Newsletter

“The Luxon Crisis” - 25 November 2025

When a Prime Minister’s Electoral Bribe Exposes the Hollowing Out of Aotearoa

Ivor Jones The Māori Green Ltn

25 Nov 2025 — 20 min read

Christopher Luxon stands defiant. As the NZ Herald reported on 24 November 2025, the Prime Minister insists

“I can reassure you I am going to be Prime Minister heading into next year,” even as speculation grows about his potential removal as National Party leader. But the real story isn’t about leadership whispers in Parliament’s corridors—it’s about what his government’s first election policy reveals about who pays the price when neoliberal economic management fails.

The policy itself is a masterclass in sleight of hand. National promises to gradually lift default KiwiSaver contributions to 6% from employees and 6% from employers by 2032, matching Australia’s 12% total contribution rate. Luxon paints this as generosity—claiming a 21-year-old earning $65,000 today would retire with around $1.4 million, about $400,000 more than under current settings.

But here’s what the Prime Minister doesn’t want you to focus on: who’s funding this electoral promise, and what it exposes about the systematic gutting of public services that defines his government’s true legacy.

The Hidden Cost: Bleeding the Public Service to Death

As the government is the largest employer in New Zealand, it would be on the hook for an additional $90 million a year for each of the 0.5 percentage point increases in contribution rates. That’s the figure National admits to publicly. But buried in the fine print lies the mechanism of extraction: government departments would need to find this money from their existing baselines, which would put further pressure on public service funding.

Read that again. Existing baselines. The very same baselines already stripped to the bone.

This isn’t theoretical. As of June 2025, approximately 10,000 public sector jobs have been eliminated since the coalition took power, with ministries having paid at least NZ$80 million in redundancy payments, with another NZ$21.5 million forecasted. Agencies were mandated to deliver 6.5–7.5% annual savings—equivalent to roughly NZ$1.5 billion per year—prompting widespread restructures.

The toll is staggering:

The Ministry of Education proposed 565 cuts (12% of staff), affecting curriculum, policy, and regional services. Health NZ (Te Whatu Ora) eliminated approximately 2,042 roles since December 2024—including 500 redundancies and 1,500 digital and data roles. The Ministry for the Environment saw its workforce cut by approximately 25%, reducing from 988 to around 708 by 2026. The Defence Force reduced civilian roles by 374. The Productivity Commission was entirely abolished—about 20 staff out of work.

This is the baseline Luxon expects to absorb an additional $90 million per year in costs. This is the machinery already running on fumes that he demands squeeze out more “savings” to fund a pre-election sweetener.

Austerity’s cost: empty Wellington public sector office, Māori taonga left behind.

The Numbers That Damn: When Performance Becomes Crisis

The political context makes this policy’s cynicism unmistakable. The government received a performance score of just 3.9 out of 10 in the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor—the lowest since the survey began in September 2017, as RNZ reported on 16 November 2025. Nearly half of respondents—45%—rated the government’s performance between 0 and 3 out of 10.

The collapse is comprehensive. Labour was rated best able to handle 15 of the top 20 concerns facing New Zealanders. National retained lead on only two issues: Crime/Law and order, and Defence/Foreign affairs. Most damning for a party that has built its brand on economic competence: Labour overtook National 33% vs 29% on perceptions of ability to manage the economy.

As The Spinoff reported on 18 November 2025, for a party that has long relied on its economic credentials, the reversal on cost of living is particularly stark: Labour is now ahead by 12 points on which party is best equipped to address cost of living—a huge reversal from February 2024, when Labour trailed National by 16.

This is not normal political volatility. This is the public registering a government that has broken its core promise: to manage the economy competently.

The Leadership Whispers: What They Really Mean

Herald columnist Matthew Hooton wrote that senior ministers were complaining the Prime Minister was failing to show the country that a “bold and comprehensive reform programme” rivalling great reforming governments of the past was under way. Hooton wrote: “They say this Government lacks a Prime Minister who can comprehend and pull it all together, communicate the vision that underpins it and build confidence among voters and the business community that he and his ministers know what they are doing.”

The Daily Blog noted that Luxon was appointed as the final curse from Judith Collins, telling her followers to back Luxon over Bridges as a final FU to Simon—appointed leader by the worst elements of National.

Senior Cabinet minister Paul Goldsmith dismissed speculation, telling Herald NOW that Luxon was “a very intelligent guy” and the only talk about turfing him from the top job is coming from the “chatterati”, columnists and those with short attention spans who “always want some excitement”.

But Finance Minister Nicola Willis also disputed rumours National was looking to roll Luxon, saying the party has a Prime Minister who’s delivering significant reforms and making good on campaign promises. The repetition suggests anxiety.

The speculation centers on Chris Bishop, who currently serves as Minister of Housing, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Minister of Transport, Leader of the House, Associate Minister of Finance and Associate Minister for Sport and Recreation. He is a former lobbyist for tobacco company Philip Morris.

The Coalition Cracks: When Partners Turn on Each Other

The timing of this KiwiSaver policy reveals another layer of desperation. NZ First leader Winston Peters vowed to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill if re-elected, prompting ACT leader David Seymour to warn Peters could be preparing to jump ship to Labour. The thing is: NZ First had just voted for the bill with their coalition partners.

Peters dismissed National’s talk of asset sales as “tawdry and silly”, criticized the government for failing to revive growth, and reprimanded Luxon over the wording of a tweet. As The Spinoff noted on 23 November 2025, foreign diplomats joke about the “two Winston Peters”—the polished foreign minister they see overseas, and “the domestic fire-starter” who reappears between trips to attack his coalition partners.

While Peters has ruled out working with Chris Hipkins “permanently”, a Labour party led by someone else could still be a potential suitor, though a Labour leadership change looks unlikely.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was forced to give reassurance the coalition government was “stable” following the public stoush, telling Morning Report: “This is a strong, stable coalition government”. The need to state it publicly suggests otherwise.

The Real KiwiSaver Story: Extracting From Those Who Can’t Fight Back

Let’s return to the mechanics of Luxon’s policy. National’s proposed KiwiSaver changes will cost the Crown, in its role as an employer, about $90 million annually for each 0.5% increase. National said it expected that this would be met within agencies’ baselines, although some funding for cost pressures “could become available for certain agencies”.

This is extraction masquerading as investment. Agencies already devastated by cuts—the government halved its operating allowance from $2.4 billion to $1.3 billion for Budget 2025, the lowest allowance in a decade—will now be told to find millions more.

The human cost is already documented. In a popular café in Wellington, job hunters convene to exchange advice on securing employment after deep government spending cuts led to thousands of public sector job losses, as Reuters reported in May 2025. Rebecca Thomson, a communications expert who initiated an informal support network, notes: “We were told to hold on until 2025 and things would improve. Well, we’re now in May 2025, and it certainly doesn’t feel any better”.

Kelly Eckhold, Chief Economist at Westpac New Zealand, stated: “The effects of the government’s baseline spending cuts, along with reduced spending on contractors, have clearly been detrimental to Wellington. This is evident in nearly every indicator of activity or housing prices in Wellington at this moment”.

The Pay Equity Theft: Robbing Women to Fund the Illusion of Competence

But the KiwiSaver policy isn’t funded solely by squeezing existing public service budgets. It sits alongside the government’s most obscene act of financial engineering: the gutting of pay equity.

The government’s changes to the pay equity scheme provided a massive infusion into Budget 2025—almost $3 billion a year or $11 billion over the next four years, as 1News reported on 22 May 2025. An additional $1.8 billion over the forecast period in capital spending would also be reprioritised. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said: “This funding has been redirected to support investments in frontline health, education and other government services”.

Let’s name what this is: the government stole $12.8 billion from underpaid women to fund its illusion of fiscal competence.

On 6 May 2025, Minister for Workplace Relations Brooke van Velden announced the government would raise the threshold for employees making pay equity claims. This announcement affected 33 ongoing pay equity claims, which had to be stopped and refiled. On 7 May, the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 passed into law with the support of the governing National, ACT and New Zealand First parties. It was rushed through under urgency—passing through all stages in Parliament in a single day.

The Public Service Association denounced the 2025 budget as the “wage theft Budget,” saying the government had stolen NZ$12 billion from New Zealand women. PSA National Secretary Fleur Fitzsimons stated: “More than 150,000 women have been denied the pay rise they deserve from this disappointing decision to gut our pay equity laws with no prior notice before the election or even a Select Committee process so that New Zealand women could have their say”.

Māori nurse faces clinic closure, job loss, impact on Pacific whānau.

This is how neoliberalism operates when the mask slips:

it takes from the most vulnerable—overwhelmingly wahine Māori and Pacific women in feminized, undervalued sectors—and redistributes upward while calling it “fiscal responsibility.”

The Māori Dimension: Who Bears the Cost of This “Generosity”?

The impacts on Māori are neither accidental nor incidental. They are structural. The Ministry of Education’s proposed 565 cuts affecting curriculum, policy, and regional services gut precisely the infrastructure that supports kaupapa Māori education. Health NZ’s elimination of approximately 2,042 roles devastates health equity initiatives when Māori already experience the worst health outcomes.

The Ministry for the Environment’s 25% workforce cut eviscerates environmental protection—the very kaitiakitanga responsibilities guaranteed under Te Tiriti. When agencies must find an additional $90 million per year to fund Luxon’s KiwiSaver policy from “existing baselines,” it’s Māori-focused programs—always the first on the chopping block—that vanish.

The pay equity theft has particular resonance. Māori and Pacific women are overrepresented in the care, education, and health sectors where pay equity claims were being pursued. The $12.8 billion stolen from these women funds the government’s ability to offer vote-buying sweeteners like increased KiwiSaver contributions—a benefit that accrues predominantly to higher-income Pākehā workers in secure employment.

This is wealth extraction dressed up as retirement planning. This is colonial economic management at its most refined: take from those Treaty obligations protect, redistribute to those who already benefit from structural advantage, then market it as prudent savings policy.

The Infrastructure Collapse: What Happens When “Baselines” Break

What happens when agencies already running on fumes are told to absorb an additional $90 million per year? We don’t need to speculate. An Auditor-General report into Oranga Tamariki showed that savings demanded by the government meant the agency cut funding to hundreds of community service provider contracts with little notice, without regard to the harm inflicted on the vulnerable children they support.

PSA National Secretary Fleur Fitzsimons warned: “New Zealanders can’t afford any further cuts to public services. Too much damage has already been done”. She continued: “We have a meth crisis in this country—the government slashed resources for border protection, which has only made that problem far worse”.

The baseline collapse is measurable. Data from the Public Service Commission indicates that public sector employment dropped by 4.6% in the year leading to December 2024. The government reduced the budget for hiring contractors by NZ$300 million (approximately $177.63 million), which constitutes about a third of the allocated funds for the year ending June 30, 2024. Several infrastructure initiatives, including a significant public transport project in Wellington, were cancelled.

When you slash infrastructure, gut workforces, and then demand those same gutted agencies absorb millions more in costs, you’re not managing an economy. You’re managing a controlled demolition.

The Australian Comparison: A Sleight of Hand

Luxon frames his policy by claiming it matches Australia’s 12% superannuation rate. But in Australia, the employer picks up the full 12% tab—it’s not split between employer and employee. Luxon’s version forces workers to contribute 6% of their own wages while employers match it.

This distinction matters. In Australia’s model, the entire burden falls on employers—a genuine cost to business that represents actual wage growth. In Luxon’s model, workers sacrifice 6% of their take-home pay while employers match it. It’s marketed as generosity but functions as a wage reduction for workers who need that money now, not in 40 years.

As Simplicity managing director Sam Stubbs noted, there’s a major flaw: about half of employers use total remuneration for at least some employees. Under a total remuneration package, an employee is told that a certain amount of money is available to them and they can make their KiwiSaver contributions out of that, or use it as take-home pay. People already paid that way would not benefit from the increase.

The Australian comparison is theatre—designed to make voters think New Zealand workers are getting the same deal when the mechanics are fundamentally different and far less favorable.

The Retirement Commission’s Warning: Ignored for Political Expediency

The Retirement Commission has called to ‘Stop piecemeal policy change’ such as this proposal, as Interest.co.nz reported on 22 November 2025. The Commission calls for a 10-year roadmap and long-term political accord with all major parties following the release of its review of retirement income policies. “While each party continues to campaign on its own superannuation proposal we will not have a robust and sustainable scheme nor confidence in saving for retirement.”

This is the opposite of what experts recommend. Instead of cross-party consensus on retirement policy built to last decades, Luxon drops a pre-election bribe designed to win votes in 2026. Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson has called for sweeping changes to KiwiSaver to ensure the scheme does not leave anyone behind, as 1News reported on 14 November 2025, including increased support for low-income earners, self-employed people, and those on paid parental leave.

None of these equity-focused reforms appear in Luxon’s policy. Because this isn’t about building a sustainable retirement system. It’s about political survival.

Cui Bono? Who Actually Benefits?

Follow the money. A 21-year-old earning $65,000 today could retire with around $1.4 million under the changes, about $400,000 more than under current settings, Luxon claims. But who is that 21-year-old?

They’re employed full-time in a stable job with an employer who provides KiwiSaver. They earn enough that contributing 6% won’t push them into hardship. They’re not on a total remuneration package that nullifies the benefit. They’re not self-employed. They’re not a casual worker. They’re not in precarious employment.

In other words: they’re predominantly young Pākehā professionals in secure employment—National’s electoral base.

Meanwhile, the government halved its KiwiSaver contribution from 50 cents per dollar to 25 cents per dollar, reducing the maximum contribution from $521.43 to $260.72 a year. Eligibility was also limited to those earning under $180,000. Previously, people received 50 cents for every $1 they contributed up to $1042 a year, meaning that instead of government contributions forming up to 20% of a lower-income person’s KiwiSaver balance at retirement, they might now only form up to 11%.

So the policy gives more to those who already have secure employment and higher incomes, while giving less to those struggling on lower incomes. That’s not retirement policy. That’s wealth transfer.

The Coalition of the Desperate: What This Policy Reveals

This KiwiSaver announcement—National’s first election policy, unveiled a year before the vote—screams panic. The poor polling puts Christopher Luxon’s leadership at an inflection point, as National leaders are expected to win and it is very difficult to lead National into an election while trailing in the polls.

When you combine Labour’s 12-point lead on cost of living, the government’s record-low 3.9/10 performance rating, coalition partners publicly attacking each other, and speculation about Luxon’s replacement, you get a picture of a government in crisis mode.

The KiwiSaver policy is a Hail Mary—throw money at middle-class voters and hope they don’t notice it’s funded by gutting public services and stealing from underpaid women.

Five Hidden Connections: The Networks of Power

1. The Tobacco Lobbyist Waiting in the Wings

Chris Bishop, the speculated successor to Luxon, worked as Corporate Affairs Manager for tobacco company Philip Morris from 2011-13. He is currently Minister of Housing, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Minister of Transport, Leader of the House, Associate Minister of Finance and Associate Minister for Sport and Recreation. The concentration of portfolios in Bishop’s hands—particularly his control over infrastructure and RMA reform, which determine where and how development happens—positions him to shape whose interests benefit from “growth.” That a former tobacco lobbyist controls housing and infrastructure policy while speculation swirls about replacing a failing PM should raise alarm about whose interests a Bishop-led government would serve.

2. The Pay Equity Architect Becomes Finance Minister

Nicola Willis estimated that pay equity changes would save the government an estimated NZ$12.8 billion over four years. As Finance Minister, Willis designed the theft from women workers that funds her ability to claim fiscal restraint while offering vote-buying sweeteners. Willis confirmed the government is raising the default rate of employee and matching employer KiwiSaver contributions from 3% to 4% of salary and wages, phased in over three years—changes that benefit secure workers while the $12.8 billion stolen from pay equity claims disappears into “frontline services” that continue to be cut. Willis isn’t managing an economy; she’s managing the optics of extraction.

3. The Baseline Trap: Manufacturing Crisis

The requirement that agencies fund the additional $90 million per year from “existing baselines” isn’t a budgetary decision—it’s a trap. Agencies were mandated to deliver 6.5–7.5% annual savings—equivalent to roughly NZ$1.5 billion per year. The government halved its operating allowance from $2.4 billion to $1.3 billion for Budget 2025, the lowest allowance in a decade. You gut agencies, then demand they absorb more costs. When they inevitably fail, you declare public services inefficient and privatize them. This is intentional demolition masquerading as fiscal responsibility.

4. The Australian Model Deception

Luxon’s repeated references to matching Australia’s 12% contribution rate deliberately obscure that in Australia, the employer picks up the full tab, while his policy splits the cost between employer and employee. This isn’t comparison—it’s misdirection. By framing New Zealand’s split-contribution model as equivalent to Australia’s employer-funded model, Luxon makes workers think they’re getting the same deal when they’re actually taking a pay cut.

5. The Election Year Coalition Crack

Winston Peters’ sudden announcement that NZ First would campaign on repealing the Regulatory Standards Act—immediately after voting for it with coalition partners—isn’t political theater. It’s Peters positioning NZ First for a potential Labour coalition if National’s polling doesn’t improve. While Peters has ruled out working with Chris Hipkins “permanently,” a Labour party led by someone else could still be a potential suitor. Peters is reading the same polling Luxon is, and he’s preparing his escape route. The KiwiSaver announcement attempts to stabilize National’s position before coalition partners jump ship—not for policy reasons, but for political survival.

The Mauri Test: Depletion Masquerading as Growth

The concept of mauri—life force—provides a framework for assessing this policy’s true impact. Mauri-enhancing policies strengthen communities, build capacity, honor whakapapa, and sustain systems for future generations. Mauri-depleting policies extract resources, weaken collective capacity, sever connections, and prioritize short-term gain over long-term sustainability.

Luxon’s KiwiSaver policy is profoundly mauri-depleting:

It extracts from communities already harmed: The requirement that agencies fund additional costs from gutted baselines means further cuts to education, health, and environmental services—precisely the infrastructure that sustains community wellbeing.

It severs intergenerational obligations: By stealing $12.8 billion from pay equity claims—money owed to women whose work has been systematically undervalued—the policy breaks the obligation to rectify historical injustice.

It prioritizes individual accumulation over collective capacity: The focus on individual retirement savings ignores that retirement security depends on functioning public health systems, adequate public pensions, affordable housing, and community support networks—all of which this government systematically demolishes.

It concentrates benefits among those already secure: By directing increased contributions to those in stable employment while gutting support for the precarious and low-paid, the policy deepens inequality rather than reducing it.

It treats short-term political survival as more important than systemic sustainability: Announcing your first election policy a year before the vote reveals this is about winning 2026, not building retirement security for 2060.

From a mātauranga Māori perspective, this policy violates the principle of manaakitanga—looking after people. It violates the principle of whanaungatanga—maintaining relationships and collective wellbeing. It violates the principle of kaitiakitanga—guardianship and sustainable management of resources for future generations.

This is not retirement policy. This is extraction dressed up as foresight. This is the mauri-depleting logic of neoliberalism in its terminal phase.

What the Silence Reveals: The Questions Luxon Won’t Answer

The Prime Minister’s press conference on 24 November 2025 was notable for what it didn’t address:

How will agencies already cut to the bone absorb an additional $90 million per year? Luxon says it will come from “existing baselines” but won’t specify which programs face further cuts. The silence is telling—because naming them would expose that this electoral bribe is funded by gutting services people depend on.

Why announce retirement policy that directly contradicts expert recommendations? The Retirement Commission explicitly called to stop piecemeal policy changes and build cross-party consensus. Luxon ignored them. Why? Because a 10-year roadmap doesn’t win elections in 2026.

What happens to workers on total remuneration packages? About half of employers use total remuneration for at least some employees, meaning many won’t benefit from the increased contributions. Luxon hasn’t addressed this. The silence suggests he either doesn’t understand his own policy’s mechanics or doesn’t care because those workers aren’t his target voters.

How does forcing workers to contribute 6% of their wages constitute matching Australia’s employer-funded 12%? The comparison is dishonest, and Luxon knows it. The silence is strategic—if he acknowledged the difference, the political value of the Australian comparison vanishes.

What is the relationship between the $12.8 billion stolen from pay equity and the funding for this policy? Willis said the pay equity “savings” were “redirected to support investments in frontline health, education and other government services”. But those same services continue to be cut. Where did the money actually go? The silence suggests it’s funding electoral promises like this one.

The Moral Accounting: What This Government Has Actually Done

Strip away the rhetoric and accounting tricks, and here’s the ledger:

Taken: $12.8 billion from underpaid women via pay equity theft. 10,000 public sector jobs eliminated. $1.5 billion in annual agency savings extracted. Government KiwiSaver contributions halved for low-income earners. 2,042 health roles cut. 565 education jobs proposed for elimination. 25% of Environment Ministry workforce gone. Multiple infrastructure projects cancelled. $300 million cut from contractor budgets.

Given: A promise that 21-year-olds in stable employment might retire with more KiwiSaver. Asset sales discussions. Regulatory rollbacks. Tax cuts for businesses. An RMA “shake-up” that will benefit developers.

Cost: Record-low government performance ratings. Loss of economic management credibility. Coalition partners publicly feuding. Leadership speculation. International embarrassment over Palestinian statehood position. Systematic weakening of institutions that protect the vulnerable.

This isn’t economic management. This is managed decline dressed up as growth strategy. This is the controlled demolition of the public sector to fund pre-election bribes to swing voters.

Te Ara Whakamua: The Path Forward That Luxon Refuses

What would genuine retirement policy look like? The Retirement Commission provides a roadmap Luxon ignores:

Commissioner Jane Wrightson called for the government to increase contributions for people on paid parental leave to $1000, paid regardless of whether the person themselves contributes to KiwiSaver. Of the 57,635 people who received paid parental leave in the most recent year, only 12,390 contributed to KiwiSaver. This $34 million investment would address retirement savings gaps for new parents—predominantly women.

Wrightson called for banning total remuneration packages that include KiwiSaver as part of overall pay, noting “The removal of the incentive that is the employer contribution on top of salary or wages goes against the spirit of the scheme”.

Wrightson said many recommendations were about making KiwiSaver easier and fairer for everyone, particularly targeting self-employed and low-income workers whose contributions are small.

None of these equity-focused reforms appear in Luxon’s policy. Because building a system that works for the most vulnerable doesn’t win elections among the comfortable.

The Reckoning: When Electoral Bribes Can’t Paper Over Failure

Christopher Luxon stands defiant, insisting he’ll lead National into the 2026 election. But the numbers don’t lie: 3.9/10 government performance rating, the lowest on record. Labour leading on 15 of 20 key issues. A 12-point swing on cost of living management. Coalition partners publicly attacking each other. Leadership speculation intensifying.

The KiwiSaver policy is the move of a government that knows it’s failing and hopes voters won’t notice that the retirement “generosity” is funded by gutting the services they need today.

But New Zealanders are noticing. They’re giving the government its lowest performance rating in the survey’s history. They’re telling pollsters Labour is better equipped to handle the economy. They’re watching the coalition crack in real time.

The question isn’t whether Luxon will lead National into 2026. It’s whether anyone will want to inherit the smoking wreckage of a government that chose extraction over investment, electoral survival over institutional integrity, and comfortable voters over vulnerable communities.

The Māori Green Lantern sees through the illusion. The Ring of Power reveals what spin cannot hide: a government in terminal decline, a Prime Minister in crisis, and a retirement “policy” that’s actually a wealth extraction scheme funded by the systematic impoverishment of public institutions and the theft from women whose work this society refuses to value.

This is neoliberalism eating itself. This is colonial economics in its endgame. This is what happens when a CEO cosplaying as Prime Minister discovers that running a country isn’t like running Air New Zealand—you can’t just cut costs and offshore the consequences.

Ivor Jones The Māori Green Lantern Fighting Misinformatio And Disinformation From The Far Right

Kia mataara. Stay vigilant. The reckoning is coming.

Research Methodology: This analysis draws on verified sources gathered between 24-25 November 2025, using active research tools (search_web, get_url_content, search_files_v2) to verify all factual claims. Primary sources include: NZ Herald political reporting, official government Budget documents, RNZ investigative journalism, The Spinoff political analysis, independent polling data from Ipsos Issues Monitor, 1News Verian polls, Interest.co.nz financial reporting, public sector employment data from PSA, Waatea News indigenous media coverage, and Reuters international reporting. All URLs tested and verified as live. All statistical claims verified against primary sources. No synthetic data used. Date of research: 25 November 2025.

"Ka Noho i Roto i Te Ahi: The Green Party's Fossil Fuel Crisis Offer and the Hidden Architecture of Transport Injustice in Aotearoa" - 24 March 2026

""NOISY VOICES": HOW SHANE JONES IS GUTTING OUR MOANA FOR CORPORATE PROFIT" - 24 March 2026

"He Kore Tikanga: The Coalition of Betrayal" - 23 March 2026

"Hypocrisy of the Highest Order: The National Government's EV Charger Con" - 23 March 2026