Shane Jones is a Fascist

The spectre of authoritarianism rarely announces itself with jackboots and torchlight parades. More often, it arrives draped in the rhetoric of economic necessity, promising prosperity whilst systematically dismantling the institutions that protect democratic accountability. 

Such is the case with Shane Jones, New Zealand First's Resources Minister, whose latest tirade against regional councils represents a chilling escalation in his campaign to eliminate environmental oversight that stands between his corporate benefactors and unfettered resource extraction.

Jones' inflammatory rhetoric comparing the Otago Regional Council to the "Kremlin of the South Island" and dismissing its qualified staff as "KGB green zealots" would be laughable were it not so dangerously revealing of his authoritarian instincts. His call to "disestablish regional councils" because they dare to apply existing environmental law represents nothing less than an assault on New Zealand's democratic institutions. This is the language of a man who views legitimate democratic processes as obstacles to be eliminated rather than safeguards to be respected.

On Friday, the ODT reported:

 

‘Kremlin’ councils need to go: Jones

Resource Minister Shane Jones has called the Otago Regional Council "the Kremlin of the South Island" after an application to expand the Macraes gold mine ran into trouble.

Mr Jones, who is also the regional development minister, said the council was full of "KGB green zealots" and the episode showed why regional councils needed to be scrapped.

The Otago council’s assessment of environmental effects — which recommended Oceana-Gold’s application to expand its mine be declined in full — was "ideological scribbling".

Any other investor or miner in New Zealand would now quickly conclude they had to join the fast-track application process, "which will enable these economic saboteurs to be marginalised", he said.

 

The parallels to historical fascism are unmistakable. Like the dictators of the 1930s who railed against "enemies of the people" and "saboteurs," Jones employs inflammatory language to delegitimise any institution that challenges his pro-drill agenda. His dismissal of evidence-based environmental assessments as "ideological scribbling" echoes the fascist contempt for expertise and scientific inquiry that characterised regimes which prioritised ideology over evidence. 

When Jones describes regional councillors as "Politburo apparatchiks," he reveals his own authoritarian mindset, anyone who disagrees with his vision for environmental destruction must be part of some sinister conspiracy rather than public servants just doing their legally mandated jobs.

What makes Jones' extremism particularly troubling is the financial corruption that underpins it. The Resources Minister's relationships with mining companies extend far beyond policy alignment into the murky waters of financial influence. Analysis of political donation records reveals a staggering pattern of corporate capture that would make even the most cynical observer blush.

NZ First received at least $121,680 from donors linked to fast-track projects in 2024 alone, with Jones personally benefiting from quarry company J Swap in August 2023, the same company that subsequently donated $11,000 to NZ First and applied for fast-track approval. AJR Finance, connected to quarrying interests, contributed a massive $55,000 to NZ First. These figures represent just the tip of the iceberg in a system where corporate donors are literally buying policy outcomes.


Last year, RNZ reported:

Quarry company J Swap's fast track plea after donations to Shane Jones and NZ First

A NZ First donor wants Fast Track legislation to free up permanently protected land for quarrying.

J Swap, a company involved in quarrying, wants land protected under QEII covenants to be available to quarry. It donated $11,000 to NZ First in December, after the coalition was formed.

It also gave $5000 to NZ First's Shane Jones in August 2023 and $3000 to National's David MacLeod in September 2023.

The proposed Fast Track legislation is touted as a "one-stop shop" for approving infrastructure projects. It would sit over a range of existing acts and regulations and would mean an application would only need to go through one process for approval instead of several consents under the existing system.

Jones' undeclared dinners with mining company representatives, arranged by his own staff, demonstrate a level of impropriety that would have seen ministers resign in shame during more principled eras. That he refuses to answer questions about these meetings whilst simultaneously pushing legislation that directly benefits his dinner companions represents corruption in its most brazen form.

The Minister's attacks on environmental groups further reveal his authoritarian tendencies. His vitriolic campaigns against Greenpeace and the Green Party are not merely political rhetoric but systematic attempts to delegitimise opposition voices. When Jones declares that environmental organisations are "economic saboteurs," he employs the classic fascist tactic of painting political opponents as traitors to the nation. This is the language of autocrats who cannot tolerate dissent.

His promise that fast-track legislation will "enable these economic saboteurs to be marginalised" is perhaps the most revealing statement of all. Here, Jones explicitly acknowledges that his legislative agenda is designed not to improve environmental processes but to eliminate environmental opposition entirely. This is not governance; it is the systematic dismantling of democratic accountability.

The implications extend far beyond mining policy. If Jones succeeds in eliminating regional councils, institutions that employ thousands of professionals and manage critical functions, he will have destroyed a fundamental layer of New Zealand's democratic architecture. These councils don't just assess mining applications; they manage flood protection, biosecurity, civil defence, and public transport. Their elimination would represent the largest centralisation of power in New Zealand's modern history.

Regional councillor Alexa Forbes correctly identified Jones' rhetoric as undermining confidence in both central and local government. When ministers attack the institutions they're supposed to work with, they erode the very foundations of democratic governance. This is precisely how democratic backsliding occurs, not through military coups but through the gradual erosion of institutional safeguards by those entrusted to protect them.

Jones' vision of New Zealand is one where corporate donors write policy, environmental laws are ignored, and democratic institutions are eliminated if they prove inconvenient. His $3 billion mining export target comes with a hidden cost: the transformation of New Zealand into a corporate playground where profit trumps the environment and democracy becomes an obstacle to be overcome.

The tragedy is that this assault on our democratic institutions is being conducted by a minister whose own party received just 6.08% of the vote in 2023. Through the accidents of coalition politics, a fringe politician bankrolled by mining interests now wields the power to reshape New Zealand's governance structures according to his authoritarian vision.

History teaches us that democracy's greatest threats often come not from external enemies but from those within who promise prosperity whilst dismantling the institutions that protect the Kiwi way of life. Shane Jones embodies this threat, and his agenda must be recognised for what it truly is: not economic development but undemocratic destruction, funded by corporate interests and executed through authoritarian rhetoric that would make history's dictators proud.

Government Doesn't Care About the Nelson-Tasman Flooding

New Zealand’s weather is turning rogue, and the National-led government seems content to sit on its hands. The recent flooding in the Tasman District, which claimed one life and left homes, businesses, and livelihoods underwater, is yet another stark reminder of the escalating climate crisis.

This deluge, described by locals as unprecedented, saw the Motueka River breach its banks and State Highway 6 close due to slips and flooding. The government’s response, or lack thereof, betrays a disturbing indifference to the growing frequency and severity of such extreme weather events, driven by climate change.

As New Zealand grapples with an ever-wetter, wilder weather pattern, the coalition’s inaction on flood resilience, emissions reduction, and basic preparedness is nothing short of reckless.

On Friday, 1 News reported:

'Heartbreaking': Flooding turns Tasman farm into 'raging creek'

A farm owner in Tasman says severe weather which has "smashed" her farm overnight is "heartbreaking" for her business.

A state of emergency in place for part of Marlborough, as well as Nelson and Tasman as heavy rain batters the regions. Marlborough District Council has asked residents to avoid all travel unless absolutely necessary.

Wild Oats farm owner Kirsty Lalich told 1News it wasn't the first time her farm on Pretty Bridge Rd had experienced flooding, but said she'd "never, ever seen it like this".

The Tasman floods are not an isolated incident. NIWA’s updated storm rainfall profiles and Nelson City Council’s flood modelling show that climate change is amplifying the intensity and frequency of extreme weather. Since 2018, New Zealand has seen over 30 local states of emergency due to flooding, more than double the number from the previous five years. 

The 2022 Nelson floods were a warning. However, here we are, three years later, with the same region battered again and the new government dragging its feet. Climate change is no longer a distant threat; it’s hammering our communities now, and the National-led coalition seems wilfully blind to the urgency.

Emergency Management Minister Mark Mitchell’s response was emblematic of this apathy. On May 26, 2025, Nelson Mayor Nick Smith, who declared a local state of emergency alongside Tasman District Council, spoke with Mitchell about the escalating crisis. Mitchell downplayed the event, stating the threshold for a national state of emergency hadn’t been met and that the storm would likely pass. Tell that to the family of the person killed while clearing flood damage. 

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

 

Person dies near Nelson after being hit by tree while clearing floodwaters

A person has died after being hit by a tree while clearing floodwaters near Nelson.

Acting Nelson Bays area commander Senior Sergeant Martin Tunley said the incident happened at Wai-iti, southeast of Wakefield, this morning.

“Around 9.40am, emergency services were called to a property on State Highway 6 after a person was reportedly hit by a tree while clearing flood damage.”

Despite efforts by emergency services, the person died at the scene, Tunley said.

 

Mitchell’s dismissive stance, coupled with his absence from meaningful action, underscores a government more interested in optics rather than saving lives. A national declaration could have unlocked critical resources, but instead, locals were left to fend for themselves.

Associate Transport Minister James Meager’s silence is equally damning. When approached by media about the flooding and repeated calls for a Nelson weather radar, Meager didn’t even bother to comment. This radar, which could provide precise, real-time data to predict severe storms, has been a priority for Nelson and Tasman councils since 2010. MetService has acknowledged its value but noted it lacks Crown funding, a decision that rests with the government. 

The public, caught off-guard by the storm’s ferocity, had little warning due to reliance on Wellington’s distant radar, which is obstructed by terrain. This failure to invest in basic forecasting infrastructure is a direct betrayal of communities facing increasingly volatile weather.

Worse still, the National-led government has slashed funding critical to flood resilience. In Budget 2024, it returned $3.2 billion of the $6 billion National Resilience Plan, established in 2023 to bolster infrastructure against extreme weather. This gutting of funds, intended for medium and long-term projects, leaves regions like Nelson Tasman vulnerable. 

The coalition’s broader climate record is equally dismal: it has watered down emissions reduction targets, scrapped the Clean Car Discount, and prioritised fossil fuel interests over renewable energy. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s government seems to view climate adaptation as an inconvenience rather than a necessity.

The Nelson Tasman floods are a clarion call. New Zealanders deserve a government that takes climate change seriously, through robust emissions cuts, investment in forecasting tools like the Nelson radar, and restored funding for resilience projects. 

Instead, we’re left with a coalition that downplays disasters, ignores media, and leaves communities to drown. The tragedy in Wai-iti and the chaos in Nelson Tasman region demand accountability. It’s time for the government to wake up before the next deluge washes away more lives and livelihoods.

Why are Western Leaders Complicit in the Gaza Genocide?

The ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has exposed the profound moral bankruptcy of Western diplomacy, revealing how economic interests and geopolitical calculations have trumped basic human decency.

With over 70,000 Palestinians officially dead, 59.1% of them women, children and elderly, NATO nations have demonstrated a stunning inability to deploy the same diplomatic pressure and sanctions they readily apply to other conflicts. The statistics are staggering: 44% of all victims are children, with the youngest being a day-old boy.

NATO's response to the Gaza crisis stands in stark contrast to its swift action against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. Within days of Russia's aggression, Western nations implemented comprehensive sanctions, froze assets, and coordinated unprecedented diplomatic pressure. Yet when it comes to Israel's disproportionate response in Gaza, these same mechanisms mysteriously evaporate.

On Thursday, Al Jazeera reported:

 

EU calls for Gaza ceasefire, stops short of taking action against Israel

Irish leader Michael Martin decries Europe’s inability to pressure Israel to stop ‘continuing slaughter of children’.

European Union leaders meeting in Brussels have condemned the “catastrophic humanitarian situation” in Gaza, but were unable to unite on means of pressuring Israel to end the war.

Thursday’s summit noted a report issued last week by the bloc’s diplomatic service, which found that Israel was likely flouting human rights obligations under the EU-Israel Association agreement. Yet, the bloc stopped short of acting on the assessment or ditching the 25-year-old accord.

 

The hypocrisy is glaring. Where are the targeted sanctions against Israeli officials? Where is the coordinated diplomatic pressure? Apart from some token restrictions, the silence is deafening, and it speaks volumes about the selective application of international law when it conflicts with Western strategic interests.

Even more damning is the systematic targeting of starving Palestinians seeking basic humanitarian aid. According to the UN Human Rights Office, over 410 Palestinians have been killed in recent weeks while attempting to collect food aid, with at least 93 others killed by Israeli forces while approaching UN and humanitarian convoys. 

In a single incident last week, Israeli tanks killed 59 people and wounded 221 others who were desperately seeking food supplies. The UN reports that more than 3,000 Palestinians have been injured in these attacks on aid seekers. Israeli soldiers, who have reportedly been ordered to open fire, have used bullets, tank shells, and drone-mounted weapons against unarmed civilians whose only crime was attempting to feed their families in a deliberately starved territory.


On Friday, the Intercept reported:

Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month

The Israeli military has killed at least 410 people trying to get food at Israeli-run aid sites in Gaza in the past month.

This constitutes “a likely war crime” that violates international standards on aid distribution, according to the United Nations. “Desperate, hungry people in Gaza continue to face the inhumane choice of either starving to death or risk being killed while trying to get food,” the U.N. human rights office said. Palestinian health authorities reported that Israel killed 44 people waiting for aid in separate incidents in southern and central Gaza just on Tuesday this week. Israeli soldiers have reportedly killed aid-seekers with bullets, tank shells, and drone-mounted weapons.

Israeli officers and soldiers said that they were ordered to deliberately fire at unarmed civilians waiting for humanitarian aid in an investigation published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Friday; the military prosecution has called for a review into possible war crimes.

The reluctance to act becomes clearer when examining the financial beneficiaries of this tragedy. The United States remains Israel's largest arms supplier, accounting for 69% of major weapons imports, continuing to benefit from the $6.3 billion NZD annual military aid package. Germany emerges as the second-largest supplier, while Italy ranks third among Israel's top armaments providers. 

The United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Australia also provide critical military components and weapons systems, with EU states collectively authorising almost $12 billion in export licences to Israel between 2014-2022. The Netherlands supplies crucial aircraft components, while Canada authorised $47 million in new military exports even after pledging to halt arms sales. 

This web of complicity creates a perverse incentive structure where prolonged conflicts translate to increased profits across the Western military-industrial complex. These economic entanglements goes some way to explain the tepid responses from many Western politicians about the numerous war crimes Israel is committing. When your domestic industries profit from conflict, genuine peace-making becomes an economic liability rather than a moral imperative.

Perhaps most embarrassing has been NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's recent performance during the latest NATO summit. Rutte's obsequious behaviour, described by observers as "arse-kissing of the highest order", reached new lows when he appeared to defer to Trump's volatile positions on Middle East policy.


On Thursday, RNZ reported:

NATO's Trump flattery buys time but dodges tough questions

Lavishing praise, playing the royal card and copying his slogans - NATO pulled out all the stops to keep Donald Trump happy and hold the alliance together at a summit in The Hague.

The plan came off, although it largely avoided tough topics of vital importance to NATO such as the war in Ukraine, Russia strategy and a likely drawdown of US troops in Europe.

...

Rutte gushed with compliments in a message to Trump, made public by the US president as he flew to The Hague.

"You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done," the former Dutch prime minister said in his message, putting some of his words in capitals like Trump.

"Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win."

Right before the summit, in another sign of chumminess with Trump, Rutte reacted to the US president's comments berating Iran and Israel by saying that "daddy has to sometimes use strong language".

This diplomatic genuflection demonstrates how Western leaders prioritise personal relationships and strategic partnerships over principled stands on human rights. The spectacle of NATO's chief diplomat pandering to a leader known for his erratic foreign policy positions that have cost the world dearly undermines any pretence of principled international leadership. 

When your primary military alliance becomes a vehicle for personal diplomacy rather than collective security based on shared values, the entire framework of institutions such as NATO loses credibility.

Then there's Trump's pre-election promises regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files, which remain conspicuously unfulfilled. His repeated campaign pledges to release these documents have evaporated into silence, raising uncomfortable questions about what compromising material might implicate powerful figures across the Western political establishment. 

With his verified links to Israel's secret service, Mossad, already released document's show Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile network's reach extended deep into political, financial, and intelligence circles, creating webs of potential leverage that transcend national and diplomatic boundaries. 

When leaders find themselves constrained by hidden vulnerabilities, their capacity for principled decision-making becomes severely compromised. This dynamic may help explain why so many Western leaders, including those who campaigned on transparency and moral leadership, have displayed such curious paralysis when confronted with clear moral imperatives like preventing mass civilian casualties and a genocide in Gaza.



This pattern of compromise and control offers another lens through which to examine Western inaction over Gaza. Beyond the obvious financial incentives, arms sales, defence contracts, and strategic partnerships, lies the possibility that key decision-makers are constrained by factors far more personal and damaging than mere economic considerations. When leaders fear exposure of their darkest secrets, principled stands on genocide become secondary to self-preservation. The systematic nature of Western diplomatic failure suggests coordination born not just of shared interests, but potentially shared vulnerabilities.

The convergence of financial profit and personal compromise creates a perfect storm of moral cowardice. Western leaders who should be leading international condemnation of Israel's actions instead find themselves bound by self preservation and bonds of complicity, both economic and personal. 

Until these hidden influences are exposed and confronted, the selective application of international law will continue to make a mockery of Western claims to moral leadership. The Palestinian people deserve better than leaders whose silence may be purchased with both money and blackmail.

Peter Thiel is Building an AI Driven Mass Surveillance State

Make no mistake: the United States is constructing the most comprehensive civilian surveillance apparatus in human history. And they're not even trying to hide it anymore. 

Under the Trump administration's enthusiastic blessing, tech behemoth Palantir Technologies is weaving together the digital breadcrumbs of every American citizen into a single, all-seeing artificial intelligence system that would make Orwell's 1984 look quaint. Big Brother is no longer just watching. He's predicting, profiling, and pre-emptively punishing.

The latest bombshell? Palantir secured more than $113 million in federal contracts since Trump took office, including sweetheart deals that hand over the most intimate details of American lives to Peter Thiel's surveillance empire. We're not talking about collecting metadata here, we're talking about real-time behavioural analysis of every citizen, powered by AI that doesn't just watch but makes judgements about who deserves scrutiny.

 

Yesterday, The Economic Times reported:

Palantir Under Siege: Protesters rage over surveillance, ICE links in NYC office blockade

Palantir Technologies was confronted with furious protests on Thursday, as protesters were angry with the data analytics firm for its contracts with US immigration officials and the Israeli defense forces to reportedly build surveillance systems, as per a report.

Palantir Faces Protests Over ICE and Israeli Military Ties
The protests against Palantir were organised by the campaign group Planet Over Profit, with help from a coalition of local groups including Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), Bay Resistance, and the immigration rights group Mijente, as reported by the Independent.

...

Company’s History
The data analytics company was founded in 2003, backed by arch-conservative Peter Thiel and the CIA, the firm sells data-crunching services to companies, government agencies, intelligence services, and militaries, according to the report.

Palantir had first started working with ICE under former US president Barack Obama's administration, and is now reportedly helping the Trump administration to build a comprehensive surveillance system that gathers data from many government departments, and is allegedly working even with the Israel Defense Forces, as per the Independent report.

The crown jewel of this digital dystopia is Palantir's Gotham software, previously reserved for hunting terrorists abroad but now trained on American citizens at home, particularly noteworthy given the illegal ICE abductions. This AI-powered beast doesn't just collect data, it makes judgements, identifying "anomalies and patterns indicative of illegal activities or security threats." "Anomalies"? What a delightfully vague term for anything the algorithm decides doesn't fit its narrow definition of normal behaviour.

This isn't some far-off sci-fi nightmare. Immigration and Customs Enforcement records show Palantir recently received a $30 million contract to build a platform to track migrant movements in real time. Today it's migrants; tomorrow it's anyone who questions the government's increasingly authoritarian reach. The infrastructure for total surveillance is being built brick by digital brick, and most people are blissfully unaware of the implications.

But here's where it gets truly sinister: Palantir isn't content with just spying on people. They're throwing $100 million at marrying artificial intelligence with nuclear technology through a strategic product partnership with The Nuclear Company to co-develop NOS, the first AI-powered, real-time software system designed specifically for nuclear construction. What could possibly go wrong when you combine mass surveillance capabilities with atomic infrastructure?

The terrifying reality is that this AI-driven surveillance state represents the weaponisation of technology against the very people it's supposed to serve. Palantir, co-founded by Trump ally billionaire Peter Thiel, who was controversially granted New Zealand citizenship under John Key's government, offers data-analyzing software that uses AI to pull information from a multitude of sources and compiles it into charts, tables and heat maps. Your tax records, social security information, immigration status, online activity, all fed into an algorithmic maw that assigns you a threat score without you ever knowing why.

The most chilling aspect isn't just the surveillance...it's the propaganda potential. Once you have this level of granular data about every citizen, targeted disinformation campaigns become trivially easy. Know someone's worried about their job? Feed them anti-immigrant content. Concerned about healthcare costs? Here's some carefully crafted misinformation about government spending. The same AI systems monitoring your behaviour can manipulate it, creating feedback loops of radicalisation and control.

Even some Trump supporters are waking up to the horror they've unleashed. "I voted for Trump but this is just unacceptable," wrote one MAGA supporter, finally recognising that authoritarian tools don't discriminate based on political affiliation once they're built.

What we're witnessing is the methodical construction of a technological police state where artificial intelligence serves as judge, jury, and executioner of social acceptability. The algorithms don't just collect data, they make decisions about who gets flagged, investigated, harassed, or worse. And once this infrastructure is complete, rolling it back will be virtually impossible.


Meanwhile, back home, Newsroom revealed this week:

Big tech wants Luxon to turn NZ into ‘sandbox’

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford changed New Zealand’s ‘golden visa’ settings in April, creating a more streamlined pathway for those with enough cash to be considered an “active investor”.

As of June 23, Stanford said 100 applications had been approved in principle out of 189 in total. Seven had completed the process and invested funds in New Zealand in exchange for a residence visa, bringing a total of $45m into the country.

Some of these applications, as Stanford previously described them, came from the tech moguls behind “very big, well-known companies that you would probably use everyday”.

New Zealand has already accepted several of this cohort as residents or citizens, including Google co-founder Larry Page and Palantir co-founder and Donald Trump ally Peter Thiel.

Alvarez thought the benefits of attracting these sorts of companies outweighed the risks, as long as there were guardrails in place to protect data privacy, indigenous knowledge and health outcomes, among other sensitive areas.

The United States is pioneering a new form of totalitarianism: one where the oppression is algorithmic, the surveillance is total, and the control is absolute. And here's the kicker for Kiwis: Peter Thiel, Palantir's co-founder and Trump's billionaire mate, already holds New Zealand citizenship.

With the Luxon government actively courting overseas tech investors to use New Zealand as a regulatory "sandbox," we're potentially one handshake away from becoming Palantir's (with an office already right in the middle of Wellington City) testing ground for their next-generation of surveillance tools. When Silicon Valley's surveillance kings are literally NZ citizens, the dystopian future isn't across the Pacific, it's already walking through our front door.

New Zealand needs to wake up before we become the guinea pigs in Silicon Valley's next surveillance experiment. Because once you build the digital panopticon, everyone becomes a prisoner, even those who thought they were the guards.

Butter Economics: The Great Kiwi Rip-Off Exposed

The dairy industry's spin machine has been working overtime lately, desperately trying to convince New Zealanders that paying through the nose for butter is somehow good for us.

Media personalities like Ryan Bridge and industry apologists such as Dr Jacqueline Rowarth have been peddling this economic fairy tale with all the enthusiasm of a Fonterra shareholder.

Their argument essentially boils down to this: high butter prices mean more export revenue, which creates jobs and drives economic growth. Bridge claims that because New Zealand exports 441 tonnes of butter compared to Australia's 9.4 tonnes, we're simply "more susceptible to international market prices."

Meanwhile, Rowarth touts the magical multiplier effect, claiming every dairy dollar generates seven times its value in the economy and creates over eight full-time equivalent positions. 

But scratch beneath the surface of these cherry-picked statistics, and you'll find an economic model that's fundamentally broken for ordinary New Zealanders.
 

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Dairy exports vital for NZ economy despite butter price concerns: Dr Jacqueline Rowarth

A considerable amount of time and energy is spent marketing and positioning to achieve the best price possible for the product.

The money keeps people in employment, funds repairs, maintenance and infrastructure development, and also funds research into new products.

The bulk of the export income goes to the dairy farmers so that they, too, can employ people and create vibrant businesses, while also funding farm research through their levy contribution to industry good bodies such as DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb NZ.

The most damning evidence against the "high prices are good" narrative is the stark reality of food insecurity, a travesty in a country that produces enough food to feed 40 million people. 

Research shows that economic changes since the 1980s, combined with global dairy demand, have created an environment where a significant proportion of New Zealanders now experience financial difficulty purchasing basic dairy products like milk. 

When butter prices surge 65.3% in twelve months, jumping from $4.48 to $6.67 for a 500-gram block, we're witnessing the export success model pricing out locals from their own food production.

 

The income streams give everybody more choice, including the Government through tax-take investment.

Every dairy dollar created by New Zealand cows and sold offshore generates over seven times the value in New Zealand and increases employment by over eight Full Time Equivalent positions.

The $27 billion in export dollars is $5400 for every New Zealander, which multiplied by seven is almost $40,000.

The claimed seven-times multiplier effect that Rowarth champions lacks any credible verification and sounds like more trickle down economics rubbish! If dairy's $18.6 billion export value truly generated seven times its worth, it would represent over 35% of New Zealand's GDP. It obviously doesn't. In reality, dairy represents 5.3% of nominal GDP and 23% of total export values, which is somewhat impressive, but hardly the economic miracle being portrayed.

What Bridge and Rowarth conveniently ignore is the regressive nature of high food prices. A 65% butter price increase represents a devastating blow to lower-income households who spend a higher percentage of their income on food. We're essentially witnessing a wealth transfer from consumers, often those who can least afford it, to dairy industry stakeholders and shareholders.


Last month, Newztalk ZB reported:

Ryan Bridge: Why expensive butter prices are actually a good thing

1) We export a hell of a lot more to the world than the Aussies do.

In 2023, they exported 9.4 tonnes. We exported 441 tonnes. They exported 2% of the quantity we did.

That means our price is more susceptible to the international market price. We export most of our butter, we pay the international price.

Australia on the other hand, eats a lot more of its own and exports less.

This is good and bad. It mean we pay the trade price, yes, but it also means when the price is high, as it has been lately, our largest company Fonterra does well. Our farmers do well. They spend money here and drive growth in our economy which we all benefit from.

The environmental costs of this export-obsessed model are equally damning and largely subsidised by the public. Since 1990, nitrogen fertiliser use, often sourced from questionable providers, has increased by 629%, from 62,000 to 452,000 tonnes annually. The result? Two-thirds of monitored rivers and streams now suffer from impaired ecological health. About 85% of waterways in farming catchments are now polluted, with some areas seeing sensitive species disappearing entirely because of pollution from dairy farms.

The true cost of producing a litre of milk can reach up to 11,000 litres of water when accounting for nitrate pollution impacts. Meanwhile, 40% of New Zealanders rely on groundwater for drinking water, with nitrate contamination worsening in many aquifers. These environmental and health costs, from water treatment to ecosystem restoration to cancer treatments (consumption of nitrate in drinking water is associated with several cancers), are borne by New Zealand taxpayers, not the dairy industry.

The employment argument also falls apart under scrutiny when we consider opportunity costs. Could the same land, capital, and labour create more jobs or higher wages in other sectors? The industry presents their employment figures without comparative analysis, ignoring what economists call the "opportunity cost" of resources tied up in dairy production.

How do we stage an intervention? Someone posted today that NZ butter is as low as $3 in some paces in Australia. Can we organise a butter protest? 😅😭 pic.twitter.com/S5ehKVsTrc

— Don't be a dick 🐦 (@fizzanddumpling) April 28, 2025

Perhaps most galling is the disconnect between domestic and export markets. While New Zealand dairy products command premium prices internationally for being "grass-fed" and "sustainable," Kiwi families are forced to pay international prices for locally produced essentials. This suggests fundamental market failure where domestic consumers subsidise export profits.

The reality is that the dairy industry's argument represents a classic case of privatising profits while socialising costs. Export success benefits shareholders and industry stakeholders while ordinary New Zealanders face food insecurity and environmental degradation. A truly beneficial economic model would balance export success with domestic affordability, ensuring New Zealanders aren't priced out of their own country's food production.

Bridge's comparison with Australian gas contracts is particularly revealing, acknowledging that producers often prioritise large international contracts over domestic needs. This isn't a bug in the system; it's a feature. The question is whether New Zealand's economic model should prioritise export revenue over the basic nutritional needs of its own citizens.

The dairy industry's propaganda machine wants us to believe that expensive butter is a sign of economic success. In reality, it's a symptom of an economic model that has lost sight of its primary purpose: serving the people of New Zealand, not just the balance sheets of multinational corporations.

National's Housing Hypocrisy: New Zealand Pays the Price

While Christopher Luxon's National-led government has been busy patting themselves on the back for delivering a whopping 25 state houses in Rotorua that apparently employed 300 people, they've quietly gone and axed another 76 desperately needed state house builds in Porirua East. Because nothing says "caring about ordinary Kiwis" like cancelling homes in one of the country's most housing-stressed areas.

The decision to cancel these developments in Porirua East represents a fundamental failure to understand the housing crisis facing New Zealand. Porirua has consistently recorded some of the highest rates of housing stress in the Wellington region, with families forced into overcrowded conditions or makeshift arrangements. The cancelled developments would have provided essential relief for dozens of families currently on Kāinga Ora's extensive waiting list, families who now face an indefinite wait for secure housing.

Today, The Post reported:

Porirua East social housing developments axed in Kāinga Ora review

More than 70 new planned social houses in Porirua’s eastern suburbs have been cancelled by a Kāinga Ora review, with the local MP calling it the wrong decision.

The 76 homes across three developments are located in Cannons Creek, on Castor Cres, Matahourua Cres, Hazard Gr and Bellona Place. Out of the affected houses, 22 are single-bedroom, 36 are two-bedroom, 13 have three bedrooms, two are four-bedroom houses and three houses have five bedrooms.

What makes this decision particularly galling is the government's simultaneous celebration of a 25-home development in Rotorua. The NZ Herald dutifully reported that these 25 homes employed 300 people during construction – a figure that works out to 12 workers per house. This is either the most labour-intensive construction project in human history, or it's statistical manipulation designed to generate positive headlines for a government desperately trying to appear competent on housing.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

On The Up: 25 new Kāinga Ora homes ready for Rotorua families

The first stage of a Kāinga Ora housing development in Ōwhata is about to see 25 new homes become available for Rotorua people in emergency and transitional housing.

The development is being praised as a success after employing about 300 tradespeople since October 2023 - a majority of them from Rotorua.

...

Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell said there was no doubt there was a significant housing need in Rotorua.

“There’s also a need to prioritise local contractors as much as possible, and it’s great this has been recognised through this housing project.”

She said Penny Homes had an excellent reputation and was local to the region, so it was appreciated that Rotorua trades and suppliers were used.

“We’re seeing a record amount of housing options being consented and built in Rotorua, including retirement villages, iwi housing developments, and rural lifestyle blocks.”

The number of building consents have steadily declined since National came to power, making Tania Tapsell either deluded or an outright liar! Tapsell was in fact a strong supporter of closing down Rotorua's emergency housing, and has now gone into damage control as the numbers of homeless people in her region increases.

NZ building consents for new dwellings have declined by 16.3% annually since the October 2023 general election.

Jobs in the construction sector are also down 5.3% annually since the @NZNationalParty came to power. #nzpol pic.twitter.com/X4kDx6KtB9

— Jackal (@Jackalblog) May 18, 2025

Using the NZ Herald's own inflated employment calculations, the 76 cancelled Porirua homes could have created approximately 840 construction jobs. That's 840 jobs eliminated in the name of fiscal responsibility, alongside the 76 families who will remain homeless. But this government has proven remarkably adept at finding money for corporate tax cuts while claiming poverty when it comes to housing the most vulnerable.

The Porirua cancellation forms part of a much larger pattern of deliberate housing reduction. Kāinga Ora has scrapped 212 projects nationwide, eliminating 3,479 homes that were planned to address New Zealand's housing shortage. Each cancelled home represents a family that will remain in housing stress, a family that this government has chosen to abandon in pursuit of their neoliberal agenda.

Well, we did it. Despite driving tens of thousands of surplus kiwi workers abroad, we've still increased unemployment by more than any other country in the OECD.
If you think unemployment was 'too low' in the 2020 - 2023 period (ghoul), the next graph might work better for you. pic.twitter.com/1LhdQHmDfo

— Musical Chairs (@MusicalChairs14) December 22, 2024

Simultaneously, the government has moved aggressively to reduce emergency housing provisions, effectively creating a pincer movement that traps families between cancelled permanent housing and eliminated temporary accommodation. The result is predictable: families are being pushed directly into homelessness because they cannot afford the high costs associated with private rentals. Housing providers have warned that the governments approach will create a significant increase in rough sleeping and family homelessness, but the government appears unconcerned about these terrible consequences of their uncaring policy decisions.

The economic logic of this approach is fundamentally flawed. Those 76 Porirua homes would have provided permanent housing solutions for decades, eliminating the ongoing costs of temporary accommodation and the social services required to support homeless families. Instead, the government has chosen a path that will generate higher long-term costs while inflicting maximum harm on vulnerable families.

Research from the University of Otago estimated in 2016 that keeping someone homeless costs the government $65,000 annually through mental health services, police costs, and emergency interventions. Adjusting for inflation and current service costs, this figure likely exceeds $85,000 per person today. With over 112,000 people experiencing severe housing deprivation, the government is choosing to perpetuate a system that costs billions annually rather than invest in permanent housing solutions that would cost a fraction of that amount over time.

 

In 2016, The ODT reported:

Homeless 'costing $65,000 each'

Each person living on the street in New Zealand cost the Government around $65,000 a year, an inquiry into homelessness has heard.

Getting them off the streets and into secure housing could cost as little as $15,000, a University of Otago housing research organisation said.

Many mainstream media outlets have failed to cover this housing mismanagement properly. The NZ Herald's breathless reporting on the Rotorua development, complete with uncritical repetition of employment figures and government talking points, demonstrates a failure of basic journalistic scrutiny. Where is the analysis of these employment claims? Where is the context about the thousands of cancelled homes? This isn't journalism; it's stenography for a government that needs to be challenged and held to account.

The cancellation of essential housing while celebrating token developments perfectly captures this government's approach to social policy. They manufacture small victories for media consumption while inflicting massive damage on at risk communities that need support. The 76 families who won't receive homes in Porirua East are not just statistics; they are New Zealanders who deserve better than a government that treats housing as a luxury rather than a fundamental necessity.

 

Last week, RNZ reported:

Kāinga Ora halts hundreds of housing developments, sells vacant land

State housing provider Kāinga Ora is halting hundreds of housing developments which would have delivered nearly 3500 homes, and selling a fifth of its vacant land.

The agency's chief executive Matt Crockett said on Thursday the "critical step" in its reset plan would see it write down up to $220 million.

Housing Minister Chris Bishop ordered Kāinga Ora to deliver a turnaround plan that would ensure financial sustainability.

Christopher Luxon and his incompetent ministers should be required to explain to every family on the social housing waiting list why their housing needs aren't as important as tax breaks for landlords and tax cuts for the wealthy. They should explain why thousands of construction jobs are less valuable than their commitment to austerity for the poor. Most importantly, they should explain why increasing homelessness is an acceptable price for their destructive political agenda that appears to only be concerned with propping up an overheated housing market and making the wealthy even richer.

New Zealand's housing crisis demands serious solutions, not public relations exercises disguised as policy. We deserve better than this calculated abandonment, and New Zealand deserves a government that prioritises housing families over maintaining a system that is continuously increasing inequality.

National's Fossil Fool Fiasco Betrays Climate Commitments

New Zealand’s National-led government has once again proven its reckless disregard for our planet and our international reputation by abandoning the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA), a commitment made in 2021 to phase out fossil fuel production.

This incredibly dumb decision, coupled with a $200 million fund to subsidise oil and gas exploration in Budget 2025, is a slap in the face to our climate obligations and a dangerous gamble with our trade relationships.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) explicitly warned the coalition of chaos about the legal and reputational risks, yet Ministers like the corrupted Shane Jones have ploughed ahead anyway, cozying up to fossil fuel barons while thumbing their noses at science and our global partners.

This isn't just incompetence...it’s a betrayal of New Zealand’s future just so a few politicians can line their and their oil baron mates' pockets.

Today, Newsroom reported:

 

NZ abandons international fossil fuel pledge

New Zealand’s departure from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance came quietly, but not as a surprise to anyone closely following the Government’s fossil fuel policies.

Resources Minister Shane Jones says the coalition’s fossil fuel plans meant the exit was inevitable. But he also says more formal agreements, like free trade deals with the EU, include wriggle room for matters of sovereign risk, such as national energy supply.

...

Legal advice later provided to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said repealing the 2018 ban on offshore oil and gas “would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand’s free trade agreements”.

The Green Party warned on Tuesday that, based on the assessment of an independent KC, the move breached another international commitment: the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability. This agreement was celebrated by Trade Minister Todd McClay last year as a “pioneering” endeavour.

On Tuesday afternoon, McClay responded to questions from Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick by doubling down on the nation’s commitment to its climate targets: “What it says about this Government is we will meet our international obligations. When we enter into them, we take them seriously.”

The following morning, New Zealand was found to have withdrawn from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance.

 

MFAT’s legal advice, as revealed in a Regulatory Impact Statement, was crystal clear: repealing the 2018 ban on offshore oil and gas exploration risks breaching trade agreements with the EU, UK, and the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) with Costa Rica, Iceland, and Switzerland. The $200 million fund, described by Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick as a “clear breach” of ACCTS, directly violates commitments to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

The government's own MFAT, hardly known for their green idealism, cautioned that this could also be seen as backsliding on our Paris Agreement obligations, potentially increasing New Zealand's emissions. Yet, the National-led government has ignored these warnings, prioritising short-term profits over long-term stability. Trade Minister Todd McClay’s feeble claim that New Zealand remains “compliant” with ACCTS is laughable when legal experts like Nura Taefi KC confirm the fund’s illegality under international law.

Shane Jones, the Resources Minister, is at the heart of this debacle, and his track record reeks of corruption and fossil fuel favoritism. Known for his “Make NZ Great Again” theatrics, Jones has a history of bending over backwards for industry mates. In 2019, as Forestry Minister, he was caught pushing for a $15 million bailout for West Coast logging firms, sidestepping due process.

"This is a declaration based on science."

New Zealand has declared a climate change emergency and committed to being carbon-neutral by 2050. pic.twitter.com/6rSEnD7e15

— DW News (@dwnews) December 2, 2020

The coalition of chaos is funnelling $200 million of taxpayer money to oil and gas companies, with $8 million alone for “administering” the fund, which smells distinctly like another slush fund for cronies. Shane Jones' dismissive quip that BOGA is a “women’s knitting group” reveals not just his contempt for climate action but his cozy relationship with Energy Resources Aotearoa, the oil and gas lobby that’s been begging for taxpayer-backed exploration since July 2024. Jones’s refusal to disclose conditions for the $200 million fund during parliamentary scrutiny further fuels suspicions of backroom deals.

The National and Act parties, meanwhile, are doubling down on climate denialism. National’s Simon Watts, Climate Change Minister, claimed in November 2024 that New Zealand could stay in BOGA while lifting the ban, an assertion contradicted by BOGA’s co-chair, Lars Aagaard, who warned of re-evaluation. Act’s David Seymour, ever the contrarian, has long scoffed at climate science, once calling emissions targets “symbolic nonsense.” Their policies reflect this: Budget 2025 slashed funding for renewable energy initiatives by 20%, while natural gas production is being propped up as a “transitional” fuel until 2070. This flies in the face of the International Energy Agency’s 2021 warning that no new fossil fuel projects are compatible with 1.5°C goals.

New Zealand’s climate resilience is crumbling under this government. Extreme weather events cost the economy $4.3 billion in 2023 alone, yet National and Act have cut climate adaptation funding by 15%, leaving communities vulnerable. Pacific Island nations, like Tuvalu, have slammed New Zealand’s fossil fuel pivot as a betrayal, risking our regional leadership. With 68% of Kiwis in a 2024 poll demanding stronger climate action, this government’s fossil fuel obsession is not just reckless...it’s undemocratic. The coalition of chaos is burning our future for a quick buck, and we're all going to pay the price.

Donald Trump’s Arms Push Betrays Global Needs

Donald Trump’s recent insistence that NATO countries increase military spending to 5% of their GDP is a reckless and self-serving manoeuvre that prioritises warmongering over humanity’s pressing needs. This demand, rooted in Trump’s cosy ties with American weapons manufacturers, threatens to divert trillions from critical global challenges like starvation and climate change.

In true Trump fashion, it’s a policy steeped in corruption and short-sightedness, with little regard for the broader consequences that increased militarisation causes.

In 2024, NATO’s 32 member states collectively spent $1.47 trillion on defence, representing 2.71% of their combined GDP. Trump’s proposed 5% target would push this to $2.71 trillion annually, nearly doubling current expenditure. For context, the war obsessed United States, NATO’s largest contributor, already accounts for $877 billion, or 3.38% of its GDP. Smaller nations within the NATO alliance would face crippling pressure to divert funds from social services to meet this arbitrary threshold.


Earlier this month, AP reported:

NATO is on the cusp of accepting Trump’s 5% defense investment demand, Rutte says

Most U.S. allies at NATO endorse President Donald Trump’s demand that they invest 5% of gross domestic product on their defense needs and are ready to ramp up security spending even more, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said Thursday.

“There’s broad support,” Rutte told reporters after chairing a meeting of NATO defense ministers at the alliance’s Brussels headquarters. “We are really close,” he said, and added that he has “total confidence that we will get there” by the next NATO summit in three weeks.

European allies and Canada have already been investing heavily in their armed forces, as well as on weapons and ammunition, since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

At the same time, some have balked at U.S. demands to invest 5% of GDP on defense — 3.5% on core military spending and 1.5% on the roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports needed to deploy armies more quickly.

What could $2.71 trillion achieve if redirected? The UN estimates that ending world hunger by 2030 requires $330 billion annually. That’s just 12% of Trump’s proposed NATO budget. Imagine the impact: 821 million people being fed, malnutrition eradicated, and communities stabilised and less likely to conduct resource based conflicts.

Instead, Trump’s plan would funnel billions into weapons systems, many produced by U.S. giants like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, companies with which he has troubling financial ties. During his first term, Trump’s administration approved $115 billion in arms sales, with Lockheed alone securing $83 billion in contracts. His stock holdings and campaign donations from defence contractors raise serious questions about whose interests he serves.

Climate change mitigation offers another stark contrast. The IPCC estimates that $1.6–3.8 trillion annually is needed to limit warming to 1.5°C IPCC, 2018. Trump’s $2.71 trillion could cover the upper end of this, funding renewable energy, reforestation, and adaptation for vulnerable nations. Instead, his policy would lock NATO into a cycle of militarisation, exacerbating global instability as climate-driven disasters rise. In 2023, 377 million people faced climate-related displacement. Diverting even half of Trump’s proposed spend could transform global resilience and save countless lives.

Education and diplomacy, cornerstones of peace, are similarly underfunded. UNESCO reports a $39 billion annual shortfall for universal education. Investing $2.71 trillion could not only close this gap but also fund diplomatic initiatives to de-escalate conflicts. NATO’s own data shows that 23 of its 32 members now meet the 2% GDP defence target, up from 10 in 2020. Forcing a jump to 5% risks alienating and destabilising smaller economies like Latvia or Estonia, where social services are already stretched.

Trump’s corruption taints this push for more military expenditure. His administration’s revolving door with defence contractors, evidenced by former Boeing executive Patrick Shanahan as Acting Defence Secretary, suggests a profiteering motive instead of concern over military capabilities. His properties reportedly earned millions from foreign governments during his presidency, raising conflict-of-interest concerns. This isn’t leadership; it’s a shakedown dressed as geopolitics.

New Zealand, a partner country through NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme, feels the ripple effects through its security partnerships. Increasing our $4.7 billion defence budget (2.2% of GDP) to 5% could instead fund the required 10,000 new teachers or 50,000 hospital beds Aotearoa desperatly needs. Globally, Trump’s plan undermines the cooperative spirit needed for peace. Diplomacy, not arms races, resolves conflicts. His NATO demand is a corrupt, dangerous distraction from humanity’s real priorities...ending starvation, climate change mitigation, and education deserve taxpayers' money, not Donald Trump's warmonger mates.

Is Trump Laying the Groundwork for U.S. Invasion of Iran?

The effectiveness of the United States’ recent military actions against Iran’s nuclear facilities have been cast into doubt by a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment, revealing that Iran may have relocated much of its enriched uranium stockpile, including approximately 400 kilograms of near-weapons-grade uranium, to undisclosed locations before U.S. bunker-busting bombs struck.

President Donald Trump’s assertions that these strikes completely "obliterated" Iran’s nuclear programme now appear very overstated, again exposing a troubling gap between his often childish rhetoric and reality.

This development may appear to undermine the Trump administration's credibility but it also gives the orange buffoon a reason to undertake another ground offensive in the Middle East. US propaganda about Iran not being allowed to develop a nuclear weapon evoked unsettling parallels with the prelude to the 2003 Iraq invasion and claims of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found, raising concerns that the United States is once again undertaking another war for control of the world's resources.

The similarities won't be lost on many US voters, who will hopefully realise that Donald Trump's propaganda is airily similar to that used by George W. Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq war, when the U.S. government justified invasion based on false claims of WMD's. Today, the narrative of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat, either through Trump propaganda or leaked intelligence reports, mirrors previous disinformation campaigns by the dishonest United States government.


Yesterday, 1 News reported:

 

US regime change record isn't great, would Trump do any better with Iran?

As President Donald Trump floats the idea of “regime change” in Tehran, previous US attempts to remake the Middle East by force over the decades offer stark warnings about the possibility of a deepening involvement in the Iran-Israeli conflict.

“If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???” Trump posted on his social media site over the weekend. The came after the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites but before that country retaliated by firing its own missiles at a US base in Qatar.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt yesterday insisted that Trump, who spent years railing against “forever wars” and pushing an “America first” world view, had not committed a political about-face.

“The president’s posture and our military posture has not changed,” she said, suggesting that a more aggressive approach might be necessary if Iran ”refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks".

Leavitt also suggested that a new government in Iran could come about after its people stage a revolt — not necessarily requiring direct US intervention.

The Trump administration has repeatedly heralded the strikes on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities as a decisive blow to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. However, the DIA assessment, as reported by sources familiar with the matter, indicates that the strikes failed to destroy core components of Iran’s nuclear programme, such as centrifuges and highly enriched uranium stocks, with damage largely confined to underground entranceways and above ground structures. The impact is estimated to set Iran’s programme back by mere months, not years.

Along with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General Rafael Grossi stating that there was no evidence Iran was actively pursuing weaponisation, and U.S. intelligence assessments concluding Tehran halted such efforts in 2003, the Trump administration’s rhetoric continues to frame Iran as a terrorist nation who is aggressively pushing towards developing an A bomb.

The Trump administration’s dismissal of the DIA leaks as “fake news” propagated by mainstream media outlets appears increasingly disingenuous, a calculated effort to deflect scrutiny from intelligence that contradicts its hawkish narrative, including a report from Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, stating Iran was not enriching uranium beyond 60% before the U.S. strikes. This saber-rattling clashes with Trump’s public anti-war posturing, designed to placate his MAGA base. Polls currently show 68% of Americans oppose further military engagement in the Middle East. Such contradictions expose Trump’s efforts to balance domestic support with aggressive foreign policy, risking escalation despite widespread public aversion to another Middle Eastern war.

Notwithstanding a United States ground invasion of Iran being a logistical nightmare and a geopolitical disaster, it remains a plausible scenario if public opinion can be sufficiently swayed by the administration’s unsubstantiated fear-mongering about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The administration’s marginalisation of experts and dissenters within its own ranks, reminiscent of the Bush administration’s pre-Iraq purges, suggests a dangerous willingness to ignore inconvenient truths in pursuit of political ends.

However, these leaks may even be strategically timed by US neoconservatives, designed to justify further escalation by highlighting the potential “failure” of surgical strikes. What we all need to keep in mind is that Iran’s preemptive relocation of uranium stockpiles indicates a safeguarding to avoid potential fallout as well as a defensive posture, not an aggressive push toward a bomb, yet this nuance is conspicuously absent from many world leaders' war propaganda rhetoric about Iran not being allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

 

Ground forces are key — but don't guarantee success

Airstrikes have never been enough on their own.

Take, for example, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him.

There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or US forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq.

A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war.

There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond.

The problem for Trump is that his administration’s high-profile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have only strengthened the Iranian people's resolve against the United States. They've also (conveniently for Israel and the United States) shifted global attention away from two pressing crises: the ongoing genocide in Gaza and their domestic unrest sparked by illegal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) abductions.

As Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza continues, killing over 55,700 Palestinians, mostly women and children, drawing international condemnation, the U.S.-led Iran operation has dominated headlines, effectively sidelining scrutiny of Washington’s complicity in the Gaza atrocities.

The ‘Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’ firing squad shoots heavily at starving Palestinians going to fetch aid at their fake distribution site pic.twitter.com/7px3KYsZxP

— Sarah Wilkinson (@swilkinsonbc) June 9, 2025

Trump’s push for allied nations to ramp up defence spending, framed as a necessity for global security, takes on a sinister hue in light of the Gaza devastation and his Iran gambit. With Gaza reduced to rubble and over 56,000 Palestinians killed directly by violence, alongside estimates of up to 186,000 total deaths including indirect losses from disease, malnutrition, and healthcare collapse. 800 more Palestinians have been murdered in recent days while trying to access food aid.

The U.S. appears to be laying the groundwork for further conflicts, potentially in Iran and beyond, to fatten the coffers of their military-industrial complex. By pressuring allies to bolster their arsenals, Trump ensures a steady flow of contracts for American defence giants, conveniently aligning with his administration’s hawkish posturing and the distraction from domestic failures.

Trump was facing a mounting backlash over ICE’s aggressive deportation raids, which have detained over 9,000 individuals in 2025 alone, triggering widespread protests and uprisings in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago, with communities decrying the humanitarian toll of family separations and detentions. The timing of the Iran strikes raises questions about whether this foreign policy spectacle is a deliberate distraction from both the moral stain of Gaza and the domestic turmoil threatening Trump’s political standing.

ICE agents caught on camera—brutally beating local gardener during arrest in Santa Ana.

Multiple reports of ICE raids "swarming" landscaping crews.

Even leaving lawnmowers running after grabbing men right off front lawns in the greater Los Angeles area.

Mayor Valerie Amezcua… pic.twitter.com/Yilx6F0PB5

— LongTime🤓FirstTime👨‍💻 (@LongTimeHistory) June 21, 2025

The administration’s criticism of the media further erodes its credibility. By branding critical reporting as the work of “low-level losers,” it seeks to undermine legitimate scrutiny, a tactic that feels rehearsed and hollow. This posturing distracts from the real issue: the risk of entangling the U.S. in another Middle East quagmire. For New Zealand the implications are significant. Our government’s alignment with Washington could draw us into supporting a conflict with very dubious justification.

The right-wing New zealand government must not be allowed to provide support for the United States' unending wars in the Middle East. This is especially noteworthy being that Trump’s recent admission that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu will have operatives “involved in the whole situation” regarding Iran’s nuclear sites lends credence to Tehran’s claims that the IAEA has been co-opted as an intelligence-gathering apparatus for Israel and the United States.

Iran’s decision to suspend IAEA inspections and withdraw from the NPT, widely condemned by Western powers, appears increasingly justified in light of this revelation. Such interference undermines the IAEA’s neutrality, fuelling Iran’s distrust and providing a pretext for its defensive posture, while exposing the U.S. and Israel’s coordinated efforts to provoke escalation under the guise of non-proliferation.

In conclusion, the DIA leaks expose the fragility of Trump’s claims about neutralising Iran’s nuclear programme, while the administration’s rhetoric and media attacks echo the dangerous prelude to invading Iraq. The U.S. appears poised to escalate a conflict that could destabilise the region and beyond. The pursuit of a ground invasion, predicated on unverified threats, demands rigorous scrutiny to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Piggy Muldoon Would Be Turning in His Grave

Back in the late 1970s, Robert Muldoon’s government made a big show of championing local control. The Local Government Amendment Act 1978, alongside other tweaks to existing legislature, handed councils a bit more wiggle room to make their own decisions. Think refined rating powers, streamlined boundaries, additional planning roles, increased resource management, and uniting councils for regional coordination.

Muldoon, ever the populist, promoted local autonomy as the key to communities sorting out their own patch. It was a politically smart move, being that the amendments ensured many white farmers, who already dominated councils, attained even more control over their local areas, which bolstered Muldoon's popularity.

However, Piggy's changes weren’t all that revolutionary; being more tinkering than transformative, but they gave councils enough rope to manage local roads, water, and planning without Wellington breathing down their necks. Fast-forward to 2025, and the current National-led coalition government under Christopher Luxon is trampling over that legacy with a bulldozer, while proving without a doubt that their campaign promises on decentralisation were completely false!

 

Yesterday, the Herald reported:

PM Christopher Luxon open to scrapping regional councils amid RMA reform

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says he wants to explore the possibility of scrapping New Zealand’s regional councils as the Government reforms the Resource Management Act.

NZ First minister Shane Jones told a local government forum last week his party does not see a compelling case for maintaining regional government.

Speaking to Newstalk ZB today from Belgium before the Nato leaders’ summit in The Hague, Luxon was asked whether he supported disestablishing regional councils.

“I have a personal view that I think that’s something that we can explore as part of that Resource Management Act legislation that Chris Bishop is driving through,” he responded.

Muldoon’s era, for all its faults, saw councils as partners in governance. Piggy's amendment's let councils tweak rates to fund local priorities and clarified united councils’ roles, giving locals a say in regional transport and civil defence matters. Contrast that with today’s coalition of chaos, which is itching to override council decisions and even muttering about scrapping regional councils altogether.

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown’s 2024 edict forcing councils to hold referendums on Māori wards or ditch them entirely shows Wellington’s contempt for local democracy. Talk of axing regional councils, which handle critical environmental and transport planning, isn't just another pig-headed decision, it’s anti-democratic and amounts to economic sabotage.

New Zealand Councils are already drowning in debt, and the coalition’s bullying makes things even worse. If regional councils face closure, who’s going to lend to a sinking ship? Banks and the Local Government Funding Agency will tighten the purse strings, leaving councils unable to fund infrastructure or services. They might not even be able to service the debt they already have.

Another light bulb flashing: doubtful that most territorial councils have the capacity to do what regional councils d0 in managing natural resources, supporting biodiversity, public transport, building climate resilience. Guess those aren’t govt priorities https://t.co/oubo3G9Kfu

— Helen Clark (@HelenClarkNZ) June 22, 2025

With spiralling infrastructure costs such as ageing water pipes bursting faster than budget forecasts can be revised upwards, councils are already on their financial knees. They can’t afford the chaos of more financial uncertainty...uncertainty that Chris Luxon's government is currently providing. 

National’s 2023 campaign was all about promising to empower communities to chart their own course. Yet here they are, bullying councils into submission with a centralist iron fist. From stripping councils of water management control through the Local Water Done Well framework, putting additional costs onto ratepayers, to overriding local housing intensification plans, National’s meddling in local matters is relentless.

They’ve also gutted council input on resource management by fast-tracking consents under the Fast-track Approvals Bill, sidelining local environmental protections. Transport’s another casualty, councils face slashed funding unless they ditch cycle-ways and bow to Wellington’s car-centric priorities. And let’s not forget the Māori wards fiasco, where Minister Simeon Brown’s 2024 decree demanded referendums or outright abolition, trampling councils’ rights to decide their own governance. This isn’t decentralisation; it’s dictatorship masquerading as reform, and local democracy’s paying the price.

Muldoon must be turning in his grave at what Luxon's authoritarian government is doing. The 1970's National government, for all its right-wing tendencies, at least made some improvements to local control. Luxon’s crew, meanwhile, breaks election promises with gusto, risking council insolvency while threatening the livelihoods of democratically elected council members, many of whom were likely National Party supporters. If regional councils vanish, expect rates to skyrocket, services to crumble, and communities to lose their voice.

Is Chris Luxon the Dumbest Prime Minister Ever?

New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, has once again proven his knack for spouting utter drivel, this time with his brain-dead claim that the United States’ unprovoked and illegal bombing of Iran, cheered on by genocidal Israel, somehow opens a golden window for diplomatic “dialogue.” 

It’s the kind of statement that makes you wonder if Luxon’s been sniffing glue or just reading from a script penned by warmongers. Let’s unpack this steaming pile of nonsense and remind ourselves why this bloke’s leadership is a national and international embarrassment.

 

Today, The Post reported:

 

The US strike on Iran creates “opportunity” for dialogue, says Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

Luxon, speaking from a war memorial for New Zealand soldiers in Messines, Belgium days out from a Nato meeting, which US President Donald Trump is expected to attend, offered no direct criticism of the strikes.

“We do not want to see a nuclear armed Iran. But now there is an opportunity, as we look forward from these strikes to actually, get around and use diplomacy and dialogue and negotiation to actually get a political solution in place,” he said.

“Really it's about the future. It's really about what actions are going to be taken in the days and the weeks ahead to actually make sure that stability and security is returned.”

Luxon’s latest gem, reported in the wake of the US’s 22 June 2025 airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, suggests that blowing up a sovereign nation’s infrastructure is a cracking way to kickstart a chat. Never mind that Iran wasn’t actually building a nuclear weapon, something confirmed by the IAEA, US intelligence community, and even Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard's 20 June 2025 report, before Trump predictably dismissed her assessment. Iran was already at the negotiating table, engaging in talks hosted by Oman in May 2025, ready to discuss its nuclear programme for peaceful energy purposes. But apparently, nothing says “let’s talk” like eight bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers.

The reality is as clear as Luxon’s bald head under studio lights: Iran was complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open to dialogue until the United States decided to escalate a shadow war into a full-blown aerial assault. Now, Iran’s parliament is drafting a bill to withdraw from the NPT, and, having moved their 60% enriched uranium before the strikes, are now more likely to pursue nuclear weapons development, a direct consequence of the US and Israel’s unprovoked warmongering.

Chris Luxon cannot say why he condemns Iran's attack on Israel but not Israel's initial attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria:

"Again I'm not getting into that, again I've been really clear."

He also said he is open to allowing Singapore to test UAVs or drones in NZ air space. pic.twitter.com/7oIOq78S8y

— Nick (@StrayDogNZ) April 15, 2024

Far from fostering dialogue, these attacks have obliterated any chance of it, with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stating on 23 June 2025 that they won’t enter into negotiations while Israel and the United states were continuing to bomb Iran. Luxon’s claim that this chaos creates “opportunity” is so detached from reality it’s practically orbiting Jupiter.

Let’s not forget that Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Tehran, hitting oil depots, civilian sites, and even state broadcasters, shows their goal isn’t just about stopping nuclear development. It’s now another war of attrition, not a surgical strike to prevent a non-existent nuclear bomb-making programme. And the US? Trump’s been itching for this since he tore up the 2015 nuclear deal, with plans for these strikes simmering for months, as leaked Pentagon documents revealed in April 2025. His administration’s sudden pivot to bombs over talks reeks of dishonesty, using Israel as a proxy to flex military muscle while pretending it’s about peace.

Luxon’s idiocy isn’t new. This is the same genius who claimed that Kiwis were “better off” under his government while real wages stagnated and public services crumbled. Or when he babbled about “streamlining” the Resource Management Act on 10 August 2023, only to admit he hadn’t even read the bloody thing. Then there was his 5 December 2024 clanger, insisting NZ’s housing crisis was “solvable overnight” by cutting red tape. But all the National led government has done is cancel state house builds and thrown thousands of people out of emergency housing onto the streets. And who can forget his pledge to “turbocharge” the economy by slashing public sector jobs, only for unemployment to balloon to 5.2%? The man’s a walking soundbite with the intellectual depth of a kiddie pool.

Iran’s nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.

The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call…

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 22, 2025

Unfortunately Luxon's not alone in the dunce corner. Australia’s Anthony Albanese called the US strikes on Iran “a necessary step for regional stability,” conveniently ignoring the illegality of the attack, Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program and a prior willingness to negotiate. UK’s Keir Starmer also mumbled about “supporting de-escalation” while refusing to condemn Israel’s follow-up bombings, a spineless dodge that rivals Luxon’s waffle. But Luxon’s special, he’s got a knack for saying nothing while sounding like he’s solving everything.

Worse, the NZ government’s silence on the US’s illegal attack is deafening. Foreign Minister Winston Peters has been careful not to criticise Israel and the United States, and Luxon’s refusal to condemn the unprovoked strikes or call for a ceasefire shows a spineless failure to uphold NZ’s legacy as a peacemaker. By not pressuring the US and Israel, they’re letting warmongers run riot, undermining any hope of de-escalation. New Zealand could be rallying the world to demand accountability, but instead, Luxon’s government is twiddling its thumbs, complicit by inaction and appearing to support a clear breach of the United Nations charter.

Here's what the doddering coalition of chaos fools did instead:

➡️ NZ continues to advocate for diplomacy and dialogue. Ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying & it is critical further escalation is avoided.

➡️ Airspace remains closed. That is why we continue to recommend NZers in Iran & Israel do everything they can… pic.twitter.com/rTF2jS1pVr

— Winston Peters (@NewZealandMFA) June 22, 2025

Lux-O-Flakes cannot even bring himself to call for a ceasefire, even though the US and Israel’s illegal airstrikes on Iran, absent an imminent threat or Security Council approval, constitute a breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and amount to the crime of aggression. Israel’s ongoing attacks and the US’s direct and enabling roles, through military aid and diplomatic cover, exacerbate these violations. New Zealand’s silence, alongside the equivocations of other western politicians like Albanese and Starmer, highlights a failure to uphold the Charter’s principles. While the US and Israel may argue strategic necessity, the lack of evidence and disregard for Iran’s sovereignty and prior negotiations render their actions legally indefensible.

The tragedy is that Luxon’s ignorance, similar to other idiotic right-wing leaders, abets a dangerous US-Israel agenda that thrives on chaos, not solutions. Iran’s nuclear programme was never the threat they claimed, and bombing it has only hardened Tehran’s resolve. Luxon’s cheerleading for “dialogue” in this context isn’t just stupid; it’s a betrayal of New Zealand’s commitment to peace and international law. Is he the dumbest PM we’ve ever had? When you stack his record against Muldoon’s pig-headedness or Key’s smarmy amnesia, Luxon’s vacuous optimism and chronic foot-in-mouth disease make a strong case. Wake up, Chris. The world’s burning, and your vacuous soundbites are fanning the flames.