They’re [GDP results] not an indicator of the future. They’re about the past and in some senses they reinforce, for me, the experience that New Zealand has been having these past couple of years … What I feel resolute about is that next year all of the forecasts say that growth will return. – Nicola Willis
I’m one of those people who’s a relentless optimist. I always feel that you’ve got to focus your energy on the things that you can control and always take the view of, what can I do to make this better, and get up every day full of energy to do just that. – Nicola Willis
Journalist and lawyer are both unpopular professions, but neither are as unloved as politician. You get what you deserve. – Nicola Willis
I’m taking responsibility,” she says, “many of the people who voted for us did so because they wanted us to take that responsibility. So I step into it willingly. I don’t have a sense of, ‘it’s unfair’, or anything like that, I just feel that – it is tough. – Nicola Willis
My very character is that every day there’s something that I look at and say, you could have managed that meeting better, you could have articulated yourself better, you should have read that document in more detail.
One of the lessons I’ve learned this year is that I have to give myself a little bit of room to not be perfect. – Nicola Willis
I’ve got better at saying … ‘this is my perspective… I want you to go away and get deep into the detail and come back with your recommendations’. Ministers do their best work when they think that they’re responsible and so I’ve learned not to be so involved and interested that they feel that I’m the one making the decision. – Nicola Willis
. . .and one of the things that he [John Key] brought to his team, but ultimately to New Zealand, was a sense of quite infectious enthusiasm. It’s amazing how that can have an affect on the attitude of people around you, how willing they are to give a bit more, how they feel coming in to work each day.
So I’ve been really working on taking the worry from the front of the mind and putting it in the back.
And yeah, it’s been a work-on this year, and the job requires it of me, because there are just things coming at me all the time, and I need to always be ready and always be my best and we can’t be if we’re dwelling.
It’s an on-going life lesson. Take responsibility, do the work, but if you’ve given your best, don’t then spend inordinate amounts of time beating yourself up. Do not let perfection be the enemy of the good. – Nicola Willis
I think what has surprised me is the volume of work that goes on below the surface that is never visible.
So for every story that’s in the media or decision that plays out in public, there are hundreds of small things that a minister does in a day.
And in my office, a huge amount of paperwork and decision-making comes through, because even in issues which don’t appear to be related to me, where there’s money involved in other portfolios, or disagreements between other ministers, I often end up in the middle of that, and so I find myself across a range of subjects and topics.
I view it as almost like an iceberg, the public see the tip … but there’s a whole bunch of stuff happening under me. – Nicola Willis
I have a rule that if something’s written about me, I only ever read it once, because no-one in the country is reading it twice. – Nicola Willis
And you just need to remember that most New Zealanders get up each morning, get their kids’ breakfast, get them off to school, and they’re not thinking about the minutiae of the fourth sentence in the column. – Nicola Willis
The sense you get in Antarctica is that of geological time, and just how incredible was the force of Mother Nature. I had the experience of visiting Shackleton’s hut and Scott’s hut, and I have read a lot about those explorers and their bravery and their courage, and to be in that hut and feel it was incredible. – Nicola Willis
I see myself as contributing to the Government today. I’m a very loyal deputy to Christopher Luxon, and what I think the country is so lucky to have is stable government, a leader who brought the National Party team together and does a good job of that. . . And so the way I see myself each day, each week, is make your contribution now. Do as much as you can, and over time, if people see that, their faith in you will grow. – Nicola Willis
The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (“a woman is whoever she says she is”), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology. – Jerry Coyne
Our internal polls all year have had us around 7 percent or above, we’re in a very, very strong position – and if the media had any memory, they’d know that we don’t poll well at all until the real poll [election day] comes. – Winston Peters
We’ve gone about our job and stuck to our policies. When we made promises – and we have ticked off a whole lot this year – we said we’d do it, promise made and promise kept, over and over again. – Winston Peters
Some people understand what a coalition means, and some spend a lot of time understanding what a coalition means, so it makes life difficult.
But you’ve got to keep going, because with whatever you might think, it’s a whole lot better than being in opposition. – Winston Peters
You don’t try to give other people advice – they’ve got to learn it themselves. If somebody came and asked, you should say, but you don’t expect to … less is more – don’t preach to people. – Winston Peters
Once the cash has gone out the door, the sense of obligation and rectitude quickly follows it, unless they’re constantly reminded what the deal was you signed. – Winston Peters
Everybody’s got the big idea and big plan and big theory and big conversation and big speech, but the one-on-one stuff, packing it wall to wall, that’s what it comes down to. – Winston Peters
I think the point stands that changing the focus of the Marsden fund is a minor move relative to the huge investment that the taxpayer makes (through the TEC) in social science and humanities research in the tertiary sector, and while those social science and humanities research activities can identify what is wrong with NZ, they rarely create new wealth or foreign earnings that we might spend to fix the challenges we face (e.g. increasing social housing, fixing potholes, building cycle lanes in Westport (ain’t going to happen :)) increasing benefits, getting more doctors or teachers, addressing inequality, getting greater school attendance and achievement, etc.).
We need to earn more money, and while our export economy (which is strongly based on primary sector exports) serves us well, the appallingly low numbers doing PhDs (or studying at the undergraduate level) in ‘Agricultural, Environmental and Related Studies’ must be a much greater concern than minor changes in one research fund.
One also needs to realise that just because we are doing research in one area or another, doesn’t mean that that research is applied and used to inform better practice. We need people that can not only do research, but who can use that to realise material advantage or improvement in NZ. That is how our agricultural and horticultural scientists carry some of the weight of our collective well-being on their shoulders! – A Kiwiblog guest poster
There’s a resilience within rural children. They create and play and strategise but also when you live in a rural community you’re dealing with adults too.
They’re multi-skilled and multi-talented and great communicators. They’re also very real. – Tracey Hollis
So what a busy year it has been with constitutional conundrums.
For some, the idea that we should have vigorous discussions around such things is uncomfortable and possibly divisive.
However a vibrant democracy should not be afraid to talk about issues. It should not be afraid to hold the institutions and procedures which underpin democratic systems to the highest standard.
It encourages its citizens to take an active part in thinking about what it means to be a citizen, and the role each of us has in expressing our views, hopefully well informed, as to how our country should be governed.
If it has given us nothing else, discussions about how we all belong in New Zealand and how to defend our democracy are making us all more invested in our role as people of New Zealand. – Hilary Calvert
Because if you bottle that [trauma] up it turns into something quite nasty, right? It turns into anger, it turns into frustration, and you start to look in the mirror and not recognise that person that’s looking back at you. – Karen Chhour
But I do tell people that the day my tears run out in this place is the day I need to leave. – Karen Chhour
The way that the opposition have attacked Karen – and to some extent, Nicole [McKee]. I think it’s really interesting that the three Government ministers that have been attacked the most are three Māori women – David Seymour
She [Chhour] has so many excuses but she doesn’t use any of them. She’s now fixing the department that abused her. – David Seymour
I think there’s been more scrutiny on these young people than any other young people gone before.
I’m very firm that we have to have consequences for bad behavior, but I don’t want to see young people sitting in a youth justice facility like a holding pen for Corrections when they turn 18.
So, if we can turn even a couple of people’s lives around, to me, that’s success. – Karen Chhour
His mum let us know that for the first time since he was a child, he told her that he loved her. In fact, he now ends each nightly call with ‘I love you Mum’.
The small things matter. The little changes count. Because in the end they mean a son can tell his mum he loves her, and a mum can end each day knowing her son is going to be okay. – Andrew Bridgman
It’s [family and sexual violence] an issue and a topic people don’t want to talk about because it’s shameful; it’s shameful that we’ve even got to this level. – Karen Chhour
I’m really proud to be able to stand up and talk about this like it’s a natural thing to talk about, rather than it being behind closed doors. – Karen Chhour
I’m actually really proud of myself to be able to stand up and fight for what I think is right – not only for when I look at my children and the future I want to see for their children, but for the whole of New Zealand. . . . And if it saves one child, it’s worth it. – Karen Chhour
If that means I have to take those personal hits, that’s a sacrifice that I think is really worth it. – Karen Chhour
Depriving a woman of the pleasure of even feeling the sun on her face is not about politics, or superimposing a different moral code on a culture that defies Western comprehension. It represents an affront to natural law. And the more that men in sport neglect to describe it as such, the more the fundamentalist fanatics who rule Afghanistan are emboldened by their indifference. – Oliver Brown
Afghanistan are brazenly contravening the International Cricket Council’s rule that all Test nations must put together a female side, with the women’s team now in exile. Australia, the nation that has offered most of them sanctuary, has postponed indefinitely a one-off Test match against the men. Plus, there is the indisputable evidence that acquiescence to religious maniacs merely encourages them to export their extremism beyond their borders. When the international community’s first tentative attempts at bargaining with Afghanistan took place in Qatar last year, the Taliban insisted that no women be included in the talks. Disgracefully, that demand was indulged.
English cricket can prove here that it will not succumb to the same cowardice. It might be powerless to curb the Taliban’s depredations in Afghanistan, but it can signal that their scarcely believable assaults on women’s rights leave them friendless on the global stage. – Oliver Brown
It should not be forgotten that despite the huge respect being expressed about Turia at the moment for her courage and integrity, a lot of her Parliamentary work was conducted amid a large degree of hostility from those who felt Māori should align only with Labour, those who did not like the government dealing with Māori “elites”, and those who would sacrifice small advances because they were less than perfect. – Audrey Young
Maranga e Tari, akona tō iwi, manaakitia te manuhiri. Tariana, rest no longer, arise and teach your people how to treat distinguished visitors. – Shane Jones
The three PMs present as manuhiri should have been invited to speak.
They came to honour Tariana and were denied the opportunity.
So what if they had spoken English – expressions of aroha and sadness are universal. – Shane Jones
Tariana was absolutely clear about doing the right thing as she saw it, for Māori and for the country.
That meant everyone could trust her, even if they disagreed with her. – Sir Bill English
Trudeau is the apotheosis of a hectoring style of politics that assumes voters are terrible bigots in need of lecturing, and women and minorities are perennial victims in need of his paternalistic assistance. – Tom Slater
He’s been called a figurehead of ‘progressive neoliberalism’ – Nancy Fraser’s phrase for those who doll up the same old technocratic, establishment politics with some rainbow, pro-diversity bunting.
If nothing else, his reign has shown just how reactionary elitist ‘progressivism’ really is – enshrining ‘trans rights’ in law, banning ‘trans conversion therapy’ and in doing so taking a wrecking ball to women’s rights and helping to push more confused gay teens towards medical ‘correction’.
Naturally, he was also a Net Zero zealot, signing his resource-rich nation up to punishing eco-targets and taxes that would immiserate consumers and farmers just so he could peacock at COP conferences. (Thankfully, he’s been forced to backtrack on some of it.) – Tom Slater
Jacinda Ardern, Nicola Sturgeon, Joe Biden, now Justin Trudeau. One by one, the West’s woke authoritarians are being toppled. Perhaps now the technocratic, liberal-left elites will learn that insulting, lecturing, immiserating and – on occasion – euthanising the electorate isn’t necessarily a winning strategy.
But I won’t hold my breath. – Tom Slater
Those of us with strong views one way or the other should remember we are in a tiny minority.
Most voters from National, Labour, Act, the Greens and NZ First want their leaders focused on the cost of living, the economy and health, with the environment and law and order also making the cut as secondary issues.
The Curia data suggests we are indeed a good-hearted, practical, commonsensical and tolerant people. But we face an unfolding economic and fiscal crisis that Act in particular would be wise to take more seriously. – Matthew Hooton
I tell these little vignettes about two very different politicians [Nikki Kaye and Tariana Turia] because they had at least two things in common. They were both passionate believers in making a positive difference in our country, and they knew who they were elected to represent, in what is, after all, a house of representatives.
In my experience, these traits are reflected in nearly all politicians. There is the odd narcissistic sociopath and their numbers are perhaps increasing, but they tend to out themselves over time. Everyone else is there for the right reasons, and they passionately believe the ideas they are selling to the public and seeking to implement.
That doesn’t mean we have to agree with any of it. I for example will never agree with Julie Ann Genter’s utopian transport vision, but I can still respect her as an individual for the passion she brings to her cause.
It seems worth reminding ourselves of the positive motives of most politicians in this increasingly angry social media age. What previously was self-evident, that people’s hearts were in the right place, is starting to look quite quaint.
Whether it is the fault of the algorithms which thrive on conflict and strong emotions, or the fact we’ve given every bar-room bore their own megaphone with which to broadcast their opinions, the temperature is rapidly rising in every aspect of political discourse. It’s getting nastier and it’s a brave politician who stands against the trend.
The abuse and name-calling started overseas, and the upward trajectory seems exponential. – Steven Joyce
I’ve grown used to the provocative rants on both sides of the Treaty Principles debate, but it’s not just there. Everywhere you look, self-described political posters are getting more angry and more personal. Even seemingly innocuous personal posts from politicians attract huge swathes of disparaging comments from trolls of both sides almost as soon as they go up.
Maybe all this is harmless. Maybe it’s just symptomatic of the increasing robustness of the public square, but I suspect not.
The vitriol and nastiness turn a lot of normal people off. Political participation is dropping around the world, especially in America which is ground zero for this new “personal abuse politics”. Normal people are the democratic ballast that prevents the extremes from getting carried away. If they are not engaged in politics, then radical agendas are more likely to prevail. And it makes it even less likely that more balanced individuals will stand for public office.
Personal abuse detracts from the merit of your argument. I certainly wasn’t perfect in political debate, particularly in the early days of social media. But I did try to play the ball, not the person. –Steven Joyce
At times like these, it is important to remember what the point of debate is. Are we trying to explain our position and persuade an uncommitted someone to support a course of action, or are we just getting our kicks shouting into the void?
We don’t have to be slaves to the social media algorithms. Let’s have a New Year’s resolution to take stock and modify the approach. Perhaps do the radical thing and focus on the policy a bit more than the personal, leaving the online shouting to a shrinking minority. Politics at its best is a battle of ideas, not people.
And most politicians, regardless of their politics, are trying to make the world a better place. Whether you agree with them or not. – Steven Joyce
New Zealand is not a nation based on race. To be Korean, Japanese, or Swedish, has a connotation beyond citizenship. That is not true of post-colonial societies like ours. To be a kiwi is to be a citizen of those islands under the sovereignty of Wellington. But what is a New Zealander?
There was a time when we were a bi-cultural state; and I am old enough to recall that society. We knew our history, we understood our identity as Māori or Pakeha, but these were subservient to being part of something larger.
When we disagreed, over the Springboks, land rights or Rogernomics, we were arguing between ourselves. We were a single nation on a collective journey. We may have debated about where we should be going, but in a land without Facebook we enjoyed greater isolation and consequently sense of identity than we do in this more connected world.
Today we are a multi-cultural society and we are both looking internally and externally for identity beyond the accident of residence.
Domestically we are segregating ourselves by bloodlines into Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti. Those who claim by descent the rights of Māori under the treaty and those whose presence here is, some maintain, permitted by that treaty.
It has become common for individuals to mention iwi as part of their introduction; a development that is instructive because it is a window into how younger kiwis see their relationship with New Zealand; as having an identity separate from the nation. This is consistent with many new immigrants who, thanks to the internet and affordability of travel, are able to retain links and connections to their home nations that were impossible for those who arrived by ship, or worse, DC10.
New Zealand is where we live. Not who we are. – Damien Grant
For many religion is more powerful than citizenship as a source of identity and surely it is rational to emphasis your ancestry ahead of the accidental location of your birth, but here lies a divergence that can take some resolving. For many New Zealanders our ancestry belongs to the marshlands of Cornwall, or similar, so for us the identity of kiwi has a different resonance and one that is challenged by being told we are merely Tangata Tiriti.
It implies that our right to be here is conditional and our place as citizens is subject to renegotiation; which appears to be occurring. Given the history of these islands, some might say this is the counter-weight to that experienced by the indigenous population and perhaps that is a valid claim. But for pakeha this evolution can be unsettling.
The consequence is that, for all of us, what it means to be kiwi is evolving, and I suspect that for many our relationship with the country becoming merely transactional. If it works for us we can stay. If not Australia, or back overseas for the thirty percent of us who were born offshore.
The Kennedy speech; ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, has little currency in Aotearoa New Zealand because we are collectively less emotionally invested in belonging to New Zealand. – Damien Grant
In a few days I will fly back to Auckland but each time I walk past the koru symbols and ornate carvings that are distinctively New Zealand, it carries less emotional resonance. – Damien Grant
Look, I find it really hard to celebrate when I know that so many New Zealanders have had such a tough year in our economy. I’m very conscious of that and I’m very conscious of the fact that the government books need significant repair.
Now I can spend a lot of time lamenting how we got here and that is a story we told at the election, but if you pump too much cash into the economy by quantitative easing and expansionary fiscal policy and interest rates get very high in order to cut inflation, then you do have a real clean-up job to do.
I can spend a lot of time talking about that, but actually my focus needs to be on what is within my control and taking responsibility for those things. – Nicola Willis
The last Government got into a terrible habit of providing continuous uplifts often beyond the inflation rate, beyond what was happening in the private sector, and that creates massive cost pressure. – Nicola Willis
If I was to take an approach of having much more expansionary operating allowances, the impact of that would be one of the most prolonged periods of debt increase that New Zealand has ever seen, and actually, we are a small, exposed economy, and we need to maintain prudent levels of debt. – Nicola Willis
“The way I think about that is in terms of the principles that we campaigned on, which is we do want to make sure that frontline services continue to get good investment, we do want to make sure that the cost of living stays under control, and we also want to make sure that we are encouraging growth, so within that framework, we will always keep looking at our options because it’s the responsible thing to do. – Nicola Willis
There’s a lot of money washing around the world. The task for New Zealand is to have more invested here in industries and projects that will drive growth and development. – Nicola Willis
There are a lot of entitlements and support that have crept into the middle and upper class, and I would prefer to have a system where we don’t keep hiking tax rates in order to give people’s money back to them in the form of different entitlements. – Nicola Willis
It is precisely over what constitutes equity and justice that disputes arise, because human existence is so complex and filled with ambiguities and contradictions, in which unintended consequences are the rule rather than the exception, and in which agreement even over what is most desirable is never universal.
To divide social policies into “protective” on the one hand and “harmful” on the other is to conceive of the world with all the subtlety of Old Major’s slogan in Animal Farm: Four legs goods, two legs bad. Slogans such as this are not intended, of course, to express any truth, moral or empirical: They are intended to extend the power of those who devise them and persuade others to intone them as if they were indubitable. – Theodore Dalrymple
If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, the price of equity, as defined by those who equate fairness with equality of outcome between arbitrarily chosen categories of people (which are potentially even more numerous than the number of genders according to the most gender-expansive of ideologues), is endless surveillance, form-filling, denunciation, mistrust, confession of sin, ideological legerdemain, self-righteous indignation, bullying, resentment, and intellectual dishonesty—among other things.
When the history of our times comes to be written, I hope that our descendants will marvel at our collective madness. This assumes, of course, that the madness will have passed; though if it has, it will almost certainly have been replaced by collective madness of another kind. – Theodore Dalrymple
On the gender front, there’s plenty of reason to doubt the intellectual coherence of transgender self-identification. When a biological male believes that his inner, authentic self is female, what exactly does he think being “female” is? I’m still waiting for someone to persuade me that this doesn’t trade on gender stereotypes that feminists rightly taught us to throw overboard decades ago.
There’s even more reason to doubt that the well-being of young people is well served by taking their asserted genders at face value and allowing them to align their bodies by making irrevocable physical changes. – Nigel Biggar
So, what’s at stake in the culture war over transgender self-identification? Among other things, these two: first, the genuine mental and physical well-being of disturbed, vulnerable young people; and second, the freedom of sceptics to give lawful expression to important and reasonable doubts, without suffering damage to their careers at the hands of noisy, aggressive activists who want to stop us thinking, lest we see the truth. – Nigel Biggar
The discrepancy between “progressive” virtue-signalling and the effective relief of human suffering—which Peter Sutton clocked fifteen years ago in his prophetic book about Aboriginal disadvantage, The Politics of Suffering—is also evident on the racial front of the present Culture Wars in Britain. – Nigel Biggar
Yet, Ehsan notes, in defiance of the empirical data the Labour Party has given itself over to the Black Lives Matter movement, “brainlessly” importing racially polarising identity politics from the US. This holds, as a matter of political dogma, that we may speak of “BAME” people as if they are a single homogenous body, united in their common disadvantage, which is simply attributable to a systemic racism rooted in every white person’s “privilege”. Ehsan comments that “modern left ‘academivists’ … often prioritise the aggressive promotion of their regressive politics over rigorous academic investigation”. Moreover, he thinks that “the identitarian left would love nothing more than to psychologically imprison all of Britain’s ethnic and racial minorities in a hopeless state of grievance”, so as to preserve “their precious white-privilege narratives and their perception of Britain as a hellish island of rampant institutional racism”.
Why are such narratives and perceptions so precious to the “progressive” Left? People who really care to correct unjust economic and social disadvantages are eager to understand the causes correctly, since accurate diagnosis is requisite for effective remedy. So, when presented with evidence that their wonted diagnosis—say, systemic racism—simply doesn’t stand up empirically, they react with keen curiosity, albeit with scepticism. That’s because what matters above all else to them is solving the real problems of human distress and injustice.
That is not how the “progressive” Left react. Instead of words of doubt and criticism, they react with the fist of repression, filling the air with abuse and threat, desperate to freeze thought with fear. – Nigel Biggar
It is notable that members of the Cultural Left are determined to think the very worst of their own country. It is important to them that Britain is, and remains, a “hellish island of rampant racism”. The hard evidence says that they shouldn’t believe this. But they do so, regardless. Why? What’s going on here psychologically, even spiritually? – Nigel Biggar
So, what’s at stake in the Culture War over race? First, an accurate diagnosis of the causes of unfair disadvantages suffered by particular ethnic groups or social classes, which is the prerequisite for effective relief. And second, the avoidance of a demoralising, polarising politics that excites groundless, Manichaean antagonism between “blacks” and “whites”. – Nigel Biggar
The colonial front of the Culture Wars is related to the racial one. One reason that British colonial history has become controversial is that it is used by the British representatives of Black Lives Matter to argue that the supposed systemic racism of Britain today is rooted in our colonial past, which can be equated with slavery. Therefore, we must repudiate our colonial past, pulling down the statues of imperial heroes, in order to exorcise our lingering racism.
In addition to a more truthful account of race relations in Britain today, what’s also at stake on the colonial front is the integrity of the United Kingdom. This is because some Scottish separatists make an argument that can be distilled into this equation: Britain equals Empire equals Evil. Accordingly, Scottish independence would be an act of national self-purification in which, by cutting the cords binding it to a Britain discredited by the imperial abuse of hard power, Scotland is free to sail off into a bright, new, shiny, sin-free, European future.
Bound up with this is the third thing at stake on the colonial front of the Culture Wars: the strength and self-confidence of the West. Britain remains an important, if secondary, pillar of liberal democracy in the world. And not many things would delight the West’s totalitarian enemies in Moscow and Beijing more than to witness the disintegration of the United Kingdom. – Nigel Biggar
What is more, the obsession of the “decolonisers” with the British Empire—rather than, say, the Arab or Chinese or Russian or Comanche or Zulu empires—is curious and begs explanation. One is that their real target is the record of the West, for which the British Empire is a proxy. The story they tell about the British Empire as a litany of racism, economic exploitation, cultural repression, and unconstrained violence is eagerly picked up and broadcast all over the world by the likes of Al Jazeera. It also fuels the demand by Caribbean states for reparations from Europe for slavery, quantified in June of this year by the Brattle Group as amounting to US$108 trillion.
However, as I have demonstrated in my recent book, Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning, the “decolonising” narrative is wildly distorted, not least in its dogged refusal to recognise that the British Empire was one of the first states in the history of the world to abolish slave-trading and slavery and that it then used its imperial power to suppress them both from Brazil, across Africa, to India and Australasia. – Nigel Biggar
So, what’s at stake in the Culture War over colonial history? First, the exposure of a false narrative about race relations in Britain today. Second, the exposure of a false narrative that inflates the case for Scottish independence and the disintegration of the UK. And third, the exposure of a false narrative that undermines confidence in the liberal West, at home and abroad, at a time when illiberal powers in Moscow and Beijing are rattling their sabres in Ukraine and at Taiwan. – Nigel Biggar
So, what’s at stake in the Culture Wars? The well-being of vulnerable young people disturbed by questions of gender and sex; the accurate diagnosis of the causes of disadvantage suffered by some ethnic groups, so as to enable effective redress; security against groundlessly divisive racial politics; the integrity of the United Kingdom; faith in the West and security against opportunistic demands for reparations for slavery; and the freedom to question and contradict false assumptions and narratives.
But there is one thing more.
No doubt the cost of living, the funding of healthcare, and the rate of immigration are foremost in citizens’ minds. Nevertheless, Culture War concerns will often be there, too. We have recently spotted two straws blowing in the political wind. One was the widespread opposition that the then First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, aroused by stubbornly proposing a law that would effectively permit transgender self-identification. – Nigel Biggar
The second straw was the defeat later that year of the “Voice to Parliament” campaign in Australia. That campaign would have given Aboriginal people—one of many ethnic groups in Australia and comprising only 3.5 per cent of the total population—uniquely privileged representation. Propelled by a sense of colonial guilt—to quote Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph—“the Yes campaign outspent No by five to one. It had sports stars, companies and the whole establishment on its side, yet still lost in every Australian state.” The opposition was led by the Aboriginal politician Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who argued that colonialism has benefited Aborigines, that the “re-racialisation” of Australia into Manichaean camps of “white” and “black” should be resisted, and that attention should focus instead on addressing unfair disparities, no matter what the skin colour of their victims. Price’s message strongly echoes those of Rakib Ehsan’s book and the Sewell commission—and it won decisively.
These two straws in the political wind find broader social scientific backing in Eric Kaufmann’s Policy Exchange report The Politics of the Culture Wars in Contemporary Britain. From a YouGov poll in May 2022, Kaufmann concluded that “the British public leans approximately two to one against the cultural leftist position across twenty culture wars issues”. These, therefore, form ideal ground “on which conservative parties can unite both the right and the centre-ground, while creating divisions between the centre-left and the far left”.
So that reveals the final thing at stake in the Culture Wars: votes. – Nigel Biggar
Public input to select committee proceedings is only useful to the extent it assists Members of Parliament to do that work. The submission process does not exist as a mechanism for general advocacy or activism by members of the public. It is a tool for legislators, not activists. – Liam Hehir
Unlike written submissions, oral submissions require allocated time and resources, making an open slather approach undesirable as it could overwhelm the committee’s schedule and hinder their ability to focus on the most valuable contributions or complete its work.
It is important to clarify that it not elitist to assert that some contributions are more valuable than others. Submissions are meant to be evidence rather than as a platform for subjective political views. The select committee process is fundamentally about gathering the most pertinent evidence and insights that can aid in scrutinising and refining legislation. This requires prioritising submissions that offer unique perspectives, technical expertise or substantive analysis over those that merely reiterate personal beliefs or generic viewpoints. – Liam Hehir
The select committee process is designed to improve legislation, not to accommodate every individual’s desire for a public platform. – Liam Hehir
Just remember that, while you undeniably have the right to express your views and make your statement, you do not have the inherent right to be listened to by everyone. Living in a democratic society means accepting that not every voice will be heard equally or acted upon. Harsh as it sounds, nobody actually has to care what you think.
If you’re frustrated that the committee didn’t call you to speak, consider this: are your views genuinely adding something new or useful to the discussion? If not, there are other ways to make your views known.
For now at least, it’s a free country. – Liam Hehir
Though technology has made many aspects of life easier and more convenient, it may also be changing how we interact as a society. When I see a group of young people today, each absorbed in their own digital world despite sitting physically together, I wonder whether we have gained individual convenience at some cost to shared experience.
But perhaps my greatest hope for 2025 – and my constant source of optimism – is that we continue to find new ways to harness these powerful technologies. They enable us to live better, more fulfilled and more interesting lives.
After all, the most remarkable thing about human progress is not the technology itself, but how we choose to use it. – Oliver Hartwich
Norman Kirk reinterpreted Governor Hobson’s comment of 1840 that we are “one people” into a more realistic assessment of what we had become. He described New Zealand as “one nation, many people”.
But Kirk’s government, inadvertently, began undermining his inclusive approach before he died in August 1974. The Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 re-defined who was a Maori. People with more than 50% European blood and only a dash of Maori now had the option of calling themselves Maori. When the Waitangi Tribunal came into existence in 1975 many newly enabled Maori perceived opportunities for themselves in separateness rather than acknowledging their multi-cultural origins. Thinking he might win votes from these people, the Prime Minister after 1975, Robert Muldoon, pushed separateness a stage further. He persuaded Parliament to rename New Zealand Day as “Waitangi Day”. This ruined Kirk’s notion of 6 February being our national day. From then on, 6 February degenerated into a day of Maori grievance. The sins of Pakeha – many of them real, others imagined – were paraded more and more at Waitangi. Dignitaries such as Sir David Beattie, the Governor General, were abused, and politicians who went north were treated regularly to ugly behaviour from Maori. The pageantry of 1974 became the political purgatory of the 1980s. – Michael Bassett
The Maori fringe expects the Prime Minister and others in authority regularly to subject themselves to abuse at Waitangi while our other cultures, that had such high hopes in 1974, stay away. They have devised other dates and events to celebrate their national pride in being New Zealanders.
All our other Kiwi cultures seem prepared to make the most of the opportunities open to them in New Zealand. So, too, do a great many people of Maori ancestry. But there is a noisy 40 to 50% of them, all with more European ancestry than Maori, who think the rest of the country should grant them special privileges such as local government seats, and dedicated health and educational services while they make little or no effort to avail themselves of the huge array of entitlements already available to them as well as to other Kiwis. Too many parents conspicuously fail to ensure their children get to school and don’t care enough to get them vaccinated against common medical threats like measles and whooping cough.
It is asking an awful lot of Kiwis to expect them to respect and endorse demands by a slovenly 10% of the population that refuses to use opportunities available to everyone. No government should run a cargo cult for any particular segment of society. The Prime Minister is right to shun Waitangi on 6 February this year. – Michael Bassett
Once the commanding heights of Maoridom display a willingness to acknowledge Norman Kirk’s vision of one country, one law, many cultures, and privileges for none, I’d return to Waitangi on 6 February and celebrate the rich diversity of cultures in our midst. In the meantime, let the raucous rowdies beat their gums at one another. – Michael Bassett
Our mission has always been to provide a refuge for women, where they can connect, support, and express themselves freely without the intrusion of biological males.
This appeal is about preserving that vision and ensuring the legal system recognizes the reality of biological sex. – Sall Grover
This case isn’t just about one app or one individual; it’s about setting a precedent that respects the unique experiences and needs of women in all aspects of life, including the digital realm. – Sall Grover
They’re forcing you to believe that men are women and, if they can force you to believe that, they can force you to believe anything.
Politicians cannot campaign to end violence against women and try to look like the good guys when they are literally forcing through legislation for women to not be able to say “no” to men.
Women have to be allowed to say no, it’s that simple. – Sall Grover
Allowing taboos to become normalized harms all of society. Pedopilia is a dangerous paraphilia that is strongly linked to criminality and other paraphilias. Cultural taboos serve as a natural safety mechanism for communities by establishing boundaries of acceptable behavior, thereby promoting social cohesion, reducing conflict, and protecting shared values. Taboos reflect historical lessons, environmental adaptations, and moral/ethical considerations. Further, they are a primary safeguarding tool. Unfortunately the prevalence of propaganda such as “no kink shaming,” is eroding the prohibitive effect of our most primal safeguarding taboos. – Amy E. Sousa
My beliefs are always framed by two lines of thought.
A bumper sticker on a pickup truck in Santa Fe that said: “Don’t believe everything you think.”
And an admonition I’ve often read in articles on science:
“Absence of proof is not proof of absence.” – Robert Fulghum
It was Carter who deregulated and created both cheap airfares and craft beer.
Carter crushed inflation by appointing Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve knowing Volcker would introduce unpopular but necessary high interest rates.
Carter appointed more women and people of colour to be judges than all previous Presidents combined.
Carter was the first climate warrior.
I have revised my assessment of Carter the politician. It is incredible that someone from the Deep South, who grew up in a house without either electricity or running water, from the predominantly poor, black, village of Plains in Georgia, could become President.
Carter personally negotiated the Camp David Peace Accord between Egypt and Israel that is still in place.
Every speaker spoke of Carter’s faith and character. His election was a reaction to the sleaze of Watergate. – Richard Prebble
This presidential election voters gave the candidates a pass on character. After the next four years of outrageous behaviour, I believe Americans will seek candidates with, as President Biden put it, “Jimmy Carter’s enduring attribute: Character. Character. Character.”
When, post-presidency, Carter targeted the Guinea worm disease there were 3.5 million cases a year. Last year there were just 14. – Richard Prebble
Something is seriously wrong with New Zealand’s public wealth. We rank near the top globally for per-capita resources and assets – ahead of most OECD nations. On some measures, only Saudi Arabia eclipses us. Yet our public services are crumbling and we cannot afford to fund or maintain critical infrastructure.
The scale of our natural wealth may come as a surprise to many. But our endowment spans an extraordinary range. World-class agricultural land stretches across both islands. Our renewable electricity generation ranks among the highest in the OECD. Our fisheries rank among the world’s most extensive, while forests blanket 37% of our land. We even possess significant mineral deposits, though these remain largely unexplored.
Recent UBS data show New Zealand also ranks seventh globally for average private adult wealth (US$408,231). But this figure offers cold comfort. It reflects a housing market untethered from economic fundamentals. We have excelled at selling houses to ourselves at inflated prices while failing to generate the income needed for quality public services.
Despite our wealth – both public and private – we languish at 22nd place in the OECD for GDP per capita. – Roger Partridge
How did we end up so asset-rich but service-poor? Part of the answer lies in how we manage our public wealth. We have settled for being passive custodians rather than making these resources work for us. The result is billions in capital tied up in an underperforming Crown and local government balance sheets while critical infrastructure crumbles.
The solution may lie in fundamentally rethinking our approach to public ownership. Whether through strategic sales, asset recycling, or new ownership structures, we could unlock billions in value without increasing debt. – Roger Partridge
Infrastructure bottlenecks also tell part of the story. Water services show the human cost of underinvestment, with ageing pipes causing regular breaks, significant water losses through leaks, and a growing maintenance backlog across the country.
But the problem is not just underinvestment. Our infrastructure spending efficiency ranks in the bottom 10% of high-income countries, with construction costs rising one-third faster than prices elsewhere in the economy. Infrastructure productivity growth lags at just one-third the rate of the overall economy. We are not just spending too little – we are getting poor value from what we do spend.
This systemic inefficiency helps explain why New Zealand faces a $210 billion infrastructure deficit despite spending 5.5% of GDP on infrastructure – more than both Australia and the OECD median. It is a problem of management and delivery, not merely funding. – Roger Partridge
Fortunately, things are stirring in Wellington. A year on, and the National-led coalition government is underway with the most comprehensive reform agenda in a generation. Its proposals to dismantle regulatory barriers to foreign investment and resource management show a refreshing willingness to tackle long-standing obstacles to prosperity.
Central and local governments’ commercial portfolios present similar opportunities for fresh thinking.
In its November 2024 report ‘Unlocking Value’, Infrastructure New Zealand laid out how recycling public assets could help fund our infrastructure needs without increasing debt. – Roger Partridge
The evidence for change is compelling. The scale of this missed opportunity becomes even clearer when we look overseas. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund exceeds US$1.4 trillion, showing how active management of state assets can build intergenerational wealth. Singapore has built world-class infrastructure through innovative financing and ownership structures.
The new government’s appetite for reform creates the opportunity for fundamentally rethinking how we manage the vast portfolio of central and local government-owned assets.
Better management could mean modern hospitals instead of crumbling facilities. Reliable trains instead of constant disruptions. Well-maintained state houses instead of properties suffering from rot and mould.
The coalition’s willingness to challenge failed orthodoxies suggests even bolder changes lie ahead. Our combined natural and public wealth provides an exceptional platform to tackle fundamental questions about how we own and manage more than half a trillion dollars in central and local government assets.
Moving these assets into more effective ownership could finally deliver the first-world public services and living standards that New Zealanders deserve. – Roger Partridge
Yet again, I find myself at the beginning of a new year saying ‘We’re in for an interesting 12 months’. But this time it feels different. The challenges are immense. And they’re everywhere, in New Zealand and globally.
It feels uncomfortable that there is so much going on that is so important. Wars are raging, governments are changing, and politicians are at odds with the people who elected them.
Meanwhile, those of us trying to follow what’s going on are turning more and more to different channels to inform ourselves. The trouble with gathering lots of information on a single topic is that details will often conflict. Those channels present many views on a single issue.
Somehow, we need to understand how to tell society’s story in today’s new world. Doing so will help the people and politicians alike to form a more consistent view of the challenges we face. – Bruce Cotterill
Economically, the challenges for our country are greater than they’ve been previously. The nation’s debt is too high and is forecast to grow further. Interest costs are now a major budget item. Government spending is too high. We learned before Christmas that our recession is prolonged.
Productivity continues to be a problem that shows no signs of improving. The housing market that we all rely on for our wealth creation is moving terribly slowly. And our exchange rate is in the doldrums, which is great for our exporters, but tough for those of us concerned about importing inflation.
Austerity will be needed to protect entitlements. But people don’t like austerity and therein lies the opportunity for disagreement and blame. Communication and consistency of messaging is an important obligation for our leaders.
Elsewhere, submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill closed a couple of weeks ago. Indications are that over 300,000 submissions were received before the deadline. That would suggest a level of interest beyond what we’ve seen for similar processes in the past. It also suggestshowever this process is advanced, there is likely to be plenty of noise from both sides of the debate in the year ahead.
Although it’s a debate we’ve had many times before, we’re not very good at it. We’re not good at bringing constructive ideas to the table — only criticism. We need a different approach. Communication and tolerance will be important. – Bruce Cotterill
Interestingly, a consistent theme in all of the events listed above is the role played by social media in promoting the dialogue. Whistleblowers are creating headlines that mainstream media are often (and rightly) too cautious to consider, and governments are being forced to respond.
There’s a saying going around that “transparency is the best disinfectant”. The saying implies that uninhibited open dialogue will enable the dirty laundry to come out rather than have it hidden away by political or media agendas. That’s true to a point. Social media has been influential in shining a light on wrongs that need to be righted.
But social media has brought a viciousness to political debate that we could do without. – Bruce Cotterill
It’s true centre-left governments around the world are no longer the favoured option. But here’s the point: in the countries we’re referring to, our politicians are elected via a democratic process. Whether they succeed or fail, we should remember that we put them there. In offering themselves for public office, they should expect at the least, our respect in return.
And yet, it is the politicians themselves who are partly to blame. The problem arises when their own actions cause us to lose trust.
Many of the politicians mentioned here are guilty of inflaming the position they are in. There has been a tendency in the past couple of years to resort to name-calling and branding of those with whom they don’t agree. Starmer’s repeated accusations that those who disagree with him are “far right” and “activist” do him no favours. Albanese fell into the same trap last year when pressured over age restrictions on social media use.
The reality is that the great majority of those of us who are accused of being far left or far right are neither. For the most part, we are just people expressing an opinion that doesn’t agree with that of those calling the names. In this country, the same goes for those who are accused of being racist, misogynistic or genocidal. The activists supporting everything from climate change to the Palestinian cause have labels for those who don’t agree with them. They are variously climate deniers, Islamophobic, anti-trans, anti-vaxx and so on.
If the world is to move forward, we have to accept that expressing a different view, an opposing view, does not make someone an extremist. The presentation of opposing views is what allows debate. Debate is good. Debate allows a contest of ideas. Such contests lead to better outcomes. But how will we guarantee quality debate, if participants are at risk of being labelled, branded or rolled. The natural inclination will be to stay quiet, or walk away. As a result, he who makes the most noise, wins. – Bruce Cotterill
Big globalist organisations such as the United Nations, World Health Organisation and the World Economic Forum, are collectively trying to change the way we live. Their apparent motivations are driven by their own views of climate alarm, overpopulation, equality and in all likelihood, a desire for control.
Society must be able to openly challenge those agendas, and do so in a manner that is constructive and respectful. In return that same society should expect a considerate reception, a rational debate and a contest of ideas.
As governments around the world change hands, the big story of 2025 will be that the people pushed back. The people now have the means to build their own knowledge from reliable sources, and a platform to present their viewpoint. Over the next 12 months, they will challenge the conventions that are being presented to them. After just three weeks in the new year, we are already seeing it. Are the California fires related to climate change or arson? Are diversity hires the reason for navy ships sinking or firefighters running out of water?
It should be okay to have these discussions without fear of being labelled or abused. Social media should be a great vehicle to facilitate such conversations. But comments need to be accurate, constructive and most of all respectful.
Back in New Zealand, in 2025, as we debate issues that lay the foundations of our next 30 years, issues relating to our economy and race, I hope we can do so in a manner that ensures that all voices are heard, considered and most of all, respected. – Bruce Cotterill
Bitcoin has failed in its central task; to become money. It is useless for the payment of anything other than a ransom. Its volatility makes it worthless as a unit of exchange and it retains some utility as a store of value so long as people believe in it.– Damien Grant
Bitcoin remains viable because it lacks a credible rival; and so long as that remains the case it will continue to draw in those seeking to profit from the bigger fool theory and true believers.
Fiat currency, that issued by a state, always devalues but its value diminishes slowly enough that it retains utility for most commercial transactions. A state will use its own currency to pay wages and collect taxes, creating an ongoing requirement for citizens to hold and use its money when where a better overseas alternative exists.
Bitcoin lacks this inherent base so when someone invents that better blockchain mousetrap there will be a rush to the new thing and a USD three trillion dollar asset class will evaporate.
Well. That is my theory; which I confidently predicted in January 2018 and, well, seven years later it hasn’t happened, and which I will confidently predict in seven years hence. If necessary. – Damien Grant
We cannot rely on tech giants to prioritise public good over profit. Instead, we must invest in digital literacy education to help citizens critically evaluate online content.
Equipping people to recognise and reject harmful falsehoods is the most sustainable way to combat misinformation without stifling legitimate expression. Better ideas- and the ability to identify and promote them – are the best tools for defeating bad ideas, not censorship. – Jonathan Ayling
Regulatory approaches must tread very carefully. Overly aggressive measures, such as those proposed by the previous Government, will inevitably be weaponised to suppress dissent. Meta’s decision is no principled defence of free expression; it is a political manoeuvre to avoid controversy.
For us in New Zealand, the lesson is clear: the fight for free speech and truth cannot be left to corporations.
It is up to citizens and policymakers to shape a digital public square where open debate thrives, and all Kiwis can contribute their voices and beliefs to the marketplace of ideas.
Free speech is worth defending, and Meta’s decision is worth celebrating, even when it emerges from flawed motives. – Jonathan Ayling
Critics of Meta’s move (of which there are many) would do well to consider the alternative.
A world where tech giants act as gatekeepers of truth is a world where dissent is stifled, innovation is curbed, and trust in democratic institutions erodes further.
The better path is one where citizens are empowered to engage critically with information, where robust public discourse allows ideas to rise or fall based on their merits, and where the principle of free speech remains paramount.
This decision, albeit cynical, may pave the way for a more robust and open digital public square – one where ideas rise or fall based on their merits, not on the judgment of fact-checkers.
In the long run, this approach is the best safeguard for free speech, democracy, and the pursuit of truth. – Jonathan Ayling
I don’t know how I got there. – Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh on turning 60.
It’s been educating for me. It’s been mostly utterly joyous. I never know what to expect, I never know who I’m going to meet, and I never know what I’m going to learn.
And the old adage ‘Every day’s a school day’ is absolutely true. – Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh
I personally don’t have any castles sadly. But there are a few castles. They don’t really belong to the family, they belong to everybody really – they belong to the nation. –
We’re all different, but just because we’re different doesn’t mean that we don’t bring something to the party. – Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh
Mistakes happen. It’s about being creative and having a ‘can-do’ attitude to see what can be done [to help them]. – Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh
Not everyone wakes up in the morning and says ‘Hurrah! Sometimes you need to see something to remind you to be positive – everybody has their moments. – Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh
We need humility, that’s the main kicker for me. You [need to] tell the truth and make amends for everything you’ve done. But the one for me is the higher power, as it’s called in our [Anonymous programmes] — and to me, that’s keeping humble.
If I’m concerned, I will talk to the sky, just go out and go, ‘Not a bad day’ [or] ‘That happened’, ‘I mucked up on that’, or ‘I’ll fix that tomorrow’. And I’ll just remember that I’m not that important. – Pam Corkery
I nearly died… a fright is very good. My children had come to me and said, ‘Mum, this is not funny’. And I’d said, ‘Yes, I’ll stop now’. [I was] lying, because you’re compelled to keep drinking.
Now, I suppose I’ve been clean long enough. If you’re a year clean, it’s still difficult; three years clean, maybe still a wee bit more difficult because you’ve got to uncover stuff about yourself and you’d sort of bullshitted your way through life by just covering up the sins you had done the night before.
Now, I sort of just live nicely and with gratitude, and I laugh. I hadn’t laughed like that for a long time and I remember going out with a Narcotics Anonymous group for a forest trek, and I was going, ‘Look at these trees,’ because most of us stay indoors a lot. We go, ‘Look at that sky, what the hell, there’s animals?’
All those things were late coming. So I feel very child-like at the same time as being a grown-up. – Pam Corkery
It’s a funny thing I’ve learned, because I’ve been married a lot of times, a ridiculous amount. But now I know I can give and receive love — I just only ever took it. It’s all those things that have come with being sober.
I can’t fight the battle for everyone, but now I’ve got these two gorgeous daughters who are successful and blossoming, I’ve got [husband] Kerry, I’ve got a sister and nieces here in Queensland.
And I can sit with myself. I think I’m relaxed, which, when you’re using alcohol and other drugs, none of that ever happens. So I’m still, I suppose, cherishing these years.
I don’t think I want to save the world anymore. I’d just like to live a bit longer. – Pam Corkery
How many people can honestly say they are sure that they would have done the right thing, if they had lived in a very different time and place? – Scott Sumner
The headlines are constant; debt is climbing, productivity is stagnant, and economic recovery feels like trying to find a carpark at Sylvia Park on Christmas Eve – impossible. And I am certain that the solution is not going to come from the Government or Reserve Bank. It’s coming from us, the businesses of Aotearoa.
The only way forward is for businesses to stop waiting, start doing and get on with creating value and exporting it to the world. Growth, investment, and risk-taking aren’t optional; they’re part of the solution. We can’t afford to wait for conditions to be perfect, because—let’s face it—they never are. – Nicola Taylor
As we relax over the summer break, it’s worth reminding ourselves that as a nation we’re working longer hours for less output. We’re not investing enough in the tools, systems, and ideas that drive growth. And let’s be honest: waiting for perfect conditions isn’t the answer. We will be waiting forever. – Nicola Taylor
So here’s my hope for 2025: I hope we stop waiting. I hope we get comfortable with the uncomfortable truth that risk is necessary, growth is hard, and the path forward will never be perfectly clear. Whatever your metaphorical eye patch is, wear it proudly and take action anyway.
For business owners, that might mean doubling down on an idea you believe in, even when the economy says “not yet”. For exporters, it might mean taking your product to a new market, even when the cost feels too high. And for all of us, it means remembering that progress—economic or otherwise—doesn’t happen when we play it safe.
Let’s hope 2025 is a year of more collaboration, more ambition, and more bold decisions that lift not just individual companies but the country as a whole. As New Zealanders, let’s start believing that we’re capable of more—because we are.
So, to anyone reading this who’s been waiting for the perfect moment to act—consider this your nudge. There’s no perfect moment. The economy isn’t going to fix itself. But if we take the first step, if we invest in growth and back ourselves to succeed, we might just surprise ourselves. – Nicola Taylor
In the struggle between ideology and reality, ideology often emerges victorious—for a time only, however, reality being that which cannot be indefinitely denied. As Horace said, albeit in Latin, “Though you drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she will return, victorious over your ignorant confident scorn.”
It is the same with all reality: It catches up with you in the end.
For many years, the British population was indoctrinated by politicians into the belief that its National Health Service was a great triumph of social justice and efficiency, and that, without it, people would die like flies as they supposedly did in other countries without such a system.
Indeed, Mrs. Thatcher’s right-hand man, Nigel Lawson, once said that the National Health Service was the nearest that the British came to a national religion (Anglicanism having collapsed under the weight of its clergy’s pusillanimity, evident disbelief in its own doctrines, and unctuous sentimentality).
This religion was founded upon several false tenets. The first was that, before the foundation of the National Health Service, health care hardly existed in the country. This, of course, was nonsense. Indeed, in the report first suggesting the establishment of an NHS, it was acknowledged that the British health care system (if system it deserved to be called, for it was an amalgam of many different institutions) was among the best in Europe—instead of the worst, as it now is.
The second tenet was that the NHS was necessary to the undoubted improvement in the health of the population from the time of its foundation. It was as if this improvement happened nowhere else, when the improvement was in fact greater in many other countries. The health of populations can improve under even bad governments, for example those of Guatemalan military dictatorships. But the fact that other countries made greater progress without the same British system was virtually hidden from the population, or at least never referred to.
The third tenet was that the NHS was inherently egalitarian. No doubt it was egalitarian in intention, and it is a sign of indoctrination that intention is taken as more important than actual performance. In fact, inequality of health outcome between the richest and poorest actually increased after the establishment of the NHS, perhaps for reasons having nothing to do with the system, or because the richer (and on the whole more educated) part of the population was better able to take advantage of whatever was going. In a centralized system such as the NHS, the ability to demand or complain in a coherent fashion is a huge advantage. – Theodore Dalrymple
For a time, the system appeared to work not too badly. This was for two reasons. There was what might be called the cultural capital of the previous health care system. As a religious morality may survive for a generation or two a decline of belief, so previous traditions of health care may survive a change in the system. Perhaps more important, there was much less information available to patients then than there is now. If patients were told that there was no treatment possible for whatever they had, they believed their informant and were therefore more stoical and resigned than they are now (I remember those days well, and very convenient for doctors they were too).
Not only has the number of treatments possible increased enormously, however, but the knowledge that they are technically possible has also increased enormously. Rationing and waiting lists cannot be hidden any longer by what were essentially lies.
The myth of equality was a highly convenient one also. People are often willing to put up with all kinds of inconveniences if they are convinced that everyone else in their situation has to endure them too. With a false leap of logic, people then took the inconveniences as evidence of the equality that justified them. The more unpleasant the service, or at least the more hoops that people were made to jump through in order to obtain it, the stronger the signal of political virtue (if equality is a virtue). – Theodore Dalrymple
Millions of people were and are treated, and treated well, under the NHS. But so they were under all other health care systems. The question, however, is whether they are better or worse treated under other systems, and the evidence suggests that they are worse treated.
To be genuinely ill is always unpleasant, but the NHS makes it worse than it need be because, in addition to the illness itself, the patient is often made only too well aware that he is a pauper in relation to the system, or at least a lowly petitioner to it. He has little choice but to accept what he is granted—or for that matter withheld. Other than to refuse treatment altogether, he must take what he is given; often, he must hurry up and wait, often for months or even years. There is no other European country at an equivalent level of economic development where to be ill is so unpleasant. – Theodore Dalrymple
Every so often, newspapers and other media discover with horror in Britain what was there all the time, namely the cruelties inflicted upon patients not by intention of the staff to be cruel, but because of the way the system is organized. The penny seems never to drop that, notwithstanding all attempts at improvement, the system never does more than limp from crisis to crisis and has done so from its initiation. For the moment the ideology of the NHS prevents any real reform. People grumble, of course, but grumbling is to reform what a jacquerie is to revolution.
Thanks to the ideology, the British are in thrall to their own pauperdom—and not, incidentally, only in the matter of health care. – Theodore Dalrymple
History may well record the current world wide movement for change, colloquially referred to in many countries as a “Rejection of Woke” or “A right-wing tsunami”, but whatever the terminology, there is no doubt that the result will be a quantum shift in the political landscape of the Free World. – Clive Bibby
Given the fact that “left wing administrations” across the globe have either fallen in landslide elections or are about to be unceremoniously dumped in the next one, it may even reach behind what has been known as the “Iron curtain” where dictators have ruled unchallenged for decades.
Referring back to the fall of past empires or recent evil regimes like Hitler’s Germany will show that the human spirit has no time for ideas that are not based on the achievement of democratic outcomes.
I would go further and suggest that, once this current movement has flushed out the false prophets and replaced the separatist administrations with leaders who respond to the people’s needs rather than their own, the world may be in for a prolonged period of peaceful coexistence that this generation and few before have ever experienced. – Clive Bibby
1) Even democratically elected governments will not be able to survive the will of the people when their clandestine activities and ideologically based legislation are exposed as false doctrines.
We see the evidence of the betrayal right here in this country where there have been attempts to impose policies that are foreign to the common man’s sense of fair play. – Clive Bibby
2) Given that the main components of human species DNA is exactly the same wherever we live, it is no surprise that eventually democracy will prevail, even in countries where currently the people appear to have no choice.
Ultimately righteousness will overcome evil but it is anybody’s guess how long it will take.
Hopefully this generation may witness the freedoms that too many have been denied.
Let’s believe in our ability to select leaders who are committed to delivering sustainable improvement to the lives of all those they serve.
We have endured the opposite for too long. – Clive Bibby
We’re raising a generation whose understanding of human connection is being warped by algorithms designed to push the most extreme content. That’s when it hit me: New Zealand needs to become the first country to mandate childproof phones. And I don’t mean those flimsy parental controls that any tech-savvy eight-year-old can bypass faster than you can say “TikTok.”
We need real, hardware-level protection for our tamariki.
Here’s what a childproof phone mandate could look like: mandatory hardware-level restrictions for users under 16, with built-in time limits, automatic nighttime shutoffs, and social media blocks that work as effectively as a Kiwi pest-proof fence.
Kids would still have access to calls, texts, maps, and emergency services – just not the digital equivalent of pure sugar. – Cecilia Robinson
As we enter 2025, we’re seeing an unprecedented mental health crisis among our young people. By being first to act, we wouldn’t just be protecting our own kids – we’d be creating a blueprint for the world. The technology exists. The need is clear. The only question is whether we have the courage to take this step.
Besides, imagine the tourism slogan: “Welcome to New Zealand – where we still let kids be kids.” – Cecilia Robinson
A full-length documentary about a left-wing New Zealand politician with a penchant for wearing a keffiyeh, who has never held a ministerial portfolio during her seven years in Parliament and whose party increasingly resembles a relic of the heyday of “progressive” politics, will likely look, at best, quaint.
At worst, a seriously misguided use of public money and very dated. – Graham Adams
Our freedoms are fragile.
Our bureaucrats claim that they are in favour of all six tests. The Cabinet Manual has been written to include them, but the civil servants are against making the tests law.
It is no wonder. Bryce Wilkinson, a member of the taskforce, has observed that many regulations passed by the executive are rushed, badly written, hard to understand, sometimes contradictory and cost more than any benefit.
The OECD says badly drafted laws are one reason our productivity is so poor.
My own experience in Government leads me to the belief that perhaps half of all laws cost more than any benefit. – Richard Prebble
Freedom Indexes demonstrate countries that protect freedom are wealthier.
But even if the basic freedoms did not result in a more prosperous country I would still be in favour. No civil servant knows as much about your life as you do. A bureaucrat may think your behaviour should be banned but maybe it gives you pleasure. Provided our choices are not harming others and we accept responsibility for our actions, we should be free to make our choices.
Those who seek power over us for their agenda need to remember that the same power will allow others to impose their agenda on them. Labour passed the Economic Stabilisation Act to implement the unions’ economic priorities. Muldoon used the power to target unions.
My suggestion to Seymour is that his bill is so important it should be called the New Zealand Magna Carta. – Richard Prebble
Labour was supposed to be a party for the workers. They’ve let provincial New Zealand down badly with economic mismanagement and energy policies that may have suited a speech at UNGA in New York, but certainly not the good people of Ruapehu.
And that’s the lesson Trump is giving the left today. The recipe used over the past decade of window dressing, performative politics, identity politics, virtue signalling, and demonising your opponents no longer works on the people who matter most.
The voters. – Ryan Bridge
One 2017 study by the Phoenix Center and Auburn University found that every single full-time regulator destroys 158 jobs.
GDP-adjusted to today, that translates to $16.5 million of economic output. For a hundred-thousand dollar bureaucrat.
This lost output is made of jobs and businesses that were never started. Or were stunted by strangling regulations — which are generally bought by big corporations specifically to strangle small competitors. – Peter St Onge
So it’s not the bureaucrat’s hundred thousand salary that matters. It’s the 138 jobs he takes out. Every single year you keep him around.
In fact, you could fire him, keep paying him for life, and still put a hundred families in the middle class. – Peter St Onge
I want New Zealand to be a country of aspiration, ambition, and opportunity.
But to meet that moment and to make that vision a reality, we have to go for growth.
It’s just not up for negotiation anymore.
If we want a better standard of living, we have to go out and make it happen. – Christopher Luxon
It’s been a massive year of change and reform and I am confident we are now on the road to recovery. But recovery isn’t enough. We have to go for growth.
Driving economic growth is critical for improving our quality of life – strengthening local businesses, lifting incomes, and creating opportunity across New Zealand. A growing economy means giving Kiwis more choices – the confidence to find a new job or hire a new staff member, to open a business, or start a family. A growing economy means we can deliver better infrastructure – quality roads, so Kiwis can get where they need to – faster.
A growing economy means better, more responsive public services. A growing economy means more money for hospitals – so we can have more surgeons and doctors, more medicine, faster access to treatment, and higher quality care when you need it. A growing economy means more money for schools – with better resources, better classrooms, better technology, and more attention and opportunity for your children and grandchildren.
A growing economy means safer and more vibrant towns and cities – with growing businesses, more parks and libraries, higher quality homes, and more of them.
Above all – it’s that overwhelming sense that better days lie ahead. That if you’re prepared to work hard, this country is an outstanding place to make it happen. – Christopher Luxon
Growth means there’s a place for you.
But too often, when it comes to economic growth, we’ve slipped into a culture of saying no.
It’s always easy for someone to find a reason to get in the way and find a problem – but we need to shift our mindset and embrace growth. – Christopher Luxon
There’s always a reason to say no, but if we keep saying no, we’ll keep going nowhere.
We need larger ports. We need more concerts.
We need more jobs, more investment, more innovation, exports, and talent.
The bottom line is we need a lot less no and a lot more yes. – Christopher Luxon
I want a New Zealand where businesses – big and small – thrive.
And make a profit. And pay high wages. And hire more people. And invest in growth.
Kiwis do well when flourishing businesses are competing hard.
But that competition isn’t always happening. – Christopher Luxon
I wouldn’t be shocked if cones were New Zealand’s fastest growing industry. They’re everywhere.
Wayne Brown has done a great job fighting back here in Auckland, and Simeon Brown fought hard against them in his time as Minister of Transport too.
But they are just a symptom of a bigger problem.
Our broken health and safety rules layer on costs and slow down activity – often without making Kiwis any safer.
This year we will crack on and make big changes. – Christopher Luxon
It’s easy in politics to say you want a sovereign wealth fund like Norway, or much higher incomes like Australia – but it’s much harder to say you want the oil and mining that pays for it. – Christopher Luxon
Farmers are the heart of our economy. When they’re doing well, it benefits every single Kiwi. And I back them.
Core to our RMA reforms will be making it easier to be a farmer – with more time spent milking cows and less time filling out paperwork asking for permission.
I also want New Zealand scientists working on high yield crop variants, and solutions to agricultural emissions that don’t drive farmers off their land and risk the very foundation of the New Zealand economy.
Enabling gene technology is about backing farmers. It is about embracing growth. It is about saying yes, instead of no.
Our political opponents can continue the scare campaigns of the early 2000s. But, we will back the scientific community, push on, and get that law passed this year too. – Christopher Luxon
Like so many New Zealanders, my ancestors came to this country in search of a better life. They came as bakers, miners, stonemasons and farmers. Hotelkeepers and fishermen. They came in search of opportunity and ambition.
Above all, they came in search of a place to call home.
And like so many new New Zealanders today, they found that home – and they discovered what all of us here today know to be true. That New Zealand is a country with unlimited potential. A country with a promise – that if you work hard – wherever you come from and wherever you’re going – you can get ahead.
I want our kids to grow up in a country where it is totally normal for them to go and work in a company that puts rockets into space. Or a cutting edge health science or agri-tech company. Or that they can create those companies for themselves. I want our kids to know that New Zealand is where the opportunities are – not Australia or the UK.
And not just that, but that our education system taught them the basics brilliantly and set them up not just to get those jobs, but to excel at them. We’re not there right now – but we so can be. We can take on the world, and we can win. Hope is on the horizon and our potential is within our grasp. Achieving our potential means keeping up the fight – for prosperity, opportunity, and ambition.
For the bakers and miners that came before me – and all the children and grandchildren that will come long after we are gone. I won’t be knocked down by that fight. All I can offer is my drive, my determination, and – above all – my unshakeable belief that New Zealand’s best days are ahead of us. – Christopher Luxon
Surely, in a liberal democracy, there are few words more chilling to read written in earnest than the “flawed concept of ‘equality’”. But there they were, in print, in an opinion piece by the National Urban Māori Authority’s Lady Tureiti Moxon published in the NZ Herald on Tuesday last week. – Don Brash
Equality is not simply flawed in Te Pāti Māori’s dystopian idealised future of our country, it is irrelevant, unimportant, and an obstacle to overcome. –
One of the greatest triumphs of the twentieth century was the West’s determined shift to place human rights and equality at the very heart of governance and democracy. It is our commitment to equality, and the simple idea that we should be treated the same before the law and have access to the same opportunities, that has allowed for the dismantling of discriminatory systems and laws. – Don Brash
I have been advocating for a New Zealand that treats each of us equally under the law for decades now and I know better than most how aggressively this concept has been resisted by those who promote a system where who one’s ancestors are determines their rights. Racial separatism is explicitly advocated for by Te Pāti Māori, and its proxies, and some of the ugliest of their messages have sadly gained traction with a new generation of activists if social media is anything to go by.
The idea that anyone who does not have Māori ancestry is merely a visitor to these lands can be seen in videos online, in the comment sections of articles, and in vox pops in the media. No matter if a person is a sixth generation New Zealander, according to the new Māori activist doctrine, they are manuhiri (a visitor) and Māori are only allowing their presence out of reluctant goodwill.
This way of thinking is a recipe for disaster. It is a sure way to destroy social cohesion and distract us all from the immense economic challenges that we all face. We must start with equality as our baseline.
It is extraordinary that needs to be said, but equality is not racist. – Don Brash
How might the landscape look in the face of this spreading tide? Perhaps the institutions and personnel of the diversity industry will be the first to be swept away; carrying away its practice in government; and finally spreading into the high and low ground of the private sector, where we could see diversity practitioners making a more transparent case in the courts for what they would acknowledge as positive discrimination. (We look forward to the testing of their positive defences: for example that private actors are entitled to exercise rationally-based discriminatory preferences; that discrimination is traditional (albeit some new forms are quite recent); or that we fought for and won these rights privileges).
Given the extensive scaffolding for merit erected by the US Constitution and its patient buttressing by the Supreme Court in recent years, a legal repudiation of the Trump initiative seems very unlikely. Moreover, the political tide seems to have turned against DEI; using the law to try to defend it may serve only to identify and discredit its adherents.
In their childhood, most New Zealanders were taught not to swim against a rip current (and the safe way to deal with its force is to swim across it). That should help us think about how to deal with a new movement as it surges on to New Zealand’s shores. – Point of Order
And absolutely importantly, the minerals sector will be critical, critical for our climate transition. EVs solar panels and datacentres aren’t made out of thin air; they use critical minerals. I want to see mining employ more Kiwis and power more profit for the economy. And I’m adamant we take further steps to make that a reality as well. – Christopher Luxon
If I was in Labour (and I am no longer, so it is a little academic I suppose) I would be arguing extremely eloquently for ditching Te Pāti Māori once and for all. Cut them loose and make them irrelevant.
The risk to Labour of doing this, however, is that it may be seen as a betrayal by Māori voters; who still party vote overwhelmingly for Labour. But I absolutely believe that Labour is unelectable if they are, in any way, tied to, or seen as needing, the Te Pāti Māori to form a government.
Te Pāti Māori is as radical a political movement as has existed inside Parliament (and, being a traditionalist, I find their behaviour inside the debating chamber appallingly disrespectful) and I think their style of politics polarises – and puts off – voters in a way that’s political suicide for Labour if they decide to partner with them.
Middle New Zealand will simply not vote in large enough numbers to provide Labour with victory if voter believe that both the Greens (who, by the way, have moved away from their environmental roots and become more a socially radical party) and Te Pāti Māori will have any impact on the nation’s economic or social policy agendas going forward. – Stuart Nash
As a viewer, I want to see and hear unbiased, dispassionate information that is not influenced or coloured in any way by the presenter; leaving the viewer truly free to make up their own mind. – Simon Dallow
Overlaying celebrity onto it changes the parasocial relationship from neutral to one influenced by preference – and thus plays a subconscious role in influencing the viewer’s perspective. – Simon Dallow
Do we really need the UN any more? For a long time I’ve felt that some parts of it, including UNRWA and the International Court of Justice, both with their obsession against Israel, should be deep-sixed (UNRWA is the only UN refugee agency tasked with “refugees” in one area, and several countries, including the US, have defunded it). Seriously, how much good does the UN really do?
If you need more evidence that parts of the UN are actually complicit in terrorism, have a look at the allegations of the three young Israeli women just released by Hamas. Yep, they said they were held in a UNRWA-run “humanitarian camp”. The article below also discusses claims that otherhostages were held in Gazan hospitals, hospitals that were raided by the IDF to the loud objections of the rest of the world. If you think the UNRWA people who ran the camp were totally unaware of the fact that it contained Israeli hostages, well, . . . . . that’s not the way it works in Gaza. – Jerry Coyne
Sometimes, I think that the U.S. should divest from the UN, force it out of its New York City headquarters,* and wash its hands of it. But then, coming back to my senses, I realize that if the U.S. leaves the U.N., that playground for Jew hate will lose a critical dissenting voice. This is a common dilemma. Do I remain a member of the organization and try to repair it from the inside? Do I leave and call for reform from the outside? Or do I walk away entirely and apply my energies and talents elsewhere?
I despise what I see at the U.N, including calls for Israel’s expulsion, but I think that the U.S., as a founding member, needs to stay. We’ll see if Ambassador Stefanik can be effective in turning the U.N. around. I can’t imagine that the Trump administration is happy with what it’s seeing. But how much of a difference can it make? We’ll find out. – Jerry Coyne
12.6% represents one in eight people who rely on an unemployment, sole parent or some form of carer or disability benefit.
There are 232,000 children supported in these families. If their experience isn’t short-lived, they will learn habitual dependence from their parents. – Lindsay Mitchell
This deep dependence is a massive problem because it fuels so many other social ills.
But New Zealand’s longstanding love affair with social security (at its inception a benign and worthy institution) prevents a dispassionate assessment of its evolution.
Once driven and sustained by people with common values, it is now too frequently abused by people whose values are an anathema to a shrinking majority. That is the unfortunate trajectory of welfare states over time – they become too much of a good thing.
The genuinely needy probably form no fewer than the 2-3% that relied on benefits between the late 1930s and early 1970s.
But today New Zealand is carrying hundreds of thousands of people who are quite capable of carrying themselves. And would if such an easy alternative wasn’t presented. – Lindsay Mitchell
If politicians have learned anything from the Trump era, it’s that leaning into the mockery is the best approach.
Attempts to avoid it by being cautious and stage-managed invariable fail and suffer from burying the key message with PR scripted platitudes.
That’s been a problem for the PM in the first year of his term.
Last week he served up the opportunity for satire on a plate but, in doing so, delivered a message that will resonate with many Kiwis across the political spectrum. – Liam Dann
The Prime Minister is right that New Zealand needs to start doing stuff. We’re going backwards, we need to start moving with some urgency to create more wealth.
There is a truth underlying the Taylor Swift analogy.
New Zealand made a big choice in 2020 in saying no to Covid. I still think it was the right choice and saved lives.
Others disagree. But regardless, as we hunkered down to survive the pandemic, we collectively adopted a very defensive mindset.
To quote a piece of Swiftian philosophy, we need to shake it off.
We do need to encourage more foreign direct investment and we do need to sharpen the focus of the science and technology sector to develop more commercial opportunities. – Liam Dann
NZ First is no fan of selling stuff to foreigners – which is what overseas investment often means.
I expect the PM has had to draw on every bit of political capital he has with Winston Peters to get him across the line on less dramatic foreign investment rules changes that many expect to see announced in the coming weeks. – Liam Dann
Any tax policy that hits the Government’s short-term revenue, or saving policy that hits households in the pocket, would be both economically and politically risky right now.
Cultural change and operational restructuring are cheaper and push in the right direction.
The Government is in a tight spot but, if it can at least grease the wheels of this economic cycle (touch wood), it might find itself better placed for the transformational stuff in time. – Liam Dann
What attracts me more to it is not the size [of the job], but its importance to how New Zealand functions.
It’s a service thing – to be of service to your country. It’s very important to me and my family. I’ve got the opportunity to do it and I’ll do it to the best of my ability. – Sir Brian Roche
The reason that I’ve got a group of chief executives is, it’s not about me as the leader. I’m just the catalyst for the change. They’re the ones that need to lead it and design it and then execute on it.
It’s not a crisis, but I think we need to actually take leadership and reorientate the system to a different operating environment. – Sir Brian Roche
I don’t think that hard architecture, the system, is fit for purpose any longer, but the people make it work and the degree of effort and professionalism they have is an asset for New Zealand. – Sir Brian Roche
Organisational design – we need to be more flexible. The whole operating environment, fiscal pressures, global pressures, it’s a very dynamic operating environment, and we need a system that reflects that dynamic. – Sir Brian Roche
We talk about the public sector and the private sectors that are two independent satellites, they’re not, the public sector is a business”.
“We don’t make a profit. We’re still here to serve the citizens of New Zealand, and all the money we have is taxpayer money, and we need to be mindful of that. So I don’t see the distinction between the public and private sector as starkly as some. – Sir Brian Roche
We need to focus on how we simplify and how we streamline and how we reorientate. We will be better off and deliver better outcomes for New Zealand. – Sir Brian Roche
That’s the nature of organisations… a constant desire for reorientation, for redefining in flexibility.
“The public sector is no different. It has to reflect modern business practices. It’s got to reflect modern leadership practices. The chief executives are up for that, and we have the opportunity to navigate our way through that. – Sir Brian Roche
It could cause disruption. That’s been the reality of the operating environment in the public sector for a long time, is these collectives come up for renegotiation.
There’s inevitably tension. I feel confident that we can get through that. – Sir Brian Roche
Everything has a cost. But you have to consider that cost and the value that you can derive from that expenditure.
Being able to invest in technology to improve the quality and timeliness of decision making, particularly and the services to citizens, is a great value in this discussion we’ll be having with our ministers. – Sir Brian Roche
I’m completely dispensable. I’m here for a period of time. I want to act as a catalyst to actually optimise and reorientate the existing system.
I want to actually begin to prepare us for a new world where digital and data are the new assets that the public sector owns and uses to its maximum ability. I want to actually have a system which maintains the confidence and trust of the public and the politicians.
That means that we have to be efficient and effective, we have to be extremely ethical and maintain the integrity that’s expected and required of public service on. – Sir Brian Roche
So loud are the squeals from the likes of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer against the new appointments to the Waitangi Tribunal that I can only assume that Minister Tama Potaka has got things right. And that the new members are likely to shake the organisation into some sort of compliance with its mission that was set out in legislation fifty years ago. Decades of misbehaviour since the Tribunal was established in 1975 where a series of leaders have allowed the organisation to become a state-funded plaything for Maori radicals will hopefully come to an end. With luck, the minister will go a step further and trim the Tribunal’s legislation so that it doesn’t slip back into the manifold sins of recent years. – Michael Bassett
In the current economic climate, however, more attention is being paid to wastage of taxpayers’ money. Not so much, unfortunately, as to lead ministers to prune the Tribunal of its grossly excessive members and staff. Instead, with his recent appointments, Tama Potaka has cleared several radicals from the body, replacing them with new members, several with notable experience in government and business.
The squeals from Ngarewa-Packer and others are a pathetic attempt to maintain jobs for radical friends in make-believe historical writing. With luck, the current chair of the Tribunal, Caren Fox, will find her wings clipped, and the body will be returned to the narrower range of activities specified in legislation. If the new members perform as they should, they’ll tell the minister that at least half the Tribunal and staff – maybe the whole shooting box – has outlived its usefulness and should be closed down. – Michael Bassett
This reflexive approach by press gallery journalists in particular drives coalition ministers to exasperation. The default position is often to go for the negative first instead of trying to understand what new policy positions involve.
It’s why Luxon also bypasses them to communicate directly via X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok to ensure he has some direct lines to the public where he can get his messages out untrammelled by journalistic bias.
In my view, it contributes to a loss of trust in media – particularly among those who have an appreciation for the challenges Governments and businesses face in a fast-changing world. – Fran O’Sullivan
Step outside of New Zealand – as I am for the next 10 days – and you will find the political environment is changing fast.
The pendulum which clearly swung far too far to accommodate the extremes of the culture wars has swung back.
This week two right-of-centre Presidents have declared war on the “woke virus”. They won’t be the last.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters wants to ensure women’s spaces are preserved for women. Some ministers are equivocating. – Fran O’Sullivan
Much about Trump disturbs some, but unlike the Opposition leader, he is clear on the definition of woman!
He’s not alone. At the 2025 World Economic Forum at Davos, Argentina’s President Javier Milei said “wokism” is a “mental virus” and a “cancer that must be removed”.
Milei attacked feminism, immigration and the fight against climate change, calling them causes only intended to justify the advance of the state. He talked on how the “winds of change” are blowing in the West and expressed hope over the formation of an “international alliance” of countries that “believe in the idea of freedom”.
Among his potential “partners”: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Netanyahu and Trump.
This may seem radical. But these political leaders are not alone in saying the pendulum has swung too far.
New Zealand cannot stay isolated from these debates. – Fran O’Sullivan
‘Democracy’ gives us a system of parliamentary sovereignty, of law, of regulation. It recognises that our common humanity justifies equal rights. Those rights belong to the individual citizen, not to the group.
The word ‘liberal’ gives us the freedom to be different – as individuals and in voluntary associations based on a range of shared interests –culture, heritage, language, sport, music, religion, politics, and so on.
This is what makes liberal democracy remarkable. As citizens we have the same political and legal rights. As members of civil society we are free to be different. This is an enormously important point. It is the combination of rights, responsibilities and freedom within democracy’s governance and laws that makes the modern world vibrant and prosperous. – Elizabeth Rata
First world nations need liberal democracy’s creative tension – an invigorating tension between rights and responsibilities, and between having the same rights and having the freedom to be different. – Elizabeth Rata
New Zealand’s future may be that of a prosperous first-world liberal democratic nation or a third-world, retribalised state. A first world tribal nation is a contradiction in terms. It is not possible. There can be no prosperity without individual equality and freedom. There can be no social equality without prosperity. We are at a crossroads. The value of the Bill is that it not only forces us to confront this fact but allows us to do so within the parliamentary select committee process rather than through cultural posturing, intimidation, perhaps even violence. The very existence of the Bill is liberal democracy in action. – Elizabeth Rata
The vibe shift was the speech’s main feature.
Growth is good, development is good, being richer is better than stasis and slow decline, and it’s time to tear down some of the barriers that successive governments have built.
New Zealand’s foreign investment rules are among the world’s most restrictive. But foreign investors shouldn’t be required to prove that they’re good enough to be allowed to do things here – they should be welcomed to a country that needs more investment. – Eric Crampton
Small things in the speech matter for the vibe shift.
Nobody could possibly believe that allowing more concerts at Eden Park will contribute materially to overall economic growth. It won’t move the dial by that much, regardless of concert promoters’ assurances.
But think about what it means.
For ages, people who decided to move next door to a concert venue have not wanted the concert venue to have concerts. It’s fundamentally decel. And because many of those neighbours are politically powerful, they’ve been able to block concerts. If the Government is willing to withstand the ire of that constituency, what other kinds of growth will it also enable?
A shift in vibe has to be backed by more than speeches. The culture in our bureaus and agencies needs to change, along with the regulatory regimes. That will take real work.
But the shift in vibe is welcome. It’s time to build. – Eric Crampton
The world has become toxic. I realize that we’re in a crisis again, that there is so much hatred around, so much distrust, that if we don’t stop, it may get worse and worse. There may be another terrible destruction. – Tova Friedman
“We must not allow commemoration to be ‘enough. – Abraham Lehrer
The evil that seeks to destroy the lives of entire nations still remains in the world – Volodymyr Zelenskyy
I recently spoke about the need to end the culture of saying no when it comes to economic growth, because Kiwis want to build and they want to grow and they want to innovate, and all too often they’re actually told no. So let’s talk about fast track, because applications for 149 projects from Kaikohe to Stewart Island open next week. Among those projects are some exciting new renewable energy schemes to give us the electricity that we need and that will be affordable and abundant, in there is tens of thousands of houses that are going to give young Kiwis a chance a home, and in there, yes, there are mines and there are quarries so that we create jobs in provincial New Zealand and help the clean transition to take place. And I’m proud to say that there are 49 of those projects that are in the South Island. That’s because on this side of the House, we understand how important the South Island is, and that’s why we’ve appointed an awesome new Minister for the South Island in James Meager.
Now, the absolutely tragic thing is that every single member of the Opposition parties voted against those fast-track projects, right? They voted against creating opportunities for Kiwis. Labour—they voted against jobs and housing. The Greens—they voted against wind and solar farms. Te Pāti Māori—they voted against iwi being able to develop their own land. So I’ve got to say that the members opposite, they remind me of a cat pawing at the ranch slider, yowling away, trying to get in, and then you open the door and they don’t move. They refuse to come in. That’s what they are—the MPs opposite.
I’ve got to say, we are a coalition on this side; they’re a “no-alition” on that side—that’s what they’re about. They’re all about no; we’re all about yes, on this side.
We must develop a mind-set that says yes to things that are going to make Kiwis better off, and you’ll know that as part of that, last week I expressed my view on removing the limits around concerts at Eden Park. I think they should be abolished. What was interesting was that the Labour leader Helen Clark—I mean, actually, the former Labour leader—was not happy with me. – Christopher Luxon
While we have been back at work for weeks pushing through changes to make Kiwis so much better off, Chris Hipkins is barely out of his jandals. We’d signed a trade deal before he’d even grabbed the work shirt out of the laundry basket. I do want to commend, though, Chris Hipkins for one thing: his resistance to returning to work has showcased that, in fact, anyone—even a Leader of the Opposition—can be a digital nomad.
On digital nomads, can I say what a great announcement from the Government yesterday—a fantastic announcement. A common-sense change that’s going to mean we’re going to open up for more business and more tourists and more money being spent in our cafes and our restaurants and our shops, and all of that is practical, common-sense, great changes and it is all part of our plan to grow the economy.
But what did we hear? We heard a rather muddled response from the Labour Party, saying, bizarrely, that the bigger economic priority should be letting more public servants work from home. It was quite something. But, actually, I think there’s quite a good idea in there, because, bizarrely, looking at Labour saying no to everything, the country’s productivity would actually be improved if the members opposite did just stay at home. I’d encourage them to do that. – Christopher Luxon
What I’d say is that this is going to be a Government that’s going to continue to deliver the change that New Zealand needs, because it’s not just enough to get us back to normal. We actually have an opportunity to be so much better and to realise more of the potential that sits in this great country.
I want Kiwi kids to know that New Zealand is where the opportunities are, not the UK or Australia. I want our farmers to know that we back them; that they’re deeply valued and they’re not villains. I want our Kiwi businesses to know we want them thriving. And I want Kiwi families to know that, if you work hard, you can get ahead in the best country on planet Earth. – Christopher Luxon
This article actually appeared on the Museum of New Zealand’s website, and is about as explicit an argument for the country adopting indigenous “ways of knowing” (Mātauranga Māori, or MM) as I have found. You may remember that MM is a mixture of practical knowledge, religion, superstition, morals, teleology and guidelines for living. Despite this mixture, there has been a constant battle to get MM taught as coequal with modern science, though the argument has euphemistically changed to coequal “ways of knowing.” The “coequal” bit derives from a slanted interpretation of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi (the sacred “Te Tiriti” that you encounter in all of this literature), a treaty that said nothing about schools teaching equal amounts of Māori or “Western” knowledge. But that’s how it’s interpreted, for Māori see coequal teaching as a way to retain power in their society.
The problem is that MM is not a “way of knowing” in any scientific sense, for it lacks explicit tools for finding out truths about the universe. Any “way of knowing” that relies on superstition and legends cannot possibly be coequal with modern science, though it can be usefully taught in sociology or anthropology classes. – Jerry Coyne
The conclusion then is that European New Zealanders simply can’t get near MM because they don’t have the “right model of transmission” and never will. But since MM has coequal status, this gives Māori control of half of the educational system, at least as far as “ways of knowing” are concerned. Yet Europeans constitute 67,8% of New Zealanders, Maori 17.8%, Asians 17.3%, and other Pacific peoples 8.9%. (Māori is also spoken as a daily language by only 4% of New Zealanders—the same as Chinese) compared to over 95% who speak English. Clearly the indigenous peoples are asking for a huge inequity in education, but of course they use the Treaty of Waitangi to buttress their aims to transform education.
Finally, behold the claim that “knowledge is deeply place-based”, which is surely not true for modern science and should not be true for MM if it really is a “way of knowing”. As readers have pointed out, any knowledge that purports to be scientific cannot be place-limited, for then every region (e.g., the Pacific Northwest) has a “way of knowing” that applies only to that region. Of course, if your “knowledge” deals with phenomena or things that occur only in your country, then it could be place-based, but that can lead to nonsense like the millions of dollars spent on Māori-guided initiatives like playing whale songs to kauri trees (and rubbing them with whale oil) to cure a fungal disease that is killing those iconic trees of New Zealand. After all, Māori legend tells us that whales and kauri trees used to be brothers, but the whales made off for the sea, and the kauri trees got sick because, as landlubbers, they were lonely. – Jerry Coyne
The conferring of primacy on indigenous knowledge is part of the Critical Social Justice ideology mentioned by my correspondent. The other part is the implication that the Māori are victims of ongoing colonial bigotry, something that may have been true in the past but is not true now: if anything, there is strong affirmative action in the country favoring Māori. – Jerry Coyne
At any rate, do remember that this screed appeared on the website of the Museum of New Zealand in Wellington, a wonderful place where I visited for hours. Sadly, like the rest of New Zealand’s scientific establishment, it is in the process of being captured by Social Justice Ideology. – Jerry Coyne
Much is being made of the fact he [Trump] doesn’t have to face the voters ever again, as though that doesn’t apply to every President who gets a second term, so he’ll go nuts.
He won’t go nuts. He is already nuts, but a lot of people like that kind of nuts.
He comes off the back, as the Wall Street Journal so decisively portrayed, one of the great crime families of modern America: the Biden’s. The senility hidden from day one, all the family pardoned, and Hunter singled out, despite Joe saying he wouldn’t. What a liar. What a crook.
As I said last year, the first time Trump came and went the world didn’t end. It won’t this time either.
But so far it’s going to be a hoot watching and I, for one, am loving it. – Mike Hosking
We need to do better, and we need to do better faster. – Kerre Woodham
I did like the focus on science and a knowledge-based economy. Come in Helen Clark, what happened to that knowledge-based economy? But that is where New Zealand made its name, New Zealand made its fortune was around the science. Science, scientific brains – entrepreneurs have been leading this country for such a long time, since refrigerated shipping. That’s what made our fortune and that’s where our fortune lies. That, I agree, is where the focus needs to be. But that takes time and I’m not entirely sure that this government has got the amount of time it needs to turn this country around. – Kerre Woodham
The 1987 Court of Appeals decision envisions the treaty as a “partnership” between Pakeha and Maori.
But if we accept this bicultural view of New Zealand citizenship; that the treaty indeed establishes a partnership between two out of many ethnic groups residing in the country, then what does this imply for the quarter of the population that is neither Maori nor Pakeha?
What loyalty or kinship can this quarter of the population, full-fledged Kiwis like my daughters, feel to a country where their very existence seems to be an afterthought?
Are they destined to be second tier citizens governed by an uneasy alliance between the Pakeha and Maori? – Ananish Chaudhuri
We have a choice. We can choose to remain a liberal democracy where everyone counts, or we can become an ethnocentric nation based on identity politics and riven by ethnic tensions.
Make no mistake; the current path where particular ethnicities are granted “partnership” status can only lead to the eventual appearance of more ethnic parties fighting it out for a seat at the table as has happened in other parts of the world. – Ananish Chaudhuri
The Green Party also needs to wake up to fact the pendulum has swung against the overreactions of wokism. It should take note of former Canadian leader of the opposition Michael Ignatieff, a diehard liberal, who now decries the fact liberals turned diversity into an ideology which excluded and cancelled those with other views. – Martin van Beynen
Freedom of speech is valuable, but not merely for letting individuals say whatever they fancy within the law. It’s valuable primarily for the sake of the public good. For if dominant orthodoxies are false, misshape public policy, and go unchecked, we all suffer. Free speech allows us to interrogate reigning ideological emperors – on race, transgender, colonialism, public health and climate change, among others – to find out if their new clothes are a reality or a dangerous illusion.
On transgender self-identification, there’s plenty of reason to doubt its intellectual coherence. When a biological male believes his inner, authentic self is female, what exactly does he think being “female” is? How is he not trading on gender stereotypes that feminists taught us to abandon decades ago?
As Dame Hilary Cass’s report has argued, there’s even more reason to doubt that the health of young people is well served by uncritically allowing them to align their bodies with their imagined genders by making irrevocable physical changes. Or – as JK Rowling has long been contending – that the safety of women in changing-rooms and toilets should be jeopardised by forcing them to suffer the presence of men who happen to identify as female.
On race, “progressive” anti-racism threatens to deepen racial alienation and conflict in Britain by importing radically pessimistic American ideas, rooted in America’s history, that espouse a dualist opposition between “white” and “black”, seeing “whiteness” as irredeemably racist. People should not be penalised for expressing such ideas, but nor should they be for advocating Martin Luther King’s approach, namely, that people should be judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. – Nigel Biggar & Toby Young
On colonialism, the reduction of the history of the British Empire to a cartoonish litany of racism and oppression is not only historically and morally insupportable; it trashes an important part of the record of the West, corroding faith in it. – Nigel Biggar & Toby Young
<
Posted by homepaddock