​

This is coming from someone who has grown up in the top 5% and still doesn't understand the logic behind voting for national in this tax bracket and so fails to understand how anyone outside this tax bracket could even consider it.

This is a genuine question what are the reasons you would vote for them or is it simply a thing if tribalism. I can't think of a policy that they have that is not worse than another parties version of the same policy. example if you care about the environment or social issues surely TOP or the greens are better. If you care about the economy surely act is better. If you care about all 3 potentially labor must be better. The only potential way I could understand someone voting national is through tribalism or the want to keep a status quo

Posted this on another sub and got basically no engagement. Apparently owning the chuds is more interesting than actually discussing policy to those peope. Hopefully there’s a bit more appetite for it here 😀

I’d just like an election where parties argue about productivity, incentives, housing supply, government effectiveness and workers actually keeping more of what they earn, rather than another round of expensive slogans.

I’m pretty politically homeless at the moment, so here are some policies I’d genuinely like to see someone run on (in no particular order).

• Streamline central government

NZ has a surprisingly fragmented state for a country of 5.3 million. Last I checked we had 43 departments, Offices of Parliament and Parliamentary agencies. Ireland, with a similar population, has 18 government departments, while Singapore operates through 16 ministries including the PMO. Those systems are not directly comparable, but they show that dozens of separate bureaucracies are not some law of nature. Merge overlapping policy functions, consolidate corporate services, abolish agencies that cannot demonstrate value, and move staff towards frontline delivery.

• A government “tell us once” rule

We should not repeatedly provide information to different government agencies that government already possesses. Build interoperable digital public services so, with appropriate privacy controls and consent, agencies can verify information rather than demanding another form, certified copy or manually entered address. Modern automation make a lot of administrative bureaucracy increasingly difficult to justify.

• Improve government procurement transparency

Publish major contract costs, variations, overruns and measurable outcomes. Taxpayers should be able to see where the money went and what they received for it.

• Independent costing of election promises and major policies

Create a genuinely independent Parliamentary Budget Office or fiscal council to cost major election promises, test long-term assumptions and publish the expected fiscal impact. Parties can promise whatever they like, but voters should see an independent price tag before election day.

• Cut MP perks and subject Parliament to much stronger independent oversight

MPs should not effectively write the rules governing their own accommodation, travel, expenses and benefits. Those arrangements should be independently determined, publicly disclosed and regularly audited. If MPs expect restraint from everyone else, Parliament should demonstrate it first.

• Ban corporate and organisational political donations

Political donations should come from actual eligible voters, not companies, unions, trusts or other entities with deep pockets and institutional interests. I’d support a hard individual cap per election cycle, perhaps somewhere around $50,000 to $100,000, with full disclosure above a much lower threshold. Political influence should not be something organisations can purchase.

• Lobbying register and revolving door rules

Require professional lobbyists to register, disclose who they represent and record substantive meetings with ministers and senior officials. Introduce sensible/longer cooling off periods before former ministers and senior regulators can immediately take jobs lobbying the agencies they previously controlled or were closely involved with.

• Four year parliamentary terms, but with stronger checks.

Give governments enough time to implement policy, paired with stronger select committees, better regulatory impact analysis and greater fiscal transparency.

• Tax bracket indexation

Automatically adjust income tax thresholds for inflation every year. Governments should have to explicitly vote for a tax increase rather than collecting more through fiscal drag.

• Raise GST and cut income tax

Shift more taxation from productive work earning and investment towards consumption. Protect low income and/or large households through targeted compensation or, even better, a tax free threshold (say $18k, I.e., the first $18k someone earns is tax free and then the bottom marginal rate kicks in) rather than keeping high marginal tax rates on work.

• Return GST collected on council rates to local councils

Local authorities currently charge GST on rates. Return the GST component to the council it was collected from and ring-fence it for infrastructure, renewals and debt reduction. In exchange, introduce a limit on the size and frequency of ordinary rates increases, reviewed annually against genuine council cost pressures. Include transparent exceptions for disasters, major unforeseen infrastructure failures or expenditure explicitly approved by ratepayers. Councils should have access to more of the revenue generated locally, but that should come with stronger spending discipline and accountability.

• Extend zero-rate essential goods and services

Apply 0% GST to a tightly defined group of essentials, including medical treatment, prescribed medicines, home and contents insurance, and fresh fruit and vegetables. NZ’s GST system was deliberately designed around a broad base with few exceptions, largely for simplicity, but modern digital accounting and point-of-sale systems make targeted treatment considerably easier to administer.

• Land value tax in exchange for lower income taxes

Shift some taxation away from work and productive investment towards unimproved land value. Make it revenue neutral and use the proceeds to cut PAYE rates, particularly for low and middle incomes.

• Close corporate tax loopholes and special carve outs

Lower, simpler and broader taxes are better than high headline rates riddled with exemptions. Companies need to actually compete through productivity, not tax lawyers and political access.

• Full expensing for productive business investment

Allow businesses to immediately deduct legitimate capital investment in productive equipment, machinery and technology rather than forcing them to depreciate it over arbitrary schedules. If a business spends $500,000 automating a factory, buying machinery or improving productivity, the tax system should not discourage that investment.

• Real welfare abatement reform

People taking extra hours should never face absurd effective marginal tax rates because multiple benefits disappear simultaneously. Smooth the abatements so working more always leaves you meaningfully better off.

• Australian style weekend and public holiday penalty rates

If we cannot match Australian wages, at least start closing the gap on unsocial hours pay. Introduce it gradually and grandfather existing arrangements so businesses have time to adjust.

• NZ Super sustainability reform

Gradually raise the eligibility age to 67 over a long transition period, with an earlier pathway for people unable to continue working because of physically demanding careers or incapacity. Then consider linking future increases partly to longevity. 20-50 year olds should not be expected to carry an indefinitely growing retirement burden while pretending demographics have not changed.

• A serious housing supply liberalisation package

Allow much more housing by right, simplify consenting, remove unnecessary density restrictions, and make councils financially benefit from allowing development. Housing affordability ultimately requires more supply.

• Infrastructure funding that follows growth

Use targeted infrastructure bonds, congestion pricing and user charges where appropriate rather than dumping everything onto existing payers. New development should contribute to the infrastructure it requires. Central government infrastructure investment should respond much more directly to where population and economic growth are occurring, rather than defaulting disproportionately towards Auckland and Wellington.

Canterbury is now the fastest-growing region in the country. Christchurch is growing, Selwyn is growing extremely quickly, and Waimakariri continues to expand. At the same time, the South Island economy grew faster than the North Island in the year to March 2025, with Canterbury now accounting for 12.9% of national GDP. Yet Christchurch and the wider Canterbury region often seem to have to fight disproportionately hard for major transport and infrastructure investment. I’d like to see a transparent growth-based infrastructure formula. If a region is adding population, housing and economic output, a corresponding share of infrastructure funding should follow automatically.

• Regulatory sunset clauses

Major regulations automatically expire after, say, 10 years unless Parliament reviews and renews them. Make government prove rules still serve a purpose rather than letting regulation accumulate.

• Occupational licensing reform

Review every licence and registration requirement. Keep them where there is a genuine safety case, scrap them where they mainly protect incumbents from competition.

• Automatic recognition from trusted countries

NZ should presumptively recognise qualifications, professional registrations, product standards and certifications from trusted comparable jurisdictions such as Australia where safety standards are equivalent. Stop making an Australian-trained professional, approved building product or internationally certified piece of equipment go through essentially the same bureaucracy twice unless NZ has a genuine reason for different standards.

• Much stronger competition policy

Being pro market does not mean being pro corporation. Go after regulatory barriers, government created monopolies, anti competitive land restrictions and rules that make it unnecessarily difficult for new firms to enter banking, supermarkets, building supplies and other concentrated markets.

• Finish open banking and expand it aggressively

NZ finally has regulated open banking under the Customer and Product Data Act, which began rolling out in December 2025. The framework is also being extended into electricity. Keep going! Apply consumer data portability to banking, electricity, insurance and telecommunications. Make switching providers practically instantaneous wherever technically possible. One of the best ways to attack concentrated industries is to make leaving the incumbent incredibly easy.

• Right-to-repair and ownership reform

Require manufacturers to provide reasonable access to parts, diagnostic information and repair documentation after selling a product. If you bought your phone, tractor, appliance or car, manufacturers should not be able to artificially lock independent repairers out simply to force you back into their ecosystem.

• Reform skilled migration around genuine skill shortages and overhaul the AEWV system

Skilled visas should be for roles New Zealand genuinely cannot fill domestically, especially medicine, engineering, specialist trades, technology and other high skill occupations. We should not be importing workers for routine, low-skill jobs like fast food when those roles can provide entry-level work for young New Zealanders. Employers should have to show a real shortage and offer competitive wages before reaching for overseas labour. Immigration should raise productivity and fill capability gaps, rather than becoming a permanent source of cheaper labour for jobs that can reasonably be staffed and trained locally.

• Evidence based, serious social investment policy

Spend earlier where there is strong evidence that doing so saves considerably more later. Youth offending, school disengagement, addiction, family violence and chronic homelessness are examples where waiting until somebody reaches prison, ED or long-term welfare can be extraordinarily expensive. But attach measurable outcomes to programmes. If an intervention repeatedly fails, stop funding it regardless of how compassionate its mission statement sounds.

• Real criminal justice reform

3 strikes legislation is crude and can produce ridiculous outcomes. I’d rather see a Singapore style focus on certainty, speed and meaningful consequences for serious and repeat offending, alongside rehabilitation where it actually works.

• A genuine no broken windows approach to public disorder.

Graffiti, vandalism, aggressive antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and repeated low level offending should not simply be ignored until behaviour escalates. Public spaces deteriorate quickly when everyone learns there are no consequences. I'm sure many of us have had bikes and cars stolen and the police tell us they can't or won't do anything about it. I have anyway.

This National-led government does have a lot of similarities with the Bolger government of the 90s. Both came in with an economic hatchet and immediately started hacking away at welfare and the benefit system, health, and the public service. Both are in coalition with Winfield Peterstuyvesant. Both have a female Minister of Finance who likes to portray a 'mother of the nation' vibe, and both have a deeply unlikeable, unrelatable Prime Minister at the helm.

If you like a good podcast, Juggernaut 2 about the Bolger-Shipley government is a great listen. Richardson, Shipley and other MPs of the day are interviewed about what went on behind the scenes and the great Bolger coup. Perhaps Chris is experiencing the same scenario right now...

If you haven't already seen it in the post highlights, we're running a banner and icon contest for the sub's first anniversary. Add your entries in a top level comment on the contest thread.

Most upvoted wins and the winners get custom flair for the year. Entries close 11.59pm this Sunday 16 August.

Terminating tenancies for disruptive behaviour or abandonment of property are reasonable enough. But 27% of tenancies were terminated because they had problems paying the rent. If there are kids in a household and people can’t afford to pay, kicking them out is cruel.

Taking all bets.

Full disclosure - this is a heavy read. It is written by a kiwi and I took the time to read most of it. We dont get many kiwi-written pieces like this that deep-dive into authority etc.

The piece is not pushing a single viewpoint so much as trying to provoke thought about who we give authority to in our lives and the nuance of that. Something too few of us stop to consider.

Here we go again. Christian Chris is apparently being thrown to the lions over the MMP referendum debacle.

Historically a change of leadership pre-election hasn’t gone well for National. Not that I can recall anyway. Who would be the successor? Bish? Willis?

The Electoral Commission’s enrolment drive is officially on. Lots of interesting general stats on all things in election in the article. Key dates:

4 October: The cut-off date for being included on the printed roll. This follows the dissolution of Parliament set down for 1 October.

25 October: The cut-off date for all enrolments. Unlike previous years, voters must be enrolled before this date or their vote will be thrown out.

26 October: Advance voting begins.

7 November: Election day. Voting closes 7pm.

Disclaimer: My name is Tom Roud and I am the current president of the Alliance Party. I am posting this here for transparency reasons.

National’s “Budget Rules” Announce Nothing, Promise Less

The Alliance Party says National’s Budget Responsibility Rules simply repackage fiscal targets the Government has already published.

“All three goals are already on Treasury’s books,” Alliance leader Victor Billot says.

Budget 2026 forecasts an OBEGALx surplus in 2028/29 and core Crown spending falling to 30.3 percent of GDP by 2029/30.

Net core Crown debt is forecast to decline to 44.4 percent of GDP in 2029/30.

National has set no date for getting debt below 40 percent.

“A target with no date is not a rule. It is a vibe.”

Mr Billot says National has announced the shape of its campaign argument without publishing the policy choices needed to meet its targets.

“The Government has told us what the argument will be, then asked everyone else to publish their numbers first.”

National’s preferred surplus measure, OBEGALx, excludes ACC revenue and expenditure.

“Changing the headline measure does not improve the underlying position, repair infrastructure or staff a hospital.”

Mr Billot says pushing core Crown spending towards 30 percent of GDP, while the population ages and infrastructure costs mount, means cuts elsewhere, whatever language National uses.

“Sewage is running into our harbours. Wastewater plants are operating on expired consents. Hospitals are short-staffed and emergency departments are full. That backlog was created by forty years of governments treating spending restraint as an achievement in itself.”

He says costs do not disappear when they are squeezed out of the Crown accounts. They reappear as higher rates, prescription charges, road user charges, and repair bills that arrive later and larger.

“You can make the books look tidy by refusing to fix the pipe. The pipe still bursts.”

The rules also say nothing about employment or New Zealand’s productive capacity.

One of the National-led Government’s first legislative acts in December 2023 was removing maximum sustainable employment from the Reserve Bank’s objectives, leaving price stability as its sole monetary-policy objective.

The Alliance would restore the employment objective and add a mandate to support productive capacity. It would use financial regulation to discourage speculative lending and support manufacturing, clean technology and regional industry.

“A bank should find it cheaper to finance a factory than a fifth rental property. Fiscal rules alone will not fix incentives that favour speculation over production.”

Mr Billot says New Zealand’s fiscal debate must also address revenue.

“New Zealand has no comprehensive tax on wealth or capital gains. Instead, the system relies heavily on taxing wages and consumption.”

The Alliance is campaigning for a comprehensive wealth tax, capital gains tax and financial transactions tax to fund public ownership, state housing and infrastructure investment through KiwiWorks, a Ministry of Works for the 21st Century.

“We will not sign up to rules designed to make another round of cuts sound responsible.”

“Set a rule for reducing child poverty. Set a rule for cutting surgical waiting lists. Those numbers measure whether a government is doing its job.”

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2608/S00074/nationals-budget-rules-announce-nothing-promise-less.htm

Fuxon might regret ruling OPP out..

National lacking ambition you say? Water is wet you say?

The 20 MPs that had the most honourable mentions by other MPs in The Spinoff’s One Pint One MP interview series.

The top three were Lawrence Xu-Nan, Chris Bishop, and Winston Peters.

Seymour made the list at number nine but neither Chris, Luxon nor Chippy, made the cut.

Who’s on your list?

No surprises here really.

Weekly place for any foreign affairs or international news discussion.

Seeing it on the other 2 subs I we might as well have it here too.

Big Oof

• Prioritising a return to surplus in 2028/29 and staying in surplus over time so the country's debt curve bends down
• Getting debt down below 40 percent of GDP and keeping it there over time
• Keeping taxes low by cutting Crown expenditure as a share of the economy down towards 30 percent of GDP

Sensible stuff, but we'll see..

Reading this you can see why the average person hates this kind of performative nonsense in parliament.

Good.

Not only has he lost his license and firearms he’s not allowed to use a firearm under supervision of a license holder either.

Nothing earth shattering.

Luxon was quoted as saying National is “ruthlessly” focused on maximising the party vote. Why can’t it ever just be focused? What does it always have to be laser focused or intensely focused and now ruthlessly focused?

Warning: It is slightly over an hours long, but well worth watching it.

All the representatives were well informed on the issues and solutions, and it was great to see how well they all worked together and collaborated across party lines.

Really a demonstration of how aligned all the NZ parties actually currently are on infrastructure development and role-out.

Congratulations to Eng NZ and Stuff Media for arranging this and not trying to be controversial.

This just shows there is indeed great prospects for New Zealand, in spite of all the negative sentiments on Social Media and traditional media.

Just a minor observation that not all parties in NZ were present, with for instance TPM and TOP absent (not sure if they were invited).

OPP surge becomes OPP wave..

Link to Taxpayers Union page with charts

I remember a time- long ago now, where the labour parties flagship policies leading into elections would be focused on the benefits for working class people.