union podcast to discuss with Shamubeel Eaqub, a NZ economist and commentator, his recently released research into social cohesion, or the notable lack thereof in this country. The news is bleak. Significant numbers of people feel disconnected from their local communities, while trust toward government and media is at rock bottom. Broadly speaking, Kiwis don’t feel heard, are losing faith in public systems and institutions, and appear willing to entertain less democratic political solutions in the face of growing social and economic issues. Part of Eaqub’s prescription for our fraying social fabric is a willingness for Kiwis to have the “uncomfortable conversations” where we confront the issues we ordinarily shy away from. 

But how do we do this in the online world, where respectful discourse often takes a back seat to the spiteful vitriol of anonymous trolls? Understandably, many women feel vulnerable in this hostile environment, as Minister for Women Nicola Grigg recently pointed out at a Local Government NZ conference. “The prevalence of online harm has become a serious issue,” she argued, “disproportionately impacting women who are in the public eye.”

The question though, is what realistically can be done about it? It isn’t clear beyond current laws, which address physical threats of violence and menacing behaviours like stalking, what feasible options remain for dealing with the problem of misogyny. This is why free speech must be protected: so we can all call out opinions we disagree with. Censorship does absolutely nothing to change someone’s mind and attitudes.  Hateful, abusive statements online may be morally reprehensible and emotionally disturbing, but the sort of censorship dragnet needed to curb such nasty behaviour will inadvertently stifle non-malicious forms of expression essential for the preservation of democratic norms and culture. 

Even if AI could provide an ideal moderating regime (which it has not yet even come close to sensibly or fairly achieving), a censorship filter would be doing little more than papering over the widening cracks emerging in civil society.

The increasingly troubled state of mind behind hateful language should be of deeper cause for concern and something which will require intervention at the level of local community rather than state regulation. There is also utility to consider; online discourse is the canary in the coalmine, a gauge of social cohesion and a test of the health of the body politic. But we deny ourselves this early detection device if the bird can’t sing.

The Ministry for Women has released new training modules to address abuse directed at women online and while well-intentioned, at the Free Speech Union we are concerned the material leans too heavily on vague legal definitions that risk blurring the line between harm and legitimate dissent.

When people feel threatened and crave a sense of safety, it’s easy to settle for the appearance of safety rather than the real thing. Language, while capable of inflicting emotional harm, is not in itself the greatest threat to our well-being – physical violence is. That’s in part because violence, unlike speech with its dual powers for good and ill, has no potential upside.

Ample historical evidence exists of democracies refusing to tolerate violence without becoming police states. What we don’t have are any examples of democracies where speech was ever comprehensively restricted without significant illiberal consequences.

If only certain staff at Environment Canterbury had understood this when they proposed that all members – including elected councillors – of the local government organisation be subject to a draconian media policy designed to limit criticisms of the organisation from within. If passed, it would have amounted, bristled one councillor, to a “gagging order”, with another asserting that as an elected representative of Canterbury ratepayers, “the ability to challenge others in the organisation is my prerogative.”

Unsurprisingly, with strident defenders of local democracy like these willing to resist such managerial overreach, the measure was soundly defeated. The long overdue resistance within local government is asserting itself and regaining territory hitherto surrendered to self-appointed censors.

As the army recruitment officers used to say, the question now is how many other Kiwis are ‘willing to do their bit’. Because lest we forget, it takes all sorts to preserve a democracy.

MSN reports:

Albo attacking the Greens will just make him more popular. It is interesting that in Australia the Labor Party seems to detest the Greens, while in NZ they are much more closely aligned.

The assertion that some films are now produced in countries such as New Zealand is a national security threat to the United States is, ummm, somewhat over stated.

Now the world would be a better place if different countries and cities did not compete with each other to offer rebates on film production. But no one can afford to unilaterally “disarm” so to speak. It is worth noting that US states such as California, New York and Georgia all offer subsidies similar to what countries like New Zealand and Ireland do. So having countries drop these incentives while US states do not, is unlikely.

How a tariff on so called foreign produced films would work is far from obvious. Most of the films are still owned by US companies. They don’t import the films into the US – they are US companies. And almost all films have parts of them made overseas, such as special effects etc. So what would you put a tariff on? The ticket price?

First we have a Labour Party electorate sharing an image of Brooke van Velden as a Nazi. Yes Labour Whangaparaoa think changing the threshold for pay equity claims from 60% to 70% female dominated industries is akin to gassing millions of Jews to death.

Then Chris Hipkins personally authorises an advertisement that is a blatant lie. Not a single person, including nurses, has had a pay cut or is getting a pay cut.

So Labour are resorting to smears and lies. (/sarc) If only the Disinformation Project was still here, as I am sure they would be calling them out for their extremism. (/sarc)

Mark Mitchell announced:

Police Minister Mark Mitchell today announced the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jevon McSkimming, has resigned. 

Mr McSkimming has been on suspension since last December. Deputy Commissioners of Police are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. 

Mr Mitchell said Mr McSkimming resigned today, with immediate effect, before he could be dismissed. 

“I can confirm a process had been underway for the Prime Minister to consider recommending the Governor-General immediately remove the Deputy Commissioner of Police from office,” says Mr Mitchell.

“I instructed the Public Service Commission to commence the process to remove Mr McSkimming from office after allegations of a very serious nature recently came to light, separate to the investigation that led to him being suspended.

McSkimming was appointed Deputy Commissioner in March 2023 by then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins.

Nicola Willis writes:

Having the C-word directed at me by a journalist in a mainstream publication wasn’t on my bingo-list for Mother’s Day 2025. Nor was being accused of “girl-math”.

But there you have it, that’s what was thrown at me and my female colleagues in a recent newspaper column as hopelessly devoid of facts as it was heavy on sexist slurs.

It is astonishing that a journalist would not just write a column accusing female Ministers of being c**ts, but that the newspaper would publish it.

It could only happen against National and ACT Ministers. Can you imagine if a journalist had written a column describing either of the past two female Prime Ministers as c**ts. Every other media outlet in NZ would have it as their front page story.

Also consider the hypocrisy that media have all these articles decrying sexist attacks on female MPs from people on social media, and they then publish this column! Their credibility is zero.

Nicola doesn’t respond to the insults with insults of her own, but facts:

First, the right to equal pay remains as it ever was. Equal pay has been protected in New Zealand law since 1973. It’s the simple concept that a woman doing the same job as a man should get the same pay. Nothing has changed there. I’d resign my job before I’d let that happen.

Second, no woman has had her pay cut. Twelve existing pay equity settlements including for nurses, social workers, midwives, teacher aides, school librarians, care and support workers and a range of other female-dominated workforces remain. Those settlements resulted in higher pay for tens of thousands of women, and they continue to be funded by the Government, at a cost of around $1.8 billion a year. Our Government values those workers and none of them should be scared into thinking their pay is at risk. It’s not.

So no change to equal pay, and no unwinding of the 12 settlements already made.

In 2020, a full three years later, Labour finally got around to putting its own, very loose, regime into law. Unfortunately, like almost everything Labour got its hands on, the system got way out of whack and became completely unaffordable; admin workers were being compared with civil engineers; social workers were being compared with detectives; and librarians were being compared with fisheries officers. Multiple employers were being joined to claims and some had dozens of very different jobs in scope.

What started as a pay equity regime had become a Trojan Horse for a multi-billion dollar grievance industry driven by public sector unions. It had departed a very long way from issues of sex-discrimination.

Sounds like it was done by the same people who delivered Kiwibuild and Te Pukenga!

What the Government did last week was put in law a much more workable pay equity regime that focuses squarely on the actual issue of sex-based discrimination, setting out a transparent process through which employers and employees can negotiate the question of equal value.

And one that won’t bankrupt the country by comparing admin staff to engineers.

Yes, fixing Labour’s flawed regime has released billions of dollars that we can now invest in this and future Budgets. Yes, that will mean there is more funding available for things like cancer drugs, new schools, new hospitals and other much needed initiatives. Yes, that means our Government won’t have to tax and borrow even more to balance the Budget. You can call that ‘girl-math’, I call it facing-up to financial reality.

I’m a feminist, I wear the badge proudly and I’ve upheld those values throughout our Cabinet’s consideration of pay equity issues. I’m up for a debate on how to define sex-based discrimination, but I’m not up for misleading rhetoric and seeing women MPs having their gender weaponised against them and their views dismissed. All our daughters deserve better.

I really am astonished that Stuff published the column. We all know that a column that used the same wording against prominent Labour MPs would have been killed long before publication.

This chart uses data from the Quarterly Employment Survey which was just released this week. It is adjusted for inflation.

In December 2017 the average hourly wage was $42.16 (in 2025$) and in December 2023 when Labour left office it was $42.20. So an increase of 4 cents an hour over six years! Thanks Grant.

Since December 2023, the average hourly wage has increased to $42.85, so 65 cents an hour more after just five quarters. That is equally to around $1,350 a year.

A guest post by Lucy Rogers:

I have no strong view on prisoner voting rights. I am open to arguments either way. However, I find it inconsistent of Dr Emmy Rākete to claim that a ban on prisoners voting is an “attack on democratic principles” and that in implementing such a ban the Government is “spitting on the rule of law” (see: https://www.waikatotimes.co.nz/nz-news/360670649/prisoner-voting-ban-be-reinstated-government) when she is a professing communist. Communist nations have never respected the right of anyone to vote (whether prisoners or otherwise) and that is to say nothing of the rule of law.

Similarly, a few years ago Dr Rākete’s organisation People Against Prisons Aotearoa protested the practice of solitary confinement in New Zealand prisons. In my opinion, it is likewise inconsistent for a communist to protest solitary confinement when it was a common practice in the Soviet Union and remains a common practice in communist nations like China and Cuba today. If Dr Rākete has ever condemned human rights abuses in China I have yet to hear about it (although she regularly criticises New Zealand’s failings).

The truth is that Dr Rākete is in effect acknowledging that free elections are a positive thing when it suits her to do so, while actively seeking the destruction of those self-same structures. This is typical of the intellectual and moral dishonesty of both postmodernism and communism.

A reader writes in:

All the doctors, dentists and specialists working in clinical positions for Health NZ and the Ministry of Health get generous leave and expenses for so-called professional development – which is often an overseas conference in an exotic location – flying business class and staying in a premium hotel. I have this on good authority from someone who processes the claims! This leave and generous allowance which can accumulated for two or more years.

See p25 of this collective agreement agreement:

https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/assets/Whats-happening/What-to-expect/For-the-health-workforce/Employment-relations/Employment-agreements/ASMS-SECA-2023-Signed.pdf

The $16,000 annual allowance is subject to FBT at 49.25% or 63.93% so the cost to the taxpayer is at least $23,880. Plus there is the 10 days leave which is likely to cost at least another $6,000 – so pretty much at least $30,000 a year for all these staff working for Health NZ. I understand that Ministry of Health staff who are doctors, specialists or dentists get $12,000 per year to spend similarly.

It might be argued that the allowance and leave is necessary to attract qualified staff, but surely it would be better to add a lesser amount to the annual salary and let them spend it how they like – or limit the use of the allowance to actual training costs. How much benefit is there to the NZ health system in specialists and dentists jetting off to overseas conferences? 

I don’t think anyone would disagree with doctors undertaking professional development – but this is mostly a perk with dubious benefits. I heard how a medical professional at the Ministry of Health used their allowance to go to this:

https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2025/03/25/default-calendar/second-global-conference-on-air-pollution-and-health

What would be interesting is to find out what locations people have gone to using this taxpayer funded perk. I suspect there are few in poor, cold countries and many in very warm locations!

Paul Goldsmith announced:

The Government has agreed to reinstate a total ban on prisoner voting, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says.

“Cabinet’s decision will reverse the changes made by the previous government in 2020, which allowed prisoners serving sentences of less than three years to vote.

“Restoring prisoner voting was typical of the previous government’s soft-on-crime approach; we don’t agree with it.

“Citizenship brings rights and responsibilities. People who breach those responsibilities to the extent that they are sentenced to jail temporarily lose some of their rights, including the right to vote.

“The proposed change will establish a consistent approach to prisoner voting, regardless of the length of sentence.

I believe there are only two principled positions you can take on whether prisoners vote – all prisoners can vote, or no prisoners can vote.

Having a three year threshold for losing voting rights is arbitrary. Someone sentenced to 35 months gets the vote and 27 months does not. Someone who is in prison constantly for 10 years through a series of short sentences gets a vote while someone in prison for 4 years for one sentence does not.

I don’t support mass killers such as Brendon Tarrant getting the vote. He removed the ability to vote for dozens of New Zealanders he killed, so why should he get to vote (if he was a NZ resident)?

Judges go out of their way not to sentence people to prison. The law in fact tells them to do this – choose the least restrictive punishment that is appropriate for their crimes. You generally only go to prison if you are a hardcore recidivist, or your offending was very serious. You lose your liberty and many other rights when you go to prison.

In some countries, you don;’t only lose voting rights while in prison, but for a period afterwards. I don’t support that though.

Very few prisoners actually vote, despite the Electoral Commission making it very easy for them.

At Invercargill prison there were 24 votes out of 149 prisoners.

At Otago, there were 12 votes out of 405 prisoners.

And at Waikeria there were eight votes from 433 prisoners.

Chris Bishop announced the following changes to deal with by racers and fleeing drivers:

• A presumptive sentence of vehicle destruction or forfeiture for those that flee Police, street racers, intimidating convoys and owners who fail to identify offending drivers
• Police to have more powers to manage illegal vehicle gatherings by closing roads or public areas and issuing infringements
• Increasing the infringement fee for making excessive noise from or within a vehicle from $50 to $300
• Increasing the maximum court fine for making excessive noise from $1,000 to $3,000

Will be interesting to see if the opposition parties vote for these changes!

David Taylor writes at The Spinoff:

Since 2007, New Zealand schools have had an excellent curriculum, acknowledged the world over and used successfully in diverse communities throughout the country.

Whether it is excellent or not is of course a subjective view. The objective data is below:

Now this might not be due to the curriculum. It might even be in spite of the curriculum. But when you defend the status quo, it is useful to look at what the outcomes are.

 I have already met with my principal to tell her that I am not prepared to teach, or lead people to teach, this new curriculum

Mr Taylor has every right to say he thinks the new English curriculum is crap. But he does not have the right to refuse to teach it. He suffers from the arrogance all too common where self-proclaimed experts think their views trump democracy.

If he refuses to teach the curriculum in a public school, then he can’t keep his job. Hopefully he can find employment elsewhere.

The Herald reports:

Rotorua woman Santana Tonihi’s criminal record stretches 13 pages, with most of the 129 convictions being for stealing from shops. …

Judge Skellern gave a starting point on the burglary of the television charge of eight months’ jail and added another four months for all other charges. 

She then discounted the 12-month prison sentence by 25% for Tonihi’s guilty pleas but added another two months for her previous convictions and a further month for offending while on intensive supervision.

That gave an end sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, but given she had already served about five months in custody, it meant she only had one month left.

A mere two month uplift for 129 previous convictions. That is ridiculously light. It is meaningless.

How about this. Say you get one month extra in prison for each previous conviction?

The Herald reports:

Senior Minister Erica Stanford sent official briefings to her personal email account – an action discouraged by Parliament’s Cabinet Manual. 

Stanford says she forwarded the emails so she could print them at home or at her electorate office, often while being away from Wellington for work. 

Her electorate office printer was only connected to the Parliamentary server last month, she said. 

Parliament’s Cabinet Manual – a rulebook for Government ministers – says “as far as possible” ministers should not use their personal email accounts or phone numbers for ministerial business.

Forwarding yourself an e-mail so you can print it out at home, is not using a personal account for ministerial business. That would be if you were e-mailing other people about ministerial business – not e-mailing yourself.

The purpose of the rule is to make sure ministerial correspondence is captured by government systems. It is not to make it hard for a Minister to print out a document.

Sometimes people who knew a Minister before they became an MP may e-mail them on their personal e-mail address. If it relates to official business, then best practice would be to cc any reply to your official address so it is captured by the DIA system.

This is much ado about nothing.

UPDATE: Roger Partridge has a great take here.

In the recent UK local elections, the number of Councillors elected by party was:

1. Reform 677
2. Lib Dems 370
3. Conservatives 319
4. Labour 98
5. Greens 79

In the latest average of the parliamentary polls, the seat projections are:

1. Reform 245
2. Labour 177
3. Conservatives 94
4. Lib Dems 60
5. SNP 43
6. Greens 4

Prime Minister Nigel Farage is a distinct possibility.