The Prime Minister’s attempt to dress up asset sales as “capital recycling” doesn’t change what it really is – selling off New Zealanders’ assets and losing public control.
“The PM’s claims today that governments should ‘recycle’ assets ignores history and will be opposed.
“History shows us what really happens – we lose ownership, we lose control, and taxpayers end up footing the bill when privatisation fails,” said Fleur Fitzsimons, National Secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi.
“To talk about ‘recycling’ assets is offensive to the public sector workers who work hard to add value to public assets every day. This is just more of the same from a government which has laid off thousands of public sector workers.
“Christopher Luxon wants a ‘mature conversation’ about asset sales – well here it is: New Zealanders rejected this failed ideology in a citizens-initiated referendum in 2013 where two-thirds voted against asset sales.
“Kiwi Rail, Air New Zealand, the Bank of New Zealand – all required expensive bailouts and buy-backs after failed privatisations. Have we learnt nothing?
“The PM says governments need to ‘refresh their holdings’ – what New Zealand needs is a government that properly invests in and maintains public assets instead of running them down to justify selling them off.
“Asset sales are just short-term thinking that leave New Zealanders worse off in the long run. This isn’t ‘recycling’ – it’s a loss of ownership and control that we’ll regret.”
– Meat companies using own inspectors a clear conflict of interest
– Raises risk of contaminated and diseased meat being exported
– Jobs and wages of inspectors likely to be cut
The Government’s proposal to require the replacement of independent government food safety inspectors with company-employed ones threatens New Zealand’s hard-won reputation for food safety and puts export markets worth $10 billion a year at risk.
The Ministry for Primary Industries has issued a draft Animal Products Notice that proposes privatising export meat inspection services. This would require all meat processing companies to hire their own inspectors instead of using independent inspectors provided by AsureQuality.
“This is reckless deregulation – why would you put New Zealand’s gold-standard food safety reputation at risk?” said Fleur Fitzsimons, National Secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi.
“It’s irresponsible for the Government to force this on meat companies – there is no option proposed for companies to keep using the tried and trusted approach of respected AsureQuality inspectors.
“It just makes no sense. Independent meat inspection isn’t broken. There is no good reason to privatise it, and every reason not to.
“For decades, independent meat inspection has given overseas buyers and consumers the confidence that our meat is safe and high quality.
“When inspectors are employed by the very companies they’re scrutinising, there’s an obvious conflict of interest. Company-employed inspectors will face pressure to prioritise production over food safety.
“We’re talking about faecal contamination and diseased meat potentially reaching supermarkets because inspectors are under pressure from their employer. Faecal matter contains salmonella, campylobacter and e.coli which cause serious food poisoning. Why risk making shoppers in European supermarkets sick?”
The proposal may mean no independent inspectors on critical ‘detain rails’ where contaminated meat is inspected and defective product removed.
“New Zealand’s red meat exports are worth $10 billion annually. One food safety scandal could wipe billions off our export earnings. Why take that risk?”
The proposal also threatens the jobs and working conditions of hundreds of experienced meat inspectors in rural and provincial New Zealand who face losing their jobs or having to work for the meat companies.
“Many inspectors are long serving and highly experienced. Some will retire or go offshore and be lost to the industry in the absence of any plan to retain them.
“The only winners here are the meat companies – mainly foreign-owned – who will boost their bottom lines by driving down the wages and working conditions of inspectors.
“This is the same pattern we’ve seen across the economy – deregulation that benefits business while workers and consumers carry the risk.
“The Government must scrap this dangerous proposal and maintain the independent meat inspection system that has served New Zealand so well.”
Note:
The Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi is Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest trade union, representing and supporting more than 95,000 workers across central government, state-owned enterprises, local councils, health boards and community groups.
The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) has condemned the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill in its submission to the Environment Select Committee, warning that it will further weaken environmental safeguards, erode public participation, and undermine constitutional checks and balances.
“Despite being presented by the Government as a focused, technical measure to improve competition in the grocery sector, it is nothing of the sort. The word ‘grocery’ appears once in the entire Bill,” said EDS Chief Operating Officer Shay Schlaepfer.
“The Bill’s real effect is to give the Minister more influence in fast-track decisions, to gut environmental and public scrutiny and to impose unrealistic deadlines. From every angle – environmental, democratic, and constitutional – this Bill makes a shocking law even worse.
“A central concern is the proposal to allow a new Government Policy Statement (GPS) to define what constitutes “regional or national benefit”. Panels would have to consider the GPS when deciding whether to approve projects, meaning the Minister could effectively pre-determine the benefits of certain industries or developments.
“It opens the door for Ministers to declare that entire classes of projects – say coal mines or large infrastructure – are automatically ‘beneficial’. That is a significant shift in power away from independent expert panels.
“There are no guardrails on the development of a GPS. Public consultation on it is not required. It is an unfettered power.
“The Bill also severely constrains community and NGO participation, by further limiting when panels can invite input from groups other than councils. Currently, panels can seek input from any person or organisation they consider appropriate. Under the Bill, panels will only be allowed to invite comment from others if local councils don’t intend to provide their own feedback.
“In practice, communities and environmental groups will be largely shut out. Councils are already under intense time pressure and resource strain. They cannot be expected to speak for everyone who has a stake in these projects.
“Even if panels do invite others to provide comment, those people will no longer be able to appeal on points of law to the High Court. Access to justice is being slashed, and we can expect to see community anger being funnelled into judicial review.
“The Bill also:
Imposes arbitrary 60-day decision timeframes for expert panels on complex proposals;
Allows significant project modifications to be approved once inside the fast-track system with reduced scrutiny;
Gives applicants an effective veto over panel members by allowing challenges to their impartiality; and
Enables Ministerial direction of the EPA, undermining its independence.
“Rather incredibly, the Bill proposes giving the Crown power to amend aspects of the Fast-track Approvals Act directly through Order in Council, bypassing Parliament. This usurps the constitutional role of the legislature, and is what is known as a Henry VIII clause. We have written to the Attorney-General to express our deep concern.
“The public has been given only seven working days to make submissions on the Bill. The deadline is 17 November 2025. EDS is publishing its submission early to help others get involved in the process.
“In our submission we recommended that the most problematic provisions – including the GPS power, constraints on participation, applicant veto of panel members, the Henry VIII clause, and Ministerial direction of the EPA – be removed.
“At a minimum, these changes need to be withdrawn. But more fundamentally, the fast-track law itself remains deeply flawed. It is time to re-examine or repeal it,” concluded Ms Schlaepfer.
The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) commends the Prime Minister Christoper Luxon, the Minister of Police Mark Mitchell, and the Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee for taking a sensible, measured, and pragmatic approach in the recently announced changes to the firearms legislation, said Abdur Razzaq, Chairperson, FIANZ Advocacy. We particularly appreciate that the current status quo remains with respect to Military-Style Semi-Automatics (MSSA).
FIANZ welcomes the healthy balance between safeguarding public safety for all communities and the operational safety of frontline responders, while also recognising and respecting the rights of firearms licence-holders. This is a significant milestone of firearms safety.
FIANZ is encouraged that the safety of all New Zealanders remains a central pillar of the reforms. Since the tragic events of March 15, 2019, the Muslim community and the wider public have understood the devastating impact that misuse of firearms can have on our society. It is good to see that the trajectory of safety remains, said Abdur Razzaq.
Te Pāti Māori stands in solidarity with NZEI Te Riu Roa, the National Iwi Chairs Forum, and kura across Aotearoa who have made it clear that Te Tiriti o Waitangi will not be erased from our classrooms. Te Pāti Māori will restore Te Tiriti protections to education law within the first 100 days when in government.
This Government has torn Te Tiriti from our education law.
“It is an act of ideological vandalism and a deliberate choice to silence the Māori Crown relationship in the one place every child passes through: our schools,” said Co-Leader Debbie Ngarewa Packer.
“When the Crown retreats from Te Tiriti, our kura rise to meet it,” said Co-Leader Rawiri Waititi. “This is not a debate about policy wording. It is about power, partnership, and truth. Our educators are standing where this Government has failed, on the side of justice.”
“We stand proudly with every kura, every kaiako, and every whānau who refuse to let Te Tiriti be diminished,” said Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. “They are showing courage and integrity in a time when both are in short supply. That is mana motuhake in action.”
Te Pāti Māori condemns the Minister of Education’s handling of this change, rushed through Parliament without consultation and without honesty. The Government has stripped school boards of their duty to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, weakening the foundations of partnership and accountability across the education system.
“Education is where our tamariki learn who they are,” said Ngarewa-Packer. “When we teach truth, we build belonging. When we erase Te Tiriti, we erase the heart of this country.”
“We are the only movement in this House that fights for our people, whether they vote for us or not,” added Waititi. “We do it out of love, out of duty, and because Te Tiriti is not theirs to erase. It is ours to uphold.”
Te Pāti Māori reaffirms its commitment to restoring Te Tiriti protections in education law when it returns to Government, ensuring every school and kura is guided by the principles of partnership, participation, and protection.
A Green Party co-leader, a Marxist, a Business journalist, a Māori Broadcaster, the former Attorney General and a former Labour Party Leader all walk into a bar and the barman says,
1 on 1 in 10 tonight is Green Party Co-Leader Chloe Swarbrick on banning homelessness, selling assets, COP30 and can the Greens work with the Māori Party?
Political Panel tonight is:
Business Journalist Dita De Boni
Broadcaster and Political Commentator Matthew Tukaki
Former Labour Leader Phil Goff
Former Attorney General Chris Finlayson
TOPICS:
Is making the homeless more homeless a solution as Economy melts down?
New anti-Meth policy – will it work?
Cook Islands vs NZ vs China vs Drones
Te Pati Maori dramas vs Labour Party need for stability
Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.
The Editor doesn’t moderate this blog, 3 volunteers do, they are very lenient to provide you a free speech space but if it’s just deranged abuse or putting words in bloggers mouths to have a pointless argument, we don’t bother publishing.
All in all, TDB gives punters a very, very, very wide space to comment in but we won’t bother with out right lies or gleeful malice. We leave that to the Herald comment section.
EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist abuse, homophobic abuse, racist abuse, anti-muslim abuse, transphobic abuse, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, Qanon lunacy, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics, 5G conspiracy theories, the virus is a bioweapon, some weird Bullshit about the UN taking over the world and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.
Mayor Wayne Brown says he welcomes any Government law change to empower police to forcibly move homeless out of Auckland’s city centre – insisting it’s the Prime Minister’s job, not his, to eliminate the city’s “scruffy” characters.
Brown told the Herald Auckland Council has done all it can to solve the problem of rough sleepers’ intimidating, drunken behaviour in the city centre, but the bylaws available to him are weak.
“I had to put up with the Prime Minister telling me that the town is scruffy. The town looks good, but the people in it are scruffy,” Brown said.
“The thing is that we’re [Auckland Council] responsible for places. But the Government makes the rules about people’s behaviour. It’s a people problem. Bylaws are a very weak thing.
The Boomer King is in competition with the Eggman to see who can be the biggest arsehole towards the homeless.
They both want to make the homeless even more homeless.
Here is what is so outrageous about this plan.
1 – It was this Government that cut back on the food banks.
2 – It was this Government ahh cut back on outreach to the Homeless.
3 – It was this Government altho changed the Emergency Housing Rules and threw all these people out into the street with no where to go.
Now they are so embarrassed and ashamed at the poverty they have created, they want to gloss over it and make it invisible by giving cops new powers to rough them up.
The immorality of banning the homeless while exacerbating more homelessness should shame every single one of us.
I think it’s important that if you voted National, ACT, NZF or Wayne Brown that you are forced to witness the manifestation and reality of those cruel social policies.
Why should you be allowed to walk the streets without guilt?
You made these people’s bed, unfortunately it’s on the very streets you now wish to walk on.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
Treasury is nudging the Government to sell state assets that are underperforming or are no longer fit for purpose.
It is continuing to sound alarm bells over the Crown’s finances being on an “unsustainable” path forward.
The Crown isn’t bringing in enough revenue to keep the lights on. Debt is not only being used for capital expenditure, but to cover operating costs.
This is occurring as the books haven’t yet recovered from the period around the Covid pandemic and Cyclone Gabrielle, and costs associated with an ageing population are set to soar.
Treasury has repeatedly made the point that future governments will need to hike taxes and/or cut spending to prevent the Crown’s books from spiralling further into the red.
The ease with which these rich right wing pricks use your petty culture war bigotries to distract you with malice while they quietly mutilate the state truly is an amazing Kiwi super power.
Your hate for da Maaaarees.
Your hate for da Trans.
Your hate for Māori road signs.
Your hate for empathy, sympathy and nuance.
All manipulated so the Government can manufacture a debt crisis to justify selling state assets to their wealthy crony capitalism mates while strangling the common good for their donors interests.
How do you allow yourselves to be so easily played?
Look at this…
…We get right wing trolls screaming Labour spent all the money on Covid and that’s why we have to bend the knee to corporations taking over our public services now.
I’m sick of Kiwis cutting their Jacinda off to spite their race.
Damning Jacinda for having the temerity to save 20 000 lives during once in a. century pandemic while ensuring the country kept functioning is the height of hindsight arrogance.
Couple of things about the debt.
Key left NZ with $60 billion debt!
Labour borrowed $80 billion!
This Government will borrow $120 billion with an austerity budget that hollows out public services while giving landlords tax loop holes, the richest tax cuts, hundreds of millions to gas and oil, Big Tobacco and Real Estate Pimps!
Labour’s defence is a once in a century pandemic, National have done it running down public services to give tax cuts and tax breaks to wealthy pricks.
This Government has manufactured a debt crisis while bowing billions for tax cuts, landlord tax loop holes, Big Tobacco, Gas and Oil and French Michelin stars.
Don’t lecture us on debt again you redneck Trolls!
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
Why New Zealand Must Stop Selling Its Future to Pay Rent on Its Own Money
There is a shift happening in the global economy right now that New Zealand media and policymakers seem to have missed.
The world’s major powers (the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, India, and the Gulf States) are no longer relying on private investors to secure access to the raw materials and industrial systems that underpin national strength.
They are using state-backed credit.
Public credit. Social credit. Sovereign credit creation. Debt free dollars. National Reserve curency issue. Call it what you will, it’s all the same thing. A nations currency. Our money, issued in our name, at low to no interest, to serve strategic national objectives.
Such issue is not a debt, it’s an asset. Because we own it.
Because we have extended the credit to ourselves to invest in wealth creation, it should also provide a return on our investment. As it used to.
That our leaders choose not to try and improve things is a disgrace.
There is a sovereign path, and it’s
Not charity.
Not “free markets.”
Not “foreign direct investment.”
It’s Strategic credit directed through:
National development banks,
Export-credit agencies,
Sovereign wealth funds, and
State-owned resource and energy corporations.
These institutions are being used to acquire control of critical minerals, energy supply chains, industrial processing, and food systems—not for short-term profit, but for national security and geopolitical leverage.
And this is not speculation.
This is public policy.
Evidence: How Major Powers Are Securing Resource Sovereignty
United States
Since 2021, the U.S. has used the Defense Production Act Title III to fund domestic and allied critical mineral production.
The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) now provides direct equity financing for mining and mineral processing projects abroad.
(Source: U.S. DFC Product Overview):
https://www.dfc.gov/our-products/direct-equity
The U.S. also uses the Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, which holds up to $250 billion in strategic credit authority to rebuild industrial capacity.
(Source: U.S. DOE LPO):
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/loan-programs-office
This is not “the free market.”
It is state-backed industrial strategy.
China
China has used state development banks to secure energy and minerals worldwide since the 1990s.
China Development Bank and ExIm Bank of China issue strategic overseas resource loans. (Source: Center for Global Development Database): https://www.cgdev.org/publication/chinese-development-finance-database
The Belt & Road Initiative formalises resource-for-infrastructure agreements. (Source: World Bank BRI Report, 2019): https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/
This is resource access backed by sovereign credit.
Japan
Japan’s JOGMEC provides state-backed equity and risk guarantees for overseas mineral and energy acquisition.
(Source: JOGMEC Mandate, Government of Japan):
https://www.jogmec.go.jp/english/
After China restricted rare earth exports in 2010, Japan strategically financed non-Chinese supply chains.
India acquires external oil, gas, and minerals through ONGC Videsh, backed by state credit.
(Source: ONGC Videsh Overview):
https://www.ongcvidesh.com/about-us/
Gulf States
Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar use sovereign wealth funds / public investment funds to secure global mining, agriculture, and food supply chains.
(Source: PIF Global Investment Strategy):
https://www.pif.gov.sa/en/Pages/default.aspx
Meanwhile, New Zealand…
New Zealand remains locked inside a 1980s ideological framework that betrays us all. It
Prohibits sovereign credit issuance for development (Public Finance Act 1989; Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994)
Forces NZ to borrow its own currency from commercial banks at interest
Requires selling land, infrastructure, energy, and resource rights to obtain foreign capital
This is not “investment.”
It is structural dependency. We have been pimped out to the finance sector.
And now, with the U.S. and China competing for control of global resource supply, New Zealand is positioned not as a partner—but as a supplier to be captured. Fuck that.
The Real Issue
Capital is no longer scarce.
Private finance is no longer the primary mode of nation-building.
What is scarce now is sovereignty.
If we continue selling:
geothermal baseload heat
critical minerals
water systems
agricultural land
ports and fiber networks
housing and food infrastructure
…we will be tenants in our own country.
The Sovereign Alternative
We can rebuild national economic independence by:
Amending the Public Finance Act
Establishing a National Development Bank
Issuing sovereign credit to fund:
Electrified national rail
Geothermal industrial heat networks
Critical mineral refining in NZ
Regenerative agriculture and sea-farming
Affordable, non-speculative housing
This is not new.
This is how New Zealand built everything worth having between 1936 and 1989.
Wealth builds life.
Life builds wealth.
Sovereignty is priceless.
Labour and nact first anre all betraying us.
Each one teach one. Share this post, and talk about it at work tomorrow! Xxx
The land campaign remains firmly centred on Donetsk where Russia and Ukraine continue to contest the town of Pokrovsk. The battle is important to both sides. If Russia captures Pokrovsk, it will hold an important road and rail hub that can be used as a base to capture more of Donetsk.
Specifically, Russia wants to ‘break into’ the belt of fortified cities and towns that are Ukraine’s last foothold in the Donetsk Oblast. A defensive line based on the cities and towns of Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka and Kostyantynivka. If Russia can take these cities and towns, it will completely control Donetsk, and therefore the Donbas (the region containing both Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts). Losing Pokrovsk will be a blow for Ukraine, but it is unlikely to be fatal.
At operational-level, Pokrovsk is important because capturing it would provide Russia with the logistics base it needs to attack Ukraine’s ‘Fortress Belt.’ If Russia captures Pokrovsk, it does not mean the ‘Fortress Belt’ will fall but Russia would be able to get a ‘foot in the door.’ In turn, that would influence the wider campaign because without Pokrovsk it becomes harder for Ukraine to supply and support the defence of Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka and Kostyantynivka.
Strategically, it is noteworthy that losing Pokrovsk is a propaganda blow for Ukraine. Russia has invested extensively in presenting its own propaganda based on the narrative that Russian victory is inevitable. Successful disinformation that has contributed to the US’s slow response to requests for support. Every Russian victory reinforces this disinformation campaign, and contributes to the idea that Russia cannot be defeated.
Losing Pokrovsk would be a tough blow for Ukraine when there are hints that its strategic situation in improving. Specifically, after President Trump surprised observers last week by issuing new sanctions on companies shipping oil out of Russian. Trump also deferred any discussions with Putin indefinitely, giving his former friend the diplomatic ‘cold shoulder.’ Although the President’s action provides only limited support for a set of existing NATO sanctions the decision will impact economically on Russia, further reducing revenue from trade. It may also signal a new approach from the White House, that may cause some concern in the Kremlin.
The battle for Pokrovsk
This week the battle for Pokrovsk has lost none of its intensity. Small teams of Russian soldiers have infiltrated into Pokrovsk and are working together to slowly try and takeover the town. The situation is difficult and last weekend Ukraine reinforced Pokrovsk rushing special forces into the battle to strengthen the defences[i]. Notably, on 4 November, Ukraine’s President Zelensky visited troops in the area[ii] and Ukrainian official sources remain ‘bullish’ about holding the town.
Last week, I opined that Ukrainian leaders would be seriously considering whether to remain in Pokrovsk, and suggested that it may be better for them to withdraw. Pokrovsk is surrounded to the north and west by open country, ground that could be dominated by Ukrainian drones to prevent Russian forces from exploiting the town’s capture. However, this activity is evidence that indicates withdrawal is not Ukraine’s plan.
Although the Ukrainian government claims it can hold the town, there is evidence that the fall of Pokrovsk may be imminent. Recently, the BBC reported that “While Ukraine’s official position is that it is holding its own against Russia, military personnel cited by a war correspondent for Ukraine’s Hromadske website said Ukrainian troops were outnumbered and more than 1,000 soldiers were at risk of becoming surrounded.”[iii] At this point Russia has huge resources committed to the attack and has developed a tactical system that appears to be working. The map below shows the situation a week ago (on the left) and how the Russians have slowly but surely expanded their foothold in the town. See the red circle.
But it is noteworthy that although Russia is advancing in Pokrovsk, Ukraine continues to slowly reduce the Russian salient north-east of the town. See the blue circle on the map. A situation that indicates Ukraine has some capacity available, and that not all its force is committed to the fight for Pokrovsk.
Can Ukraine hold Pokrovsk?
Whether Ukraine can hold Pokrovsk is impossible to judge and there are arguments both ways. For example, Russia appears to have developed a tactical system that allows it to advance, albeit slowly. The system is based on infiltration and evidence of its success is the steady rate of advance on the south-west axis of attack into Pokrovsk.
Regardless of changes in tactics, Russia has committed enormous resources to the battle for instance; tens of thousands of soldiers including elite units, drones and electronic warfare resources. The attacking force vastly outnumbers the Ukrainian force defending the town, making Russian success more likely.
However, it would be wrong to ‘write off’ Ukraine at this point because Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to hold a key town. Ukraine has defended Chasiv Yar against a long siege, and stills holds this important town. Like Pokrovsk, Chasiv Yar is a town that provides access into the ‘Fortress Belt’ so is operationally important.
Another notable feature of Chasiv Yar is that it is located within drone and artillery range of another small urban area, Kostyantynivka about 10 km to the east. This proximity means that the defenders of the two towns can mutually support each other. Pokrovsk is similar and receives mutual support from Myrnohrad approx. 9 km to the east of it. Myrnohrad is also under attack but is close to the area where Ukrainian forces are destroying Russian forces in the Dobropilla salient. Essentially, capturing Pokrovsk requires Russia to capture or suppress the Ukrainian forces in Myrnohrad. Possibly a difficult task, especially when Ukraine is successfully attacking near Myrnohrad.
In summary, Ukraine is under relentless pressure but the outcome is still unpredictable. Ukraine’s recent activity indicates that there is political and command will to hold Pokrovsk. If Ukraine is committed to holding the town it could end in sufficient attrition being inflicted that Russia’s attacks grind to a halt as winter arrives. Or, Russia may envelop the Pokrovsk and inflict a defeat on Ukraine. Another possibility is that Ukraine may withdraw suddenly to conserve resources hoping to ‘fix’ Russian forces in Pokrovsk using drones to make the open country to the north and west uncrossable. At this stage, it is hard to judge and only time will tell but my assessment is that Ukraine will continue to defend the town for sometime yet.
Tactical lessons from the fighting near Pokrovsk
Last week, we discussed new tactics and how this battle demonstrates their impact. A good example is provided by Russia’s infiltration tactics that are designed to evade Ukraine’s defensive ‘kill web.’ A ‘kill web’ is network of ‘sensors’ that are digitally linked to ‘shooters.’ Drones, ground surveillance radar, human observers and satellites are all ‘sensors’ and constantly monitor the battlefield identifying potential targets. ‘Sensors’ identify targets that ‘shooters’ like artillery, mortars, missiles and drones engage. Digital data moves instantly between the components of the ‘kill web’ so anything moving in the web can be decisively engaged almost as instantly.
Both Russia and Ukraine use sophisticated ‘kill webs’ that ‘freeze’ movement on the battlefield and make it very difficult to close with the enemy. Russian infiltration tactics are a response to this situation and were recently described in an excellent Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) article, written by Senior Research Fellow Dr Jack Watling titled ‘Emergent Approaches to Combined Arms Manoeuvre in Ukraine.’[iv]
Watling’s report is large and covers a wide range of topics but part of it describes these infiltrations, including the following description- “Russian soldiers usually infiltrate in groups of two to five Russian personnel, using thermal sheeting or tents that they hold away from their bodies with handles. The soldiers hang a radio around their necks and a torch between their legs to see their feet. The command post directs them, tracking their movement by UAV, to guide them to the position where they are expected to nest.”
The idea of Russian soldiers creeping forwards in small groups under a cumbersome thermal tent may sound strange to non-military observers but at night through ‘image intensifiers’ or ‘thermal imagers’ this technique will make the soldiers invisible. Like a hunter’s blind these structures block night observation devices and provide a means to infiltrate small groups within Ukraine’s ‘kill web’ during darkness. The use of remote guides to direct movement and torches under their camouflage ‘blinds,’ probably so the don’t trip over, indicates that Russia’s infantrymen are poorly trained and equipped.
The infiltrating group’s role is to ‘nest’ within Ukraine’s ‘kill web’ venturing out when ordered to attack targets and they are one part of a larger tactical system. Notably, the RUSI article highlights the link between infiltration by these groups and Russia’s wider combined arms operations. It discusses how the infiltrations are synchronised with hunting down and destroying the key elements of Ukraine’s defensive ‘kill web,’ including electronic warfare assets, radars, drones, command posts and fighting positions.
The development of infantry tactics is rapid and driven by necessity. Russia may have numbers but is technologically behind Ukraine, a situation that has allowed Ukraine to make extensive use of drones and to develop sophisticated defensive ‘kill webs.’ However, Russia is demonstrating the ability to adapt and overcome and that sometimes the best tech can be defeated by very simple actions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a bigger question is whether Russia’s tactics are a direct response to the situation in Ukraine, with limited application globally. Or whether these tactics will evolve into doctrine that Russia’s autocratic partners will replicate. Therefore, Russia’s infiltration tactics should be studied closely because they may provide the model for a low-tech but numerically larger force to defeat a more technologically advanced military.
Ukraine developed sophisticated drone technology, that has changed how wars will be fought in the future. Russia has had to respond and through trial and error is developing a new form of combined arms thinking and related tactics that uses its advantages; vast quantities of men and ammunition to blunt Ukraine’s sophisticated ‘kill web.’ The fighting in Donetsk provides insight into how future conflicts around the world could be fought, so is worth studying closely.
Edited by ‘acute nose for a good story’ Barbara Fountain, it is difficult to beat NZ Doctor for drilling down beyond the headlines in order for a good solid piece of published reporting on what is happening in Aotearoa New Zealand’s primary healthcare system.
As a health systems blogger her publication has been invaluable for me for not just the information but also the insights it regularly provides.
Scoping New Zealand primary healthcare for offshore profits
Steve Forbes digs deep for NZ Doctor
The article by one of her journalists Steve Forbes (23 October; paywalled) on offshore private equity investors seeing potential for big profit returns in our primary healthcare system is an example of this quality reporting and utility: Profits, profits and more profits.
Private equity see potential for great profits in primary care in New Zealand
Private equity is a form of investment where firms raise capital to acquire and manage private companies with the goal of ultimately selling them for a sizeable profit.
These investments typically require significant capital commitments over several years which is what attracts them to corporate general practice owners in particular.
Forbes’ article covers Consultancy Corporate Value Associates investigations on behalf of overseas private equity investors interested in New Zealand’s primary healthcare market.
Former HNZ Chair Rob Campbell sounded out about primary healthcare profitability; not the smartest call
This includes contacting former Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora) chair and economist Rob Campbell; not the smartest call given his known well-founded and publicly expressed scepticism of for-profit involvement in the public health system. NZ Doctor was an unintended beneficiary!
Forbes reports Campbell observing that:
I think there’s no doubt there’s a lot of interest from private equity in the health sector at the moment.
Everyone seems to think there’s going to be a lot of Government money going into primary healthcare and I think they sense, whatever the circumstances are, that there’s going to be more money made available.
We’re at a point now where the public health system is being threatened by increasing interest from the private sector.
In respect of the potential for private equity companies to dominate the country’s primary healthcare sector, Campbell warned:
I think it’s very dangerous for us all. We’re at a point now where the public health system is being threatened by increasing interest from the private sector. There’s a point where it eats into the public system and its ability to fulfil its core functions. I think it’s a dangerous development.
As the public system weakens, the private-sector players will target the areas where they can get a return. And the Government is aware of this.
The private health system needs the public sector to do the heavy lifting…and deal with complex cases and the services it doesn’t want to provide.
I think there are ways that the private and public can work together. But it can become negative if private equity is just picking the eyes out of it.
Expanding corporate power
Previously (26 September) I posted on the expansion of corporate general practice ownership (shareholder ownership, sometimes including private equity investors, looking to profitably on-sell at the right time for these interests): Growing corporate power.
Subsequently (12 October) I posted on the extension of corporate power into Primary Health Organisations (PHOs): Corporates move into PHOs.
As I stated in the second blog post:
PHOs are critical to the provision of primary health services. Their greatest visibility is over managing funding contracts with general practices to ensure subsidised healthcare for enrolled, usually geographically defined, populations.
But their functions are much more than this. Less visible but not less important are population health, health provider support, primary-secondary integration, and innovation (including data and digital transformation).
For good reason, and particularly since the abolition of DHBs, they have been the glue that helps hold the primary health system together.
Mapping general practice ownership
NZ Doctor journalist Fiona Cassie maps general practice ownership
An earlier NZ Doctor paywalled feature article (29 October) by fellow journalist Fiona Cassie provided further insights into corporate ownership and influence and also how GP-owned practices and PHOs are responding to what they consider to be threatening behaviour: Key changes in corporates and general practice responses.
Cassie provides an annual map of general practice ownership. Her latest map, the subject of this article, shows that the corporate “buying spree has slowed to a crawl”. Despite this, “ownership in general practice is shifting faster than it looks.”
This shift, discussed further below, is the “…rise of ambitious GP-owned groups, quietly expanding, recruiting differently and maybe changing who controls the future of primary care.”
Over the past 12 months the “…steady stream of general practices sold into corporate ownership slowed to a virtual halt…” This is despite nearly 25% of GPs intending to retire within the next two years.
The corporates own around 190 general practices but only two practices were bought in the last years. In part, this is because they are preoccupied with overseas private equity developments.
The two biggest corporates presently distracted by these developments from further expansion because they are either for sale (Tāmaki Health) or rumoured to be (Green Cross Health).
Furthermore, Tend Health (the third biggest which has recently acquired private equity ownership) and Green Cross Health are busy setting up their own PHOs.
This means that they are focussing on the practices they own delivering on services rather than expanding ownership. Cassie notes in a byline that patient enrolment figures have either fallen at many of the corporate networks in the past 12 months or stayed static.
But there is something else in the wind
Fiona Cassie’s map, by drilling down further, has discovered another new development. This involves eight predominantly GP-owned practice groups owning four or more clinics which she describes as discovering “…a healthy buzz of new activity.”
Over the past 12 months they bought five new practices and launched two new start-ups leading to a significant growth in their networks and patient numbers.
What characterises them is a high percentage of patient-facing owners (working owner GPs) and a focus on serving their local region. Some are also developing successful “grow your own” pipelines to help address GP recruitment difficulties.
Running alongside this new development is an increasing number of iwi and Māori trust-owned general practices. They are now the largest cluster on the NZ Doctorownership map.
PHOs stepping up
Over a decade ago some PHOs found it necessary to purchase general practices because their GP owners could not sell them.
Last year, Fiona Cassie reports, a movement emerged in which these PHOs sold or gifted some of those practices back to new GP owners. At the same time PHO purchases of general practices were minimal.
Purchase of Lincoln Medical Centre an interesting change in the wind
There is another related interesting change in the wind. In Christchurch Pegasus Health PHO and the business arm of a Ngāi Tahu iwi rūnanaga announced last month that they were moving to purchase vulnerable practices beginning with the Lincoln Medical Centre.
What to make of this
There is a shared serious worry among GP owners of general practices and Primary Health Organisations about the rising and destabilising influence of corporate owners, through both ownership growth and now being able to set up their own PHOs.
This worry further increases when relationships with their local populations start to be fragmented and, even more so, when private equity firms become involved.
Profiteering becomes the prime responsibility
When push turns to shove, the corporates prime responsibility is to their shareholders rather than to the patients enrolled in their practices. In other words, good old-fashioned profiteering maximisation. This is even more so when private equity is added into the mix.
For the GPs and nurses working in these same practices, their prime responsibility is the other way around thereby providing a foundation for difficult working circumstances.
There is growing anticipation that Tend Health’s recent first-time injection of Sydney-based private equity was in order to give it sufficient capital to enable it to buy out Green Cross Health.
If this were to be the outcome, then it would be a move towards a more powerful monopolisation.
Expanding corporate power has incentivised strategically focussed larger general practices and PHOs to respond in innovative ways. Part of this thinking recognises the value of their relationship with geographically defined populations.
This is a good thing. The more it develops and expands, the less scope for corporate and private equity profiteering.
Health Minister Simeon Brown’s government ideologically supportive of corporates
The challenge is, nevertheless, that while the previous Labour government allowed corporates to expand by means of a policy vacuum, the current government is ideologically encouraging it.
Hopefully these endeavours from GP-owned practices and PHOs limits the risks enabled by this ideological tolerance.
Ian Powell was Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the professional union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand, for over 30 years, until December 2019. He is now a health systems, labour market, and political commentator living in the small river estuary community of Otaihanga (the place by the tide). First published at Otaihanga Second Opinion.
This week’s 1-on-1 in 10 features Chris Hipkins, Leader of the Labour Party, in a wide-ranging interview that pulls no punches. From Labour’s targeted capital gains tax to the Kelston Boys High School charter takeover, Hipkins goes deep on what’s at stake for public education, middle New Zealand, and our social contract. Martyn Bradbury and Hipkins unpack:
Why the backlash to capital gains reveals who really holds the power
How Labour would respond to mental health, meth, and rising inequality
The disturbing redacted details behind Kelston Boys’ hostile charter bid
What’s next for Māori-Crown relations under a National-led government
This is a fiery defence of egalitarianism, state services, and democracy itself.
This week, Martyn unleashes righteous anger over a Government waging war not on polluters, speculators, or corporate parasites — but on its own people. From brutal welfare sanctions, to IRD bank raids, to 8,000 ACC clients dropped without warning — cruelty is no longer the exception. It’s the policy. This Guy Fawkes Day, remember: People shouldn’t be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
This week on The War on News, Martyn Bradbury unpacks hoggish cronyism, doomed water reform, and a methane-fuelled climate apocalypse. All in a week’s work.
🐖 Hoggard the Hog & the Sow Crate Loophole: Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard (yes, really) granted a 10-year delay on pig welfare reforms after consulting only with the pork industry. No public input. No experts. Just bacon barons. It’s a textbook case of crony capitalism — and yes, he kind of looks like a pig. If Martyn ran the Ministry of Bears, this is how it would look: tax-free maulings for everyone.
🚱 Water Reforms: From Three Waters to Three Debacles: S&P Global warns the Government’s new “Local Water Done Well” model is a downgrade. It’s less clear, less stable, and won’t solve our underfunded infrastructure crisis. The right-wing disinformation machine painted Labour’s Three Waters as a Māori takeover — now we get worse water services, higher rates, and zero clarity. Enjoy the consequences, rednecks.
🌡️ Permafrost Meltdown Could Doom Us All: Bloomberg reports 1.4 trillion tonnes of carbon locked in Arctic permafrost is destabilising fast. Once that carbon releases as methane, temperatures could rise beyond what civilisation can adapt to. Spoiler: reusable tote bags aren’t going to cut it.
A week of pigs, piss-poor policy, and planetary doom. It’s not news. It’s the War on News.
