I have lost count of the many times I have been asked to post some of the INVESTIGATOR true crime series I made and screened on TVNZ almost 20 years ago.

So I have decided to release some follow up podcasts to a few of the cases to reveal what happened after my investigations went to air.

The first of these is the Mark Lundy case and examines the evidence that led to his conviction at two trials (13 years apart) for the brutal murder of his wife Christine and 7 year old daughter Amber.

You can listen to my 3 part podcast series here:

If you would like to deep dive into this case please go to my new companion substack by clicking on the following link.

thelundycase.substack.com

There you will be able to watch the INVESTIGATOR episode in which I was able to show how Lundy could have committed the murders with evidence that was used by the Crown at his second trial.

You will be able to examine crime scene photos and watch the police interview with Mark Lundy before he was charged with the murders.

Please share this page with anyone you think may be interested in this case.

Share

Get more from Bryan Bruce in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

I think one of the issues that occurs with some politicians -especially Cabinet Ministers- is they develop a sense of entitlement borne of inflated self -importance.. We’ve seen it in Luxon, and more recently Minister for Social Development Louise Upston, by claiming the full $52,000 accommodatian inflated on allowance on properties they own.

ACT Party Children’s Minister Karen Chhour has just joined her self-serving Cabinet colleagues with the revelation by The Press that she spent nearly $17,000 on parking at Auckland Airport between February 2024 and February 2026, with her vehicle parked there for a combined eight-and-a-half months.

Chhour has defended the spending, telling Stuff she prefers to “self-drive” because it is “almost always cheaper” than using Crown cars or taxi services.

That’s bullshit.

I don’t know where she lives in Auckland but as someone who has taken a taxi from the airport to the North Shore in recent months I can tell you it would have saved a lot of tax payer dollars if she had lowered herself into one of the many cabs available. By doing so she would have also contributed to the local economy by hiring taxi drivers.

As Minister for Children she might also have considered how that parking money could have been better spent.

Let’s say she saved $8000 of that $17,000. What could it have bought for kids living in homes below the poverty line.

Well..

229 kids raincoats at $35 each

2670 litres of milk

800 pairs of warm pyjamas at $10 each (see Middledmore Hospital’s Jammies For June Campaign (see https://www.jammiesforjune.org.nz )

This government keeps telling us that these are tough times and we all have to tighten our belts… this of course clearly does not apply Cabinet Ministers .

Subscribe now

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism. As this post has now reached ove 80 ‘likes’ it is now free to read.

By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

Get more from Bryan Bruce in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Try to imagine what 33,000 New Zealand children looks like.

Now think of the reality of a recent report that every one of those children – our nation’s children- are homeless.

You can find that report here:

https://www.coalitiontoendwomenshomelessness.org/waka-huia/research-release-children-and-young-people-experiencing-homelessness

Once you have read it could you explain to me how, as a nation ,we are “back on track” as you touted at the last election.

I also need you to explain to me again how allowing our country’s richest people to get away with paying an effective tax rate of just 8.9% tax on their economic income is making the lives of the many who are living on Struggle Street so much better.

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ird-report-shows-wealthy-nzers-pay-much-lower-tax-rates-other-earners

Because, as I look around me, I see foodbanks struggling to meet an ever-growing demand while Trading Banks (largely overseas owned) announce record profits, and charities having to find shoes ,clothing and even warm pyjamas for kids .

I see foreign mining companies given permission to tunnel for gold under native forests and your coalition government changing the law rather than let the courts decide who, among us, is responsible for polluting our planet and bringing them to account.

This is not the New Zealand I want for our children and their children.

I want us to leave future generations a legacy not a liability.

We are on the wrong track Prime Minister.

Subscribe now

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism.

By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

I

Get more from Bryan Bruce in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Disability Support Bill before parliament really ought to be called the Disability UNSUPPORT Bill because:

1. It determines that families and whānau have the primary responsibility for the wellbeing of their disabled family member and DSS will supply a top-up contribution.

2. It clarifies that family members who are or are not paid to care for a disabled relative are not government employees. This prevents them from claiming minimum wage, holiday pay, or other employment benefits from the state.

3. It grants the Minister powers to establish ministerial programmes to tailor supports, trial approaches and making quick changes to funding settings via secondary legislation.

I am grateful to ACTION STATION for supplying the information for this post because whatever the government may claim about this Bill, the fact is It completely ignores the rights of disabled people to choose their carers and removes the rights of those carers to receive recognition for their skills and labour.

You can sign the petition here:

https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/stop-the-discriminatory-bill-removing-disabled-people-s-rights-ensure-fair-due-process?utm_source=actionstation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blast3951&source=actionstation&bucket=blast3951

It is another instance of the National ACT NZ First Coalition bypassing the Courts , because whānau caregivers recently won a supreme court case to have their skills, care and labour to be recognised by the government.

As a result, this government has decided that, instead of considering the needs of disabled individuals or providing support and acknowledgement for carers of disabled whānau, they would avoid their liability by creating this Disability Support Services Bill.

If this Bill is passed it will:

• make it harder to challenge unfair decisions about support through the Human Rights Commission and the Health and Disability Commissioner,

• let the Government change rules around entitlements without scrutiny; and,

• cancel existing court cases, shutting people out of justice and creating further exclusion.

So, what can we do?

1. Make a submission by 1 pm Friday the 12th (Less than 48hrs!)

https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/54SCSSC_SCF_E6D8596D-C177-486B-CCF2-08DEB47E5457/disability-support-services-bill.

If you need help knowing where to start, here is a Submission Template Lawyer Dr Huhana Hickey has created which you are free to use:

• Submission on the Disability Support Services Bill

• Tēnā koutou katoa.

  My name is __________________

  I do not support the Disability Support Services Bill in its current form.

• Why I am worried about this Bill

  Disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and whānau hauā are already struggling.

  Many things have changed recently, including:

  • cuts to disability supports,

  • changes to funding

  • Inadequate support for ppl having to navigate support services including income support.,.MSD

  • higher housing costs,

  • fewer accessible homes,

  • transport problems,

  • pressure on hospitals, health and wellbeing services ,

  • and welfare changes.

  Life is becoming harder for many disabled people and families.

  This Bill could make things worse.

  My Main Concerns

  1. The Bill treats support like a limited service instead of a right

  Disabled people need support to live safely, have independence, take part in community life, and have dignity.

  Support should not depend on how much money the Government wants to save, or how much unpaid care families can provide. New Zealand agreed to follow the:

  United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  This says disabled people should have equal rights and full participation in society. This Bill does not protect those rights strongly enough.

  2. Families and carers are already exhausted

  Many carers work long hours unpaid, give up jobs, lose income, and become stressed and tired.

  The Bill places more responsibility onto families and whānau. This is unfair.

  The Government should not expect families to carry the burden alone.

  3. The Bill gives too much power to future Governments

  The Bill allows future Governments to change funding rules more easily.

  This could mean less support, stricter rules, or fewer services later on.

  Disabled people need certainty and protection.

  There should be:

  • strong legal rights,

  • fair appeals,

  • and independent oversight.

  4. Disabled people should not be treated as a cost

  Some parts of the Bill focus on saving money and reducing Government risk. Disabled people are not a burden. Support helps people:

  • work,

  • study,

  • care for whānau,

  • volunteer,

  • and live independently.

  Good support benefits everyone.

  Human Rights Concerns

  This Bill may not meet New Zealand’s responsibilities under:

  • the Human Rights Act,

  • the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act,

  • Te Tiriti o Waitangi,

  • and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

  Disabled Māori, tāngata whaikaha and whānau hauā already face major inequalities.

  This Bill could make those inequalities worse.

  What I Want Parliament To Do

  I ask Parliament to:

  1. Stop this Bill in its current form.

  2. Remove parts that place too much responsibility onto families and whānau.

  3. Protect disabled people’s rights properly in law.

  4. Create fair appeals and independent oversight.

  5. Work closely with disabled people, tāngata whaikaha, whānau hauā, Deaf communities, carers, and disability organisations before making major changes

     Conclusion

  Disabled people deserve:

  • dignity,

  • safety,

  • fairness,

  • accessibility,

  • and proper support.

  This Bill risks moving disabled people and nz backwards

  Regards, ________________________

Subscribe now

Thank you to the 157 readers who took part in yesterday’s 24 hours straw poll that asked Are you comfortable with Minister Upston collecting $52,000 a year to live in her own apartment?

The results were:

97% said No

3% said she should take less.

Meanwhile in related news the same Minister is failing miserably to reduce Child Poverty in our country.

A new child poverty report shows the country isn’t on track to meet its 2028 targets.

50,000 more children are living in material hardship than 3 years ago so now 170,000 of our kids ( think the entire population Tauranga) are living without nutritious food, warm clothing and living in overcrowded homes.

Please take a few minutes to listen to Auckland University Emeritus Professor Dr Innes Asher is a retired paediatrician at Starship Hospital who was appointed to the Government’s Welfare Expert Advisory Group in 2018. Dr Innes Asher speaking to RNZ’s to John Campbell this week by clicking on the link below.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019037083/paediatrician-raises-concerns-over-child-poverty-progress

(Pictured PM Luxon and MP Upston)

Subscribe now

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism.

By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

There were some National Party hoardings in my neighbourhood recently inviting the locals to hear Minister of Police and Corrections Mark Mitchell talk about being “tough on crime.”

It’s a slogan designed to manipulate the fearful and the ill- informed

For decades, we have embraced the politics of punishment. Every election brings fresh promises to get tougher on crime. Longer sentences. More prisons. Fewer discounts. Less parole. More inmates.

Yet the evidence from around the world suggests that this approach is expensive, and largely ineffective.

If we genuinely want fewer victims and less crime, we should elect politicians who want to do what has been happening in Norway.

The contrast is striking.

Both countries have populations of about five million, yet we currently hold more than 10,000 people in prison, while Norway holds around 3,000.

We have one of the highest lock up rates in the developed world, with around 180–190 prisoners per 100,000 people.

Norway, on the other hand, imprisons fewer than 60 people per 100,000—roughly one-third of New Zealand’s rate. Or to put it another way, we lock people up at roughly three times the rate of Norway

We spend over $2 Billion a year on Corrections and it costs between $410 and $465 per day to feed and house an inmate

So for that kind of money you’d expect our prison system to be very good at changing criminal behaviour .

It isn’t.

The official stats tell us that 57 out of 100 New Zealand inmates will be convicted of another offence within two years.

In Norway, only about 18–20 will commit another offence within two years.

In other words, our inmate recidivism rate is roughly three times higher than Norway’s.

Moreover, in our racially biased Criminal Justice system Māori - who are about 17% of our population - currently make up just over 50% of the prison population.

And yet politicians continue to act as though the solution to prison failure is more police and more prisons.

It’s like trying to cure alcoholism by building bigger bars

If prisons were the answer, New Zealand should be one of the safest societies on Earth.

We aren’t.

So what do the Norwegians understand about solving the crime problem that we don’t?

It’s not that they are soft on crime.

It’s that they are serious about reducing it.

New Zealand’s justice system is obsessed with punishment.

Norway’s is obsessed with outcomes.

New Zealand asks: “How much suffering does this offender deserve?”

Norway asks: “How do we stop this person offending again?”

Only one of those questions protects future victims.

Norwegian prisons are built around a simple idea: nearly everyone in prison will eventually be released. Therefore the most important question is not what happens while they are inside, but who they are when they come out.

In New Zealand, prison too often functions as a university of crime. People enter damaged and leave more damaged. They lose jobs, housing, family connections and whatever fragile stability they possessed. They emerge with fewer opportunities and more reasons to return to crime.

Then politicians point to the reoffending and demand even tougher sentences.

The system creates failure and then uses that failure to justify itself.

Norway has taken a different path.

Norwegian prisons invest heavily in education, job skills, mental health treatment, addiction recovery and reintegration. Prison officers are trained not simply as guards but as professionals whose job is to help offenders return to society as functioning citizens.

The result is not merely a more humane prison system. but fewer repeat offenders.

And fewer repeat offenders means fewer victims - the only statistic that should matter.

The most revealing difference between New Zealand and Norway is philosophical.

New Zealand’s political debate is driven by emotion.

Norway’s is driven by evidence.

When a horrific crime occurs, New Zealand politicians compete to appear angrier than each other. Every tragedy becomes an opportunity to demand harsher penalties.

Norway asks a colder, harder question:

What actually works?

It’s a question that has some uncomfortable conclusions for punish - driven politicians like Mark Mitchell.

It turns out that the certainty of being caught matters more than sentence length.

It turns out that addiction treatment reduces offending more effectively than imprisonment.

It turns out that stable housing reduces crime.

It turns out that education reduces crime.

It turns out that employment reduces crime.

And it turns out that prisons themselves are often criminogenic — meaning they create the very criminal behaviour they claim to prevent.

None of this fits easily on a campaign billboard.

“Address the social determinants of crime through evidence-based intervention” does not generate applause at political rallies.

“Lock them up” does.

Which is why politicians keep selling a policy that repeatedly fails.

The brutal reality is that prisons do not solve crime. They merely store criminals for a period of time.

Eventually the doors open and the prisoner returns to society.

The only question is whether they return more dangerous or less dangerous than when they entered.

Norway understands this.

New Zealand pretends it doesn’t.

The tragedy is that we already know the evidence. Governments commission reports. Academics produce studies. Corrections officials analyse data. The conclusions are remarkably consistent.

Rehabilitation works.

Prevention works.

Early intervention works.

Education works.

Treatment works.

Yet the political system repeatedly chooses the symbolism of punishment over the substance of crime reduction.

Why?

Because building prisons is visible.

Preventing crime is not.

A politician can stand in front of a new prison and hold a press conference.

Nobody cuts a ribbon for the burglary that never happened.

Nobody celebrates the assault that never occurred.

Nobody notices the victim who never became one.

But that is where real public safety lives.

Norway’s achievement is not that it treats offenders kindly.

Its achievement is that it produces fewer offenders in the first place.

New Zealand’s obsession with being tough on crime has delivered exactly what one would expect: more prisons, more prisoners and an endless demand for more police.

Norway has chosen a harder path.

Instead of asking how many cells it could build, it asked how many souls it could keep out of them.

_______

Lastly a word about today’s photo.

Deprivation is a major driver of crime.

Yet the current coalition government’s most recent budget has made it even tougher for children living in our poorest homes,

Brilliant!

Subscribe now

The generosity of my paid subscribers in giving this post more than 80 ‘likes” means it is now free for anyone to read. Thank you for making my public journalism possible.

Free subscribers - please help out. By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be able to comment on the posts , be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

The greatest amount of learning any human does is in the first 5 years of life, but that’s something of which the coalition government is apparently ignorant, given the meanness of it’s latest budget which gave less than half a percent increase to the operation costs of Kindergartens at a time when inflation is running at over 3 percent.

It’s part of the continuing story about how the economics and politics selfishness of neoliberalism has undermined the well-being of our children by gradually turning one of the most important public goods in society into a marketplace — and how, in the process, the quality of education for many of our youngest children has been eroded.

For much of the twentieth century, early childhood education in New Zealand was largely a community project. Kindergartens, Playcentres, and later Kōhanga Reo emerged from social movements built around child development, whānau participation, and public service.

Government funding for kindergartens began in 1904. Playcentre began in 1941 and received government support from 1946. The influential Bailey Report of 1947 envisioned preschool education as a state-supported public service, and kindergarten teachers eventually became part of the state sector. The idea was simple: early childhood education existed to serve children and communities, not investors.

That began to change in the late twentieth century.

As neoliberal reforms swept through New Zealand, early childhood education increasingly became subject to market logic. Private childcare centres expanded rapidly, and governments of both political stripes continued funding them through a mixed-market model. Today, unlike compulsory schooling, a significant portion of early childhood education is delivered by for-profit companies. Enrolments in traditional community-based services such as Playcentre and kindergarten have declined while private education-and-care centres have grown dramatically.

The defenders of privatisation promised competition, efficiency, and parental choice.

It hasn’t happened.

Research by Professor Linda Mitchell and other early childhood education scholars has repeatedly found differences between community-owned and privately owned services on measures associated with educational quality. Community services consistently employ higher proportions of qualified teachers and are more likely to align with recognised indicators of quality education.

A major survey of nearly 3,000 teaching staff published in 2020 found significant differences between private and community-based centres. Teachers in private centres were less likely to report having time to build meaningful relationships with children, more likely to work with minimum staffing ratios, more likely to experience environments with fewer qualified teachers, and more likely to believe the quality of education in their centre was not good enough for their own children.

That should stop us in our tracks.

When educators themselves say they would hesitate to place their own children in the services where they work, something has gone badly wrong.

Research commissioned by Child Poverty Action Group similarly concluded that the rapid expansion of for-profit provision has been accompanied by declining quality. Scholars Caitlin Neuwelt-Kearns and Jenny Ritchie argue that the market model has created incentives that place commercial interests alongside — and sometimes ahead of — children’s developmental needs.

The reason is not difficult to understand.

High-quality early childhood education is labour-intensive. It depends on qualified teachers, low child-to-teacher ratios, stable staffing, professional development, and strong relationships. These are also the most expensive parts of operating a centre.

For a community service, additional revenue can be reinvested into quality.

For a for-profit business, every dollar spent on staffing is a dollar unavailable to shareholders or owners.

This does not mean every private centre is poor quality. Many are excellent. Nor does it mean community providers are automatically superior.

But it does mean the system itself creates incentives that often pull in opposite directions: one toward educational quality and the other toward financial return.

The funding model compounds the problem.

Private early childhood centres receive government funding based largely on enrolment numbers, hours attended, the age of children, and teacher qualification levels. They also collect fees directly from parents. In practice, taxpayer money and parent fees flow into businesses that may be owned by individuals, corporations, investment groups, or overseas interests. Public money therefore subsidises both educational provision and private profit.

Alongside the market model is, I suspect, the false belief that Early Education is really just baby- sitting which allows for private centres to hire unqualified staff .

Playcentre operates very differently.

Playcentre is a parent-led, not-for-profit model. Funding comes primarily from government operational grants, with centres often relying heavily on volunteer labour, fundraising, and community participation. Rather than extracting profit, resources are directed back into the service itself. Yet Playcentre has struggled under funding systems that were increasingly designed around teacher-led commercial centres rather than community-led models. Researchers examining Playcentre funding have warned that policy settings have undermined the sustainability of many centres, particularly small and rural services.

This is the central contradiction of New Zealand’s early childhood system.

We know from decades of neuroscience and educational research that the first years of life are the most important period of human development. We know quality matters enormously. We know relationships matter. We know teacher qualifications matter.

Yet we have built a system where the fastest-growing providers are often those best positioned to operate at scale and generate returns.

The question is not whether private providers should exist.

The question is why a country that treats primary and secondary schooling as a public good has increasingly treated the education of children under five as a market opportunity.

No serious person would suggest running most primary schools for shareholder profit. Yet somehow we have accepted precisely that model for the years that research consistently identifies as the most critical.

If we genuinely believe the first years of life matter, then our funding policy needs to reflect that belief.

The purpose of early childhood education is not to create a profitable industry.

It is to give children the strongest possible beginning in life.

Subscribe now

The generosity of my paid subscribers in giving this post more than 80 ‘likes” means it is now free for anyone to read. Thank you for making my public journalism possible.

Free subscribers - please help out. By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be able to comment on the posts , be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

OK.. so..fair’s fair . If the government want to use AI to assess people’s benefits then that’s the way we should assess the entitlements of MPs – wouldn’t you agree?

So, with that in mind I used AI this morning to assess the remuneration Chatgpt thought should be paid to list MPs and – surprise, surprise- it suggested a salary reduction.

Here’s what it said.

If I were designing the role from scratch, I’d start with a few principles:

1. The pay should attract capable people who could succeed elsewhere.

2. It should not be so high that it becomes disconnected from the people MPs represent.

3. The salary should compensate for the unusual demands of the role (public scrutiny, frequent travel, irregular hours, job insecurity, inability to easily maintain outside employment).

4. Expenses should be reimbursed separately and transparently, not hidden in salary.

Using those principles, I’d probably place an ordinary list MP somewhere around 1.8–2.2 times the median full-time wage.

Using current NZ earnings:

• Median wage/salary worker: roughly $72,000/year.

• 1.8× median: about $130,000.

• 2.2× median: about $160,000.

That would suggest a fair range of approximately $140,000–$160,000 plus legitimate work expenses reimbursed separately.

The current salary of about $178,000–$181,000 It’s about 2.5× the median wage.

A list MP:

• Is not managing a large organisation.

• Has no direct profit-and-loss responsibility.

• Has a relatively small personal staff.

• Earns substantially more than teachers, nurses, police officers, engineers, tradespeople and most professionals.

From this perspective, a salary around $150,000 would seem sufficient.

_____

OK - now back to me.

The AI change to the Social Security Act is being debated under urgency in Parliament - which means it avoids the select committee process and therefore, public consultation and scrutiny.

Here again we have an example of this right-wing government sidelining the democratic process and in this case to also wanting to dehumanise our welfare system.

And we don’t get the chance to ask Louise Upston (pictured) how much she knows about AI, how it works, its benefits and pitfalls and , if she is so keen on it, whether the whole of parliamentary decision making be handed over to AI and we get rid of politicians altogether!

Not good.

AI and how it should and shouldn’t be used to make decisions that affect our well-being isn’t a matter that should be passed by parliament under urgency. It is a topic that screams out to be heard in Select Committee.

But then, that would be the democratic thing to do.

Subscribe now

The generosity of my paid subscribers in giving this post more than 80 ‘likes” means it is now free for anyone to read. Thank you for making my public journalism possible.

Free subscribers - please help out. By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be able to comment on the posts , be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

I’d like to recommend to you this gutsy speech by Dame Lynda Topp at last week’s Aotearoa Music Awards calling out the government for its lack of support for the arts.

Just click on the link below.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/life/music/dame-lynda-topp-blasts-governement-in-emotional-speech

Social Development Minister Louise Upston collects $52,000 a year to live in a Wellington home that the pecuniary interests register shows has no personal mortgage on , and she says she is “comfortable” with that because she has “followed the rules”- Stuff

OK, let’s unpack the moral issue here.

Should Upston be imposing one standard on struggling New Zealanders while living by another herself?

Her political message to beneficiaries has been consistent: taxpayers should not be expected to endlessly subsidise people’s living costs. Under her watch, welfare recipients face tighter rules, increased scrutiny, harsher sanctions and growing pressure to prove they are sufficiently “deserving” of public support. The underlying philosophy is clear — public money must be carefully controlled, and people should carry more personal responsibility for their own housing and financial pressures.

Yet that principle appears to evaporate when applied to herself.

Upston is effectively arguing that ordinary people asking for help with rent or housing costs are a burden on taxpayers, while her own taxpayer-funded accommodation support is somehow legitimate and untouchable. That’s the moral contradiction at the centre of this issue.

For many New Zealanders, especially those navigating the welfare system, government assistance comes with humiliation, surveillance and suspicion. Beneficiaries are routinely forced to disclose personal finances, justify expenses, attend mandatory meetings and comply with punitive obligations simply to receive modest support. Some are sanctioned for minor breaches or lose payments altogether.

Cabinet ministers, meanwhile, face no equivalent moral scrutiny over entitlements worth tens of thousands of dollars.

That double standard corrodes public trust because it creates the impression of two entirely different moral systems operating at once: austerity for the public, entitlement for the political class.

The moral issue becomes even sharper because Upston is not a neutral administrator — she is the minister actively designing and defending policies that reduce support for others. If she genuinely believes taxpayers should not shoulder excessive accommodation costs, then that principle should apply first and foremost to herself.

Otherwise, the message becomes impossible to ignore: sacrifice is for ordinary people, not politicians like her.

There is also a profound symbolic failure here. Welfare policy is not just about budgets; it is about dignity, fairness and social solidarity. Leaders asking citizens to accept hardship are expected to demonstrate restraint themselves. When politicians appear insulated from the consequences of the policies they impose, resentment becomes inevitable.

The public can tolerate difficult economic decisions when they believe everyone is sharing the burden. What they struggle to accept is a government that preaches discipline downward while protecting privileges upward.

That is why this issue resonates so strongly. It is not envy. It is not anti-politician populism. It is a basic question of ethical consistency.

So …should Upston be imposing one standard on struggling New Zealanders while living by another herself?

My answer is No.

And as someone whose job it is to make “the rules” I would think the morally right thing for Upston to do was to advocate for changing one that allows politicians to rort the expenses system.

If Louise Upston believes taxpayers should pay less toward other people’s accommodation, then she should be prepared to explain why taxpayers should continue paying so much toward hers.

Subscribe now

The generosity of my paid subscribers in giving this post more than 80 ‘likes” means it is now free for anyone to read. Thank you for making my public journalism possible.

Free subscribers - please help out. By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be able to comment on the posts , be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

As part of that doco I had the privilege of interviewing Lynda and Jools Topp - The Topp Twins.

I was saddened to hear of Dame Jools’ passing earlier this week, so I thought I would post this little clip from the documentary in fond memory of her.

I’ve made it free to share.

Dame Jools Topp

1958- 2026

Share

There used to be a popular American TV comedy show called Hogan’s Heroes.

It was a really dumb show, supposedly based in a World War 2 German POW camp in which the very clever ( of course!) American prisoners secretly ran espionage and sabotage missions from inside the camp while fooling the really dumb German guards.

And the dumbest guard of all was Sergeant Schultz, played by the late John Banner.

Whenever Schultz witnessed some untoward prisoner activity or overheard something he should n’t, Hogan would find a way of compromising him .

So in every episode Schultz would inevitably come out with his catch phrase…

“I know nothing ! Nothing!!!”

I don’t know if the Prime Minister ever watched that show when he was a kid, but yesterday he gave a pretty good impression of Sgt Schulz when he claimed he knew nothing about the lobbying documents from Fonterra and Z Energy seeking to amend sections of our climate change laws - in order to ward off the High Court action by climate activist Mike Smith over the damage to our environment and our well-being caused by the greenhouse gas emissions by the activities of those companies.

If you ever needed a prime example of how Big Business gets whatever it wants from this right -wing coalition government, this would be it.

And having been caught out, what did Luxon do at yesterday’s press conference?

He became Sergeant Schultz.

“I know nothing! Nothing!!”

Subscribe now

The generosity of my paid subscribers in giving this post more than 80 ‘likes” means it is now free for anyone to read. Thank you for making my public journalism possible.

Free subscribers - please help out. By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription