Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, April 22nd, 2026 - 88 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/tony-alexander-reserve-bank-has-lost-the-plot-on-inflation-and-interest-rates-49351
Is it possible that the minister for treasury has bullied the reserve bank into lowering the ocr to low to please voters with mortgages?
They talked interest rates down to try and mitigate the damage they'd done to the economy with their austerity. Bonus electoral effect with mortgagors, but just a sugar hit for the economy.
That plan's got a very high probability of coming unstuck between now and November as the sugar hit comes back with increased inflation, then the war induced inflation from fuel prices kicks inflation into the stratosphere.
Cue a solid rate rise on 27 May and another 8 July and the final slap on 2 Sept. Won't be nice in mortgage land.
What happens with the OCR is anyone’s guess, but I think this take leans too heavily on a repeat of the last cycle.
This inflationary period isn’t demand driven in the same way. There was also major supply constraints, labour shortages, and construction and fuel shocks. But this time the economy is already weak. In 2022, we had a strong wealth effect off the property boom and people were spending hard, cars, boats, everything. That backdrop justified aggressive tightening.
We don’t have that now. Household balance sheets are under pressure, growth is soft, and consumption isn’t running hot. That puts a natural ceiling on how far the OCR can realistically go.
Yes, there are inflation risks, fuel and geopolitics being the main ones. But hiking aggressively into a weak economy risks overcorrecting. The Reserve Bank will be very aware of that trade off.
So I wouldn’t be expecting a sequence of “solid” rate hikes like May, July, September. The conditions just aren’t the same.
The prior 2022 inflation was not demand driven either (there was a fall in available supply going along with any shortfalls to meet demand). It was ultimately a supply shock impacted by covid's impacts and the Ukraine wars impacts. That didn't stop either National explaining it as a demand shock or the RBNZ doing monetary policy like it was a demand shock though. Fundamentally Nationals whole narrative leading up to the last election makes no sense however, as the inflation event was an international event, it also happened in plenty of places which didn't have supportive fiscal policies during covid too.
Tony Alexander is massively overstating the certainty with which monetary policy influences inflation rates in the economy. For essentially ideological reasons monetary policy is seen as more appropriate to deal with inflation than fiscal policy is. In practice monetary policy works the same as fiscal policy (by increasing or decreasing spending, albeit by changing borrowing interest rates) but with 18 months of uncertainty (as long as refixing at new rates takes) around when it kicks in, and how it's passed onto the economy at that point.
What we can see is the countries monetary and fiscal policy positions have been fighting each other all term (the budget has been set to austerity, but the finance minister also wants low interest rates) and as Alexander says it's not clear if the lack of investment, confidence and employment resulting from fiscal policy will be counteracted by any recovery of the housing market and how that works with huge imported inflation one way or the other anyway.
Things are very uncertain and the RBNZ policy of not going hard with monetary policy (which is likely to distribute any imported inflation very unfairly) is a completely justified decision. We should also note commercial banks make a lot more money speculating on interest rates in a higher interest rate environment than a lower interest rate environment. There is a certain self interest for Tony in talking the OCR up.
" For essentially ideological reasons monetary policy is seen as more appropriate to deal with inflation than fiscal policy is."
Nic, what form would a fiscal policy response to inflation look like? I'm assuming it would be tax increases which might give more scope for ensuring that the damage doesn't mostly fall on the poorest among us, i.e. if demand destruction is required, it might be possible to destroy the demand of the wealthiest first?
That's going to depend on the cause of the inflation. In the case of genuine demand driven inflation (which is extremely rare) then stopping ways the government is buying in competition with the private sector might be a policy. Taxation could be but would need to be considered what the tax increase applies too. Wealth taxes to stop extreme wealth buying politics are a bit separate to that, and justified by those political objectives themselves.
There are also lots of ways central government can lower prices, for example centrally funding council projects (like water system improvements, or roads, or rail projects) can stop council rates from rising (rates are an often-significant price). Or the government could be setting up a basic competitor in markets which are considered monopolistic (Kiwibank for example), but could easily be funding additional power supply like wind farms or solar, or pumped hydro systems making the electricity system cheaper to operate over all.
The problem with monetary policy, especially around imported inflation, is the distributional effects are often unfair, and with imported inflation someone has to pay that price hike ultimately (at least until the external situation is resolved). When you put the OCR up obviously rent hikes are usually done to pass on interest rate hikes (these can be cumulative as rents are counted in the CPI to some extent). A lot of people renting on the other hand don't have an easy ability to demand a pay raise for their compensation. Monetary policy is ultimately targeting an elevated unemployment rate where wage demands are suppressed so these won't become businesses passing on wage increases in prices, but even at existent levels of unemployment inflation response demonstrates businesses passing on most of the cost hikes they face already without ever passing that on to workers anyway.
Thanks for that – useful. Interesting that you think real demand-driven inflation is rare, and when it does happen, it requires rather 'niche' responses. And that imported supplier-driven inflation has to land somewhere – conventionally (and inequitably) on those who are unable to pass it on. While things like competition policy and public service provision efficiency, are ways to attack domestic supplier-driven inflation.
I agree, competition policy kinds of measures might work too.
On demand driven inflation I think we might see that within a sector. I certainly think that if the government had gone ahead with full scale Kiwi-build that would have started impeding lots of non government building projects (which could arguably be called demand side inflation). In general though there is always at least 3% unemployment going on, so the economy just isn't in the right state for that to be the description.
External inflation has to land somewhere, because businesses and people overseas are getting more for what ever part of the supply chain they are providing. Either consumer prices increase to recover business margins (and its unclear if wage increases keep up with that) or businesses lose their margins.
A morning for firsts.
Winston Peters chuckling at the start and during an interview on RNZ.
John Campbell asking some direct questions in regards Luxon's self imposed confidence vote, coalition agreement and legal/political consequences.
I figure his glee was partly due to the smoke blown up his arse and that Luxon has handed Peter's and New Zealand first a few more percentage points in popularity.
Too early for a link I will post later.
Peters is positioning statesmanlike for Nov 2026 Prime Minister.
If on election night the vote falls something like this
Labour 36 or 37
NZ First 16 or 17
A two party coalition with Winston as PM for at least the first year maybe two starts looking a very viable coalition govt.
And also cataclysmically, monumentally dumb.
Yes, technically governments are formed by whoever can command confidence in the House. But voters expect the largest party to supply the Prime Minister. That’s the basic democratic logic people are voting on.
Labour coming first and then handing the job to Winston Peters would come across as a political betrayal on the scale of Rogernomics, not a mandate.
And for what? If Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori can form a majority, they get a cleaner coalition, fewer concessions, and Chris Hipkins as PM without having to contort themselves to satisfy NZ First.
There’s just no rational upside to doing it.
Voters expected the largest party to form the govt but the world didn't end when Winston went with Jacinda.
Think the biggest unknown is where TPM land and if they can resolve the the internal issues that are bubbling away, if they do poorly and a three party coalition gives a very thin majority or or doesn't quite get there say a 50 / 50 split between the current opposition parties and current govt parties the upside is being in govt and outside of grand coalition it could be the only path…
I’d argue that in that scenario it’s almost better, politically, to stay out of government.
If the current coalition only just scrapes together a majority, you’re looking at a weak, fragile arrangement with a high chance of internal tension or outright collapse anyway, even if Christopher Luxon goes.
At that point, opposition is an easy sell: you just point at the coalition’s track record, shrug and sigh theatrically, and let it speak for itself.
What does Labour actually gain by cutting a deal with New Zealand First in that context? Not much. Sure, they'd form a government. But at what cost?
It risks making them look uncertain about their own programme, willing to trade it away for power, and fundamentally reactive rather than leading.
This government needs to be replaced asap.
Two schools of thought I guess, some like Rex would rather let NZ bleed for another term than have a less than ideal coalition with NZ First. Others would be more pragmatic and say better to go into govt and attempt to improve the situation.
Given you cant achieve much from opposition and that Winston has proven to be a reliable coalition partner cutting a deal wouldn't be the end of the world and there is some common ground to be found.
Only voters of the largest party expect that.
Sorry, maybe I should be more explicit and clarify that the electorate generally expects the Prime Minister to come from the largest party in the governing coalition
With Peters putting a stop to anything progressive?
Labour should remember 2017 and refuse to have anything to do with the Peters party. Especially now he has allied with Cookerville.
Too much risk of another lame duck three years and only one term.
Labour shouldn’t do anything at this stage except to call out blatant lies and stick to its own plan & narrative. Let Peters fight it out with the media instead of giving him anything to create a counter-narrative on – shadowboxing looks a bit bite like air-guitar; it can be entertaining for a while but shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Peters needs adversaries for his idiosyncratic populist push-back and handwaving in thin air is not his style.
Winston Peters is the quintessential political thug and no pinstripe suit & hair-gel could make him a statesman.
Fully agree !
You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover… but going by how much effort goes into the cover art it's pretty clear most do.
Have you read the History of Winston ? (Peters that is,and no,not the autobiography)
My point is that the most people don't know much about Winston outside of his media persona and they think he's plenty statesman based in his appearance alone. He's got plenty fooled by the 'cover art'
I think that Winston Peters would the first and the last to agree that politics is performative art – clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right – stuck in the middle with me.
You can make it sound like a duck, look like a duck, and walk like a duck, but a leopard doesn’t change its stripes. He’s combative & aggressive, has too much ego & arrogance, and he thrives in & on conflict rather than being a conciliator. But if that’s the kind of leader Kiwis long for then so be it.
But we shouldn’t judge a man by the company he keeps except that he leads a party of political thugs. But if that’s okay with a segment of the NZ population then so be it.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2604/S00108/59-oppose-13-support-politicians-using-racial-remarks.htm
Peters looks more like he's positioning for a reverse take-over of the National party when the secular side takes Simeon up on his threat and leaves National to join NZ First.
Winston probably deserves a stint as PM, he's be better than a lot we've had, but he'd probably enjoy utu on the National Party better.
My opinion also. Peters left the National Party even though in his younger days the National Party of Holyoake and Muldoon was the most natural fit for his disposition of mind. I believe he would love nothing more than to be proved correct and to now subsume the National Party into his own political project, NZF. That doesn't mean its going to happen though, it seems unlikely.
Peters' potential success is very bad news for The Greens and therefore all of us. It might though, allow The Greens to vote down any Peters-led proposals, if the Nat/ACT Opposition continue their anti-everything-Labour policy following their defeat at the coming election.
How, though?
New Zealand First doesn’t really compete in the same voter pool as the Greens. If anything, most of its support comes off the right flank of National, with maybe a small amount of soft Labour protest vote.
The overlap between NZ First and Green voters has to be vanishingly small. They’re pulling in almost completely different directions on policy, tone, and worldview.
If NZ First grows, that’s more likely to come at the expense of National or ACT than the Greens. It reshapes the right and the centre, not the left.
So it’s not obvious why Peters doing well is “very bad news” for the Greens at all. Peters has already ruled out working with Hipkins, so we don’t need to keep tying ourselves in knots trying to imagine some Labour/Green/NZF arrangement.
How could it be other than bad news?
My thinking is: NZ1st plus Labour with enough seats to form a coalition, Greens excluded because of Peters' antipathy, leaves The Greens in-between – unlikely to join the Opposition block, voting-wise, except at times when they wish to stymy Peters on any particular bill. Knowing this, Peters will attack The Greens vehemently from here on in, hoping to deplete their vote and potential MP list. I think Labour would not grant Peters a shot at playing Prime Minister, preferring instead to let the present CoC limp on through turbulent waters of their own and Trumps making, and sink into that stinking morass part way through the next term.
I'm with Res here Mercurio. There will be almost no people in NZ who would swap their vote between the Greens and NZF.
"Peters will attack The Greens vehemently from here on in, hoping to deplete their vote and potential MP list."
Peters has always attacked the Greens. He hates them. It's a badge of honour for the Greens. Indeed him attacking them may actually gain them votes.
Okay. If Labour plus Greens can only just form a Government and Labour plus NZFirst can comfortably form a Government, Peters will play on the vulnerability of the L/G combo, saying "lose 1 Green MP through scandal and you're sunk", or something along those lines, then Labour will opt for the secure option, numbers-wise. Peters attacking The Greens now could reduce their vote, if he uses (if he uses, ha ha ha ha!) dirty tactics, then the scenario become a possibility, imo. Peters will demand The Greens be dismissed if their inclusion is optional for Labour.
That only really holds if you assume New Zealand First and Labour are both willing and able to form a coalition that excludes the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.
But why would Labour choose that path? It’s a more complicated, more constrained arrangement that hands Peters disproportionate leverage, for no obvious strategic gain.
On current polling, it also looks pretty unlikely. The numbers just don’t really point to that configuration being the most plausible outcome.
If Labour + Greens (and potentially Te Pāti Māori) can form a majority, that’s the cleaner option. If they can’t, then Labour + NZ First is already a thin, unstable proposition whether the Greens are inside or outside it.
So the Greens aren’t really “in between” in a meaningful sense.
They’re either part of a bloc that can govern, or they’re in opposition like everyone else.
This happened in 2017 and the country was better off for National leaving office.
The best option, Labour-Green coalition, is not always available.
"That only really holds if you assume New Zealand First and Labour are both willing and able to form a coalition that excludes the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand."
Yes. This is what I'm expecting.
Once excluded, The Greens might be, "in Opposition like everyone else" but can still vote or withhold their vote as they choose. If they wished to join the Opposition in voting down L/G on an issue that Peters has championed, they could give their vote to the Hideous Right Wing and block it. I think I'm seeing the numbers correctly there. If not, call me a lightweight 🙂
Hats off to Labour's Tangi Utikere in this mornings RNZ political discussion. He was confident, eloquent and, best of all, took it to Nicola Willis who was rattled and on the defensive. She ended up attacking Winston Peters and NZF
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019031964/weekly-political-panel-nicola-willis-and-tangi-utikere
I'm feeling a sea change this week. An excellent poll followed by Luxon himself instigating a confidence vote in his leadership (which is unheard of and so a bit weird) followed by Willis clearly on the run, and to top it all the Green's excellently timed plan to electrify NZ.
I also noted this morning on RNZ that the cost of the silly LNG terminal and infrastructure is being quoted as $1.4 billion to $2.3 billion, which is much more accurate than the $1billion previously quoted. You can do a lot of electrifying NZ for $2.3 billion.
Palmy represent!
Link for Campbell/ Peters interview
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programme s/morningreport/audio/2019031954/winston-peters-on-the-consequences-of-luxon-s-confidence-vote
If winston collapses the government the greens should give confidence and supply, the cost is canceling the lng fiasco in new Plymouth
Don't forget:
Key Legislation and Policy Blocked/Stalled by NZ First (2017-2020):
Good comment/Links Kay !
Peters also blocked the Auckland light rail proposal.
Who were the five MPs named by Hosk?
They are collectively know as, "The Ghosts of Luxon".
https://thestandard.nz/the-5-disgrunted-national-mps/
Their names are: Mike Hosking, Heather du Plessis-Allan, Shaun Plunket, Peter Williams and Chris Bishop.
AKA the Tight Five : )
https://theconversation.com/luxon-lives-on-as-leader-public-perception-is-a-tougher-challenge-281112
I’d have to say No to the first question, and Yes to the second one. There’s already too much fakery and make-believe to accept that fiction can trump fact. We need more not less integrity, even more so in the era of AI.
Instinctively I agree with you.
But there's something troubling about it. I found John Key incredibly inauthentic, fake and not one of 'us', i.e. very much how I view Luxon now. But Key was very popular, so plenty of other people thought he was 'the sort of guy you'd like to have a beer with'. (I'd rather drink alone in a darkened room than do that). Was Key just better at faking it than Luxon – the aw shucks, slightly laconic, 'common sense is on my side' sort of guy, rather than the Luxon's puffed up, babbling, corporate goose?
I didn't like Key at all but there is no mistaking he had "charisma", imagine him coming into a room & somehow the attention would just go to him, some people have it, some people don't, whether we like it or not. Also the man was just lucky, a great gambler, except with Luxon (though maybe (most likely I think) behind the scenes Key is doing quite well with Luxon "in charge" even if the rest of us are fucked).
Watching him (observational, me) it always seemed like an act…an actor.Sometimes he tripped over the set… A sir Key classic was the threeway rugby handshake. IMO just a fake as guy. Luxo, while also fake as…cant act his way through.
And yea re the beersies, bluurgh.
"He's got a phoney smile that makes you think he understands
But no-one ever gets the truth from Plastic Man."
(Ray Davies)
@ BG @ 5
Utikere was composed and eloquent and Willis was her shrill Year 12 prefect self.
Labour needs way better comms. When Willis trucks out her usual fibs about the state of the economy when she took over, there needs to be a ready made couple of sentences to throw back.
Perhaps it is something that can be group sourced here on TS.
'Since you took over Nicola, debt has risen by x%' for example. (Someone else will have to fill in what the x value is it's beyond my knowledge.)
It wouldn't hurt to mention the tax windfall given to landlords vs $ value of Waitangi settlements so far.
Such as repeating the fact, that Key and then Willis have borrowed twice as much as Labour and counting.
Green Party final list is out.
First list
https://www.greens.org.nz/green_party_releases_initial_candidate_list_for_2026_general_election
Final list (after members voting and final arrangement by exec)
https://www.greens.org.nz/green_party_releases_final_candidate_list_for_the_2026_general_election
Two sitting MPs have strangely low rankings, although the members moved them up a bit.
Steve Abel has moved up from 14 to 12. He was 7 on the 2023 list
Scott Willis from 16 to 15. He was 9 on the 2023 list
Celia Wade Brown must be leaving parliament.
The Greens have 15 MPs in parliament, off 11.6% of the vote. Three hold electorate seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand#Current_members_of_parliament
RNZ handily compiled the new list with changes
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/593073/2026-election-lan-pham-moves-higher-than-two-fellow-mps-in-greens-list
cool graphic
https://x.com/henrycooke/status/2046750262665343266
At 7% of the vote at election that's the top 9 off this list and the rest go home.
At 8% they get 10.
At 12% they get 15 MPs which gets you down to Scott Willis. To get that number I put Labour at 35%.
MMP seat allocation calculator | Elections NZ
Can someone who is following this more closely, explain if this is true and why we're not panicking?
I can't keep track of the MBIE reporting delay etc so never if know what people are saying is accurate.
https://x.com/ClintVSmith/status/2046760090854961417
is that saying that we have 6.6 and 8.2 days onshore, then another shipment, then we don't know?
The numbers are here. The 6.6 and 8.2 that are quoted are in ships that are on the water to New Zealand but more than two days away. There were 29.5 days of petrol and 21 days of diesel actually in the country.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/about/news/fuel-stocks-update
29.5 – 18 = 11.5 + 6.6 = 18.1 days petrol
21 – 18 = 3 + 8.2 = 11.2 days diesel
The lack of shipments coming in, was a story in The Post on the 16th.
Since then Kuwait has declared it will not be meeting contracts to supply oil to Singapore and South Korean refineries.
The three hour meeting should have been about this.
What is known is that there is a delay in getting oil into port and out of port in Singapore because of the large number of ships in the area.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/360990063/kuwait-invokes-force-majeure-its-fuel-allowing-it-forfeit-delivery-nzs-refined-fuel-suppliers
That's a new idea, what's driving that?
I should have said what was known, it seems it was of concern in March but has since eased.
Why are you deducting 18? What does that number represent?
History.
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand MPs (1996–Present):
This list covers members who entered Parliament under the Green banner or served as sitting Green MPs.
Ryan Bridge. What a lightweight idiot.
https://archive.li/Y7mEK
”The group calling for a coup looks shambolic like a bunch of disgruntled employees. Think Andrew Bayly and Tim van de Molen.
The only real threat to Christopher Luxon is sustained poor polling. You need a trend to prove that, not one poll.”
Chris Findlayson, along with Phil Goff, explain lucidly the problem with the National Party.
"They don't love their party".
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1323920572942871
Cross Party Lines
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61582638947291&sk=reels_tab
Luxon makes genius tactical move where he sneers that Peters put Jacinda Ardern in power.
Yes, that’s right the lady who is still CONSIDERABLY more popular in polls than you. Remind the public of the option they used to have in political leadership. More than likely figures inspired by her are available in the Labour caucus to be ministers and leaders through portfolios and those things they used to have when legislation wasn’t passed by urgency…select committees?
Good call. Reminding us of the time we had a competent Government during a crises, instead of the Coalition's"deer in the headlights".
Ha yes, what a "zinger" from Luxon. Peters also gave us Luxon.
Who is advising Luxon? His bathroom mirror? A Labour mole?
"Here's a good idea, sir. You're the most unpopular PM in history. Attack the most popular PM in history. Invite voters to make the comparison. A winning move!"
When you live in a tiny echo chamber of sycophants then you believe this nonsense. Unfortunately for Luxon the voters live elsewhere.
We've forgotten, haven't we.
"Earth Day is an annual, global event celebrated on April 22nd to demonstrate support for environmental protection. First held in 1970, it now engages over 1 billion people in more than 193 countries, with events coordinated through EarthDay.org to promote sustainability and climate action."
Some of we hadn't. And, I have previously put up notices about this and other Enviro days/petitions/etc..and hardly any comment. Anyway an onya to you Mercurio ! : ) and something you might like?
International Mother Earth Day
An NZ School related ?…(really, our Youth, its their Future)
Today I biked on my ReCycled Cycle (hmmm no difference there : ), and fixed some repairable items for a Charity shop (ditto : )
Happy Earth Day : )
Faith in humanity restored, thanks, PLA!
Appreciated PLA, I also just think most people like you who are doing the serious & kind mahi just do it quietly & in the background, otherwise society would collapse. No knighthood/Damehoods for you but I am sure you are ok with that.
Sorry IFL : other reply was to..AB : )
And yea re Earth Day, other stuff etc…been doing it for many years.
Its maybe Karma? Or just feels good anyway
)
Stuart Smith Stuffed!
Live: National’s chief whip speaks after staying silent on bombshell report for days – Stuff
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360968547/stuart-smith-speaks
"Winston Peters was doing his best to quell concerns there were ructions in the coalition claiming the government was as stable as a "three-legged stool"."
AI defines "stool" thus:
" a single bowel movement/solid fecal matter.",
and I bet AI could provide an image of one with 3 legs, and caption it, “The CoC" if prompted!
Does that explain Seymour's expression today.
Looked like he was sitting in his stool.
Confirms my impression that Coalition of Cockups MP's need potty training, before being allowed out in public.
The Isle of Man developed an early form of governance – only a small island – they had a three legged emblem; they were way ahead of us a long time ago. Peters might grasp for something to fire us up but he is too old for radical ideas – look at him with clear and critical eyes and memory, and he is ridiculous. Oldies like him should give up radical and grow radishes instead.
Peters for PM till 7 Nov!
Always a respite from the awfulness of being a 4th former at HBHS.
.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/dave-mason-traffic-dead-obituary-1235459696/