Amy Brooke
New Zealand sociopolitical commentator
In her book The March of Folly, historian Barbara Tuchman pointed out that governments get most decisions wrong.
The implications of this are considerable and, looking at the devastating consequences inflicted on this country by years, indeed decades, of poor decision making, few New Zealanders would argue with her. A succession of egocentric prime ministers have run their parties as if they were CEOs, dominating all decision making and making their MPs toe the line to avoid losing pay and position.
As for prime ministers pulling rank on their MPs, I can recall many instances of this. For example, I recall Christopher Luxon and his deputy Nicola Willis’s condescending putdown of National Party MP Maureen Pugh when the latter stated that she was unconvinced that human activity contributed to climate change. Pugh was referring specifically to the claim that Cyclone Gabrielle had been caused by this. She suggested that much of the ensuing devastation was due to poor tree management. Luxon, apparently as ill-informed on this issue as he is on so many others, declared that climate denial was unacceptable, saying there was no place for “climate deniers” or “minimalisers” in the caucus. Willis stated that Pugh had a lot of reading to do. Pugh then did a very quick turnaround, basically saying she now accepted they would need to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Apart from the sheer folly of New Zealanders being over-taxed and over-controlled in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions, when our government is well aware that we cannot make any difference, it's clear Willis has even more reading to do.
She seems unaware that the last 12 months have witnessed the collapse of the global consensus about climate change. A paper published on 7 April by researchers responsible for creating the models that will underpin the United Nations next climate bible, the 7th Assessment Report, has pronounced the last rites, pointing out that prognostications of doom have become implausible. Yet these have been the foundation of most Western governments’ policies, where we have not only been demonising CO2, but misspending billions of dollars and overestimating the greenhouse effects of methane.
Governments have endorsed the impossible Net Zero by 2050 and signed us up to the prohibitively costly Paris Accord. China and India are making fools of us by using more and more coal. China uses 40 per cent more than the rest of the world combined. India is going full throttle on coal to underpin its economic growth, even though it is committed to reaching Net Zero; it is using well over a billion tonnes of coal annually.
China works to achieve maximum competitive advantage by selling its green paraphernalia to the world, while boasting about its investment in renewable energy. However, China opened 50 coal-fired power stations last year compared with 25 in 2024. Several Asian countries have reverted to coal to generate electricity, with Australian coal producers being one of the winners. In the Netherlands, another country run by deep-green politicians for many years, the prospective closure of its massive gas field has been delayed several times.
It will be interesting to take a look in a future article at the damage some politicians have done to this country. Arguably, former Prime Minister John Key would be among the top few. It was Key who committed us to the Paris Agreement which involved buying carbon credits by paying other countries to reduce emissions. The original intent to purchase more than 200 million carbon credits could add up to $14 billion dollars. New Zealand First is now advocating retreating from the Paris Agreement.
The sheer absurdity of the carbon credits scheme has long been apparent to most New Zealanders, with reputable scientists pointing out that there is no such thing as a scientific consensus that CO2 causes global warming. Australian scientist Ian Plimer, in a Quadrant article of December 2025 headed “Climate Lunacy and the Collapse of Scientific Integrity”, is one of a number of world-renowned scientists who has exhaustively examined and refuted the arguments that we need to control our emissions.
Plimer points out that atmospheric carbon dioxide is invisible, tasteless and odourless: it is not a pollutant but is a plant food and has been beneficial to life on earth for billions of years. He also points out that if all carbon dioxide were removed from the atmosphere, it would certainly cause the death of humans. Plimer also argues that no national energy policy can be underpinned by science that is contentious, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive and demonstrably incorrect. Yet this is what our politicians are endorsing. Even Greta Thunberg has switched to centre-staging Palestinian activism instead.
Our mainstream media is no doubt one of the reasons why our politicians have remained so ignorant about what is in reality a huge hoax that is costing us dearly in terms of productivity, increased taxation and overreaching government control.
Stuff, the New Zealand Herald and other mainstream newspaper editors have long stated that they have no intention of publishing any articles or letters challenging the propaganda constantly inflicted on the public. So much for the debate needed to arrive at the truth of issues and for the previously vaunted ‘freedom of the press’. The media are deliberately practising censorship, with powerful financial interests apparently underpinning their stance. We would do well to shun these and similar publications who continually ask for subscriptions and financial contributions.
Yet is that really enough to excuse our representatives from failing to do their own research or encouraging their staff to do so? To give her due credit, Nicola Willis appears to be changing her stance, showing a marked reluctance to embrace the prohibitively costly carbon credit nonsense. Our biggest liability in this area is apparently Climate Minister Simon Watts, by no means regarded as the sharpest tool in the box, who accompanied the prime minister on a trip to several Asian countries last year where memoranda of understanding were signed with Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines to pave the way for possible purchase of carbon credits in the future. Willis has not endorsed this.
As we examine the overbearing ways in which our prime ministers impose their rule on the members of parliament, we see how badly electoral reform is needed, genuine electoral reform, not mere tinkering with the system. Luxon’s practice of presiding over the National Party as if he were its CEO was also obvious when pro-life National MP Simon O’Connor, celebrated the US Supreme Court’s Roe V Wade decision and posted “Today is a good day” on his Facebook page. Luxon told him to take it down.
Even worse, pro-life Simeon Brown, also apologised for supporting O’Connor in a post and removed his support! Many New Zealanders would find their actions spineless, particularly given that others like pro-abortion Deputy Prime Minister Nicola Willis said she was “gutted for America”, and Jacinda Ardern and ACT leader David Seymour showed no hesitation in voicing their disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Ardern, as prime minister, presided over the worst and most incompetent government we have ever had and had abortion – the deliberate killing of a defenceless unborn child – removed from legislation and decriminalised so it would be treated merely as a health issue. It is far from that – particularly for a living, pre-born child. For Ardern and Seymour, and others, to vote for a baby being aborted right up to the time of birth and for medical care and comfort to be withheld from the baby is inexcusable.
Apart from our overbearing prime ministers, who else behind the scenes is dominating the decision making in this country? Immigration minister Erica Stanford was not pleased to find public service officials within the office of Business, Immigration and Employment (MBIE) misled her and parliament by using creative accounting to hide the failure of a $33 million biometric technology project over seven years. Reportedly this project had cycled through a dozen project managers who brushed aside warnings that it couldn’t deliver.
And then there is the current finding that bureaucrats withhold important reports from local councillors and mayors elected by the public.
So who is running the country? And what about the changes being made to proposals after they have already passed from the select committee – such as the recent attempt to control homeschooling parents and possibly requiring them to adopt the state curricula? The homeschooled syllabus and children with whom I have been involved are academically streets ahead of our children in state schools. Thankfully this proposal had to be abandoned, given the justifiable public outcry.
