Your Daily Ten@10 - 2025/190

This is edition 2025/190 of the Ten@10 newsletter.

Hi all,

This is the Ten@10, where I collate and summarise ten news items you generally won't see in the mainstream media.

Enjoy!

• 🧠 Old Ideas, New Branding – Labour’s “Future Fund” is marketed as innovation but echoes 1970s-style economic interventionism.
• 👓 “Temu Chris” and “Red Muldoon” Jabs – Critics mock Chris Hipkins’ announcement, comparing him to Robert Muldoon and Winston Peters’ “Temu” insult.
• 💼 The Policy Pitch – The “New Zealand Future Fund” will start with a $200 million government injection and some Crown assets to invest in NZ businesses, infrastructure, and innovation.
• 🏦 Modeled on NZ Super Fund – Labour says the new fund will use the NZ Super Fund’s “Guardians” model but focus on domestic investment instead of offshore.
• 🧾 Vague Details, Real Risks – Key details like which assets, sectors, and scale are missing. Promised “social and financial” returns could clash.
• 👏 Union Approval – The Public Service Association and union allies quickly praised the policy as visionary and protectionist of state assets.
• 💣 ACT’s Rejection – ACT derided it as “another cleanup job” and a “disaster-in-a-can,” referencing past failures like the Green Investment Fund.
• 🐷 Winston Peters’ Fury – Peters accused Labour of copying NZ First’s 2023 “Future Fund” policy, calling Hipkins a “Temu mail-order rip-off.”
• 🤝 Coalition Speculation – Observers suggest Hipkins might be courting NZ First to replace Te Pāti Māori, though Peters has ruled out working with him.
• 📉 National’s Response – Christopher Luxon dismissed the plan as “pictures, buzz words and jargon,” highlighting its lack of substance.
• 💸 Taxpayers’ Union Critique – Called the idea a “trip back to the 1970s,” warning that “if government-backed venture funds worked, North Korea would be Silicon Valley.”
• 🧮 Economists’ Concerns – Analysts like Michael Reddell and Ben Thomas warned the policy disguises spending as saving and expands government control without market discipline.
• 💰 Symbolic Funding – $200 million is too small for meaningful national development; true infrastructure investment needs billions.
• ⚖️ Conflicting Mandates – Balancing financial and social goals risks failure in both wealth creation and welfare outcomes.
• 🏛️ Political Risks – With the Finance Minister as sole shareholder, “national interest” could be politically manipulated.
• 🏗️ Opportunity Cost – Critics argue the money would be better spent fixing essential services or lowering taxes to attract real investment.
• 🌀 History Repeating – The Future Fund risks joining a list of overambitious, underdelivered Labour projects like Kiwibuild and KiwiRail.
• 🛣️ National’s Countermove – On the same day, the Government unveiled $12 billion for new highways and infrastructure—a tangible contrast to Labour’s abstract proposal.
• ⚙️ Two Visions of Investment – Labour focuses on institutional, long-term economic planning; National on physical, immediate infrastructure delivery.
• 🏁 Public Perception Battle – For voters, roads are measurable; funds are metaphors—National’s concreteness may trump Labour’s concept.