Similar Posts

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 Comments

  1. This is a real tragedy from the NZ I grew up in. Of course neo liberalism was still fresh and shiny in the 90s.

  2. NZ has a low accountability culture – so it’s always ‘systemic failings’ rather than the fault of individuals’ making wrong or corrupt decisions.

    We have the low accountability culture because it keeps social harmony in the small workplaces and communities we still live in. No one likes the person who keeps asking ‘who was responsible or whose job was it?’
    The PMC loves the low accountability culture because it protects them from losing their jobs and social status.

  3. Being the least corrupt country out of many that were part of the international corruption index was always another New Zealand myth.

    Arthur Allan Thomas and Erebus showed we are no different to other western nations and there have been numerous other examples since the 1970s.

    The real slide began with that shyster Key and then has deteriorated much faster under the coalition government.

    Since Key’s infamous examples and being re elected again showed me that New Zealanders values and expectations and just simply turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and cover ups by their government meant very little as long as they continued to prosper or just simply accepted the bullshit and misrepresentation as fact.

    A state-assisted corruption scheme

    Politicians defend their practice of taking huge bribes from the rich in the form of election “donations” by saying that its all out in the open: we can see who is buying them, we can see what they do in exchange and make sure that there is no “undue” influence (as opposed to the “due” influence they have paid for?), and so there is no problem. This is obviously false, and the current regime’s actions and the flood of money they have received from fast track applicants, polluters, honors recipients, and other parties with a direct financial interest in their decisions shows that. But even if it were true, there’s still a problem: because New Zealand law still allows parties to receive vast amounts of money in total secrecy, so we do not in fact get to see who is buying them after all.

    New Zealand politics has a growing integrity problem. Bryce Edwards, Director of The Integrity Institute, says New Zealanders should start demanding a clean-up of an increasingly dirty political system.

    ALARM BELLS sounded last Tuesday about the integrity of New Zealand politics. Global integrity watchdog Transparency International released its annual Corruption Perception Index, showing that New Zealand had dropped its ranking and score again. Since then, there’s been much talk about the urgent need to fix problems in regulating corporate lobbying that Transparency International says tarnishes New Zealand’s democracy.

    Chris Hipkins has chosen Andrew Kirton to run the Beehive. According to fellow corporate lobbyist Neale Jones, ‘Andrew Kirton is great pick for Chief of Staff. Sharp political mind and a genuinely lovely guy’. But, as Bryce Edwards observes, ‘the conflicts of interest involved in having corporate lobbyists come in and run governments are immense. In other countries, it would be illegal.’

    NEW ZEALAND is the second least corrupt country on earth according to the latest Corruption Perception Index published yesterday by Transparency International. But how much does this reflect reality?
    https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2026/08/a-state-assisted-corruption-scheme.html

    https://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.com/2023/02/andrew-kirton-problem-with-corporate.html

    https://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.com/2025/02/kiwis-are-waking-up-with-alarm-to-new.html

  4. Thank you MB. The Mt Albert Medical Centre is the part of this story that sickens and disgusts me most.

    If the reported account is correct, this is an extraordinary example of what happens when professional responsibility, basic humanity and common decency are apparently subordinated to bureaucracy and indifference.

    A man had collapsed and was dying on the footpath right outside this medical centre. Members of the public went inside desperately seeking medical assistance. Yet the reported response was essentially, “No, he isn’t our patient so we won’t assist.” Apparently even access to a defibrillator was refused.

    If that account is correct, what an utterly shameful indictment of a medical practice. In essence, it is saying – “let him die, we don’t care because he is not one of our patients.”

    One might have thought that when a person is dying, literally on your doorstep, the distinction between “our patient” and “not our patient” would become rather less important than simply saving a human life.

    The Hippocratic Oath may be ancient, but surely the basic concept behind it has not yet been declared obsolete: a medical professional confronted with a person in serious medical distress should, at the very least, try to help.

    Instead, we appear to have witnessed the spectacle of people including medical professionals in a medical centre apparently finding reasons not to help a dying man immediately outside their own premises. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    And if their response is to retreat behind technicalities, policies, explanations and self-justification rather than confronting the profound moral failure they exhibited, represented by what has been reported, then that is as disturbing as the refusal to assist the dying man.

    A medical qualification does not automatically confer compassion, courage or humanity. These qualities should be inherent in good decent people, especially medical professionals and their assistants, including reception staff in a medical centre.

    Sometimes the most damning judgment of an institution is not what it did — but what it could have done and chose not to do. The Mt Albert Medical Centre is a classic example of this.

    1. Yes totally agree.
      The whole medical centre staff should be sacked and lose their medical licenses if they hold any.
      To them it seems the Hippocratic oath means nothing.

  5. As I’ve written here, many, many times before. AO/NZ’s more bent than something that’s extremely bent.
    The bending started in 1936 when two bent political parties bent the national party into a bent existence. And from there, the bending proper began. The National Party formed in 1936 through the amalgamation of conservative and liberal parties, Reform and United respectively thus the fuse was lit and the bending began. I’m not going to waste my time going into the cracks and folds of the cats arse hole on this one because I’m getting bored with it except to write ; follow the money. Who earns our money? Who spends our money. What journey’s does our money go on. How come multi-billionaires, multi-millionaires, a crippled agrarian primary industry economy and homelessness and poverty and Auckland and Gulf Streams flying in and out of ZQT and the Ferrari’s and the Bentleys and the multi-million dollar pied-à-terre’s ? Tourism? Auckland’s Queen Street? Farmers? Think about it. Take your time.

  6. The idealogy in ‘old zealand’ was the local populace elect a council or a power board. People on the board were practical people and the local body hired engineers, linesman and gardeners directly. It was a low cost model and it built a nation.

    Now its all consultants, main chance former bureacrats and contractors inserting themselves into the rates and tax flow.