A victory for trans kids!

In November 2025, out of the blue, weirdo fundie Simeon Brown banned the use of puberty blockers in trans (but not cis) healthcare, over-riding the medical decisions of doctors. The decision was swiftly enjoined by the courts, ensuring it did not come into effect, and today it was officially overturned on the grounds that the Minister had failed to consulted queer kids, and that it was discriminatory. Interestingly, the latter was not on the basis of sex - Crown Law has long held that the Human Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex includes trans people - but on the basis of disability. Trans kids are seeking healthcare for clinically recognised mental disorders; the ban would have denied them access to appropriate healthcare on the basis of those disorders, and this is pretty obviously discriminatory. The regime's arguments that there was no discrimination and that this was just about the effectiveness of the medication and that the ban was a justified limitation on the basis of side-effects (a concern which somehow does not apply to cis kids) were laughed out of court. This allowed the court to sidestep the entire question of the definition of "sex" in the Human Rights Act, and leave it for another case.

This seems like a pretty good result, and one we should celebrate. The question now is whether the regime will accept the decision of the court, appeal it, or (if re-elected) pull their usual stunt of over-ruling them by fiat legislation. The risk of the latter makes the election all the more important: if you support trans people, vote this hateful regime out!

National is murdering our health system

A tale in three headlines:

Nursing workforce growth has stalled despite Government claims vacancies are falling, The Post, 28 July 2026:

The number of nurses employed by Health New Zealand has barely changed in two years, despite the Government pointing to falling vacancy rates and an active recruitment drive to address workforce shortages.

Analysis of Health NZ workforce data by health economists Bill Rosenberg and Jacqueline Cumming shows nursing numbers increased rapidly through 2023 and early 2024 but have since plateaued.

[...]

Nursing FTEs increased by more than 3000 between March 2023 and March 2024, but have grown by just 54 positions in the two years since, Health NZ’s quarterly workforce reports show.

Government tells nursing schools to stop training so many nurses, Stuff, 14 october 2026:

The Government has told nursing schools to train fewer nurses next year.

The edict came from the Tertiary Education Commission, to the surprise of many nursing professors and lecturers last week. And it arrived at a time when nursing levels have become a charged election issue, with nurses at hospitals raising alarm about “crisis” level staffing and growing concern about aged care too.

In a letter to nursing schools last week, the Tertiary Education Commission instructed them to revert nursing student numbers back to 2025 levels for the 2027 year. That would mean fewer people would be training to be nurses, according to academics Stuff spoke to.

Starship hospital delays child cancer treatments for up to a week amid nursing shortage, Govt confirms, New Zealand Herald, 15 October 2026:

A “horrified” nurse says Starship children’s hospital has suspended chemotherapy treatment and bone marrow transplants for cancer patients as it grapples with a staffing crisis.

[...]

The nurse told the Herald that management informed staff of the development last week. Hospital bosses were “terrified” the information would be made public “because of how bad it will look”.

The nurse said she and other staff were “horrified and appalled” at the postponements, which had the potential to adversely affect patient outcomes.

Refusing to hire people to cut costs. Refusing to train them to avoid stories about graduates unemployed because of the hiring freeze. And now, we get the consequences: staff shortages causing service collapse.

Its pretty clear now that the collapse of Aotearoa's health system isn't a passive thing which "just happened"; it is a deliberate act of murder by the regime. And like all austerity, it will have a bodycount. The Starship hospital collapse is likely to make that bodycount explicit.

Which invites the obvious question: when are we going to start prosecuting politicians for the social murder they commit?

Labour in a nutshell

In February 2024 the racist regime breached te Tiriti o Waitangi by disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. The agency had been established in response to a previous Waitangi Tribunal inquiry into pervasive racial inequalities in the health system, effectively making it part of a Treaty settlement, so the regime broke that as well.

At the time the Labour party promised they would reverse this, and re-establish the authority. But now they've changed their minds and won't bother. Why not? Because National might just disestablish it again.

This is Labour in a nutshell: pure chickenshittery. Refusing to do anything that National might object to effectively surrenders in advance to the far-right. So what's the point in them holding power if they're not going to actually do anything with it? Its obviously great for the pyramid-climbing Labour apparatchiks who will get huge Ministerial salaries and free housing and transport for doing nothing. But what's in it for the rest of us? Absolutely nothing.

A party which pre-emptively commits to not changing anything, even when it is a blatant injustice and violation of our constitutional foundations is not worth your vote. It is that simple. If you want change, vote for a party which will actually deliver it. In this case, that means voting Green or Te Pāti Māori.

Whining at an open door

Ten weeks till the election, and Labour is in full pre-election cringe mode. They're so afraid of being seen to stand for something, let alone something that Rimmer might consider "left-wing", that they're ruling out policies in advance. Paying for our roads. Paying for local government. Restoring fees-free tertiary education. Shanking Netflix. Notably, they've ruled out all their potential coalition partners' tax plans - the Greens' wealth tax, TOP's land tax, and Te Pāti Māori's stamp duty on house speculators - which raises the question of how they expect to form a government while offering their coalition partners nothing. And meanwhile, while they're doing all of this cringing and cowering from the word "tax", it turns out that the public will happily support higher taxes for better public services:

A survey of 1600 people has found two-thirds of New Zealanders are willing to pay more tax for better healthcare - particularly when it comes to cancer.

The survey, funded by the Cancer Society and published as a nine-paper series in the New Zealand Medical Journal, also found consensus across voters for all major parties about the need for tougher regulation on tobacco and unhealthy foods, and more urgent action on skin cancer prevention, cancer screening and treatment.

A collaboration between University of Otago cancer researchers and the Cancer Society, called Te Rōpu Rangahau ō te Kāhui Matepukupuku, undertook the study.

This is not exactly a new finding. And it suggests a very obvious political slogan of "tax the rich to pay for the health system". But Labour has so afraid of being accused of "taxing and spending" (as opposed to National spending without taxing) that they refuse to take the opportunity which is staring them in the face. They're simply standing in front of an open door leading to government, refusing to take it, while whining about how they can't get inside. And then they wonder why they're stuck on 30%. I'd suggest that part of the reason is that and Labour is not giving people any reason to vote for them. More brutally, no-one likes a chickenshit. And as Marc Daalder points out, their "small target" strategy effectively leaves the entire political field free for other parties willing to make promises and take risks. Labour has only itself to blame if its cowardice results in it being overtaken by parties actually willing to offer something.

You can't run on hope unless you actually offer some

Eleven weeks till the election, and we're now seeing daily stories about the complete collapse of the health system. Decades of austerity and underfunding and a Ministerial hiring freeze aimed at making short-term "savings" have left our hospitals unable to cope, and the usual winter flu season (something normally manageable with vaccination and a public health campaign) has pushed it over the edge. In Palmerston North, multiple key departments have simply collapsed due to lack of staff, while the emergency department - focus of all National's metrics - has wait times of up to 27 hours. In North Shore, patients are left to lie in their own piss and treated in corridors because there is no-one to care for them and no space anyway.

This is what government looks like under National: nothing works, because they simply refuse to pay for it. Why have a health system or emergency accommodation, when the Luxons can have an eighth house and another holiday in Hawaii?

Meanwhile, today Labour unveiled their election slogan: "Better Starts Now", an implicit message of hope. So obviously they'll be fixing all this, right?

Well, no. Because they've also doubled down on their commitment to austerity, promising to keep National's fiscal straitjacket which means government can't do anything, and ruling out their potential coalition partners' alternative policies. Because Hipkins and Edmonds apparently also think that the Luxons getting that eighth house and another holiday in Hawaii is more important than the rest of us having a functional health system and social safety net. The Labour Party which once promised cradle to grave protection is now politically indistinguishable from the party which destroyed that system and which wants to abandon us to the market.

And then they wonder why they're bumping around 30%. Here's a hint: because they don't offer anything. Here's another: because they lie about that. Sure, National will fuck up our lives and wreck the country even more. And with its commitment to austerity, Labour has effectively promised to do exactly the same - except they're going to tell us all that its "better" and we should all be grateful to them or else we'd be having our lives fucked up by National. And then they wonder why people spit at them and vote for parties which actually offer some real change.

Labour doesn't offer hope. They just offer more of the same, with a different bunch of managers collecting the big salaries. They're so unimaginatively status quo their leader even has the same name as the incumbent. But swapping one Chris for another isn't enough for me. I want change. And fortunately the Green Party is offering exactly that.

Enjoined!

Last month, out of the blue, the regime banned the use of puberty blockers in trans healthcare, over-riding the medical decisions of doctors. Of course, doctors would still be able to use them for cis patients, making the move nakedly discriminatory, an effort to eliminate a generation of trans kids. The decision was denounced by every relevant medical professional body, and the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa started court action, seeking an injunction to preserve the status quo pending a full judicial review. Today, that injunction was granted. And the judge is pretty clear in thinking the underlying regulation is unlawful:

The second cause of action is also clearly arguable and perhaps more than arguable given the material that has become available since the proceedings were filed. The Minister did not take a preferred position to Cabinet. Rather, he chaired a meeting at which strong views were expressed and appears to have accepted the views of Cabinet. The views of Cabinet do not reflect the medical advice set out in the RIS. Whether that suffices as an exercise of the Minister’s statutory power will need to be decided, but the factual picture is now quite clear, and it supports PATHA’s position that this was a political decision and contrary to advice from the Ministry which also feeds into the third cause of action.

[Emphasis added]

So basically a case for inappropriate decision-maker and irrationality right there.

The judge has urged that the judicial review be heard urgently, so we'll probably get a final decision on this in the middle of next year, just in time for regime parties to use it to whip up hate for their election campaign. Oh joy.

Leave the kids alone

Like many others, I am outraged by the regime's decision today to ban the use of puberty-blockers for trans (but not cis) children. And while I feel deeply unqualified to talk about gender or queer issues, you don't need to be to recognise that this is a decision which rightfully belongs to doctors and patients - not politicians. It is simply none of their business, and they should stay the fuck out of other people's lives.

Rights Aotearoa has argued that the decision is discriminaotry, and it is likely to be challenged in the courts. Good. And hopefully that challenge will involve an injunction preventing its application. Because there are clear harms from it, in the form of dead kids. Gender-affirming care saves lives, and by deny it, the regime is making a clear statement: they would rather kids kill themselves than be allowed to be who they are. They would rather kids kill themselves than be trans.

There is a name for such people: murderers. Such people are not just unfit to govern - they deserve to be prosecuted, convicted, and jailed.

National's divide and rule plan for health

The regime's austerity has resulted in a perfect storm of industrial action: primary teachers, secondary teachers, and nurses have all struck this month, and doctors are currently balloting on industrial action. And the latter is enough for Health Minister Simeon Brown to demand arbitration:

Brown said the only way to avoid that strike would be for an independent, binding, arbitration process.

“The rejection of Health New Zealand’s latest offer and the immediate ballot for further strike action has made it clear that the bargaining relationship has broken down. I see little prospect of Health New Zealand and ASMS reaching a resolution on their own,” he said.

[...]

Brown gave the union until the end of the week to decide whether it would accept going to an independent arbitration process.

If it wanted arbitration, he said the union would need to agree not to strike.

But why should they do that? Why surrender in advance?

Brown's unspoken threat here is legislating to ban strikes and force arbitration, as is the case for police. But that has huge political costs, and runs the risks of replacing organised industrial action with disorganised industrial action - with the kicker that there will be no-one to negotiate with to stop it. The fact that Brown is asking, rather than doing that, tells us that he doesn't want to pay those costs and risk those outcomes at present. And he'll be even less likely to want to pay them, and more likely to want to settle, in an election year. So there's nothing to gain by complying in advance - and insofar as any legislation will simply be repealed, and will increase the chances of regime change and a new government more willing to settle in the long-term, then there doesn't seem to be much to lose by rejection National's divide-and-rule plan and saying "fuck you; make me".

If the regime wants a functioning health system, and a functioning education system, and functioning public services, they have a simple solution: pay these workers what they're worth. And introduce safe staffing, so our overworked hospitals don't kill people. Its that simple. And if they want to plead poverty, having given away billions in pointless landlord tax cuts, and wasted hundreds of millions more on no boats, that honestly sounds like a "them" problem. They're the government, they can raise money by taxation or decide to spend it less wastefully if they want. And if they're prefer to have strikes and dysfunctional public services rather than do that, well, that's on them.

Gagging the medical professions

Aotearoa has had a public health system since the First Labour Government in the 1930s. And for as long as it has existed, medical professionals have been speaking out about its failures, criticising cuts, and generally acting as a watchdog on government policy. This has been inconvenient to those governments, but the professional role of medical staff has always been respected, because it is recognised that - like academics - they have a duty to their patients and to the public.

...until now. Faced with a public health system collapsing due to systematic underfunding, National wants to silence medical professionals. Its Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill (which is primarily about imposing white supremacy) includes a clause classifying Health NZ staff as public servants, and requiring them to uphold the principle of political neutrality.

This is a complete novelty in Aotearoa. As noted above, medical staff in the public health system have never been classified this way. And this isn't about a change in status - DHBs have been legally "crown agents" since the 2004 reorganisation and reclassification of the wider public sector with the Crown Entities act 2004, and were effectively in that position since their foundation in 2000 (as were their Area Health Board, Regional Health Authority, Crown Health Enterprise, and Hospital and Health Service predecessors). Instead, the motive is obviously to gag critics of the regime.

You might think that this would engage the right to freedom of expression affirmed by the BORA - and you'd be right. But weirdly, the Ministry of Justice, who did the BORA vet on the bill, didn't think so - they don't mention it, even to say it is a justified limitation. Though possibly this is because, as usual, they "ha[d] not yet received a final version of the Bill" (which should raise questions about the quality of the Ministry's BORA vetting process, and the quality of the advice on this core constitutional responsibility...)

What might a BORA vet have looked like? In the case of ordinary public servants, we accept that political neutrality and consequent restrictions on publicly criticising the government of the day are a justified limitation, because a neutral public service is an important public purpose, and the restrictions are proportionate. But ordinary public servants don't have a professional obligation to protect the public of medical staff, or a decades-long tradition of doing so. And the latter is relevant - as the Attorney-General noted in her section 7 report on the voter suppression provisions of the regime's Electoral Amendment Bill:

Expectations based on longstanding legislative settings are salient to judging potential prejudice and proportionality.

We have an expectation based on long-standing legislative settings that medical staff are free to act as critics of the public health system. They have been part of the wider state sector for nearly a century, and have always been free to speak. Restricting that right, when nothing meaningful has changed in terms of their status, therefore seems disproportionate.

The regime could have made a case that this change complies witht he BORA. The fact that they haven't even bothered speaks volumes. It must be rejected. If you'd like to speak up on it (or the other, racist changes in the bill), you can do so here.

This industry should be destroyed, not subsidised

The health insurance industry is parasitic on our public health system, taking people's money, providing them with th easy, cheap stuff, then sending them straight back into the public health system for anything which might cost them money. But not enough people are buying it anymore. So they're doing what all NZ industries do when the going gets tough: demanding a government subsidy:

Health insurance is becoming too expensive for some New Zealanders and it's prompted a call from the industry for tax breaks to help.

Research from the Financial Services Council, which represents life and health insurers, shows that a third of people with health insurance have downgraded or reduced their cover in the past year.

They're wanting full tax deductibility for premiums, and an exemption from fringe-benefit tax for employer-paid schemes. Which would obviously be great for them, and great for the rich people using their system to try and jump the queue. But any money spent subsidising their profits like this would be far better spent directly through the public health system. And spent there, it would benefit everybody, not just health insurance executives and their shareholders.

This is not an industry that should be subsidised. Instead, like foodbanks, the government should be actively trying to drive health insurers out of business, by building a stronger public health system that provides for everyone's needs.

Dismantling the state

The New Zealand state has traditionally taken an expansive role in our society, providing health, education, and welfare systems to enrich and enable all our people. But ACT's weirdo radicals want to change that, and are directing the weak National government into enacting their agenda of dismantling the state. There's charter schools, obviously - publicly funded, at inflated rates, but not accountable; as well as funnelling public money into private schools to subsidise the rich. But today they've taken two other significant moves. Firstly, there's directing Te Whatu Ora to outsource all routine operations on ten-year contracts, intended to strip the public health system of capacity while granting windfall profits to the providers. And then there's "reviewing" - meaning cutting - ECE funding, while "making trade-offs between the quality of early learning and its cost" (meaning dumbing it down, deskilling the workforce, and turning it back into a high-profit, low-skill business for their donors in the kiddy-farm industry).

The latter is especially stupid. We've known for literally decades that arly childhood education is one of the best investments we can make in the future of our society, with enormous returns in future education, wellbeing, and earning potential (and savings on crime and welfare). It should be nationalised and incorporated in the state education system, to ensure everyone gets a good start in life. But National simply sees it as babysitting; a cost on the state, rather than a positive benefit. And their cheapness here is going to have long-term consequences for the future.

The good news is that their stovepiped "review" won't report back until this time next year, meaning there will be little time for them to do anything about it before we throw them out on their arses at the next election. As for the health system changes, if the contracts do not allow Te Whatu Ora to set the volume of operations and bring them back in-house, I would expect a future government to simply legislate them away. We should not let this temporary regime steal our health system from us piece by piece, for the profit of its private donors and cronies.

Today in dysfunctional government

The big news this morning was that the Prime Minister thought the government he leads was going to steal your sick leave. But apparently even the ACT zealots could see that that would deeply unpopular, so they've "clarified" that the Prime Minister was wrong, and really they're just going to steal the sick leave of those lazy, shiftless part-time workers instead. Given that ~20% of those with jobs work part-time, its unclear how this is really much better. But what it does tell us is that the government doesn't know what its own policy is - its just dysfunction all the way down.

Meanwhile, if you're worried about your sick leave being stolen, join your union. Union collective contracts usually include sick leave provisions, which are often more generous than the statutory minimum. And even if they simply restate the current law, its then in the contract, meaning it doesn't just disappear because some government minister had a brain fart or took a bribe (sorry, a "donation") to change the law.

Another day, another breach of te Tiriti

Back in February, the National government disestablished Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. It was a revolting breach of te Tiriti, but the government avoided a formal ruling of that by rushing the legislation into the House specifically to deprive the Waitangi Tribunal of jurisdiction and kill its inquiry into the matter. But that only delayed the inevitable - the Tribunal's jurisdiction was restored the moment the law was passed, and they've now produced a formal report, Hautupua, finding that the government pissed all over te Tiriti and its principles:

After assessing the evidence presented from parties, the Tribunal found breaches of te Tiriti/the Treaty principles of tino rangatiratanga, good government, partnership – including the duties of consultation and acting reasonably and in good faith – active protection, and redress.

The Tribunal found that the policy process the Crown followed to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora was a departure from conventional and responsible policymaking in several concerning ways. The Crown did not act in good faith when disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora as it did not consult or engage with Māori, nor did it gather substantive advice from officials. Consequently, the Crown made the ill-informed decision that Te Aka Whai Ora was not required, despite knowledge of grave Māori health inequities. The Tribunal found that Māori did not agree with the Crown’s decisions but were denied the right to self-determine what is best for them and hauora Māori. Instead, the Crown implemented its own agenda – one that was based on political ideology, rather than evidence, and one that fell well short of a Tiriti/Treaty consistent process. It did so without following its own process for the development and implementation of legislative reform.

The Tribunal stated that Te Aka Whai Ora was an integral part of a system responsible for the equitable delivery of health care and services in Aotearoa New Zealand and gave effect to the Crown’s Tiriti/Treaty obligations. The Crown could have left Te Aka Whai Ora in place until it had a replacement, but instead it chose to disestablish it in haste. Te Aka Whai Ora was previously established by the Crown to provide redress for the long-standing failure by the Crown to reflect tino rangatiratanga in our health system. The Crown’s unilateral decision to remove Te Aka Whai Ora had effectively taken that redress away.

The later is important. The creation of Te Aka Whai Ora was effectively a Treaty settlement, aimed at undoing the damage caused by the systematically racist colonial health system. National has effectively unilaterally repealed that settlement. And that has implications for the whole settlement process, as well as the sustainability of existing settlements. Because pretty obviously, if a settlement is only a settlement until a racist government decides to steal it from you again, then its not really a settlement, is it? And its certainly not in any way "full and final", no matter what that government's laws may say.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering: has this government already achieved the dubious distinction of having the highest number of modern Treaty breaches? Because they certainly seem to be treating that as a goal to be achieved in their hundred day plans, rather than something to be avoided.

Secrecy destroys trust: the case of the nuclear waste dump

Something I was not expecting to learn this morning: the government has built a secret nuclear waste dump in rural Manawatu:

A facility for storing all of New Zealand’s radioactive waste has been secretly built near Palmerston North, in a decision neighbouring farmers have called “horrifying” and “deceptive”.

The building, surrounded by a 2.5m-high fence, padlocked gates and CCTV, has been constructed next to New Zealand Defence Force communication dishes in rural Manawatū. The facility sits on Defence Force land – part of which was redesignated by the Health Ministry. The Health Ministry said the facility stores low-level and intermediate-level waste, such as redundant radiation devices for treating cancer patients.

[...]

New Zealand’s national storage facility neighbours prime Manawatū farmland, but residents were not informed of the building plans which were kept secret at the request of government officials.

The story is buried behind the Herald's paywall, but there's also a video version here. The video version carefully blanks out all the addresses, but the site is east of Ohakea, by the corner of Wilson and Ngaio Rd, and you can see it on Google maps here.

Is it safe? I don't see any reason to doubt it. But the government arrogantly didn't want to even make that argument, preferring to hide behind a bogus veil of "national security" to avoid objections. By doing so, they subverted the normal RMA process of having to respond to and mitigate concerns - which in this case would largely mean explaining the inverse square law, their monitoring and risk-management processes. And they prevented the RMA safeguard of having an independent, fair, and transparent appeals process to manage disagreements. I have no doubt that the government would have gained resource consent if they had done this openly.

Instead, they chose to do it in secret. And by doing that, they've made it look like they have something to hide. Because if it is safe, they would have just been open about it, right? It's a perfect example of how secrecy destroys trust, as well as a basic failure of democratic norms. And the government deserves every bit of the suspicion it is now going to get for this.

The lesson here for the government should be obvious: don't do things in secret unless you really, absolutely have to. Sadly, they'll probably take the opposite one, double down on secrecy, and try to punish its exposure. And then they'll wonder why trust in government is declining...

Government by google

In this year's Budget, cancer Minister Casey Costello gave Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut for their heated tobacco products, on the basis of "independent advice" which contradicted that produced by the Ministry of health. When she finally produced this "independent advice", it did not support her case at all, and looked like a collection of random shit she had found on google while "doing her own research". Now someone using FYI, the free OIA request tool, has finally force Costello to admit where her advice came from. And the answer is exactly what you thought it would be:

Which is I guess the flip side of National's public service cuts: Ministers who think they can just google shit up instead (and a Prime Minister and Cabinet who accept this).

Whether this meets the standards of competence and professionalism we expect from Ministers and which supposedly justify their enormous salaries is left as an exercise for the reader.

Will Luxon let ACT privatise the health system?

The racist piece of shit government is a year old this week, so there's a bunch of retrospectives and looking forwards and so on. Today it was Rimmer's turn - and in addition to gloating about how he's setting the policy agenda and making all the decisions, and about his racist attempt to repeal te Tiriti, he also dropped this:

And while it's not yet December he's already turning his mind to ideas ACT might push next year, hinting privatising the healthcare system would be one of them.

Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was needed as it was not working as is.

Of course, the sole reason it is not working is because of government underfunding, because small-government weirdos like Rimmer have been slowly drowning it in the bathtub.

We know what a privatised health system looks like: America, where any health problem costs you everything and drives you bankrupt. Rimmer may think that's a great idea (MPs get their health insurance subsidised, just so they're not in the same boat as the rest of us). But kiwis do not want to live like that. Not even National voters want to live like that. The question is will Luxon recognise this, or will he let Rimmer destroy our health system (and his government), the same way that he's letting him destroy our constitution and social cohesion?

Taking the piss again

Remember Casey Costello? The government's most ignorant Minister? First she was referred to the Chief Archivist after claiming that key advice on her cancer promotion policy had simply magically appeared on her desk one day, and that she had no idea where it came from. Then, when the Ministry of Health said her plan to give Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut for its heated cancer products was a bad idea, she told Cabinet she had received "independent advice" to the contrary; when the media quite rightly asked to see that advice, she released a collection of random papers which did not support the case, and appeared to have been googled up at three a.m. by an emotional junior staffer in response to media queries. And now, she's claiming to have no idea where they came from either. In response to an OIA request for the origins of the material, she claimed:

I note that the advice consists of academic articles and health research that forms part of a wider body of scientific literature that focuses on harm reduction, rather than a moralistic, abstinence-only perspective on tobacco and nicotine products. This research is available online and my office has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing a wide range of evidence and information. As such, it is not possible to provide a definitive response to the date and time the articles and health research were first accessed by my office. Therefore, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the Act, as the information is not held.

Yeah right. And if you believe that, I have a Minister to sell you.

Obviously, this is going to the Ombudsman. They have already made clear in their previous ruling that Ministers are required to take reasonable steps to find if information is held. Obvious steps in this case could include searching emails, checking document management systems, examining file metadata, or just asking staff. Its not clear whether the Minister did any of those things - but in the wake of the previous ruling and referral to the Chief Archivist, it smacks of a further attempt to mislead the public and cover up the truth. Hopefully the Ombudsman will get to the bottom of it.

The cooker government

We know that the current National government is basically a government of and for antivaxxers and cookers, the people who rioted at Parliament and burned the grounds. But so far they've generally avoided explicitly identifying themselves as such. Until today, when Workplace Relations Minister dropped (or rather refused to wear) the mask, by claiming that the previous government was "anti-worker" because it supported vaccine mandates:

I don't agree with that statement because I believe, in fact, the most anti-worker Government we've seen in decades is the previous Government. It was the previous Government that ordered vaccine mandates for workers; never before had we seen the rights of workers across the country be eroded so swiftly. Not only did this erode workers' freedom of choice and bodily autonomy, so many people were forced out of their jobs because the Government refused to look at other options like rapid antigen tests. Rather than listen to those affected workers, the previous Government pushed them to the margins of society. The previous Government's legislative overreach led to ostracism and division that have hugely impacted our civil society and had a negative impact on the employment and earnings of Kiwi individuals.

ACT has form on hosting cookers, but previously they've tried to downplay it. Van Velden's stance suggests they're now nakedly trying to appeal to them. Meanwhile, we now have a Minister for Workplace safety who seems to be opposed to the whole idea. If she's unwilling to do the job properly, and commit to protecting workers from all workplace hazards (including disease as well as bad employers), she should resign.

"The party of personal responsibility"

When National decided to shovel $24 million of public money to a charity run by a donor and chaired by the son of a National MP, on the "independent" advice of a former National PM, they proudly stated that it was because it was in the coalition agreement. Now, the Auditor-General has found that the decision did not comply with public procurement rules, which exist precisely to stop Ministers from giving public money to donors and cronies. The government's response? Blame the Ministry:

Doocey was not available to be interviewed but in a statement a spokesperson said any faults with the procurement process lay with the Ministry of Health.

"While the decision to fund Gumboot Friday was a decision made by the government, how this commitment was implemented was a decision for the Ministry of Health.

"Throughout the process, the minister has sought, and received assurance from officials that the implementation option chosen by the Ministry of Health is compliant with government procurement rules," the spokesperson said.

Of course, those officials gave that advice because the Minister made it clear that he wanted it, and the Ministry is there to serve and provide post-hoc justifications for whatever mad scheme Ministers cook up. And there is no simply employment upside for telling a Minister that their plan is illegal and corrupt.

The bottom line here is that this was the Minister's crooked scheme. It may have been imposed on him by NZ First, but he was proud to own it back in May when he announced it. But suddenly he's pretending it was nothing to do with him. Whatever happened to being the "party of personal responsibility"?

Taking the piss

When cancer minister Casey Costello convinced Cabinet to give her mates at Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut, she did so in the face of departmental advice that there would be no benefits and that Philip Morris' "heated tobacco products" were more cancerous and toxic than cigarettes. But she told her fellow Cabinet Ministers that it was fine because she had received "independent advice" that they were effective as an anti-smoking tool. Yesterday, she finally produced that "advice". And it was simply laughable:

The Associate Health Minister Casey Costello's "independent advice" on heated tobacco products is five articles that are either about different products, outdated, or only offer weak support for her view.

The five documents are not decisive on the benefits of the products.

They're also published in dodgy scam-journals and potentially funded by the tobacco industry. As Ayesha Verrall points out, it looks like she just did a quick google and grabbed whatever came up. It is certainly not the level of evidence you would expect to support a $200 million government policy, and not the level of care we should expect from a government minister.

At this stage it is clear that Costello is simply taking the piss. We deserve a better standard of government than this. Its long past time Luxon sacked her. And if he can't or won't, maybe we should start recognising that it is Winston who is really Prime Minister and deciding who is in cabinet...?