Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, October 23rd, 2025 - 92 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 …
Listening to Brian Roche's frankly political attacks on the unions I do hope Labour don't muck around with hand wringing about keeping him on post an election victory due to the needs of technocratic technical competence. The idea of a politically neutral senior civil service is conclusively dead and buried, killed by neoliberal purity. Hopkins ought to come out and say he hopes Roche has a job lined up with the Atlas network next year. A co-ordinated opposition would also see the Greens call for a clean out of senior management, and a disgusted Māori party wondering out loud if such a politicized person as Roche shouldn't be stripped of his knighthood.
Make the bastard sweat on holiday in Australia.
RNZ coverage
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576537/public-service-commission-s-ads-targeting-strike-absolutely-unbelievable-labour
Normalizing this would lead to a comprehensive clear out of the senior civil service following every change of government. The US model.
Is this really where you want NZ to go?
It would be preferable not to go down the US route for anything, but if our senior public servants can't even pretend to be politically neutral, then what?
Caveat – I haven't seen what Roche has actually been saying this morning.
But, in principle: It's his job to implement and support the policies of the government of the day.
Unless he's unfavourably commenting on the policies of the Opposition parties – I don't think this issue calls his neutrality into question.
NB: I'm not commenting on his political neutrality in general – just over this issue.
You seem to be drawing a long bow from a comment about one individual to talking about a comprehensive clean out.
The current government has set the ball rolling and I have no problem with a number of key appointments made by them getting flick post-next election.
I'll be very annoyed if it doesn't happen.
Promoting it as desirable for one side, gives implicit permission for the other to do so as well. And these things escalate.
Hope you're also looking forward to the huge payouts that those civil servants will gain from constructive dismissal/redundancy. This already happens with restructuring (e.g. the current government canning the 3 waters agencies) – but will be a lot higher for very senior civil servants.
I expect that you're going to be very annoyed…..
This is not gotcha type questions just genuine curiosity to see if I am becoming partisan.
Do you think Ministers Brown, Luxon and Collins have overstepped a mark with their misleading comments about nurses and teachers pay?
It's more about them commenting during negotiations, the fibbing is just icing on the cake.
If Roche is truly impartial, do you think he should be calling out the (let's be kind) missteps of the politicians, with as much vigour as his commentary of the unions?
Collins open letter comes to mind. Teachers, when asked about issues that weren't part of the negotiations, mentioned the 'Palestinian' issue. Collins then made out it was a key negotiating issue.
Nope. You're telling it like it is and don't stop.
To suggest – as one commentator has – that one side (ie. Labour et al) can't remove prominent public servants from their posts due to unacceptable bias because that will encourage the other side (ie. National et al) to do the same, is about as disingenuous as it gets. This CoC have been tossing out high ranking public servants and others of a similar ilk almost since Day One of their tenure.
What do you mean by unacceptable bias.
Their job is to faithfully implement the government's agenda and ignore what political party actually forms the government.
We wouldn't have a functioning government if public servants followed their own personal agendas rather than that of the democratically elected Ministers.
Perhaps you could give a list of the high-ranking civil servants "removed from their posts"
A senior civil servant's role is not to hold the government to account (really, that should be the job of the news media).
TBH – the teacher's union absolutely should have known better. Palestine has very close to zero impact on education in NZ. Issues like stable housing, living wage and mental health services would have been a much better suite of issues which weren't part of negotiations.
"Palestine has very close to zero impact on education in NZ."
Not if you're a teacher at the chalkface.
Children can see the horrible images and degrading stories that are coming out of Gaza.
It's only reasonable to understand that they ask their teachers about it.
And by known better do you mean they should have expected their words to be twisted in such a malevolent way?
Once again we find the government at odds with good faith bargaining.
They should have, yes. We're talking about public-sector unions in dispute with a government run by right-wing politicians. Of course right-wing politicians are going to look for anti-union propaganda opportunities as part of the dispute, so why choose to hand them "Woke teachers' union cares more about The Current Thing than about education" gift-wrapped on a silver platter? If I tell my implacable enemy "Here's my arse, please feel free to kick it," I've only myself to blame for the resulting sore arse.
PR 101. Never hand your opposition a free soundbite.
facepalm moment. This is why the left can't have nice things. At the least, don't put Palestine at the top of the list.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576359/public-service-minister-judith-collins-lashes-out-at-unions-for-politically-motivated-strikes
Drawing a pretty long bow, here.
There are thousands of media incidents which children *might* ask their teachers about – why pick on Gaza?
Teachers should be *much* more concerned over the top-of-my-head issues listed above – all of which the government has much more ability to address than a conflict going on half a world away.
No bows at all.
I don't watch a lot of TV news. Less than an hour a week.
I'm in my 6th decade and fairly hard bitten and cynical. I am close to tears if I watch the reports that come out of Gaza. The cruelty, the desperation and despair.
So it's much more important to you than, the fact that housing insecurity has a hugely detrimental impact on kids education; that the cost of living crisis is having a significant impact on students, families and teachers; and that timely access for mental health services for kids is unachievable.
in no way did gsays say that, so please don’t put words in people’s mouths like that because it tends to start arguments rather than debate.
While "the fact that housing insecurity has a hugely detrimental impact on kids education; that the cost of living crisis is having a significant impact on students, families and teachers; and that timely access for mental health services for kids is unachievable." has all been made far worse by this government because of their incompetence and deliberate choices.
None of which would be as directly as impactful on children in front of teachers, as the nightly horror show that is reportage from Gaza.
But I think you know that.
sorry, what?
To most youth, housing issues, cost of living and mental health inadequacies are the zeitgeist and adult stuff.
The stories from Gaza are real. Therefore more likely to come up in classrooms.
Ok, perhaps it's not daily at the moment.
Only if you come from a highly privileged background.
For many kids, the fact that they shift homes regularly, live in a household with minimal income, and may have dire need of mental health services is a daily reality.
Newsflash. Virtually no one under 30 watches TV….
I read it was more about union solidarity, the teachers union were concerned about Palestinian teachers & children being killed & how it affects their education. Apparently it's not unusual for unions to raise things like this?
the issue isn't having solidarity, it's their PR/comms and management. In this instance, don't put Palestine at the top of the agenda you are sending to a hostile government that will weaponise anything they can against you.
Nah, it's just the price of correcting the abuses of this government in removing people in key roles to replace them with their stooges, I mean people more aligned withbtheir politics/ideology. 🙂
A number of those people will be on time-limited contracts which would not be renewed.
This current government has opened Pandora's Box.
Every government puts their people in key roles but this government has taken this to the next level.
Paula Benefit.
It never does, labour appointed tolley who appears to have presided over largesse rather than curb it.
Simon Power at tvnz, zero broadcasting experience.
Dont hold your breath even if chippie manages to get across the line as hes as beltway as it gets.
Not heard myself what he said. However, he needs to stay pretty close to factual stuff. He wont be praising the striking workers as being heros, nor should he parrott comments of brown, collins etc. If he simply runs their lines /press releases then he should be considering a new job
As a public servant myself, I’d be very wary of punishing the Public Service Commissioner for his statements.
I absolutely agree that the way the “no surprises” convention has devolved over the last 30 years from “keep ministers informed” to “never take any political risk that might embarrass them”, is a fundamental challenge to genuine political neutrality.
But the reality is that we have to work in the environment we’ve got, and that means public servants walking a very narrow line.
We’re people too. We have mortgages, kids, and lives outside our public roles. And there are times all of us have had to swallow things that made us uncomfortable or that we disagreed with. Because that’s the job.
Part of the Commissioner’s role is to communicate the position of the government of the day: even when that position is petty, vindictive, or just plain wrong. As long as he doesn’t stray into explicit partisanship (like directly attacking the Opposition), I think we should refrain from calling for his head.
You could absolutely argue that Brian Roche has shown himself to be a partisan hack unfit for the role. I’d even tend to agree.
But the solution isn’t to start imposing political purity tests or clearing out senior management every time the government changes. That would only deepen the politicisation of the public service and destroy the very neutrality we’re trying to defend.
Great insight.
I agree about not having purges.
What is the solution when time and time again senior Public Servants show themselves to be unfit for office?
Jagose springs immediately to mind.
This is without trying to walk back the neo-liberal ideology that permeates the PS. Obviously neo-liberalism is hurting the rest of us more than senior Public Servants.
It depends how you interpret political neutrality.
The political neutrality of public servants doesn’t mean standing apart from politics. It means faithfully carrying out the wishes of the government of the day, whatever its political colour. In practice, that often looks political, because implementing the government’s agenda inevitably advances one side’s policy preferences over another’s. Neutrality isn’t about pretending government decisions are apolitical, it’s about serving those decisions professionally and without bias, even when they reflect the politics of the ministers who make them.
If Brian Roache came out and made a statement critical of the government, how would that go down with you?
Publicly? I’d be terrified.
In reality, it depends on the role. For example, I have no issue with the Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsman, or the Human Rights or Children’s Commissioners criticising the government of the day.
That’s part of their statutory independence and they’re meant to challenge the government when it overreaches.
By contrast, the rest of the public service exists to carry out the government’s agenda professionally and without bias.
On the flipside, successive governments haven’t been great at holding up their end of the bargain and too often ignore free and frank advice, or throw public servants under the bus when it’s politically convenient to do so.
From this korero I am seeing the difference between neutrality and doing the government's bidding.
If Roche were to come out and criticize the government I'd be stoked, surprised but stoked.
Yes however it depends how that is framed. Being factual and describing what the government of the day is instructing you to do versus parroting everything a minister says including clear politicing. Roche might say "we have offered teachers blah blah which we think is fair and we are unhappy they are going on strike blah" versus "the teachers strike is clearly political and anti national and clearly set up by the Labour party". One is him doing his job the other would be him suggesting he wants another job post a change of government.
Agreed if that is what he said, but when did he say that? My powers of google can't seem to find that quote.
As Juvenal wrote 1,800 years ago: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” — Who guards the guardians themselves? Whose standards of competency and fitness do we use?
Part of the reason we elect MPs is for them to appoint senior public officials and hold them to account. It's up to them to decide. And up to us as voters and citizens to let them know our feelings.
I actually did my master’s research as a critique of the impacts of neoliberalism on public-sector organisation. I found that it was, frankly, bullshit: a project that tore apart hundreds of years of careful, sensible administration in the space of a few decades, and for nothing.
It didn’t deliver the efficiencies it promised, and it rested on a deeply flawed understanding of what motivates human behaviour.
So don’t assume public servants, even senior ones, are insulated from those effects.
At the end of the day, we live, work, and socialise in the same economy as everyone else. And we’re just as acutely aware of the slow, steady erosion of the values we believe in.
Chur.
Is yr research available to be read?
It's one of my hobby horses, neoliberalism.
The changing of who's in charge every three years is largely a charade until we pivot away from this experiment.
It was for a Master of Managament, so I don't think it was ever published.
But maybe I should dig out my old copy of it, give it a brushup, and put it up as a post.
Please do.
It's always handy to have another's articulation of something.
I'm sure others would welcome that as a post.
"Part of the reason we elect MPs is for them to appoint senior public officials and hold them to account. It's up to them to decide."
In the example of Jagose, she isn't the only one. Torture in State Care has been actively covered up for decades now by party's of all stripes.
Which brings me to " And up to us as voters and citizens to let them know our feelings.". It's got me scratching my head as to what that might look like.
Agreed Sanc.
Roche's outpourings have been shockingly partisan. He must go ASAP after the glorious day next year when the Left triumphs.
(Collins, Brown and Luxon’s comments on the strikes have also been clumsy and outrageous, but they are Nats so they are allowed to be political. The voters can chuck them out)
One term government.
Hannah Arendt: ":This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore.
A rough day today ahead for a lot of us. We lost power in the Top of the South Island about 50 minutes ago.
In any coverage I've seen there's been no mention of climate change.
If the C words are not used, many people won't understand the shit is hitting the fan now.
And they won't join the dots to realising how reprensible the current climate change denying/ignoring government is.
Reprehensible (no edit on my mobile).
I think it needs to be mentioned once the emergency is over. So not today at least not in the coverage of the weather, because people need to focus on that. Let's look tomorrow?
if you want to go a Guest Post, I can put it up! (assuming you aren't too busy with the weather).
It's hard for people to join those dots. Bad weather under the last government, bad weather under this one. Bad weather a generation ago (Cyclone Bola).
It's not the weather, per se – but the increasing number of extreme weather events.
Also not understanding how changes in NZ can affect the weather around the globe.
I look back to the messaging around the ozone hole and the removal of the CFCs – and the connect that most Kiwis had around those two things. How can we replicate that.
Good question. We could start by asking our news media and the meteorologists they interview to include the cause of the extreme weather we're seeing more of when they talk about what's happening.
We can also try to limit the number of climate change deniers who make it into parliament, especially from right wing parties because that's where they seem to be concentrated.
As I say it's not something that is going to happen, it is happening.
The coalition has killed off stored hydro, wind farms, encourages fossil fuel use, lies about natural gas exploration and more.
Hard to remove the luddites put there by curated ignorance and anger amongst voters plus the usual well backed fed farmers candidates.
Meteorologists in past days were discouraged from using the term Climate Change or any derivation of it. It was regarded as 'unacceptable language' and smacked of Communism according to a few well-placed idiots. I used to feel sorry for Communists. They got blamed for everything including the weather.
One former high profile meteorologist did lose his job because he dared to publicly mention the dreaded words "Climate Change".
Past media have to take the blame for giving CC deniers so much publicity. 97% of scientists concurred with CC leaving some 3% who had fallen down rabbit holes. But the media gave them equal billing which was irrational in the scheme of things, and gave the naysayers the opportunity to take down those who were trying to encourage action against the growing CC dangers.
Even the euthemism "Climate change" which was coined to hide the reality, "Anthropogenic Global Warming"!
Is "unexceptable"?
Would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
It's been a whole since I've seen the stats on warmer than usual months years etc, the weather used to tell us regularly,
The CFC problem was a morally simpler problem than climate change, and the level of collective buy-in that occurred with CFCs is probably not replicable in the case of climate change.
With the CFC issue, the producers simply had to find an alternative propellant for their aerosol products. There were alternative propellants available – so the change was a one-off, finite, and measurable cost to producers. And consumers had to make no sacrifices at all.
With GHG emissions reduction, the pain for some producers, such as oil and gas companies, is permanent – in the end a complete cessation of what they do. For other producers, such as NZ dairy farmers with methane-emitting cows, there are no technology-substitution alternatives readily available. The power of producers in a market economy to retard change in environmental policy, is a well-understood phenomenon in policy circles – and in NZ agriculture we see it all the time.
And with GHG reductions, consumers may have to make sacrifices: energy prices may go up before enough renewables exist to bring them down again; food prices may go up if farmers are charged for methane emissions; fossil fuel costs may go up as a way of dis-incentivising ICE vehicles, tourism may become more expensive if the traveler has to pay for their emissions – and so on.
This is a horribly complex problem that I think makes CFCs look like a walk in the park. The big risk is that we reach the point of irreversibility before enough of a consensus emerges that action is taken.
Hmm. From recollection the replacements for CFCs did involve some consumer pain. Compliant appliances were more expensive, and you needed (or felt pressure to) replace CFC ones sooner than you would otherwise have done so.
However, I agree that it was a much simpler issue. The point I was attempting to make, is that there was consumer/citizen buy in.
But framing CC entirely in pain points, does little to encourage consumer (or citizen, if you prefer) buy in.
For example – why are NZ cows more methane emitting than those in the rest of the world? If NZ reduces our herd to meet targets – won't other countries simply increase their herd – since there will now be a shortfall in dairy/meat products?
NZ consumers have little interest in seeing the price of butter escalate even further (fewer dairy solids produced, increasing international desire for them, equals higher prices)
If there is an answer to this – then it needs to be widely promoted. Because it's not getting through to the summer barbie conversations.
And people have little comprehension of how 'bad' bad is potentially going to be. While we gripe about storms, the reality is that catastrophic impacts are felt by relatively few people (and they don't know they're going to be affected until it happens).
The other dots that people don't seem to be joining is insurance.
Whenever people want to complain about the cost of living, the massive increases in insurance premiums is often used as an example. But the media never follows up with explaining why insurance keeps going up and up and up.
The answer is obvious but you will struggle to ever find anyone who explains it, or what it is paying for….
You mean other than the minor outlets of Radio New Zealand, The Herald, Stuff, and Consumer NZ? All of which have run stories in the past year linking rising premiums to climate change risk, flood-prone housing, and the lingering costs of Christchurch and Cyclone Gabrielle?
The insurance industry has actually been pretty up-front about what’s driving prices and has repeatedly asked the government for a coherent national policy on climate adaptation.
The problem isn’t that no one’s joining the dots. It’s that people keep ignoring them.
It's not just the insurance premiums impacting the cost of living.
Couple of other points:
Someone has to pay for it and it's usually the people at the end of the chain: customers, tax / rate payers.
Even in a "good" year we probably talking hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, just for NZ. Here some numbers for Australia (The Guardian):
At $4.5bn each year, extreme weather is costing Australia three times as much compared with 1990s
Floods have devalued Australian homes by $42bn. Experts say that’s the cost of ‘a changing climate’
Part of the answer is to come up with politically palatable solutions to the problems we face.
HINT, I don't think there are any. Our nature is to want others to change- farmers, supermarkets, The Chinese…
Truth be told we must change and the pollies and farmers will follow.
I think a plastics tariff might work.
Plastics are intimately linked to long supply chains, excessive consumerism, end up in fish and sea birds stomachs and made by fossil fuels.
Hemp is a viable alternative that decomposes but provides plenty of strength.
The challenge is 'we' here.
The vast majority (if not all) of the plastic products are made overseas and imported here. Everything from the casing around your laptop, through to the plastic packaging protecting it from damp in transit.
How much clout does NZ have internationally to prevent this material being imported? I'd expect, not that much.
About the same amount of clout when we sent a frigate to oppose nuclear testing.
That's the thing about leadership sometimes you have to be first.
The thing about leadership is, if no one follows you, you're not a leader…..
And if you stand still and do nothing, you're also not a leader!
In other news, how has Air NZ managed to run up that loss. Especially given the level of airfares. I guess its just been sucked under by the state of Nicola's economy.
Looking at the article: increased fuel costs (carbon offsetting), engine repairs, shortfall in tourism numbers (internationally & domestically)
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/10/22/air-nz-heading-for-first-half-loss-of-up-to-55-million/
They're anticipating a better 2nd half to the year (will have to wait and see if their expectation is realized)
Poor old Luxon is struggling like the rest of us with the Cost of Living crisis.
Luckily he may be able to put food on the table because the NZH is reporting today that he has managed to get the rates on one of his mansions reduced by $8100 per annum.
"The luxury property at Onetangi Beach, on Waiheke Island, was valued at $10.5 million by Auckland Council in June,… meaning it would have had a rates bill of just over $25000 a year. After an objection to the valuation was lodged, Auckland Council agreed to drop the value of the home by 33% to $7m, records show.This will save the Luxons $8100 on their annual rates bill."
Paywalled.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/prime-minister-gets-rates-relief-after-challenging-luxury-waiheke-property-valuation/2FUUZHZCPVBSJBXTQNUJGU4DVA/
There is a disturbing trend here.
The banks seem to be working with the card businesses to require a (Go Money) wallet to pay online and eventually in the shop.
My own bank claims it is now a requirement of VISA that I have a Go Money wallet for online payments (despite this not being the case for most of my online spending).
It appears of a design to take down eftpos. It also appears to be move to (required) use of a phone wallets for payments.
Banks here seem to be acting as agents for their credit card customers.
Personally I will oppose systems that require a phone (trackable device).
https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/360862183/critics-say-proposed-surcharge-ban-favours-banks-ahead-consumers
Also, having recently been in the situation where my phone was stolen while I was out of the country – I really, really, really valued the fact that my account access for payments (both credit and debit) was *not* on my phone.
It was notable just how many places in London (where I spent most of my time) – were cashless – card or phone payments only. And, I would not regard the UK as at the forefront of financial innovation (rather the reverse)
Well London is the city where phone stealing is more common than anywhere else.
As I know, now, to my cost…..
The one you have, the spare and the next one you want to buy city.
The digital wallet, say Apple Pay, is a very secure method of payment, from the card holder, and the banks perspective. It also allows for your card to be replaced electronically and remotely. Small business don't like this system because the credit card companies have a charge back & fraud detection. Small business actually save money by accepting credit card payments, they are liable for fraud transactions if they don't have the security such as cctv to capture the identity of the card user.
Yes it saves the bank and card company money as to supply and use of physical cards.
Thus they push customers to wallet banking.
This poses a threat to the eftpos system.
If a payment system becomes too singular people are locked out (no phone, lost phone, cannot afford to get one).
I don’t believe that “the banks” wish to be rid of Eftpos, the issue may be the limited technology with eftpos. The plastic cards are a security risk to customers and the banking industry, while the digital wallets are more secure, though that depends upon the customer not sharing devices and log on details.
Unfortunately NZ businesses are generally cheap skates, if you’re old enough you might remember having to add the cheque fee when paying by cheque. Likewise banks always have charged cash handling fees. The electronic payment systems like credit cards and eftpos combined with accounting systems save individual business money on their banking and accounting costs. Although there is one issue, the business owner can’t just take money from the till, and put in down as a loss. Business has done a really great job at pulling the wool over our eyes with the so called “bank visa fee”, they are pocketing the savings or a more efficient accounting and banking system, and then charging you, their customers, and blaming “the banks”
Driving people away from physical cards will impact eftpos.
why can't the plastic cards get updated?
what happens to applepay etc when there's an emergency and people can't charge their phones? I guess retailers that have eftpos services running can provide charging ports, but still.
Useful in these days of rough weather and outages to keep a little waterproof bag of cash, various denominations, in a safe place. Comes in handy I have found when Eftpos goes down or you simply want something done.
how much cash do you have for emergencies if you don't mind saying.
In our bug-out bags we have $200 cash in a small ziploc bag.
Yeah understand your point. This technology is great until a system goes down, like eftpos one Xmas eve a few years ago. It does pay to have some cash, & a spare bank card.
To answer your question about upgrading the plastic cards, digital cards like Apple Pay are now streets ahead in terms of technology, that investing in new card technology just won’t be worth it.
A senior researcher at the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union wants the government to sell the power company shares.
It's motive is to find ways to prevent a resort to CGT and estate taxation (24/36 OECD nations have both) to protect its class interest.
The government has a $16 billion stake in electricity companies.
It also has Transpower, but not Chorus.
The governments response has been to state it would be prepared to provide capital. Thus resolving the "problem".
The question then is one of being a partner to company led investment, or the government providing money for projects that improve system resilience, where companies are their partner – providing leadership and coherence to the totality of the system.
Voters can demand consumer protection via government, whether the government owns shares or not.
Those gains have already been realised without a 100% sale. Raising the value of the public holding.
Profit motivated companies have no interest in the national economic well-being, the government can utilise its stakeholding for this purpose.
The governments stockholding value went up. Thus net debt to assets went down because they were held.
The dividend returns are higher than government debt cost.
This has nothing to do with power company shares and a decision about them. In the business world such deliberate misrepresentation would have a director/directors in jail.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360861588/question-nicola-willis-needed-ask-why-keep-power-companies
Since 1990 it has been the practice of our National led governments to increase the disparity in wages and working conditions (staffing levels) between New Zealand and Australia and bring in migrant workers (more so in health) to manage the loss off staff across the Tasman.
Labour governments had to try and mitigate that (and then are accused of not getting better results for paying staff more).
The National approach (deliberately operating at 80% staffing levels in wards to save money) undermines the health of New Zealanders, is exploitative of workers.
This results in a high turnover rates of staff as per locals and the flow of migrant workers soon out of here to Oz (as soon as they can).
It has to stop.
There needs to a requirement for government to act in a responsible way, as employer. There should be a safe staffing requirement it is held to.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/576695/live-nurses-teachers-doctors-and-others-take-part-in-nationwide-mega-strike
ECA to ERA and onto the Oz level Industry Awards (Fair Pay Agreement)
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360862122/mega-strike-unions-are-back-poetic-timing
Amazing turnout for the march in Palmy North today to support public service workers. Very positive vibes in strong winds, the rain stayed away, and a few fire engines joined in!
Respect Existence or Expect [more] Resistance.
Also, there was a massive turnout in Tāmaki Makaurau.
The crowd was a fine voice, responding positively to speakers & lots of friendliness and good humour on the hikoi.
It was an excellent speech from the firefighter, even tho they aren't actually striking today.
And there were thousands there, IMO, not hundreds.
https://www.tickaroo.com/e/GfDlpKwE8Jj41oeP
This will allow new building (renting out) without subdividing a section. It should be good for factory built businesses (more customers).
It will also allow on site grandparent's or sibling*, or care giver, disabled adults, or adult child* (their own place while saving for a home). And create more properties of this sort on the market.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/10/23/exemption-allowing-granny-flats-to-be-built-consent-free-passes-into-law/
You haven't had to subdivide the section under most Plans. Minor units of max 60 or 65 m2 have been "permitted activities" under a lot of Plans as long as there are no bulk or location infringements in regard to yard setbacks, maximum building coverage etc.
Sure. But building consents were, even sans sub-division, still a cost obstacle. One now reduced.
People have sub-divided for money because they could not afford the building cost option. It was/is a great way to create some retirement saving.
This helps with another option.
Sir Brian may come to regret his public position – union members are Kiwis too.
The NAct1 CoC is ‘government’ by the sorted, very much for the sorted.
Given Aotearoa NZ’s current track, the few robust unions left have little enough to lose.
Two private members bills drawn.
Stuff lead with one – deep fake images.
Just banning it works around existing law as to proving malice to it.
The Post with the other – social media age 16.
How and what social media debates follow (Oz template?).
In a slightly amusing interlude in an absolutely sordid affair, I saw this in the comments section of a Times Radio interview about Andrew and Epstein: