Ex-Labour Party Minister and Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard has alleged that the current coalition Government – comprising of course the National, ACT and NZ First political parties - has tried to rig the election. Mallard’s strong on allegations. He’s previously falsely accused a perfectly innocent man of being a rapist, an allegation that cost New Zealand taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation.

Mallard’s rigging allegation is that the coalition Government has changed electoral laws in ways deliberately designed to stop people voting for the Labour, Greens, Māori and Opportunity political parties.

On 25 October, Mallard announced publicly:

Mallard added that, if he were an Electoral Commissioner, he would have resigned because, in his crazy eyes, the current Government has not adequately resourced the Commission to deliver a fair election.

The current coalition Government has indeed changed some voting rules. One such change means that potential voters now cannot enroll to vote during the voting period, which began on Sunday 25 October (previously, voters could enroll up to the close of voting on election day).

At the heart of Mallard’s allegation is his apparent belief that unenrolled prospective L/G/M/O voters were disproportionately incapable of enrolling before 25 October. In short, he thinks Left supporters are especially lazy and useless when it comes to getting themselves on New Zealand’s electoral role. But even if that’s true, so what? The no-enrolment-during-voting-period change was justifiably made to accelerate voting counting. Nothing wrong with that.

Mallard has also alleged, without any sound ground, that the current Government has underfunded the Electoral Commission to prevent the Commission from providing enough options for voting before election day (e.g., open polling stations).

Mallard, already an honorary inductee into New Zealand’s Hall of Political Disgrace, has bolstered his gallery of disgraceful behavior. But he’s far from alone.

Ex-Prime Minister and current Labour leader Chris Hipkins claims the Government has “deliberately tried to disenfranchise people, particularly those who are less likely to vote for them”, describing the new enrolment rule (no enrolment after voting has started) as “the most draconian restriction to people’s right to enroll to vote that we have ever seen”.

Former Labour adviser and political journalist Vernon Small has written that he has a “disturbing sense that the outcome might be illegitimate.”

Pseudo-academic Lefties are wading in. University of Otago professor of law Andrew Geddis has warned that any lower youth enrolments resulting from the earlier cut-off for enrolment could be a “looming disaster”.

Geddis further loud hails that strategic attempts to create an “overhang” could produce “real legitimacy questions about the resulting government”. Andrew was referring to the tactic of voting for one’s National Party candidate in one’s electorate seat, and party voting for NZ First or ACT. If widely adopted, this vote splitting tactic would significantly increase the likelihood of a repeat of the current National/NZ First/ACT coalition government after the next election.

What are the Leftists trying to achieve, with all these claims that the election is being rigged? I’ll tell ya straight. They’re preparing the ground for Leftist strife if the election doesn’t result in a Labour-led Government. The neo-Marxists are trying to pre-legitimize unlawful protest action, including violence, if a conservative Government is elected – on the spurious basis that election of a Government of, and by, a group of predominantly normal people would be illegitimate.

“Overhang” tactics are legal and legitimate and certainly not the exclusive domain of conservatives. The Māori Party is fielding candidates in all seven Māori electorates but is not competing for party votes. On current polling, the Māori Party is expected to win five (perhaps even six) of the seven Māori electorates. In that case, Māori Party MPs would hold about 5% of the seats in Parliament, despite attracting only about 1.5% of New Zealanders’ (and less than 10% of Māori) votes. Without the Māori electorates, the Māori Party would of course not be represented in Parliament at all.

Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, there’s no State-owned or mainstream media coverage of just how far the Māori electorates and the Māori Party’s “overhang” tactics will distort the outcome of the next election. Such coverage would be HARD RIGHT RACIST!

Assuming no Māori electorates and if The Opportunity Party (TOP) attracts more than 5% of the party vote, then – on current polling – it would be neck-and-neck as to whether a Nats/NZFirst/ACT coalition or the Lab/Greens/TOP block would form the next Government. With the inevitable Māori Party seats in Parliament and with TOP getting over 5%, a Lab/Greens/TOP/Māori coalition Government would, for all intents and purposes, be a sure bet.

In my humble opinion, there’s next to no chance of TOP joining a Nats-led coalition. TOP, aided and abetted by State and mainstream media channels, are simply lying that TOP could go either way, in order to garner more overall TOP votes. TOP is a tissue of lies, including - most recently - Dear Leader Wong’s wrong bib bollocks “race”:

Whether it’s a Nat or Lab-led Government after the next election therefore depends, IMHO, almost entirely – but with one intriguing alternative - on whether TOP gets over the 5% threshold for representation in Parliament. If TOP tops 5%, then it’s a Labour-led Government under Hipkins, except perhaps if… (read on).

The National Party’s No-Brains Trust has been behaving increasingly oddly. The Naterti’s mandated official line is that New Zealanders wanting a National-led Government after the next election must give both their electorate and party votes to the Nats. But indisputably, by negating a right-block “overhang” advantage from voting Nat-electorate and NZFirst/ACT party vote, Nat-Nat voting would significantly increase the likelihood of a Labour-led Government.

Shockingly, the National Party has complained to the Electoral Commission about Harry Mowbray’s splityourvote website, alleging that the website breaches electoral laws.

And the Commission has come to the pernicious party and asked the Police to investigate. Now get this - the Mowbrays are THE NATIONAL PARTY’S BIGGEST DONORS. Yes, you read that right. The batty Nats are biting the hand that feeds them.

What’s going on? Why is the National Party apparently, by its own mantra, increasingly the likelihood of a Leftist bloc taking hold of New Zealand. What on earth are Luxon (the prime offender and enforcer), Nat campaign manager Simeon Brown and ex-National Prime Minister ShonKey John thinking?

Some have attributed The Nats’ nuttiness to arrogant delusions that a repeat of the current coalition is a given and that Nat-Nat voting will increase the Nats’ “share” of a Xerox’ed coalition. The Nats delusion of eternal, God-given grandeur is certainly a thing. But has the focus of the Nats’ grand delusion shifted?

Here’s my pick. The Nat King Rats are endeavoring to bias the election against the prospect of a National/NZ First/ACT coalition AND IN FAVOUR OF A NATIONAL/LABOUR COALITION. In other words, National may well be slyly angling for a UNIPARTY coalition with Labour, free from those pesky NZ First and ACT people.

A Uniparty coalition would result in another inept one term Government, incapable of addressing New Zealand’s chronic political, economic and cultural problems. Plus, stifling free-speech restrictions, antisemitism, racialization, mass immigration, de-industrialization, attacks on productive economic effort, public “service” expansion, State-controlled media, exorbitant energy prices and ballooning national debt. All exacerbating the general malaise, division and discontent.

Does all this mean that the impending election will be able to be considered “rigged”? Probably not, in my view. A rigged election is one that has been deliberately manipulated or predetermined by grossly improper means, so that the official outcome does not genuinely reflect the lawful electoral process.

Typical examples of election rigging include:

• falsifying or altering vote totals

• stuffing ballot boxes or introducing fraudulent votes

• destroying or excluding valid votes to change the result

• manipulating vote-counting systems

• election officials secretly favouring a candidate or party in administering or counting votes

• coercion or bribery of voters on a scale capable of corrupting the electoral result.

If the election will not be rigged, will it have been free and fair? Probably not. But that’s another debate.

(P.S. Is it riggish, do you think, for the Electoral Commission to have unleashed the Police onto Mowbray?)

In a judgment issued on 21 October, High Court judge Dale La Hood overturned the current Government’s 2025 regulations banning new prescriptions of puberty blocking drugs for young people said to suffer from gender dysphoria. (To be gender dysphoric is to think the impossible – that you’re the opposite sex to your bodily biological sex).

La Hood’s judgement comes on the back of an earlier High Court decision putting a moratorium on implementation of the relevant regulations. I’ve been following this evolving saga, since its genesis:

The High Court has invalidated the puberty blocker banning regulations on two grounds.

First, the Court maintained that the Government failed to adequately consult before it put the regulatory ban in place. La Hood’s hot feel was that the Government should have directly consulted with affected gender dysphoric young people and their families, which he found the Government failed to adequately do.

Secondly, Pale Dale found the regulations breached young gender dysphoric New Zealanders’ right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of disability, as contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). La Hood’s reasoning is terribly abstruse and unconvincing. He swallows almost everything thrown at him by the “professionals” from the applicant for overturning ban, The “Professional” Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Incorporated (PATHA). Most significantly, La Hood’s discrimination finding is so legally flawed that he can’t have been playing with a straight bat. More on this telling aspect below.

Regarding the adequacy of the consultation, the Medicines Act required Simeon Brown, as Minister of Health, to consult “with such organisations or bodies as appear to the Minister to be representative of persons likely to be substantially affected by the regulations”. The crucial point here is that, because the ban only applied to new prescriptions, Brown only needed to consult with gender dysphoric youths who were not already on puberty blocking hormones. Quite how Brown can reasonably be expected to have even identified such unblocked youths, let alone consult with them, is anybody’s guess.

This piece does not analyze La Hood’s decision in meticulous detail. Rather, I simply highlight a major, undeniable and revealing legal flaw in his decision.

It’s abundantly clear from La Hood’s judgement that his discrimination finding was – in his apparent view - reason enough (i.e., without combining it with his failure-to-consult finding) to invalidate the regulations. In other words, La Hood regarded his finding that the regulations breached the NZBORA as sufficient ground, on its own, to strike the regulations down. But this finding is itself in direct conflict with the NZBORA.

Section 4 of the NZBORA states as follows:

Section 4 therefore expressly and unambiguously prohibits a Court from invalidating or declining to apply any provision of an enactment (including, in this case, regulations banning puberty blockers for gender dysmorphic youths) because the provision is inconsistent with the NZBORA. But that is PRECISELY WHAT JUDGE LA HOOD HAS DONE.

But, I hear you murmur, doesn’t “exactment” only cover Acts of Parliament, and not regulations made under Acts? Not so, dear readers. Section 29 of New Zealand’s Interpretation Act 1999 specifically defines “enactment” and “regulations” as follows:

So we’ve got A Big Problem, Houston. La Hood is not the Brain of Britain, but he’s not completely dumb either, so his abuse of the NZBORA to strike down the puberty blocker banning regulations cannot be - and certainly isn’t - an innocent mistake. In a Court case that goes to the heart of a highly contentious Culture Wars issue, La Hood is deliberately ignoring the clear wording of legislation passed by New Zealand’s democratically elected Parliament. This is therefore yet another example of a New Zealand activist judge ignoring the clear wording of statutes and undermining New Zealand’s Parliamentary democracy. I’ve addressed this dreadful state of affairs in earlier Substacks:

New Zealand’s Human Rights Commission stuck its Uber Woke nose into the case (as “Interested Party”), naturally supporting PATHA’s challenge to the regulations. Prior to the litigation, the Commission had publicly criticized the proposed ban. Prudence Walker, “Commissioner spokesperson for Rainbow rights”, announced:

According to the Commission’s official statement:

I’ve covered the Corpulent Prudence Walker…

If our Human Rights Commission is indeed a friend of confused children, then they don’t need enemies. Trans away all those little gays! The Horror.

Winston Peters has called for La Hood’s decision to be appealed through the Court system. But Peters didn’t come down in the last shower and knows that an appeal would fail. New Zealand’s upper Courts are full noise Trans Woke.

The timing of La Hood’s decision is also curious, to say the least, coming as it did within about a fortnight of a general election and after Parliament’s last sitting on 23 September 2026. It’s almost as if he wanted to slip it in, under the radar of political scrutiny.

If the current coalition Government is restored after the upcoming election, then one of the first things it should do – if it still wishes to ban puberty blocking – is to abandon the regulations route and pass property legislation - the Puberty Blockers Prohibition Act. Luxon will thankfully be gone soon, and the Weak-Sauce Nats will need to grow some balls and begin to take decisive, powerfully symbolic actions against The Madness.

The Wellington Regional Council (WRC) calls itself “Greater Wellington Te Pane Matua Taiao”. However, there’s nothing remotely Great about WRC and it’s certainly no greater that the Wellington City Council (WCC) or Tiaki Wai Limited. They’re all as bad and idiotic as each other.

On 1 October, WRC filed criminal prosecutions in the Wellington District Court against both WCC and Tiaki Wai, over the failure of Wellington’s Moa Point wastewater treatment plant and the resultant continuing discharges of untreated sewage.

WCC and Tiaki Wai each face 10 charges under the Resource Management Act. Technically, WRC has laid the charges simply because it was WRC that issued the resource consents for the Moa Point plant. WCC holds the consents and Tiaki Waiti is the plant operator, as successor to its predecessor company, Wellington Water Limited.

Fathima Iftikar, WRC’s “Director of Strategy, Policy and Regulation”, intimated that WRC considers itself obliged to act as “independent regulator” on Moa Point, stating:

But let us not get distracted by what the charges are or their merits. Because, rather than being a genuine attempt to punish those responsible for the debacle, the charges are purely designed to further muddy Wellington’s waters, avoid personal repercussions for the blameworthy individuals and give a false and misleading impression that real redress is being sought. Furthermore, if the litigation proceeds to a conclusion, it will of course waste multi millions more of ratepayers’ money, to no avail. The only winners will be the lawyers.

The charges WRC is pursuing are WRC’s pre-emptive attempt to avoid its own responsibility for the Moa Point Pootastrophe. Because, as issuer of the consents, it was WRC’s abrogated responsibility to monitor compliance with the WRC-issued resource consents, enforce compliance and take early enforcement actions for breaches. In all those respects, WRC has been in gross dereliction of duty.

WRC knew for years that Wellington’s wastewater infrastructure was at extreme risk of failing. Public reports had repeatedly highlighted ageing Wellington water infrastructure and resource consent non-compliance warranting WRC enforcement action. I covered the Moa Point debacle, shortly after the plant catastrophically failed.

WRC is both a regional local authority and part of the wider Wellington local-government pond. The incestuous relationships between individuals within WRC, WCC and Tiaki Wai’s predecessor, Wellington Water, is the main reason why WRC was woefully weak in dealing with WCC and Wellington’s water entities before the Moa Manure Meltdown.

WRC’s CEO is Nigel Corry. Nigel is institutionalized in Wellington local government and deserves to be further institutionalized. He started at WRC in 1998, bounced to WCC in 2004 and rebounded back to WRC in 2005, before rising to WRC CEO in 2021 where his current term as CEO is not due to end until April 2028. Local government Blobocrats endure, just as Us Awful Unwashed are forced to endure them.

Wellington Water’s CEO when the Moa Point plant failed on 4 February 2026 was Pat Dougherty, another local government lifer. Pat was CEO of the Kāpiti Coast District Council for a decade and CEO of the Nelson City Council for more years before infecting Wellington Water in 2023.

Tasmanian interloper Michael Brewster replaced Dougherty this year when Wellington Water’s rapacious taniwha Tiaki Wai emerged, becoming its inaugural CEO.

Nick Leggett has barely been out of local and central government roles since he was elected to the Porirua City Council in 1998 at the chubby age of 19. He joined Wellington Water’s board in 2022 and was Chair when Moa Point disintegrated, having earlier appointed Dougherty as CEO. In a rare move, he resigned after the Moa Pt shit storm, reportedly saying “someone had to be accountable”. Perhaps he just drew the short straw (someone had to pretend to care). Perhaps Leggett just fled, like a sissy, to avoid any heat. He remains the CEO of lobby group Infrastructure New Zealand.

Green Party MP Tamatha Paul, in her former communist incarnation as the Wellington City Councillor, voted against adequate wastewater funding, preferring to divert funds into the exorbitant cycle lanes she’s never used.

WCC Mayor at the time Moa Point shat itself, Labour Lifer Andrew Little, labelled Leggett a “right-winger” a decade ago. But, in truth, all these people are much of a muchness politically, permanent Leftist addicts of the public tit.

Absent from modern Western life are general calls for public atonement and punishment of individuals when things go horribly wrong. Gone are the old fashioned notions that timeserving public “servants” should be forced to make public amends and take personal responsibility for the results of their abject incompetence. Reports of public inquiries these days, including the report that tried to whitewash the Big Brown Moa, inevitably blame “systemic failures” and absolve all the culpable individuals of blame. It’s all just bad luck.

“Pillory” nowadays means to attack or ridicule publicly. But “pillory” also has an older, more down-to-earth meaning - to “put someone in a pillory”; a pillory being a wooden framework with holes for the head and hands, in which select individuals can be exposed to public abuse and pelted with objects. (A pillory is often confused with stocks, which typically restrain only the ankles.)

What about Wellington’s concerned, patriotic citizens round up Nigel Corry, Pat Dougherty, Michael Brewster, Nick Leggett, Tamatha Paul and Andrew Little, physically pillory them in Wellington’s Civic Square and allow aggrieved Wellingtonians to pelt them with volleys of Moa Point’s finest, rotten fruit and suchlike? Just for a few hours. And then, with these culprits having atoned for their execrable sins, release to get on with their lives and immediately end the Wellington Regional Council’s ridiculous criminal proceedings.

Of course I’m not in my wildest dreams actually advocating for extrajudicial punishment of those culpable for the Moa Point Mess. In the modern theatre of Culture Wars, it’s the Leftists who advocate, and resort to, physical violence.

In 1703, Daniel Defoe (author of the first major English novel, Robinson Crusoe) was sentenced by his Government and compliant Courts to be pilloried for a pamphlet he wrote. But instead of attacking Defoe as he stood pilloried, sympathetic Londoners cheered him, drank to his health, festooned him with flowers and purchased his written works. If and when a Labour-led Government pillories me for my Substacks, I doubt Wellingtonians would be that sympathetic to Pilloried McLean.

One clear imperative coming from WRC’s legal action against WCC (& Tiaki Wai) is that Wellingtonians must get a unitary Wellington Council as soon as possible. One Wellington Council suing another (and the water infrastructure company they each partly own) is an abject absurdity.

Earlier this year, New Zealand’s Supreme Court quashed David Wayne Tamihere’s 1990 convictions for murdering Swedish tourists Sven Urban Höglin and Heidi Birgitta Paakkonen.

About six months later, on 7 October, New Zealand’s current Solicitor-General, King’s Counsel Anna Adams, decided not to put Tamihere on trial again for murdering the brutally unlucky couple. The Sol-Gen concluded that, with the passage of time and turns of events, there is no longer enough evidence to make re-laid murder charges against Tamihere “stick”.

I’m torn about whether Tamihere should’ve been put on trial again. On the one hand, he’s served his original sentence for the murders and, in practice, retrying him would simply waste millions more dollars of taxpayers’ money, with no prospect of him spending any more time in prison. On the other hand, there can be no genuine doubt that he murdered the tourists and for this terrible and terrifying man to be walking “innocent” among us is an affront to decent society.

Faced with incontrovertible evidence, David Tamihere had to admit at his murder trial - while maintaining his innocence in connection with the murders of Urban and Heidi - that he stole the couple’s vehicle and sold or gave away their worldly possessions.

Under New Zealand criminal law, juries are almost never allowed to know a defendant’s criminal history. In Tamihere’s murder trial, in which he plead not guilty, the jury convicted him without knowing of his frightful and frightening “form”. Tamihere has a criminal record as long as an arm, including the following…

In 1972, as an 18-year-old, Tamihere killed 23-year-old Mary Barcham. He crushed her skull by bludgeoning her head with a rifle. Somehow – God knows how - DW Tamihere managed to avoid a murder conviction and was convicted of the lesser crime of manslaughter.

In April 1986, Tamihere invaded an Auckland house and raped a 47-year-old woman. He was arrested in May 1989 and, after pleading guilty, was bizarrely freed on bail pending sentencing. Bailed, Tamihere immediately absconded into the Coromandel bush, in the vicinity where the Swedes were murdered in 1990.

Ever since his arrest for murdering the Swedish tourists, Tamihere has protested his innocence and tried to clear his name. Despite his protestations, in July 2024 New Zealand’s Court of Appeal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Tamihere’s guilt and upheld his convictions.

Undeterred, and continuing to tap vast sums of taxpayer funded legal aid, Tamihere took his crusade to the rarefied, raceified ivory tower that is New Zealand’s Supreme Court. And as indicated, our Supreme Court eagerly sprang to Tamihere’s aid, quashing his convictions.

Tamihere’s determination to clear his name, despite his beyond-reasonable-doubt guilt, may have become motivated by a sincere – albeit utterly false – belief in his own innocence. Over time, criminal sociopaths such as Tamihere often reconstruct their memories in ways that generate an acceptable self-image and come to believe a false version of events that excludes their responsibility. Through a mixture of memory reconstruction, self-justification and repeated retelling of alternative explanations, Tamihere has quite possibly generated steadfast false beliefs denying his heinous crimes. (David Bain is in a similar boat.)

However, my interest is less in Tamihere’s psychology and more in the societal and institutional forces that have helped create his specious redemption story. The awful reality is that the Supreme Court, deeply steeped in postmodernist Critical Race Theory and two-tier justice, was quite possibly swayed to overturn the Court of Appeal and quash David Tamihere’s murder convictions by his Māori ancestry. (The father of David and his brother John Tamihere was of Māori descent; their mother was Irish Catholic.)

I’ve covered Brother John before:

New Zealand’s Supreme Court Justices are full converts to the inversion of Wrongdoing and Victimhood that is central to Wokery.

Chiming in on the David Tamihere Redemption Song is New Zealand’s mainstream media. Stuff’s Saturday 10 October edition of The POST celebrated David Tamihere as a benign avuncular victim of New Zealand’s justice system, rather than what he is - a psychotic career criminal.

The Teflon Tamihere boys continue on their merry ways.

This mental mentality of sympathizing with atrocious, pathological evildoers is far from indigenous to New Zealand. It blights Western World Wokery.

Take, as just one example, a true American Psycho, Christa Pike.

Pike was an 18-year-old student in Tennessee when she brutally murdered her 19-year-old classmate, Colleen Slemmer, in 1995. It’s said Pike developed a deranged belief that Colleen was interested in her boyfriend and gleefully blabbed her intention to kill Colleen.

True to her word, Pike lured Colleen to a secluded forest, accompanied by Pike’s boyfriend and another student. The gruesome and ghoulish attack on Colleen lasted almost an hour. She was mercilessly beaten, kicked, cut and tortured. Pike, armed with box cutter and meat cleaver, did most of the satanic work, including carving a pentagram into Colleen’s chest. Eventually, Pike finished Colleen off by crushing her skull with a chunk of asphalt. The She Devil souvenired a section of Colleen’s skull, which she brazenly showed other students.

Psycho Pike was rapidly arrested and sentenced to death. However, she’s been permitted to protest her sentence through the Courts for three decades. Throughout that protracted period, Pike’s series of lawyers and hordes of supporters, including United Nations special rapporteurs (“special” people indeed), have bleated that Pike was not truly responsible for her actions and shouldn’t be executed. They’ve alleged she’d had a bad upbringing and suffers mental health issues (oh, really?!) and should therefore be excused. Tennessee authorities have recently botched her execution by lethal injections. She lives on.

Pig hunters discovered Sven Urban Höglin’s corpse about two years after he was killed. The extent of decomposition made it impossible to tell how he was killed or what atrocities were inflicted upon him before he died. Heidi Paakkonen’s remains have never been found. It’s impossible to imagine the horrors they endured before their killer dispatched them. Or what Mary Barcham’s last thoughts were before David Wayne Tamihere stoved her head in.

The National Party is repeating an ordained-from-on-high mantra that New Zealand voters must two-ticks National at the next general i.e., give both their electorate and party votes to the nosediving Nats.

That voting, they say, is the best way to help ensure another National-led coalition Government. At the National Party’s campaign launch on Sunday 27 September, ex-National Party Prime Minister John Key cajoled voters to two-ticks Nats and labelled all New Zealanders who are contemplating voting otherwise “stupid”. Two-ticks Nats is therefore clearly official, mandated Nats messaging, which campaign manager Simeon Brown repeated on media outlet The Platform (where PM Luxon refuses to appear) on Wednesday, 7 October.

The cold, hard reality, however, is that Nat/Nat’ing will in actual fact reduce the chances of a right block (Nat/ACT/NZ First) Government, compared to what could be achieved by strategic vote splitting.

Under New Zealand’s MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) voting system, it’s simply indisputable that, for any voter who wants to see a Nat/ACT/NZF coalition Government returned, the best tactic is to vote for their National candidate in the voter’s electorate and for either ACT or NZ First on the party vote list. Such voting is especially warranted if a voter’s National electorate candidate has a good chance of winning the electorate.

To make this abundantly clear, there’s absolutely nothing rule-breaking or otherwise untoward about voting splitting under MMP. Dual electorate/party list MMP voting itself contemplates and therefore sanctions vote splitting.

The Maori Party is promoting vote splitting, for its own ends.

I won’t explain vote splitting further. Numerous political boffins, tragics and partisans have done the whys and wherefores of split voting to death, including Harry Mowbray on his very own website:

Mowbray vote splitting

My interest is more in why the National Party is continuing to promote Nat/Nat voting that, based on current political polls, could well hand the election to a Labour-led Leftist coalition Government and cast the bewildered Nats into the wilderness.

My best bet at the Nats’ psychology in pumping Nat/Nat ticking lies in a vainglorious delusion of entitlement to forever hold and wield political power — A Divine Right to Govern New Zealand’s increasingly fragile democracy.

The current Nats/Nats voting mantra is steeped in an arrogant and flawed notion that it’s a fait accompli the Nats will lead the next Government. According to the Naterati, the only concern is to ensure that the Nats get as many MPs into Parliament as possible, it being falsely assumed that the National Party will lead the next coalition Government. This is either derangement, desperation or stupid bravado, or a complex combo of those mentalities.

Through blindness – willful or otherwise - the Nats are simply not seeing the writing on the wall.

At the last election, the National Party obtained just over 38% of overall party votes. They are now polling at about 10% (more than a quarter) less than that – 28%. Nicola Willis, National Party Deputy Leader and Minister of Finance, Economic Growth and Social Investment, will simply not be in Parliament let alone Government after the next election. Neither will Chris Bishop, Attorney-General and Minister of Housing, Infrastructure, Resource Management reform and Transport.

Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice & Defence and numerous other Ministries – vanquished too. Parliament’s current Speaker and National Party MP, Gerry Brownlee – vaporized from the Parliament over which he currently presides.

The National Party’s insular brains trust, and their juvenile advisers, are clearly remote - nigh on divorced – from the Nats’ electorate MPs. There’s a clear schism between the National Party’s beltway inner sanctum and the ranks of Natty electorate MPs.

The National Party has simply failed to grasp the contemporary, evolved realities of MMP. And this is far from the only chink in The Nats’ dented and disintegrating suit of armor.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is banging away at The Nats’ battered armor, with his own shiny ball/d hammer. In the TVNZ leaders’ debate on Tuesday, 6 October 2026, between Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins, Luxoflex produced the following clangers:

Whether or not there’s a National Party-dominant coalition Government after the next election, Luxon’s remaining time at the helm is distinctly short.

In an interview with Sean Plunket on The Platform yesterday (8 October), John Key made it abundantly clear that his aversion to vote splitting – which would clearly increase the likelihood of a return of the current coalition Government – is born purely and simply of a visceral personal hatred of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. Key would rather see a Leftist Government under Chris Hipkins than a burgeoning and emboldened NZ First. WTF. ShonKey, to a tee:

Dead eyed John Key is therefore a creepy quisling against the National Party’s traditional values; an unprincipled Tony Blair type. The unpatriotic puller of pony tails is a menace to everyday New Zealanders’ hopes for a free, equal, democratic New Zealand. To all intents and purposes, Key and his ilk simply haven’t moved on from the National/Labour dichotomy that prevailed in the days of the defunct First-Past-The-Post (FFP) electoral system, three decades dead.

If the Nats want a blueprint for where they’re going as a party, and – on their current trajectory – the dystopia to which they’re condemning New Zealanders, look no further than the shriveled British Conservative (Tory) Party and Britain’s Disunited & Disintegrating Kingdom.

The National Party’s mindless complacency and hubris is a clear and present danger to the New Zealand polity. Nationalism is a powerful force for good and National is no longer nationalist.

In the early days of Ancient Rome, perduellio was instituted as a criminal offence for treason, punishable by death. The crime included injuring or endangering the dignity, supremacy or power of the Roman State. Extended family members of anyone executed for committing perduellio were banned from mourning the culprit and their houses were compulsorily burned down.

The early Romans clearly grasped the imperative to eliminate internal enemies if their nascent commonwealth were to thrive. Perduellio was foundational to the mighty Roman Empire.

New Zealand has no equivalent, on its books, of perduellio. Sedition – bringing New Zealand into disrepute, inciting disaffection against the Government etc. - ceased to be a crime in New Zealand on 1 January 2008, when it was removed from the Crimes Act. Treason remains a crime, but is confined to armed insurrection or fomenting war against New Zealand.

On 29 September, an outfit called Both ENDS announced that it has lodged a formal complaint with the European Commission alleging that New Zealand has weakened environmental protections and failed to effectively implement its Paris Accord climate commitments. Both ENDS is a nefarious Netherlands-based NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation).

Both ENDS alleges that New Zealand has breached its free trade agreement with the European Union by reopening its territorial waters to offshore oil and gas exploration, not meeting its greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Paris Accord and passing legislation extinguishing the climate change Court case spearheaded by Maori activist Mike Smith. I’ve previously covered Smith’s crazy litigation:

Both ENDS’ intention is to spit roast New Zealand’s economy. Leading Both ENDS’ attack on New Zealand (holding the flame, burning his candle at both ends) is its “Head of Trade and Investment Policy”, Fernando Hernandez Espino. Fernando is a climate change Che Guevara-type try hard from South America. In an attempt to get more carnal activity with women – “by the fire light Fernando”…or anywhere else - Fernando also claims “intersectionality” with the “feminist economy”.

Both ENDS’ New Zealand collaborators include:

• Greenpeace Aotearoa

• the Environmental Law Initiative

• OraTaiao (an incorporated society representing Woke, climate obsessed “health professionals”)

• Mad Mike Smith himself

• Jane Kelsey (lifelong loony Leftie legal “academic”)

• Ngāti Pūkenga Iwi ki Tauranga Trust (one of the Māori groups trying to extort millions if not billions of dollars out of the Port of Tauranga in relation to its port expansion)

Greenpeace Aotearoa’s main man in this mendacity is its Executive Director, Dr (of “political science”, no less) Russel Norman. Both ENDS quotes Norman:

I’ve got news for you, Norman Non-Conqueror. The New Zealand Government is not obliged to listen to a single word from you.

The fact that Greenpeace New Zealand, despite its overt political advocacy, continues to enjoy charitable status is yet more stark evidence of just how Leftie-cooked New Zealand’s charities regime has become. Attacking ordinary New Zealanders’ economic prospects for your own virtue signalling ends is the opposite of charitable, Dear Dr Russel.

The Environmental Law Initiative’s “senior legal researcher” is former Green Party chief of staff Eliza Prestidge-Oldfield, a neurotic and unfortunate person.

Then we have all the usual suspects coming in behind the front liners. Pseudo academics like Canterbury University “Professor of Political Science and International Relations” Bronwyn Hayward. According to her Uni Bio, Brony’s “research is at the intersection of sustainability, youth, climate change and democracy”. Hayward has waywardly waded in with, “The stakes could not be higher for us as a nation and I am deeply concerned that our government has put our country’s reputation and trade at risk.”

Contrary to what Hayward asserts however, New Zealand is at no reputational or trade risk from its fossil fuel use. Our little nation consistently produces 90% of its electricity from renewable sources (hydro, geothermal, wind, solar and biofuels). The only risk New Zealand faces is fiscal. Under its current Paris Accord commitments, New Zealand will have to pay $5 billion to overseas climate change grifters for offshore emissions credits before the close of 2030, with an additional $2 billion before the close of 2035. Of course, this would be an act of national suicide that needn’t and won’t happen.

Neurodiverse attention seeker and Waikato law professor Al Gillespie has chimed in with his characteristic verbal diarrhea, splattering, “the architecture around them [promises to implement the Paris Accord] (from stopping the Smith case, weakening targets, and reversing earlier exploration goals) is collapsing”. I’m not into guilt by association but…

Bla Bla Bla.

Lurking beneath the radar screen in this treachery is of course antisemitic Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick and a troupe of other unpatriotic quislings.

What’s really going on? In essence, a coterie of globalist, unpatriotic New Zealanders are working with a malignant neo-Marxist European organisation to try and impoverish productive New Zealanders, de-stabilize New Zealand politically and undermine New Zealand’s international reputation and democratic sovereignty.

Climate change catastrophisation and national debt-loading are simply the mechanisms these vile subversives have chosen to pursue their mission to destroy New Zealand as an autonomous nation state.

In Britain, designed energy paucity (shutting down North Sea natural gas extraction) combined with an orchestrated State-sponsored mass invasion by illegal aliens (mainly fighting-age Islamist men) has impoverished native Brits leaving Britain on the brink of civil war and national debt default.

All these pinko actors are Hell bent on deconstructing the Westphalian nation-state system in favour of a United Nations-run global world order. There’s no longer any ambiguity or subterfuge.

What should the current New Zealand Government do, immediately? Two things.

First, the Government should exclude, from its climate change regime, all greenhouse gas emissions arising from New Zealand food production. Such exclusion would be entirely consistent with the Paris Accord, Article 2(1)(b) of which states:

The preamble to the Paris Accord also expressly, “Recogniz[es] the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger...”

Secondly, the Government should reassert what Prime Minister Luxon said in June 2026, with uncharacteristic decisiveness:

Earlier this month a woman named Dr Catherine Law was secretly videoed. Catherine is the principal of Avonside Girls’ High School. She has been seconded to the Ministry of Education to help produce the proposed new schools curricula.

In the video, Catherine tells staff involved in preparing the new curricula that they should not record in writing feedback coming from the Minister of Education’s office because “all of this is OIA-able”.

(“OIA” is the Official Information Act, New Zealand’s legislation with an express purpose “to increase progressively the availability of official information to the people of New Zealand in order…to enable their more effective participation in the making and administration of laws and policies and to promote the accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials”.)

The sly videoer initially leaked the video to The Herald, with Red Radio New Zealand and Stuffed quickly picking up the story. The videoer’s purpose was clearly to undermine Catherine Laws and the current Government’s project, initiated by Minister of Education Erica Stanford, to replace the current schools curricula.

All indications are that Catherine’s motivation, in clearly trying to avoid new curricula staffers generating screeds of OIA-able written records of feedback, was to avoid the risk of rabid Leftists’ swamping and derailing the curricula project with OIA requests; requests from the likes of Marxist President of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association, Chris Abercrombie, who claims that, “Moving away from a curriculum that is underpinned by Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a seriously backward move.”

Catherine was obviously not trying to ensure the new curricula are developed in secret, because in the same video she gladly and genuinely contemplates a “formal and public and transparent” process. (But then there’s the Pakeha Pounamu Pendant…??)

In the wake of Catherine Law’s videoed “all of this is OIA-able” remark, Government Ombudsman John Allen sanctimoniously demanded an immediate meeting with Secretary for Education Ellen MacGregor-Reid, frothing in his own inimitable style:

On 25 September 2026, after meeting MacGregor-Reid and Sir Brian Roche (NZ’s shifty Public Service Commissioner), Allen announced a formal Ombudsman investigation into allegations that Ministry officials had attempted to circumvent the OIA.

All this is predictably partisan from BlobudsAllen. His supposed conniptions about what Catherine Law did are simply because he’s personally antipathetic to the advent of schools curricula that are not mystically based on the Treaty of Waitangi. And, if you don’t believe me, check out this video of try-hard activist Allen calling for Race Revolution (“systemic change”) earlier this month, at the 2026 celebrations of the Kīngitanga movement at Tūrangawaewae Marae.

Allen Activism

Allen’s very own Office of the Government Ombudsman proudly posted the video of Kaumatua Allen, on YouTube.

It’s also wildly ironic that Allen is supposedly aggrieved at Catherine Law’s alleged undermining of the OIA when he and his Government Ombudsman Office are prime subverters of the very legislation they’re supposed to administer and enforce. I’ve addressed the Ombudsman Office’s Leftie biases, unlawfulness and general undermining of confidence in the OIA in an earlier Substack:

Instead of advocating for tougher legal sanctions for breaching the OIA, Allen thinks New Zealanders can rely on his own asserted “mana”. Which says it all.

So, was John Allen encouraged to reflect on his crazed race ranting at Tūrangawaewae? ACT MP Todd Stephenson raised Allen’s spittle speech with Gerry Brownlee, as Parliament’s Speaker and Chair of the Officers of Parliament Committee. Unfortunately, I can find no evidence that Brownlee has even spoken to John Allen, despite Allen being an officer of Parliament who nevertheless wants to end New Zealand’s Parliamentary democracy in favour of some sort of Maori Marxist Dystopia.

Sean Plunket, Bigwig at media channel The Platform, called for Activist Allen to be removed for his Tūrangawaewae twaddle. How, then, could that laudable goal be achieved? Under the Ombudsman Act 1975, the House of Representatives (being Parliament, less the Governor-General) can request the G-G to remove John Allen as Ombudsman “for inability to perform the functions of the office, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct”. Such a request would require a simple (>50%) majority vote in our House of Reps.

One of New Zealand’s constitutional conventions is that the Governor-General’s role is essentially ceremonial. This means that the G-G must, by convention, simply and without question act on formal requests from New Zealanders’ democratically elected representatives. The intriguing complexity, however, is that this constitutional convention is not expressly entrenched in New Zealand law, such that the G-G could technically refuse a House of Reps request for removal of Allen as Ombudsman.

New Zealand’s current Governor-General is Cindy Kiro, an appointee of AuthoritarArdern.

John Allen’s repeated behaviour has clearly demonstrated that he is unable to impartially perform the functions of Government Ombudsman, he is neglecting his duties and is guilty of misconduct. He therefore satisfies the statutory test for his own removal i.e., it is open to the House of Representatives, after a majority vote, to ask G-G Kiro to remove him. The National, NZ First and ACT political parties, acting in Parliamentary concert, could clearly achieve this.

The virtue of going the whole hog to rid New Zealand of John Allen as Ombudsman is that it would serve as a test of whether Cindy Kiro is indeed, as she appears to be, an antidemocratic plant of the Leftists. If Kid Kiro failed to act on a House of Reps request to banish Allen from the lofty post he’s abusing, then at least New Zealanders would know that the neo-Marxists are asserting hegemony over the general democratic will of New Zealanders, as expressed through their elected representatives. There’d be a full blown constitutional crisis. Bring it on.

Alternatively, the incumbent Government could simply express a view that Allen is untenable as Ombudsman, the Government has lost confidence in him and he should resign. Unfortunately, Allen’s colossal ego wouldn’t allow him to quit, no matter how demented he becomes, and his term doesn’t end until 30 March 2030. No Heart of Darkness epiphany awaits Allen…no revelation for John of The Horror! The Horror! that he’s at the heart of.

While we’re at it, how could the Government remove Sir Brian Roche as Public Service Commissioner? Cock Roche is the creepy-crawly who’s running interference for elite public servants, shielding them from political accountability for their misconduct. His latest major effort as the public servant elites’ Protector-in-Chief was to protect Nic Blakely, as Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, from any punishment for deliberately lying to a Parliamentary Select Committee about MBIE’s aborted biometric immigration project. Since then, on 23 September, Blakeley said the wasted cost has ballooned further to over $50 million. (He’s probably lying again.)

Under current legislation, only Governor-General Kiro can remove the Sir Rochemeister before his term expires on 30 June 2027 – for “misbehaviour or incompetence”. Parliament has no power to remove Roche and of course Cindy K would never remove him. She barely knows her own name.

But of course that’s not the end of the story because, in a democracy in which Parliament is sovereign, New Zealander’s representative body can enact whatever legislation it damn well likes. The Roche Removal Act 2026 has a nice ring to it.

New Zealand is heading for a showdown between its House of Representatives and the general public, on one side, and – on the other - all the antidemocratic forces arraigned against the normal people. The Public Service. The Courts. The Waitangi Tribunal. Main Stream Media. Academia. Most of the Police and Defence Forces. It’s game on. Normies have the numbers, which is why the post-modernists hate New Zealand’s democracy. The war for constitutional supremacy is in full swing.

At core, New Zealand Governments should be about orchestrating Parliament to pass new legislation.

Heated debates, hot air and empty promises change nothing. Enacted legislation is the only way Parliament can change New Zealand’s legal landscape. Enactments can comprise entirely new Acts of Parliament, or repeal or amend existing legislation.

Government Ministers of course exercise decision making powers and perform statutory functions under existing legislation. However, without passing legislation a Government is simply an administration rather than a fulfilment of promises of legal changes.

With majority support in Parliament, passing intended legislation is a fait accompli. Opponents of a Parliamentary law making can bleat all they like; they can screech that new legislation is defective or unhelpful, or hasn’t been passed after due process, or offends the sensibilities of the High Priest(esse)s of the Waitangi Tribunal, or…whatever. But with majority Parliamentary support for a legislative change, the change is inevitable and gets made.

This piece provides three examples of the National Party reneging on particular legislative commitments it made under its coalition agreements with the New Zealand First and ACT political parties. I then speculate on why the Nats have failed to honor these commitments.

Examination of Auckland & Otago Universities’ student doctor race preferences

The Nats/ACT November 2023 coalition agreement contains the following commitment:

In essence, this commits the Nats and ACT to examining preferential admissions of individuals with Māori or/and Polynesian ancestry to the medical schools at the Auckland and Otago universities. The express purpose of the examination is to “determine if [the preferences] are delivering desired outcomes”.

While “desired outcomes” are undefined, a man by the name and title of Professor Warwick Bagg has his own conception of what “desired outcomes” should be.

Prof Bagg is the Dean (i.e., head honcho) of Auckland University’s medical school. He thinks that the desired outcome is (i.e., ought to be) to increase the number of medical doctors working in New Zealand who have some Māori or Polynesian ancestry. In an opinion piece published on Auckland University’s website on 4 September 2026, Bagg claims:

The Bagg Man thinks that the overriding desirable outcome of the existing race preferences is to ensure that the proportion of New Zealand medical doctors who are Māori or Pasifika replicates the proportion of New Zealanders that those racial groups make up. In other words, Bagg wants to socially engineer a particular race-based mix of doctors for delivery of doctor-ish services in “Aotearoa New Zealand”.

Woke Yarpie Bagg is unconcerned whether the existing race preference system - under which non-Māori/Pasifika with higher secondary school marks lose out to Māori/Pasifika in getting into Med School (and therefore do not become New Zealand doctors) – will actually improve the health and longevity of Māori/Pasifika New Zealanders. For the pontificating Professor, it’s clearly only “the look” that counts.

Prof Bagg got his medical doctorate from University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. Johannesburg has been transformed into a crime-ridden hell hole, in large part because South Africa has a disgraceful history of treating people differently based on race, first under apartheid and now under the pervasive race-preference regime of the governing African National Congress political party. Under the ANC Autocracy, dark skinned people must be legally preferred in employment, Government contracts and – you guessed it – admission to universities and other tertiary institutions.

But I digress. In his piece, Bagg claims, “As Dean of the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, I have called on the responsible minister to release the MAPAS report so that the public can judge its findings for themselves”. I’m with Bagg on that, but almost certainly for very different reasons.

My suspicion is that the report will demonstrate that Auckland University is indeed churning out more Māori or Pasifika doctors (Bagg’s idea of the “desired outcome”). But I further suspect there’s no evidence that the blatant racial discrimination (which has existed for decades) has contributed at all to improved “health outcomes” for Māori/Pasifika New Zealanders – in which case the Māori/Pasifika medical schools race preferences clearly breach the United Nations’ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. That Convention only allows racial discrimination (so-called “special measures”) if the measures are:

• designed to advance a disadvantaged racial or ethnic group

• necessary to ensure that group can enjoy human rights and freedoms equally with others

• not leading to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups indefinitely

• discontinued if their objectives are not achieved

The report of the examination is said to be languishing with Associate Minister of Health, close friend of Prime Minister Luxon and Woke drip, Matt Doocey.

My guess is that the report fails to establish that the Medical School race preferences have done anything to improve Māori/Pasifika health, and that’s why Doocey will continue to feed it up his capacious arse until the November election. Matty D wants the racial discrimination to continue and to conceal that his National Party is happy for New Zealand to continue to breach the International Convention on Eliminating Racial Discrimination.

By not publishing the report on race preferences for entry into Med Schools, the Do-Nothing Nats have clearly breached their relevant Nats/ACT coalition commitment.

Treaty Principles Tweaks

The National-NZ First coalition agreement contains the following express commitment:

The National Party has been prevaricating on fulfilling this commitment, for its entire current term in Government. I’ve covered the Treaty Principles debate in a previous Substack:

To summarize, the Nats orchestrated a protracted delay before even initiating its promised review of Treaty Principles references, then took ages to consider the results of the review, and then reduced the scope of the promised tweaks. Only now, in the twilight of the current Parliamentary term, has National introduced legislation to make Treaty Principles tweaks.

There is no realistic prospect of the tweaking legislation being passed before the current Parliamentary term ends….TODAY! Congrats, Nats.

Waitangi Tribunal Wing Clipping

The Nats’ coalition agreement with NZ First contains the following commitment:

Enactment of that commitment, in its literal (words matter) form would’ve been a simple matter. The current Government could’ve simply amended the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to say what it said back in 1975. But instead, National Party Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka initiated a review...in May 2025…already half way through the current Government’s term. In direct conflict with National’s coalition agreement commitment, the scope of the review apparently included consideration of:

• the Tribunal’s jurisdiction

• how different categories of claims are managed

• whether the legislation provides sufficient clarity about the Tribunal’s role

• whether the Tribunal’s current activities reflect the purpose of the Act

In announcing the review, Potaka bloviated:

The review panel reported back to the Government in late August 2025. But as of today (more than a year later), the panel’s report has not been published, the Government has not responded to the report and no proposed legislation amending the Tribunal’s powers has been introduced into Parliament.

Meanwhile, the mad multitudes at the money-munching Waitangi Tribunal continue to vomit volumes of execrable word salad. On 16 September, the Tribunal released its report concluding that the Government’s proposed reforms to the schools’ curriculum breached Treaty of Waitangi Principles by:

• not consulting the Mystical Māori Monolith

• focusing the proposed reforms on a “knowledge-rich curriculum” informed by the “science of learning”, rather than undefined and undefinable Māori customs and Māori world view(s)

The “Presiding Officer” (main author, I guess…but who knows) for this latest Tribunal tome of tripe was Rachel Mullins, a flake (to coin Rexene Landy’s genius term) Māorish.

What’s going on here? None of the above trifecta of National Party failed commitments resulted from any lack of support from coalition partners NZ First & ACT. Together, those three coalition political parties have wielded absolute legislative power. And, with reasonable will and collaboration, none of the legislative initiatives was particularly complex to achieve.

Which all leaves one ineluctable conclusion. The National Party formally committed itself to legislative changes that it simply intended never to consummate. In short, the Nats have lied. That dumb duplicity could hand power to a Labour-led neo-Marxist Government after the next election.

You’ll notice a common theme in my three examples of National Party coalition commitment dishonor. They all involve Matters Māori. For the Pakeha involved in these political deceits, especially Dear Leader Luxon, the failures were probably principally prompted by that horror of white privilege - being labelled “RACIST!” Tama Potaka is another kettle of ika (fish).

Indulge me. I hope to amuse and enlighten you. I aspire to provide another small personal insight into how Clubtearoa really operates.

On 16 February 2026, I again tried to obtain a particular document from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. I did so by making a further request for the document under the Official Information Act (I’d made a similar request back in 2022). It was a long shot which predictably proved fruitless. But my futile effort also sheds more delicious light on what happens behind closed doors, up in the rarified air of New Zealand’s haughty, precious elite classes.

In 2018 and 2019, I made a series of whistleblowing disclosures to the Reserve Bank. My disclosures concerned misconduct of Rabobank New Zealand, a registered bank at which I was the head lawyer at the time. I’ve covered my whistleblowing in an earlier Substack:

The document I have failed to obtain is the “independent” report that the Reserve Bank commissioned in response to my whistleblowing. The report’s author is a lawyer named David Flacks.

Because the misconduct of Rabobank that I disclosed was indisputably very real and the Reserve Bank did precisely zip about it, either Flacks’ report was a whitewash or the Reserve Bank ignored it. Take your pick. My pick is that Flacks’ report was a whitewash concocted by Flacks in close complicity with senior Reserve Bank staffers.

The Reserve Bank did not respond to my February 2026 Official Information Act request until 7 September. (Bear with me. This is where the fun starts.)

In July, I’d followed up my February request with the Reserve Bank, inquiring why New Zealand’s central bank had not responded to my request. In August, I wrote to the Government Ombudsman, asking the Blobudsman to follow up with the Reserve Bank. Here’s the email trail:

The Reserve Bank has again refused my request for Flacks’ report. Here’s the RB’s predictable response

In its response, the Reserve Bank claimed – probably validly – that, “…the RBNZ does not have any records of your emails of 16 February 2026, 22 July 2026, and 22 August 2026”. The reason for the Reserve Bank’s apparent initial non-receipt is both intriguing and amusing.

In a separate email on 9 September, the author of the RB’s response, John Grey (“Manager Governance and OIA”), advised that I have been blocked from sending emails to the Reserve Bank. Here’s Grey’s email:

For those who, like me, with poor eyesight, Grey’s email ends:

And here’s the email that got me blocked (correction, Orr is not a “Dr” of anything; that was likely a spellcheck misfire):

So it goes. Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr took such deep personal offense at an email I flicked him that he blocked me from emailing not only him but anyone else at the Reserve Bank. My favourite line in Grey’s email is, “We take the health and safety of our people seriously and will not expose them to gratuitous abuse.” Hurty words cancellation. Poor old dumpy diddums, Adrian O. (My guess is, I was also blocked because he didn’t want the Reserve Bank hearing any more from me about the RB crushing my protected disclosures.)

My chagrin at Orr, which prompted me to email him, was a remark he made, as Reserve Bank Governor, during a formal Parliamentary hearing on 12 February 2024.

With his defining glib arrogance, Orr told Parliament and New Zealanders in general:

Even by his own crappy standards, Orr’s remark was especially insensitive, tone deaf and contemptible of the real-life experience of ordinary New Zealanders. Under Orr’s politically partisan reign of fiscal ruination as RB Governor, New Zealand suffered its highest inflation in decades. His “Large Scale Asset Purchase” (aka money-printing) programme inflated house prices. His money tree lunacy left those who had nevertheless managed to buy houses with debilitating interest costs to fund their overwhelming mortgage debts, after the post-Orr Reserve Bank had to rapidly increase the Official Cash Rate to combat the inflation that Orr had unleashed.

Indications are that Orr deliberately sugar hit the economy in a politically biased attempt to get his Labour Luvvies re-elected. Mercifully, his attempt failed but the stagflation he caused of course persists.

In his defence, Orr may well have been tipsy when he made his smarmy money-printing remark. He was often boozed when on official duty. He especially loved a good (Platonic) nuzzle and guzzle with Finance Minister Grant Robertson.

Orr’s block-him reaction to my email is typical of his brand of elitism. Wokester snobs can give it, but can’t take it. They patronize and disparage normal New Zealanders, and react to pushback by seeking to cancel anyone who counterattacks.

But, thanks to outlets like Substack, ordinary New Zealanders are now able to expose the machinations and misdeeds of the Wokerati.

And I can record all this because I deal in facts. (To coin the trendy term, I have the “receipts”.) And I know that the Reserve Bank would never try to silence or ruin me with litigation because to do would expose its abject failure to discharge its prudential supervisory duties. In a litigation process, Flake Flacks’ fake report would become public. And the roles of other Reserve Bank operatives in crushing my whistleblowing would be revealed.

These people linger, like bad smells. The limpest limpet I had to suffer in the course of my whistleblowing is Scott McKinnon.

McKinnon remains at the Reserve Bank, as “Director of Specialist Supervision”. According to his Reserve Bank website bio, “Scott joined Te Pūtea Matua [for the uninitiated, that’s the Maori name Orr coined for the Reserve Bank] in 2012”.

I vividly recall the moment when my dawning realization - that the Reserve Bank was burying my whistleblowing - crystalized into dead certainty. It was at a meeting at the Reserve Bank’s Wellington premises on 11 February 2019. Just me, McKinnon and Flacks. It became abundantly clear at that meeting that Rabobank was continuing to tell even more lies to the Reserve Bank. The meeting didn’t end well. Out of ammunition and credibility and unwilling to engage further, McKinnon physically ushered me off the premises.

There’s rarely anywhere to go when the Bloberati congeals in self-protection. I tried officially complaining to Minister of Finance Grant Robertson. He duly brushed me off, as expected. I later found out that the Reserve Bank (the very agency I was complaining about) wrote Robertson’s response to me.

But we mercifully now have Substack. One of Substack’s three founders was New Zealander Hamish McKenzie. What a legend. Here’s to you, Mr McKenzie.

New Zealand’s Real Estate Authority (REA) is gleefully poised to cancel Janet Dickson’s licence to be a real estate agent. Cancellation will almost certainly terminate Janet’s exemplary 30-year career.

Dickson’s impending doom follows the REA Disciplinary Tribunal, on 1 September, upholding the REA Registrar’s earlier refusal to exempt Janet Dickson from a mandatory 2023 course. The 90-minute course, called “Te Kākano”, was designed to indoctrinate real estate agents into believing prescribed Woke dogmas about “things Māori”. The hatchet man Registrar was lawyer Peter Cullen. Now retired, Peter still maintains his own self-aggrandizing website:

Janet steadfastly refused to undergo Te Kākano because its mythological Māori content conflicted with her Christian faith and her heretical conviction that all New Zealanders ought to enjoy equality under the law.

REA is no longer allowed to force real estate agents to bend their knees to Te Kākano. ACT Party Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee - correctly recognising that the course was utterly irrelevant to agents doing their jobs - issued a statutory Letter of Expectation in February 2025 effectively banning the REA from continuing to shove Te Kākano down agents’ throats.

Apart from Te Kākano, Janet Dickson is currently completely up-to-date with all her compulsory professional training obligations.

Two individuals who provided Te Kākano, Donna Grant and Katherine Tuhakaraina, had earlier received criminal convictions in connection with their race hustling provision of Māori mumbo jumbo and cultural cringe.

Ending Janet’s career has been a concerted Wokerati team effort. REA declined Janet’s initial request to be exempted from Te Kākano. In June 2024, the High Court grabbed its pitchfork and refused Janet’s application for a judicial review of REA’s decision. Registrar Cullen, as indicated, countenanced REA’s refusal to exempt Janet, with the Tribunal now raising the guillotine blade for REA to finish the hit job and behead dear Janet.

I’ve already covered Janet’s court action. In hindsight, that action was futile. The judge was Frightening McQueen, a frightful Wokester.

At any time after Janet applied for an exemption from Te Kākano, including right now (as I type), REA could have excused her from REA’s silly essay at racial brainwashing. But it hasn’t. Of course it hasn’t.

Instigator of Te Kākano was the current REA Chief Executive and Registrar, a Pakeha wāhine by the name of Belinda Moffat. Before joining REA in 2020, Little Miss Moffat was Chief Executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The BSA is the lawless, censoriously Woke outfit that is currently seeking to destroy media channel The Platform, a quest the BSA will be liberated to complete if there’s a Labour Party-led Government after New Zealand’s upcoming general election.

Before heading the BSA, Moffat was Director of Enforcement and Investigations at the Financial Markets Authority. That’s the statutory regulator from which both its Board chair and chief executive have disappeared within the last six months.

So, who are Moffat’s toadies on the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal? They’re lawyers David Plunkett (Chair) and Catherine Sandelin (Deputy Chair), together with drones by the names of Garry Denley, Neil O’Connor and Fiona Mathieson.

Moffat’s biggest accomplice in the execution of her vicious vendetta against Janet Dickson has been the Chair of REA’s Board, lawyer Denese Bates KC:

In an interview with The Platform’s main man Sean Plunket on 9 September, Nicole McKee singled out Denese for special mention. Nicole expressed her particular delight that Denese Bates has limited time left on REA’s Board. According to the REA’s website, Bates’ term will end on 22 December 2027. For the sake of all real estate agents and New Zealanders in general, we can only hope Denese’s departure is much earlier.

Particularly in light of REA’s Te Kākano madness, the ACT Party announced on 17 June 2026 that, if returned to government after this year’s election, ACT will introduce legislation that would:

• Ban regulators of professions from disciplining members for lawful views expressed outside of their jobs;

• Restrict mandatory training to matters directly related to professional competence and public safety; and

• Strengthen judicial oversight of regulators, making it easier for courts to intervene where regulators exceed their statutory functions.

Any such legislation will be wonderful, but too late to save Janet Dickson from professional execution. Almost certainly, her end will come soon. Janet is mourning the recent death of her husband and REA will be eagerly looking to compound her suffering absolutely as soon as it can.

REA’s treatment of Janet Dickson is of course a pure witch hunt. This brave woman has been singled out, persecuted and punished for her personal beliefs and courageous rebellion against the Wokethodoxy, certainly not for any misconduct on her part. The real witches are of course the vindictive and/or gutless witch hunters of Janet, led by malicious master head hunter Moffat.

Naturally, Janet is far from alone in her fate.

Broadcaster Leah Panapa is one of myriad other witch huntees. She was hounded out of her talkback hosting job at now-defunct Today FM for refusing to call women “pregnant people” and otherwise pretend than men can give birth to babies. In proof that witch hunting is not reserved for mean girls - bad white (b)witches like Moffat and Denese Psycho Bates - it was a dude who took Panapa down.

Mediaworks “Director of News & Talk” Dallas Gurney even felt fit to try and humiliate Leah by issuing a phoney apology on her behalf, declaring:

Leah Panapa was young enough to continue her career. Janet Dickson will sadly be gone for good.

My muse Max Rashbrooke’s latest opinion piece in Stuff’s THE POST (5 September) is titled, The uneasy tension between Parliament and the courts. I’ve lovingly covered Max for a while now:

Max states towards the end of his latest piece:

Belief that Parliament should be New Zealand’s supreme law-making body parallels belief in free speech. If you hear, “I believe in free speech except…”, you’re not getting that from someone who genuinely believes in free speech. It’s the same for Parliamentary supremacy, and Rashbrooke is no Parliamentary supremacist. His “Parliament should continue to be supreme” is a deflection that founders on the fact that he dedicates the rest of his piece to trying to undermine the worth and legitimacy of Parliamentary supremacy.

Rashbrooke starts by focusing on a 2016 headline in Britain’s Daily Mail. The heading was ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.

The alleged enemies were three British Supreme Court judges who decided that Britain could not leave the European Union without Britain’s Parliament voting to approve the exit. At first blush, the judges’ decision was an assertion of Parliamentary supremacy. But it wasn’t. It was an attack on democracy of the people, and Parliamentary supremacy is an essential ingredient of a properly functioning democracy.

The anti-Brexit judges’ assertion that Britain couldn’t leave the EU without Parliamentary approval was a judicial expression of their personal hope the British Parliament would override the Brexit referendum in which a majority of Brits had voted to leave the EU. Fortunately, Parliament ultimately endorsed Brexit and the rest – as they say – is history.

Max asserts:

Mad, Maddening Max then vents against his perceived (paranoid delusional or disingenuous) “risk” of that retrospective legislation will mean that, “No-one can do anything without worrying the Parliament will retrospectively render it illegitimate”. As if ordinary New Zealanders are being paralyzed by such worry!

In brave desperation, Max tries to characterize departing ACT Minister Brooke van Velden’s tweaks to pay-equity legislation – which will save New Zealand taxpayers almost $13 billion dollars that we simply couldn’t have afforded – as “essentially retrospective”.

While retrospective lawmaking can be undesirable, it’s no argument whatsoever against Parliamentary supremacy.

Senior Researcher Rashbrooke then fulminates that “governments shouldn’t legislate over the top of already launched court cases”. Max invokes Brooke van V’s legislation deeming Uber drivers to be contractors to, and not employees of, Uber – a status that lots of Uber drivers actually wanted.

What Max is saying, in no uncertain terms, is that it’s illegitimate, in any circumstances, for Parliament to overrule Court decisions. That notion is not Parliamentary supremacy. It would be constitutional supremacy of the unelected Judiciary .

As sure as sunshine follows rain, Max then denounces the fact that “the Government legislated over the top of activist Mike Smith’s lawsuit against climate mega-polluters like Fonterra, a case the courts have said should be heard.” I’ve previously covered Vandal Smith’s absurd Court actions, actions that even the Supreme Court said couldn’t realistically succeed even with the Supreme Court’s endorsed new cause of action - in Rashbrooke’s words, ‘a novel “tort” – a harm, in essence – of climate pollution’.

Max finds an ideological ally in Victoria law professor Dean Knight, whom Max quotes as claiming that Parliament and the Courts, “sit in dialogue, and in tension, with each other”. The tension in the “dialogue” comes from judges sticking their fingers in their ears, shouting “La, La, La, La, La” and ignoring express, clear wording of Parliament’s enacted legislation.

Max then goes completely off the insular Vic Uni reservation. Deferring to ‘One retired High Court judge, speaking anonymously’ who ‘told me the law could become “stultified”’, Max insinuates that it would be open to the Courts to judicially update the Adoption Act 1955 because unnamed “Officials” have claimed that legislation “no longer meets the needs of our society” – whatever that’s supposed to mean. Ye gads.

In fact, Parliament is more than capable of moving with the times. Take, for example, Parliament’s 2013 gay marriage legislation, which Helen Clark and hubby Peter Davis were naturally ecstatic about.

Regarding the Ellis case – in which New Zealand’s Supreme Court invented a new Maori custom (tikanga) in order the quash the criminal convictions of Pakeha Peter Ellis after Ellis’ death – Max is again amorous towards his Knight in Shiny Arse Armor:

…As if New Zealanders are all running around feverishly adopting tribal Maori customary behaviors and rituals. Pull the other one.

Then comes my favourite:

Here’s a reality check for you Max. Conservatives such as myself haven’t imported culture wars from overseas. We’re just trying to hold the line against you and your burgeoning Western globalist crowd of antidemocratic postmodernists. We’re battling to defend New Zealand’s traditional freedoms and democracy.

Max then froths at “would-be strongmen” such as…Shane Jones?! (Max, Jones aint no would-be authoritarian “strongman”. He’s simply a patriot committed to New Zealand’s democratic traditions.)

Max ends by regurgitating a rotten old chestnut; that the Waitangi Tribunal’s powers are “merely advisory”, so there’s nothing to see or worry about. But of course New Zealand’s Courts are constantly transforming the Waitangi Tribunal’s unaccountable utterances into binding common law Treaty Principles, tikanga and other such twaddle.

Under its coalition agreement with New Zealand First, the Nation Party committed to:

In May 2025, the Government belatedly established an advisory group to implement that commitment. The group delivered its report to the Government in late 2025 but Cabinet has still not considered it. It’s another National Party renege, one more good reason why it appears that less than 30% of New Zealanders now support The Do-Nothing Nats.

On 23 April 2026, National Party Associate Health Minister Matt Doocey announced an advertising campaign by Health New Zealand.

The false pretense of the campaign, which will run until the end of this month of September, is to reduce alleged widespread stigma and discrimination against New Zealanders infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). HIV is a virus that, without effective medical treatment using antiretroviral drugs, usually results in death from HIV’s advanced stage, AIDS.

Doocey’s announcement is typical of the nonsense that pours out of this pitifully poor politician (and best friend of Luxo), on whom I’ve previously poured scorn:

The campaign’s catchcry is “The 80s Calling”. The protagonists in the video/TV advertisement are “David” who notices “Sarah” hugging another man at a social function and asks an unnamed woman, “Didn’t Sarah have, um...”. Unnamed girl boss woman completes David’s sentence, “…HIV”, and hands Dopey Dave an oversized 80’s brick phone to answer a call time travelling forward from that decade.

David is delighted to inform the 80s that hugging, kissing and sharing food with a person with HIV is “all good” and, with the right treatment, people with HIV can stay well and can’t pass HIV on to sexual partners, so there’s no need to “freak out”. You can (hopefully) view the video, and hear the radio advertisement, on this link:

80s Calling

The invented reason for the advertising campaign, repeated like a mantra, is that “Research shows that around three-quarters of New Zealanders still hold onto HIV-related stigma and discrimination, fueled by fear-based myth”. There is obviously no such research.

(Are we honestly supposed to believe that ¾ of the men, women and children in New Zealand stigmatize people with HIV? Outside of one’s immediate friends and family, how could anyone even know that someone else is HIV-positive?)

The whole premise of the campaign is therefore a complete and blatant lie.

There are bucket loads more bollocks in the campaign. Back in the 80’s, with no medical treatments available for HIV, there was every reason (despite “David’s” back-in-time reassurances) to “freak out” about the prospect of unprotected sex with an HIV-positive “partner”. Even today, the best available antiretroviral drugs cannot eliminate HIV from a person’s body and the drugs themselves can have significant adverse side effects. It’s therefore still risky (if you don’t already have HIV) to have unprotected sex – especially anal sex – with someone who’s HIV-positive.

The whole campaign is rife with other distortions and half-truths. For example, it’s misrepresentative for the HIV-afflicted person to be a woman (“Sarah”), given at least 85% of New Zealanders who’ve ever contracted HIV have done so because they are (or were) men who had penetrative sex with men.

I made an Official Information Act request for the costs of Health NZ’s HIV-stigma-removal advertising campaign and was pleased to receive the following timely response (usually Government agencies either ignore OIA requests or unlawfully decline them or delay).

You’ll see that the cost to Health NZ of the campaign is budgeted to be well over a million dollars (plus GST?). That’s money that could otherwise be spent on medicines, including antiretroviral drugs. The quoted cost excludes the cost and time of Health NZ staff involvement.

This idea of removing “stigma” is common. In 2024, Hedwig Eisenbarth, an Associate Professor at Wellington’s Victoria University, together with “researcher” Courtney Spiller, conducted a study titled, “Testing the Effect of Educational Modules for Reducing Stigma Towards People with a Sexual Attraction to Children“. The study’s main aim was to bolster the mental wellbeing of people who are sexually attracted to children, by reducing stigma faced by such pedophiles. Yikes.

So, what sort of cultural and political factors are at play here?

The campaign is a product of a public “service” culture of unaccountable waste and profligacy in which activists are at liberty to waste the citizenry’s hard-earned money in pursuit of their own ideological goals. All those involved in the campaign will have New Zealanders believe that New Zealand is chocker block with bigots prejudiced against sufferers of HIV, and crazy germaphobes.

According to Health NZ, the “community leaders” with which Health NZ collaborated on the campaign include the Burnett Foundation. Until 2023 known as the “New Zealand AIDS Foundation”, on its change of name to “Burnett Foundation Aotearoa” the Foundation completely jumped the shark and began to preach all the crazy contemporary crap (humans can swap their biological sex etc.).

Grateful recipients of Health NZ’s campaign $$$ include TVNZ, TV Three, SKY, Maori TV, NewsTalk ZB, Stuff and MediaWorks. And there’s not-so-subtle messaging here – vote for a Labour-led Government at the next election and the publicly-funded advertising valve will be opened to inundate lamestream media channels with public largesse, on myriad deranged advertising campaigns. Dedicated followers of State-sponsored advertising under the last Labour regime will recall the infantile Waka Kotahi “Road to Zero” advertising campaign.

The messaging for Health NZ staff and other public servants is clear – vote for a Labour-led Government and the public “service” sheltered workshops wastage will balloon.

We mustn’t underestimate the insidious roles that advertising agencies and their enablers play in all this plundering of the public purse. The advertising agency for Health NZ’s HIV campaign is VML Auckland. The “production company” is Australian firm Good Oil (how dreadfully carbon unsound).

Lurking in the shadows of “The 80s Calling” campaign is a global outfit known as Little Black Book. LBB describes itself as “a global community for companies and professionals involved in advertising and creativity”.

Similar to LBB is the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA). Organisations like LBB and WFA advise advertisers and advertising agencies on “brand safety” and steer them towards politically/culturally “correct” media channels i.e. channels that are Woke or at least Woke adjacent/compatible. The LBB/WFA’s of the murky world of advertising act as ideological commissars directing where advertising budgets can “safely” be spent, and ostracizing “unsound” media outlets.

In the final analysis, the derisory “The 80s Calling” HIV campaign is just more of the same cancer that plagues New Zealand…Identify easily pilfered public money, couch the theft in Woke garb and fill your pockets. New Zealand remains blighted by Free Sh*t Junkies:

Meanwhile, THE POST continues to push profligacy, with this puff opinion piece last Saturday from Wellington Mayor and King of Easy, Other Peoples’ Money, Andrew Little:

New Zealand’s hospitals are creaking under the strain of patients suffering respiratory infections. According to Dr Hannah Cooper of PHF Science, a Government health research organisation, “All indicators suggest COVID-19 activity remains very low”. In other words, it’s influenza, rhinoviruses (which don’t come from rhinoceroses) and common colds – not the “deadly virus” COVID - that are causing the surge in winter illness and killing far more New Zealanders than COVID.

This un-COVID sickness surge is entirely predictable. After Omicron became the dominant COVID strain in early 2022, COVID simply stopped posing any significant health risks to healthy people.

Although COVID is over, the effects of Western nations’ political and public health responses to COVID will linger on. One of the only genuine long COVIDs is a pervasive distrust of public health “experts” and politicians. Lies that COVID vaccinations were entirely safe and effective to prevent contraction and transmission of COVID heightened general distrust of vaccinations. This distrust reduced flu vaccination rates, which has significantly exacerbated New Zealand’s current flu surge. It’s no exaggeration to say that New Zealand’s warped response to COVID is now causing manifold flu deaths. Authoritarian lies have unfortunate consequences.

This general distrust of New Zealand institutions and people in positions of authority is only worsening.

King’s Counsel Grant Illingworth chaired the formal Phase Two Inquiry into New Zealand’s response to COVID. Phase Two was ostensibly intended to help restore faith in New Zealand’s institutions and leaders, but has done precisely the opposite.

In March 2026, Illingworth and his fellow Commissioners, Anthony Hill and Judy Kavanagh, delivered their Phase Two report entitled, Whītiki Aotearoa: Further lessons from COVID-19 to prepare Aotearoa New Zealand for a future pandemic. The clue to the merits of Phase Two is of course the double whammy “Aotearoa”.

Grant Illingworth and Anthony Hill are antique lawyers.

Judy Kavanagh’s main claim to infamy is that she was for 10 years a Productivity Commissioner, before the Productivity Commission was abolished in 2024. I’ve previously commented on the mercy killing of the absurdity that the Productivity Commission became under Woke Mess Ganesh Nana:

The Phase One COVID Inquiry was a brazen, shameless attempt at a whitewash. In December 2022, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern rubber stamped terms of reference for the Phase One Inquiry that were framed so narrowly as to prevent Phase One from conducting any legitimate investigation of the quality of her Government’s response to COVID.

The Phase Two COVID Inquiry only added insult to injury. Chair Illingworth deliberately avoided exercising the Inquiry’s express powers, under the Inquiries Act 2013, to summons anyone at all to attend the hearing and give evidence in public, on oath (or the secular equivalent, affirmation).

This abrogation of Phase Two’s responsibilities excused Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Andrew Little, Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall - together with former Director-General of Health, Sir Ashley Bloomfield - from genuine scrutiny and interrogation. Phase Two neglected to require anyone, including any of those central actors in the COVID cosplay, to formally testify.

Ardern, Hipkins, Little, Robertson and Verrall each flatly refused Phase Two’s perfunctory requests to testify on oath at public hearings. There’s no evidence that Bloomfield declined any such request, so most probably the Phase Two Commissioners didn’t even ask the ex-Director-General of Health to testify in a public forum.

If Phase Two had formally summonsed Bloomfield, and put him on oath, he couldn’t – unlike Anthony Fauci, Bloomfield’s US equivalent – have pled “The Fifth Amendment” (the US’s constitutional right to stay silent in order to avoid self-incrimination). He’d’ve had to formally front up.

Nor did the Inquiry at any stage exercise any of its statutory powers to require production of documents or other relevant information.

The indisputable logic is that Phase Two of the COVID Inquiry was also contrived and conducted so as to avoid discovering unpalatable truths and answering hard questions.

This dereliction of duty and failure to exercise the Inquiry’s statutory rights allowed anyone and everyone - no matter how intimate their involvement with the COVID response - to simply choose to avoid participating in the Inquiry. And those who voluntarily chose to talk to the Phase Two COVID Inquiry could say as little as they liked, and lie, with absolute impunity. Without being summonsed to appear on oath, participants in Phase Two avoided exposure to jeopardy for knowingly giving false evidence or withholding information, including any risk of being prosecuted for perjury.

The Phase Two COVID Inquiry’s softly softly tactic of wilful blindness achieved its purpose. New Zealanders learnt nothing new, and their legitimate questions went unanswered.

It became public in February 2022 that a July 2021 memorandum from New Zealand’s COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group had advised Bloomfield directly that:

• myocarditis and pericarditis (heart conditions) were resulting from Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccinations

• international health data indicated heightened heart risks following Pfizer vaccinations

• these health risks were higher following a second vaccination, in males and younger age groups

Despite clearly receiving the July 2021 memorandum, in his initial chat with the Phase Two Inquiry Crew on 26 May 2025 Bloomfield avoided acknowledging that continuing to mandate two-dose COVID vaccines for healthy young people after July 2021 had been in any way a mistake.

In his follow-up chat on 11 September 2025, Bloomfield conveniently claimed that his recollection of individual decisions was blurred. The ex-D-G of H deflected by simply and repeatedly referring the Inquiry back to unspecified “briefings”.

A central question that inquisitive individuals such as myself wanted the Phase Two Inquiry to answer was:

The answer to this question would help reveal the delays between Bloomfield learning of the health risks to young people of COVID vaccination and him informing the Government of those risks, and also between the Government knowing those risks and addressing them.

But the Phase Two Inquiry avoided answering that question. It failed to even acknowledge this crucial question, let alone try to answer it.

Fortunately, thanks to the subsequent earnest journalistic endeavours, we now know the following:

• Despite Bloomfield learning definitively of the risks in July 2021, he didn’t formally advise Andrew Little, as Minister of Health, or Hipkins, as Minister for COVID-19 Response, of those risks until December 2021 at the earliest. In that very month the Government decided to continue two-dose vaccine mandates for young people.

• Certainly by March 2022, Hipkins knew of the heart risks of COVID vaccinations, as evidenced by a report from him to Cabinet in that month entitled, “Report back on implementation of COVID-19 Pfizer paediatric vaccine for children aged 5 to 11 years”. Despite his evidenced knowledge, Hipkins told the Phase Two Inquiry that he was never – at any damned time - made aware of the vaccine heart risks for young people, and the Phase Two Inquiry falsely found that was indeed the case. AND GET THIS…The Phase Two Inquiry came to that finding despite the Ministry of Health having voluntarily published Hipkins’ March 2022 report in May 2022, on the Ministry’s own public website. The Phase Two Inquiry either missed Hipkins’ March 2022 report or, more likely, chose to ignore it.

• The Government pushed out two-dose vaccine mandates for young people for a prolonged period after March 2022, needlessly exposing this vulnerable group to heart risks.

The deep and enduring mystery is why the Labour regime and its health apparatchiks continued to mandate risky double-dose COVID vaccinations for young people well after any possible justification had disappeared. The most generous interpretation is that they were all suffering from the delusion that vaccinated youngsters couldn’t contract COVID or, if they could (of course they could), they couldn’t pass it on to “vulnerable” oldies and fatties.

Whatever the reason for the bizarre COVaxathon of juveniles, it was completely unethical. It’s a flagrant breach of Ethics 101 to force risky medical treatment on people who don’t need it and haven’t given informed consent, even in order to try and protect others.

Everyone’s sick of the effects of COVID; far more than the vast majority of us were ever, or will ever be, sick from the virus.

The laboratory in Wuhan, China where COVID was probably created was doing “gain-of-function” research. Which is a euphemistic way of saying that the mad scientists were - still are - bizarrely trying to create coronaviruses that are more virulent and contagious.

In New Zealand, the China virus’ only gainful function has been to open our eyes even wider to the dishonesty of our power elites and health Tsars, and to be even more suspicious of THE MAN, the Deep State, the Bloberati, official “Inquiries”...

On 18 August 2026, NZ Herald published an opinion piece by Alan Ringwood entitled Including religion in hate speech laws is a Trojan horse that protects those like Brian Tamaki

The byline to Alan’s article states “Alan Ringwood is a lawyer and former partner at Bell Gully. He was for many years the Herald’s editorial lawyer”. We were both at that law firm together, but I don’t remember Alan. It was a long, long time ago.

Ringwood’s article focuses on the crime of inciting racial disharmony, as contained in section 131 of New Zealand’s Human Rights Act. In broad terms, that section criminalizes the public use of threatening, abusive, or insulting words that are likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or to bring into contempt or ridicule, any group on the ground of the group’s colour, race, or ethnic or national origin.

Ringwood’s central thesis, in his article, is that section 131 should not be extended to criminalise wordy barbs directed at religious groups because, unlike race, religious beliefs “are not innate or immutable”.

I agree with Ringwood’s thesis. But his framing is loopy. Ringwood’s article gives the impression that Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki favours “hate speech” criminal sanctions against criticizing religions. He implies that Tamaki would like criticism of religions to be criminalized, in order to shield Destiny Church from criticism. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true.

Tamaki has been a strong and consistent opponent of expanding New Zealand’s so-called “hate speech” laws. He characterizes stronger hate speech laws as an ideological power grab, designed by proponents to silence, punish and imprison political opponents.

The starkest recent examples of Western weaponization of “hate speech” laws began in British Prime Minister Keir Sta(lin)’s Disunited Kingdom, where Labour politicians are abusing the Police and Courts to imprison political opponents for expressing dissenting views.

The latest Tamaki derangement and discombobulation resulted from Tamaki calling for a purge of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities from New Zealand, in response to Hindu nationalist targeting of Christians in India. In response, New Zealand’s parlous Police pinched all of Tamaki’s guns.

Ringwood’s article correctly records that “there have been calls by the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ, Hindu Council of NZ, Supreme Sikh Society NZ, and other interested parties such as Amnesty International Aotearoa, for gaps in our hate speech laws to be closed and for political parties to outline their policies on hate provocation”. And that’s entirely predictable from New Zealand’s Islamic Federation, Hindu Council and Sikh Society. They come from traditions that favour authoritarianism, censorship, religious prejudices and preciousness, and sectarianism, all in preference to Western freedoms of expression.

Sadly, Amnesty International has totally lost the plot over the last couple of decades. The once august Amnesty organisation has about-faced from dedication to freeing individuals incarcerated for expressing their views to promoting imprisonment of “dangerous” free speakers who commit such “crimes” as skepticism of gender identity. Amnesty Aotearoa (the clue is of course not calling New Zealand by its one and only name) has naturally opposed the legislative Bill to define a “woman” and a “man” as inconsistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi (that’s the Treaty of Waitangi). In short, Amnesty’s gone Woke.

And New Zealand’s National Party shows no sign of throwing off its Woke Cloak. Completely mental Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey is Woke on (sex change) steroids. Nicola Grigg, as Minister of Women’s Affairs, doesn’t know what a woman is. A Prime Minister who’s been chief executive of Sky Wakas Aotearoa (Air New Zealand) and who is a great mate of Doocey can’t not be a dyed-in-the-wool Wokester.

And now The Nats have gone and selected a United Nations-loving human rights lawyer as its Wellington Central candidate in the upcoming general election. Dr Scott Sheeran is a frightfully censorious Identitarian who as recently as June 2026 put out this piece, in The Post.

In his piece, Sheeran opined that Tamaki’s remarks would be unlawful in countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, and lamented that New Zealand law currently does not criminalise incitement of antipathy against religious groups. He’d no doubt criminalize expressions of distaste for Islam… the “Islamophobia” invented and propagandized by the Islamic Brotherhood.

Sheeran is yet another unreal doctor. His legal “doctorate” is in international law, from Essex University. He worked with Sir Geoffrey Palmer, at Chen & Palmer. Enough said.

The Nats failure to abolish the Broadcasting Standards Authority, a legislative initiative that would’ve enjoyed immediate support from coalition partners ACT and NZ First, says it all. Be under no illusions. The LuxNats are more Leftie that the Labour Party of yore.

If inciting hostility or ill-will against a religious group were to be criminalized, then Red Radio NZ’s John Campbell could be prosecuted for his crazed hatred of, and attacks on, Tamaki’s Destiny Church. But as tempting as it is to want to see Campbell in the dock and then jailed, it’s no valid reason to enact such criminalization.

Unlike Christians and Muslims, Jews are an ethnic group. So inciting hostility or ill-will against Jews can be criminal, under the Human Rights Act. In September 2024, Labour Party MP Damien O’Connor reposted a video claiming, “Palestinians have every right to do whatever they did on October 7th”, and never apologized. Chlöe Swarbrick, Green Party co-leader, has repeatedly chanted, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, a chant universally acknowledged to be a call for termination of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants.

Peter Davis, husband of former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, posted on social media about the 7 October atrocity perpetrated by Palestinians, “You reap what you sow”. Davis truly sucks.

Under New Zealand’s current laws, O’Connor, Swarbrick and Davis could each be criminally prosecuted for inciting hatred of Jews, as an ethnic group.

But I’m still with Alan Ringwood. Inciting hostility or ill-will against any religious group, or bringing contempt or ridicule on any such group, shouldn’t be criminalized.

Warren Zevon would never have wished for that, not even for the contemporary Jew-hating Mus Wolves of London. But we live in crazy times. Abdur Razzaq of New Zealand’s Islamic Federation would’ve imprisoned Warren Zevon just for the name of Zevon’s song, “Mohammed’s Radio”.

Judge Elizabeth (Ema) Aitken has been restored to her District Court throne and is back dispensing her version of justice. I’ve been covering this sorry saga:

Queen Aitken’s restoration comes after a Judicial Conduct Panel decided in April 2026 that her conduct at Auckland’s Northern Club on the evening of 22 November 2024 fell short of warranting termination of Her Majesty’s Judgeship.

The Judicial Conduct Panel comprised King’s Counsel Brendan Brown KC (Chair), Court of Appeal Judge Jill Mallon and Sir Jerry Mateparae. Mateparae is New Zealand’s former Governor General and Defence Force Chief. He’s a competent, honourable man but was on the Panel purely as window dressing. In practice, the Panel’s decision was Brown’s and Mallon’s alone.

Brown’s and Mallon’s crucial exculpatory finding was that, when Aitken was sounding off at what NZ First leader Winston Peters was saying (on a microphone, from a lectern, in front of a NZ First gathering), she had no idea whatsoever that it was Peters who was speaking. If Aitken was found to have known it was Peters she was railing against then, even with the greatest of leniency and desire for her to remain a judge, her number would’ve been up.

According to the Panel’s decision, the legal test for misbehavior justifying removal of Aitken as a judge is as follows:

In a fast paced world, events quickly disappear over the rear horizon; in these exciting and turbulent times, we must keep moving. So let me wrap the Aitken Affair up by setting out the version of events that Brown and Mallon tried to force us to believe, the crock of excrement that they would have us swallow, the fiction on the basis of which they let Aitken off the hook (with one of my thoughts in bold italics)…

• Aitken did not comprehend, when she entered the Northern Club on that fateful evening, that a New Zealand First Party function was being held at the Club, at the same time as the function Aitken was attending - a Christmas and farewell function for Auckland District Court Judges. Her ignorance was despite the fact there was a placard clearly specifying all functions being held at the Club that evening, including the NZ First function, immediately inside the Club’s front door.

• Returning from the bathroom, by pure accident Aitken found herself standing on stairs directly outside the Wintergarden room where the NZ First function was being held. She simply did not notice a two-metre high NZ First banner directly outside that room.

• Positioned there, on the stairs, she clearly heard Winston Peters say to his audience, in his well-known voice from the podium, that law schools are teaching students that tikanga Māori “law” overrides New Zealand’s common law Westminster system. But she didn’t recognise that the words she was hearing were coming from Peters. The voice she heard was completely disembodied and anonymous, despite Peters being in her direct line of sight through a large, open doorway that was right in front of her.

• Aitken’s tirade started with “he’s lying” (without having a clue, of course, who “he” was) followed by words to the following effect:

• Aitken only realised it was Peters who was the subject of her undignified ranting when, after she’d ended her diatribe and for reasons that remain entirely unclear, she just happened to turn around as she was walking away, look through a different, much smaller, doorway into the NZ First function room and, for the first time, see Peters. In the words of the Panel’s decision, “If the Judge did not see Mr Peters through Doorway One and did not recognise his voice [as the Panel pretended to conclude], then catching sight of Mr Peters before departing the anteroom was the only logical explanation for the Judge’s statement about Mr Peters a few moments later to those at her table in the Dining Room.” Of course, the “only logical explanation” is that Judge Aitken knew full well it was Winston Raymond Peters about whom she was spewing her errant invective.

• On her return to her fellow Judges, she boasted, “I’ve just called Winston Peters a liar”.

This whole saga has myriad disconcerting features. On all the objective evidence, Aitken is a politically partisan, self-serving liar with no impulse control who’s continuation as a judge is untenable and who had to be – and clearly should have been - removed as a judge.

Judges must routinely assess credibility and regularly decide that people appearing before them are lying. But a liar judge labelling others liars is of course a brazen hypocrite who brings the judiciary and the legal “profession” in general into disrepute. Which squarely meets the legal test for “misbehavior” justifying removal. It is untenable for a judge who is a compulsive, self-serving, political activist liar to remain a judge.

Aitken’s lie, which she repeated ad infinitum, both personally and through her legal representatives as the investigations and Court proceedings regarding her conduct unfolded, is that she had no idea it was Peters she was chastising. Many repetitions of her lie were on oath. There’s a name for this sort of lying. The crime is called “perjury”. Judge Aitken has repeatedly perjured herself. Yet this perjurer judge is back sitting in judgment of her fellow citizens, including other perjurers. In any orderly, civilised judicial system, this ought to be untenable.

Panelists Brown and Mallon employed all manner of tactics and ruses in their determination to exonerate Aitken. They compartmentalized her conduct and confined the scope of their examination essentially to what happened at the Northern Club, ignoring all of Aitkens other awful antics in the wake of her brazenly inappropriate behaviour that evening.

The exonerating duo of Aitken’s comrade lawyers also cunningly found Aitken guilty of various other non-hanging “offences”. This is classic deflection. Their mock admonishments included the following, with my thoughts in bold italics:

I could go on. But let me end my cathartic rant by pointing out that what Peter said is not only defensible, it’s for all practical purposes true. Law schools throughout New Zealand are indeed teaching and promoting a subversive notion that there is an emergent and evolving common law Māori tikanga that has primacy over other common law and Parliament’s statutes.

The law schools are working in lockstep with the Courts and the New Zealand Law Society in this regard. Tai Ahu, President of the Māori Law Society, claims “Tikanga Māori has long been a source of New Zealand law”.

Leftie activists’ overt attempt to employ tikanga to undermine Parliamentary sovereignty and subvert traditional common law principles, while at same time denying they are doing so, is classic postmodernist gaslighting.

Ema Aitken’s tenure as a judge is currently set to end on 5 February 2027. Perhaps there’ll be a Judgy farewell function, but not at the Northern Club. That august Club has rightly banned her, along with her odious husband and idiotic Michael Reed KC, who each personally invaded the NZ First function.

Once she’s out of New Zealand’s Judgery, Aitken will be a free citizen, unconstrained by judicial strictures, fully at liberty to spread as much antidemocratic, Woke rot as she wants.

Stuff’s Saturday broadsheet newspaper, The Post, has once again come to the party with sign-of-the-times subject matter for my Substack.

The 8 August edition contained a piece glorifying Patrick Morgan, a self-styled Wellington cycling advocate and member of lobby group Cycle Wellington Inc. The piece’s author, Amy Ridout, lauded Patrick for hauling Paul Heffernan through New Zealand’s Court system.

Heffernan is a former Wellington Council candidate and current president of Better Wellington Inc., a society that advocates for fiscal restraint from Wellington’s City and Regional Councils.

Heffernan’s alleged transgression under Harmful Digital Communications Act?…simply happening to be Better Wellington’s President when the following anonymous words were posted on the society’s X page:

The comment entirely disappeared in November 2025 when Better Wellington deactivated its X page, a fact Morgan conveniently neglected to tell the Court, instead claiming “Once it’s been online, it’s going to exist forever...”. What tosh.

Morgan paints himself as a vulnerable victim, and credulous Amy Ridout lapped it all up (with my responses in bold italics):

Under the HDC Act, for Morgan’s allegation - that he’d suffered a harmful digital communication - to legitimately get to Court it first had to be assessed by Netsafe, New Zealand’s self-styled internet “safety” agency.

Morgan claimed, without supporting evidence, that he’d referred his gripe to Netsafe. Heffernan advised the Court that he’d never heard from Netsafe. For that reason alone, Judge Kevin Kelly should have chucked Morgan’s claim out. Kev clearly didn’t know what he was doing and the case itself was a shambles. At one stage the Court Registrar unlawfully tried to ban The Post from the Courtroom, with Kev later having to apologize for that botch up.

In tacit acknowledgment of the ridiculousness of Morgan’s litigation, Judge Kev didn’t require Heffernan to apologize, artfully claiming that imposing any such requirement would bring the comment back into the public eye. But Heffernan apologized anyway to Morgan, an apology that Morgan of course rejected – “I’m not satisfied they really understand how serious this is”. (NEVER apologize to the likes of Morgan or Wokesters in general. They simply reject all apologies, and gleefully construe any apology as an admission of guilt. Never EVER apologize when you’ve got nothing to apologise for.)

Despite not having been formally involved in the Court case, Netsafe chief online safety officer Sean Lyons weighed in, but suspiciously without clarifying whether Netsafe had heard from Morgan.

Amy Ridout quotes Lyons as stating “If [this way of talking] has become how we talk to each other on the internet, why are we allowing this potentially harmful behaviour to exist on the internet?”. Lyons was at pains to emphasise to Amy that, “this [proof of harm] was subjective: one person might shrug off abusive speech, while another might not. This was taken into account when assessing harm.” This is the Woke primacy of subjective feelings over objective realities, and Lyons’ involvement in Amy’s coverage smacks of an orchestrated stitch up.

Sadly, Amy Ridout’s effort amounts in substance to an attempted smear job on Paul Heffernan and two other individuals who weren’t even parties to the Court proceedings; Vlad Barbalich and Glenn Inwood. Absent any valid grounds on which to malign Better Wellington, Amy resorts to the amorphous pejorative, “controversial”.

But she inadvertently hits the mark – not a cyclist - when she writes, “Morgan knows some will dismiss [Morgan’s objection to the “first against the wall” online comment] as attention seeking rhetoric from a group trying to drive engagement”.

Because, in truth, Morgan comes across as a neurotic, obsessive solipsist. I’ve been cycling around Wellington’s streets for over 40 years. My “lived experience” of cycling around New Zealand’s capital city must be much the same as Morgan’s.

Vehicle drivers have become much more considerate of cyclists over the decades. As I ride in and out of Wellington’s CPD, the most unpleasant stretch is the cycle lane along the retail area of Thorndon. Negotiating this grossly expensive waste of money (c. $50m) is a game of chicken with oncoming electric bikes and scooters, negotiating raised pedestrian crossings and pedestrians, and avoiding vehicles crossing the cycle lane. It was much better in the old days. But this is what Morgan advocates for more of. The man must be mad or bicycle incompetent, or both. The man was obviously a darling of a former Wellington mayor:

Morgan’s HDC Act action against Heffernan is yet another example of abuse of legislation that must be scrapped. Legislation intended to protect children and adolescents from bullying is being “weaponized” (hate that word, but it’s almost okay here) to attack robust debate and criticism, and stifle free speech.

In a competitive field, perhaps the grossest abuse of the HDC Act was when the Courts allowed representatives of the Chinese Communist Party to resort to this flawed legislation to silence CCP-critic journalist Portia Mao.

But then there’s the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade trying to silence criticism, from the Director of the Israel Institute of New Zealand, of MFAT’s pro-Palestinian actions and funding in relation to the Israel’s retaliation for the October 7 2023 atrocities.

Brave Gendermania-critic Rex Landy faces multiple further Court appearances under the HDC Act. And so on and so forth. New Zealand’s next Government must banish the HDC Act from the books.

Under a 1992 Deed of Settlement, New Zealand’s Government granted ownership of the lakebed of Lake Taupō, plus the beds of rivers and streams feeding into that great lake, to Ngāti Tūwharetoa – a central North Island Māori tribe. Specifically, ownership of those tracts of New Zealand was vested in the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board.

That vesting was said back then to be substantially symbolic, with the 1992 Deed containing the following assurances:

But of course that wasn’t the end of it. Far from it. A 2007 Settlement Deed inexplicably replaced and extended the 1992 Deed. Under that replacement deed, the Crown expressly permitted the Tūwharetoa Board to impose licensing requirements on commercial operators on Lake Taupō and its rivers and streams (Taupō Waters), and to tariff such operators.

The 2007 Deed provides that the Tūwharetoa Board, as owner, “may grant rights of occupation or use of parts of Taupō Waters for any purpose and charge for the same”.

Then in July 2017, the Crown and Tūwharetoa entered into yet another settlement deed that affirmed the 2007 deed and gifted extra goodies to Tūwharetoa.

By no coincidence whatsoever, a month later in August 2017 Tūwharetoa applied for a declaratory judgment from New Zealand’s High Court. The Tūwharetoa Board sought Court endorsement of a Tūwharetoa entitlement to require “Commercial Users” of Taupō Waters, including fishing guides, to obtain a licence from Tūwharetoa, and to charge such operators whatever Tūwharetoa damn well likes.

In 2021, shortly after the Labour-only regime came to power, Tūwharetoa cemented its vice-like commercial grip on Taupō Waters when its 2017 application crystalized in a formal declaratory judgment. That Tūwharetoa coup was a fait accompli, because the judge was “Justice” Cheryl Gwyn.

Devoted readers of my Substacks have met this Gwyn womyn before. I mentioned her in an earlier piece covering New Zealand’s current war for constitutional supremacy.

A former – perhaps current – member of New Zealand’s Socialist Action League, Cheryl Gwyn was – astonishingly – the head of New Zealand’s Security and Intelligence Service from 2014 to 2019. In other words, extreme Leftie Gwyn was the Head of New Zealand’s internal State surveillance apparatus.

Prior to that, Cheryl worked in all the telltale areas. From 2003 to 2014, as Deputy Solicitor General, she oversaw the Attorney General’s activities at the Crown Law Office, with direct responsibility for the management of Treaty of Waitangi claims, constitutional and human rights law issues, race relations and indigenous rights. On such matters, she’d represented New Zealand at the now-farcical United Nations. The Attorney-Generals during Gwyn’s tenure as Deputy Sol. Gen. were Margaret Wilson (2003-2005), Michael Cullen (2005-2008) and CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (2008-2014).

Cheryl Gwyn’s final time as the Head of Stasitearoa, under the Ardern Regime, was a busy for her. In addition to spying on pink skinned New Zealanders who were failing to exhibit prophylactic pounamu, Gwyn was fighting a personal Court battle on her ex-home front.

Our Cheryl was sued in 2018, along with others, for misrepresenting the condition of a house she and her husband/partner had sold. Specifically, she’d deliberately misled the unsuspecting purchasers by failing to disclose that the dwelling leaked like a sieve. With Gwyn recognising it would be practically impossible for her to become a Judge while having her dirty laundry aired in Court, Gwyn & Co. coughed up and settled the claim.

IMO therefore…High Court Justice Cheryl Gwyn is one of many embedded “sleepers” in New Zealand’s Deep State, poised to wake and fully reactiWoke – in her judicial capacity – under New Zealand’s next Left wing Government. To their post-modernist, neo-Marxist graves, Gwyn-types never disappear or change their crusading, conniving minds and ideologies. Cheryl could well succeed her ideological (apparently not physical) twin on the Supreme Court, “Justice” Glazebrook.

Glazebrook’s extended two year term is due to expire on 8 February 2028. What The F was Attorney General Judith Collins thinking when she extended G’s Spot on New Zealand’s highest court? These Nats are not what they seem.

Justice Gwyn’s 2021 declaration - that Tūwharetoa has cart blanche to tithe anyone trying to earn a decent living doing anything to do with Taupō Waters - supercharged Tūwharetoa’s milking of Taupō Waters fishing guides. Since then, Tūwharetoa has thumped all Taupō Waters fishing guides with a 7% levy on all their gross earnings. Many guides have now abandoned or are thinking of abandoning their Taupō Waters guiding businesses.

It’s impossible to overstate just how preposterous Tūwharetoa’s exploitation of commercial operators on and around Taupō Waters is. This is a tribal shake-down, never expressly countenanced by New Zealand’s Parliament. And it’s limitless. There’s simply no fiscal limit on what Tūwharetoa can seek to squeeze from commercial operators on and around Taupō Waters.

Tūwharetoa’s official Fact Sheet – guided fishing activities on Taupō Waters (#12 above) contemplates “actions for trespass” for fishing guides who don’t pay their dues. But in reality, transgressive entrepreneurs and their customers who refuse to bow to Tūwharetoa’s Water-use racketeering are far more likely to attract the physical attentions of Tūwharetoa’s hired goons…the sorts of nefarious characters whom the Tūhoe tribe got to burn down all the huts in what used to be New Zealand’s Urewera National Park (before the National Party gave away that national park in 2014).

The current Government could and should step in, with legislation, to either extinguish Tūwharetoa’s Water Rort or, if the Nats don’t have the guts, at least formalize, limit and otherwise regulate what’s going on. But the current Government won’t do either. Which is why the National Party may well attract less than 30% of the party vote, at the next election.

What can we expect from Tūwharetoa’s Taupō Waters commercialization, in the next few years? Here’s my pick. Tūwharetoa will supercharge their relentless levies on businesses dependent on Taupō Waters, and exempt anyone with Tūwharetoa ancestry from any such levies.

(Pay your fishing guide in cash)

Meanwhile, Minister of Conservation Tama Potaka and “his” Department of Conservation have bestowed upon Ngāi Tahu the management and operation of the Crown’s massive Molesworth farming station. From now on, either open your wallets to that pseudo-tribe if you want to do anything on the Molesworth Crown Land, or F OFF. Race-based land control and commercialization is gathering steam.

We still await the Court decision on Ngāi Tahu’s claim to pretty much all South Island water. None of this is pretty.

Sit down and pour yourself a strong one. Or a cup of tea. It’s all the same to me. I’ve got news for you. You are going to DIE. And, in the overall scheme of things, your death will come soon. The longer you live, the more likely it is that your last few years will be unproductive and unpleasant. In old age (if you get that far), you’ll be a burden on your fellow New Zealanders. There is no “right to life”.

Dr Malcolm Mulholland is the public face of an alarmist advocacy group called Patient Voice Aotearoa. Malcolm is not a medical doctor. His PhD, titled “Prominent Flags and Changing Notions of Identity”, resulted from his time on Shonky John Key’s ill-conceived New Zealand Flag Referendum Panel. With two decades at Massey University under his belt, Malcolm’s a lifer at that derailed and deranged tertiary institution.

Malcolm’s particular badge of dishonor is that he was a Kiwibank Local Hero in 2024.

A year ago, Malcolm was appointed chairman of Pharmac’s new(ish) Consumer and Patient Working Group, a motley collection of neurotic individuals designed (according to Pharmac’s website) to “help Pharmac reset how it works with consumers”. The “consumer” corporate-speak is the giveaway.

It’s not clear what “reset” of Pharmac is intended - not that Pharmac doesn’t urgently require a reset.

So far has Pharmac strayed from its statutory function that it recently began to subscribe to a bizarre and bogus notion of a mystical fourth article of the Treaty of Waitangi (“Whakapuaktanga Ritenga Maori”), a constitutional addition that Sir Geoff Palmer said could indeed be formalized with ““deep analysis, development of policy options, interdepartmental consultation, and consultation with Māori”.

Malcolm’s wife Wiki, the mother of his children, died of breast cancer. Malcolm blames her death on Pharmac not funding fancy breast cancer drugs. To make matters worse, after Wiki died Malcolm got prostate cancer. Thanks to Western medicine, Malcolm has survived. But he’s never got over his wife’s death or his own health scare.

Malcolm thinks Pharmac should make available, for free, the best medicines available on the planet, public stating:

What Malcolm unfortunately fails to grasp is that New Zealand’s dismal economic state, resulting mainly from the last Labour Government’s gross mismanagement of the COVID virus and general fiscal incompetence, means that our plucky little country simply can’t afford to provide many medicines that other countries are able to provide to their citizens.

Even more unfortunate is that Malcolm has unwittingly become a pawn in the Leftie Lamestream Media’s campaign to discredit and upend the current Nats/ACT/NZ First coalition Government and install a Labour-led government under a diminutive beady eyed ginger haired beta male. The Wokerati is playing on Malcolm’s psychoneurosis (and Maori ancestry) to paint a false picture of a Government that is deliberately depriving New Zealanders, and those with Maori ancestry in particular, of miracle chemical cures.

Malcolm persistently parrots the false narrative that New Zealand’s health system is in “CRISIS”. Since 2023, when the current Government came into power, Malc has been trotting out this rot. In fact, New Zealand has one of the best public health systems of any country in the world, commensurate with its financial capacity.

In November 2025, Malcolm delivered his “Buller Declaration” (health CRISIS!) to Parliament’s steps, accompanied by Green MPs Hūhana Lyndon and Marama Davidson and Labour’s Ayesha Verrall, but no current Government Ministers.

The present Government appointed Malcolm as the chair of Pharmac’s Consumer and Patient Working Group mainly to try and shut him up and appease New Zealand’s hordes of hypochondriacs who hallucinate that New Zealand has unlimited resources to spend on every fringe miracle cure promoted by Big Pharma.

In the real world, every dollar spent on drugs extending the miserable lives of decrepit oldies and the terminally ill is money that could be spent on improving the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealand’s most neglected group, young people – and paying off our burgeoning national debt.

Malcolm is therefore a delicate (albeit corpulent) flower whom the Left should leave alone to get on with his life.

His position as chair of Pharmac’s Consumer and Patient Working Group is not a statutory role. If “Doctor” Mulholland continues to abuse his position to catastrophize about the state of New Zealand’s enviable public health system, Health Minister Simeon Brown should remove him from his position and leave him to focus on whatever he’s supposed to be doing at Massey University.

Current Government Ministers mustn’t continue to masochistically tolerate their own appointees undermining faith in New Zealand, biting the hands that feeds them and spreading irrational fears.

A Members’ Bill initiated by National Party Member of Parliament Andrew Bayly has been randomly drawn from Parliament’s (actual) biscuit tin and will now progress through Parliament’s legislative process. Members’ Bills are pieces of proposed legislation initiated by individual MPs, rather than political parties.

Bayly’s Bill is the Crimes (Offence of Failing to Report Child Harm) Amendment Bill. The Bill, if enacted, will make it a criminal offence to fail, without a “reasonable excuse”, to report an assault on a child to the Police. Reasonable excuses include where someone fears for their, or another person’s, safety, or believes the information has already been reported by someone else.

It’s a tribute to Bayly that he’s still trucking on in Parliament. His legislative initiative comes after New Zealand’s power-hungry, Woke Prime Minister Christopher Luxon forced Bayly to resign Bayly’s ministerial portfolios in February 2025. Bayly’s “crime”?...touching a lowly Parliamentary staffer’s arm in what Bayly described as “an animated discussion”.

Bayly’s bill alone, if it comes to fruition, promises to trump anything that Sir Luxalot has personally achieved during his time as Prime Minister.

A one year old boy named Ruthless-Empire Souljah Reign Rhind Shephard Wall was fatally attacked in his own “home” on 22 October 2023 and died in hospital, just short of his second birthday. The child is reported as affectionately known as “Baby Ru”, but of course he never got to feel true affection before he was murdered.

The only humans (if you can call them that) who were in the house at the time Ruthless-Empire was killed were his biological mother Storm Angel Wall (that’s her on the right), a female named Rosie Morunga and Rosie’s feral squeeze, Dylan Ross. One or more of these monsters killed Baby Ru. His atrocious mother Storm Wall and Dylan Ross roam free. Rosie Morunga was jailed in September 2024 for a variety of unrelated crimes, but is probably out of jail by now.

Almost three years after the little boy was killed, the diabolical threesome have closed ranks and not disclosed anything useful to the Police, who have not charged anyone in connection with the killing.

In February 2024, the Police announced they know the identity of a person who tried to clean up the crime scene and removed crucial evidence, as the boy’s dead body lay in hospital, but have not charged that person.

In October 2025, the officer in charge of the investigation of Ruthless-Empire’s murder, Nick Pritchard, announced the Police had “really comprehensive evidential foundation for consideration of criminal culpability” – as if there’s possible doubt that someone is criminally culpable – and described the investigation as a “very complex case”. But still nothing.

The murder with impunity of Baby Ru is just one of a long line of infanticides that have gone unpunished because people in the know have failed to disclose the killers to the Police. To list but a few of these atrocities:

This parlous societal situation of kid killing with impunity begs the questions why Parliament has not legislated to:

• criminalise non-reporting to Police of assaults on children

• remove the general right to silence for child killers and anyone who knows the identity of a child killer

What politicians have resisted such legislative action?

In the wake of the unpunished 2020 killings of Poseidyn Pickering and Sofia Taueki-Jackson, then Minister of Justice and current Wellington mayor Andrew Little expressly rejected removing the right to silence in child killing cases. Little claimed – entirely incorrectly – that removing the right to silence would require amending New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act, a statute that Little maintained is, “together with the Treaty of Waitangi, the equivalent of New Zealand’s constitution”.

It’s indisputable that removing the right to silence would not require any amendment of the Bill of Rights Act. The general right under the Bill of Rights Act for anyone arrested or detained to refrain from making a statement would be subject to any removal of a right to silence in connection with child killing and abuse, with the Courts expressly required to respect any such removal. Little was either dumb, or playing dumb, or worse. The Labour Party’s 2020-2023 regime passed multiple enforceable laws that breached the Bill of Rights, mainly in its authoritarian response to the COVID virus.

Little was not the only Labour Party Minister to reject removing the right to silence in child abuse (including killing) cases. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern also weighed in on the side of child killers and their accomplices, asserting out of thin air that removing the right to silence had not worked in Australia.

In 2022, Kelvin Davis, as the Labour Party Minister of Children, together with Minister of Justice Andrew Little, rejected Dame Karen Poutasi’s recommendation for mandatory reporting.

Poutasi’s recommendation came in the wake of the killing of Malachi Subecz. Monstrous “caregiver” Michaela Barriball, a “friend” of Malachi’s mother (imprisoned for importing methamphetamine, along with Michaela’s mother), was convicted of murdering Malachi after atrociously abusing him over a prolonged period. Michaela’s sister Sharron Barriball was convicted of concealing evidence of Michaela’s abominable crimes.

I can’t understand why Little, Ardern, Davis and all the rest have resisted removing the right to silence for child killers and their accomplices, and instituted mandatory reporting of the sort sought by Andrew Bayly. And why hasn’t the National Party adopted and promoted Bayly’s member’s bill as that political party’s own legislative initiative? Any ideas?

As indicated, Ardern couched her 2020 opposition to removing the right to silence in an invented notion that such removal has failed to increase the number of successful convictions in Australia. However, on the contrary, overseas evidence is that removing the right to silence and/or mandatory reporting improves detection, reporting and rates of criminal convictions.

The evidence is less strong that right-to-silence removal/mandatory reporting reduces the extent of abuse itself, but so what? It’s perfectly logical to expect that the sorts of low-life sadistic sociopaths who abuse and kill children will not be put off by the prospect of being caught and convicted.

Let’s all hope Bayly’s Bill gets passed before the upcoming November general election, because it won’t be passed under a Labour-led Government.

I’ve just read The Unlikely Doctor, a book about a man who now goes by the name of Timoti Te Moke. The book is written in the first person (“I”), but was in fact written for Te Moke (and the publisher, Allen & Unwin) by a fella named Eugene Bingham. Being a full time medical doctor, Te Moke made it plain, “I ain’t got the time [to write a book]”.

Bingham also ghostwrote the book titled This is the F#$%ing News on behalf of joke journalist Paddy Gower. As a wordsmith, Steve Braunias eats Bingham and Gower for breakfast. Braunias’ unflinching review of “Gower’s” book began…

Your Unlikely Book Reviewer has reviewed only one other book. This Substack review is one of my most read Substacks:

The Unlikely Doctor describes Te Moke’s gritty life to date and his indisputably remarkable and admirable achievement - given his bad luck in life - in becoming a medical doctor at age 56. But, as inspiring and moving as it is, The Unlikely Doctor is significantly flawed literature.

The incessant speech marked (“ ”) quotations of invented dialogue don’t add verisimilitude but, rather, make the reader wonder just how much of the rest of the content has been made up. And the book is blighted by deflections, minimizations and downright untruths.

The main thing downplayed in the book is the appalling role that Te Moke’s mother played in his tough start to life, and his life in general. Te Moke’s mother gave Timoki up as a toddler to her parents, where he says he was nurtured and loved. Then, when the boy was six years old, his mother demanded him back as her ticket for higher social welfare child support benefits. She hauling him back into a horrible household with a ghastly violent step-father. Mother lied to the Court that her partner was Te Moke’s biological father and formally changed the child’s name to Timothy Morrison.

Another minimization is the fact that his biological father, said to be Tongan, buggered off before Te Moke was born, never to be seen again. That’s a terrible thing to happen to any child.

Unable to honestly confront the dastardly dual causes of this descent into crime and imprisonment (his mother and absent father), Te Moke – in Bingham’s ghostwritten words - blames colonization. Quoting from the book:

I’m a descendant of many generations of New Zealanders without Māori ancestry (i.e., I’m entirely descended from “colonizers”). And I defensively bristle at being blamed for all society’s ills and stickered with white privilege. My skin is as thin as it is pink.

Te Moke’s blaming of colonization for his personal challenges in life contrasts starkly with the attitude that my dear deceased friend, Robert Tuhekengarangi Morehu, took to his own tough life. I’ve covered this remarkable man:

Robert’s gravestone at his urupa (cemetery) bears the inscription “a self-inflicted tumultuous life”, and there’s some truth in that. (Robert’s son, also a good friend of mine, went along with the inscription!)

Robert T Morehu certainly didn’t run around blaming anything on colonization.

The book about Dr Timoti Te Moke dwells on the Central North Island (CNI) Treaty of Waitangi Settlement, in the following terms:

That statement is completely incorrect. The CNI Settlement was not for land confiscations, or even primarily for unconscionable land dealings by the Crown. The supposed Treaty breaches behind the settlement remain largely unclear to this day. Robert Morehu confided in me that he couldn’t understand the CNI settlement, given there were no confiscations.

The blurb on the back page of Dr Te Moke’s book states “A true story of resilience, redemption and revolution”. As indicated, Timoti’s story, while certainly of resilience and redemption, is not all true. Te Moke’s recounting of faded and selective memories to ghostwriter Eugene Bingham was akin to Chinese whispers.

And blurb’s “revolution” claim is murky.

Timoti appears to have fallen into the thrall of a Māori activist lawyer, Roimata Smail. In 2024, Roimata published a book titled, Understanding Te Tiriti: A Handbook of Basic Facts About Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Roimata’s didactic handbook is decidedly short on “basic facts” but, predictably, big on the invented, ahistorical notion that there exists, as I type, an entirely separate nation of undefined “Māori”.

Back in 2019, Roimata, on Timoti’s behalf, filed a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal requesting an urgent hearing into her and Timoti’s allegations of systemic bias against Māori in the prosecution of crimes. Timoti’s claim has subsequently been rolled into a wider, undecided, Waitangi Tribunal claim alleging wholesale justice system bias against Māori.

My overriding hope is that Timoti hasn’t paid Roimata a dime of his own money, from his book proceeds or doctor’s salary or otherwise. Waitangi Tribunal claims are mainly funded by “legal aid” i.e., New Zealand taxpayers.

Apart from wanting a fairer and generally better New Zealand (who doesn’t), it’s not clear what “revolution” Dr Te Moke might have in mind. At one stage, according to the book, the good doctor advocated to disgraced Police Commissioner Andrew Coster for “an independent body that oversaw police decisions to prosecute Māori”. Coster is said to have demurred.

If the book is to be believed, Te Moke’s self-esteem is rising along with his prospects in life. The book ends with:

It comes as a comfort to me that it was born-again Māori Eugene Bingham who wrote those words, and not Dr Te Moke. Because Timoti doesn’t strike me as an egomaniac. Because the big wide world will never know Timoti Te Moke’s name.

It’s just great the good doctor is now fulfilled and contributing to colonized New Zealand, in a medical profession that wouldn’t exist without colonization.