By Geoff Waterhouse

New Zealand has pledged more than NZ$168 million in financial assistance and in-kind support to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. But how much do taxpayers know about the financial arrangements, procurement contracts and ultimate recipients?

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Within weeks, the New Zealand Government had committed financial and military assistance.

On 11 April 2022, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced a further NZ$13.1 million assistance package. Included was NZ$7.5 million to contribute to weapons and ammunition procurement by the United Kingdom, along with NZ$4.1 million for commercial satellite access for Ukrainian defence intelligence.

This was not simply a matter of New Zealand sending equipment from its own military stocks. Taxpayer funding was being committed to procurement arrangements administered overseas.

That raises a reasonable question: what documentation is available showing how those funds were spent?

From NZ$30 million to more than NZ$168 million

The April 2022 announcement brought New Zealand’s stated total contribution to approximately NZ$30 million.

The assistance programme continued following the change of government in 2023.

In February 2024, the National-led Government announced another NZ$25.9 million package, including NZ$6.5 million for the United Kingdom-administered International Fund for Ukraine, intended to procure weapons and ammunition.

In July 2024, another NZ$16 million package was announced. This included NZ$4 million for the UK- and Latvia-led Drone Capability Coalition.

In June 2025, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters announced a further NZ$16 million, including another NZ$4 million for the Drone Coalition and NZ$4 million for NATO’s Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine fund.

By 30 June 2025, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s annual report, New Zealand’s total pledges of financial assistance and in-kind support exceeded NZ$168 million.

An important distinction must be made. This figure is not a statement that NZ$168 million in cash was transferred directly to Ukraine. It includes the assessed value of military training, personnel deployments, equipment, humanitarian assistance and other support, alongside financial contributions.

Nevertheless, it represents a substantial commitment of New Zealand public resources.

The overseas procurement arrangements

Several of the funding mechanisms deserve closer examination.

The first is the United Kingdom’s procurement of weapons and ammunition, to which New Zealand committed NZ$7.5 million in April 2022.

The second is the UK-administered International Fund for Ukraine, which received a further NZ$6.5 million commitment announced in February 2024.

The third is the UK- and Latvia-led Drone Capability Coalition, for which New Zealand announced NZ$4 million contributions in both July 2024 and June 2025.

These are not all the same programme. They involve different arrangements, participating countries and procurement processes.

The question is whether sufficiently detailed records exist to establish the payment pathways, contractual recipients, equipment purchased and applicable oversight procedures for New Zealand’s contributions.

What do the official records tell us?

Government announcements establish that the funding commitments were made and identify several of the programmes involved.

Official Information Act disclosures and other procurement records provide additional information about the administration of some contributions.

However, identifying a funding commitment is not the same as tracing a particular payment through to a named contractor and a completed delivery.

Nor should the existence of overseas procurement arrangements, by itself, be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing. International cooperation in military procurement can have legitimate operational purposes.

But public accountability remains important, particularly when governments are committing substantial sums overseas.

There are questions worth asking:

• On what dates were the financial contributions actually transferred?
• Which government departments, funds or intermediaries received them?
• Which contractors ultimately benefited from the procurement expenditure?
• What equipment was purchased, and what records establish its delivery?
• What auditing and reporting arrangements apply to New Zealand’s contributions?
• What information can reasonably be released publicly without compromising legitimate security requirements?

These are questions about transparency, not allegations that criminal conduct has occurred.

Two governments, one continuing commitment

Another noteworthy feature is the continuity of the assistance programme.

The original commitments began under the Labour Government led by Jacinda Ardern. Subsequent funding packages were announced under the National-led Government headed by Christopher Luxon.

Whatever the political differences between the two administrations, New Zealand’s financial and military support for Ukraine has continued.

That continuity makes it appropriate to examine the entire programme from 2022 onwards, rather than treating it as the responsibility of one political party.

Seeking answers

I have been examining government announcements, Official Information Act material and publicly available procurement records in an effort to better understand these financial arrangements.

I have also brought relevant information and questions to the attention of United States authorities, including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Department of State Office of Inspector General.

These approaches do not establish that any wrongdoing has occurred, nor do they imply that the authorities have opened an investigation.

The purpose is to identify whether any relevant international financial or procurement connections merit further examination.

The central question remains straightforward: New Zealand has pledged more than NZ$168 million in assistance to Ukraine. Can the Government provide a clear, sufficiently detailed account of how the financial contributions were administered, where they went, and what was obtained?

New Zealand taxpayers are entitled to ask.

Official sources

1. New Zealand Government, 11 April 2022: New Zealand sends C-130 Hercules and 50-strong team to Europe to support Ukraine. Includes the NZ$7.5 million UK procurement contribution.
2. New Zealand Government, 22 February 2024: NZ announces new support for Ukraine. Includes NZ$6.5 million for the International Fund for Ukraine.
3. New Zealand Government, 10 July 2024: New Zealand increases support for Ukraine. Includes the first NZ$4 million Drone Coalition contribution.
4. New Zealand Government, 23 June 2025: New Zealand announces further aid for Ukraine. Includes further multinational funding commitments.
5. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Annual Report 2024–25: Supporting Ukraine in coordination with key partners. Confirms pledges exceeding NZ$168 million by 30 June 2025.

We know what’s happened to other country’s donations:

Why is Zelensky in London?

Zelensky hides money in Britain.

Since 2012, Zelensky owned a network of offshore companies in Britain and luxury real estate in London.

He received tens of millions of dollars Ukrainian oligarchs accused of murders and stealing billions from the… pic.twitter.com/Rwzyj0yzd1

— Diana Panchenko 🇺🇦 (@Panchenko_X) October 15, 2026

Ukrainians bought €2,000,000,000 (BILLION) of real estate in Spain in 2026 (Spanish Notaries Council).

Spain gave Ukraine €2.7 BILLION in 2022-2025.

And €2 BILLION of it went straight into Spanish villas.

Not bad.

— Diana Panchenko 🇺🇦 (@Panchenko_X) October 14, 2026

This was taken before KCDC concreted the berm and substantially reduced the trees and hedge on the left.

by Doug Casey

Question: The world is in its most precarious geopolitical environment since World War 2. Considering similar historical periods, what have been the most important investment implications of global conflict between the world’s biggest powers?

Doug Casey: The big question is whether or not WW3 will go nuclear. And if it does, will it be just some relatively small-yield tactical bombs used against military formations? Or will it get out of control, with strategic weapons used against cities? Either is possible.

Let’s just hope NATO doesn’t back the Russians into a corner, the Zelensky regime stays out of NATO, and the Israelis don’t go nuclear against the Iranians.

As WW3 develops, I don’t think there’s any question it will have significant cyber aspects as well. The whole world runs on computers. Computers control utilities, transport, the banking system, communications, commerce, distribution, and everything else. If computer networks are massively hacked it could collapse civilization. The result could be mass starvation after a couple of weeks.

And, of course, there’s a real possibility of biological warfare. If any of these things happen, it increases the odds of all of them happening.

So price movements in the commodity and financial markets will likely be the least of our problems. Let’s assume, therefore, that things don’t go beyond a regional level.

One current difference in how WW3 is evolving is that almost all of the governments of the world are already bankrupt. Historically, governments only go bankrupt during or after wars; this time they’re all bankrupt before the war has really even started. They’re all welfare states with huge fixed domestic spending. They already have an unrepayable amount of debt. That’s never been the case previously.

Along with unsupportable debt, and high levels of currency debasement, taxes are already at the 40%, 50% or 60% level for most countries. Before World War I and even before World War II, taxes, inflation, and debt were only a tiny fraction of present levels. Governments could access huge resources. Even though the world is much richer, it hardly seems possible now. They’re already running on empty.

WW3 will be limited by the financial ability of governments to fight. There’s a bright side, I suppose, to most of the world’s governments being financially unstable or on the ragged edge of bankruptcy, very much like the US government.

It may serve to limit the damage they can do. But, then, I’m an eternal optimist…

Question: How does war typically influence the prices and availability of critical commodities?

Doug Casey: They’ll go higher. Throughout history, governments have debased their currencies to finance their wars. Prices of commodities always rise, with prices for war material leading the way.

But this war isn’t likely to be as materiel-intensive as wars in the past. Technology and chips will replace a lot of steel, aluminum, and copper, which is just as well since it takes years for new mines to produce metals.

It’s hard to say exactly how any chaotic situation will evolve, and war is pure chaos. But if I’m right that WW3 is not going to be as materiel intensive as past wars, then maybe we should look at luxury goods as opposed to bulk commodities. In the War Between the States, Southern blockade runners carried lots of coffee, tea, and other luxury items in addition to arms. Wars always create distortions in the ways people act, and the ways things are used. When the war is over, one thing that’s certain is that the economy will snap back to sustainable patterns. But there’s no point in planning that far ahead.

Oil will certainly be a major fulcrum, as it was in WW I & II. Most of the world’s oil is produced in just a few places and shipped through just a few chokepoints. Demand will go up since it’s the densest kind of energy there is, but production, refining, and shipping facilities will be destroyed; at some point soon, we should see all the hydrocarbons skyrocket. In addition, governments always put on both wage and price controls and foreign exchange controls during wartime. These things will create shortages for civilians and will be most inconvenient.

Question: Can you share specific historical examples where war significantly disrupted commodity markets, and what lessons can investors learn from these events?

Doug Casey: Since the days of the Bible, war has included burning crops, cutting down the enemy’s orchards, and even salting the fields where his grain grows. That’s unlikely to change. Battles are won by soldiers; wars are won by controlling resources and commodities.

Japan is a classic example. The country has no hydrocarbons, no metals, and few resources of any kind. When the US cut off their oil and steel supplies in 1941, they felt war, however risky, was their only alternative.

During the war, they tried floating incendiary balloons to the US Pacific Northwest to start forest fires. It wasn’t an effective countermeasure, but it shows the way combatants think. This time, I wouldn’t doubt that various players will use bacteria or viruses to attack crops. It could be devastating since food crops are grown in gigantic monocultures, stretching for thousands of square miles. Wholesale contagion through biowarfare will be much more effective than the random methods used in the past.

Fertilizers are bulk commodities that need to be shipped across the globe by the megaton; that makes them prone to be cut off. You can expect food prices to go much higher as WW3 heats up. In just the past 50 years, corn yields per acre have about quadrupled. A lot of that increase is due to mass fertilizers. Cut off fertilizers and other chemicals and you’re looking at a famine.

Most countries don’t produce much of anything locally anymore. The world turns on trade. If you cut off trade—a prime strategy during war—both exporting and importing countries are likely to suffer an economic collapse, or worse.

Doug Casey’s website

This latest KCDC price hike has upset people: – “As part of Council’s Annual Plan 2026/27, the volumetric water supply rate was increased from $1.72 to $2.27 incl. GST per cubic metre. This new rate will be reflected in the November invoice.”

When the Mayor Rowan & Dougherty water meters were introduced it was just over $1 per cubic metre.

What was the latest inflation rate? 4.1%

How can KCDC justify this? It can’t. Just another money grab from long suffering Ratepayers.

We’ve uncovered yet another Cannes Film Festival junket, our latest Bribe-O-Meter update suggests the politicians aren’t getting a grip on reality, and a grim milestone is looming for the official New Zealand Government Debt Clock.

Also, we’re off to Hawke’s Bay next week for our next electorate debate (with a quick Debt Clock stop at the A&P show too).

But first, we’re heading to the French Riviera …

Film Commission’s French junket trilogy: $610,000 and counting

Back in 2024, our Investigations Team exposed that the New Zealand Film Commission spent more than $145,000 sending four staff to the Cannes Film Market in the south of France.

Apparently, that was just the opening act…

Last year, the bill climbed to around $255,904.

Some film franchises really should have stopped after the first instalment.

Now, our Investigative Lead Rhys Hurley has uncovered *another* $208,747.92 spent sending four staff (and a very lucky ‘contractor’) to Cannes for 13 days earlier this year.

That’s $610,000 of taxpayer money on junkets study trips to the French Riviera in just three years.

And while the Commission’s Chief Executive insisted last year, “You won’t see any photos of us drinking because there’s no time,” this year’s expenses included a rather impressive $4,180 booze bill!

Cheers!

But the spending doesn’t stop at the plane tickets and glasses of wine.

The films being showcased at Cannes had already received more than $12 million in taxpayer funding, including $1.99 million for, errr, iconic(?) New Zealand films, including Mum, I’m Alien Pregnant (described by a Mashable review as “one of the strangest films I’ve seen in at least the last decade”) and nearly $2.4 million for Big Girls Don’t Cry (a film exploring queer adolescence).

Five people, thirteen days in France and a $208,000 bill. Sounds like the plot of a taxpayer-funded comedy.

If the Commission can’t demonstrate that these trips deliver value, perhaps it’s time to roll the credits on Cannes junkets.

And speaking of opening the books, Rhys has also been pushing to bring Parliament under the same scrutiny…

Open the Books: Hipkins backs OIA scrutiny of Parliament

In a win for the Taxpayers’ Union, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins has backed extending the Official Information Act (OIA) to cover Parliament, following a question from our Investigative Lead, Rhys Hurley.

It’s a welcome development for our Open the Books campaign, which has been pushing to end Parliament’s carve-out from the transparency rules that apply to government departments and Ministers.

As we pointed out last week, MPs can demand answers from government agencies, while Parliament’s own administration remains exempt from the same scrutiny.

So when Hipkins took questions during a Stuff Q&A, Rhys put the question to him directly.

And Hipkins said yes! He agreed that Parliament should be included in Labour’s proposed reforms, with The Press picking up the story.

National’s Waitaki MP Miles Anderson has also backed the idea, so there’s growing support on both sides of the House.

Of course, a yes in a Q&A isn’t quite a firm election commitment. We’ll be pushing for Labour to commit to the policy in writing, and for Christopher Luxon to back the reform too.

ACT takes aim at another tax on renters

Earlier this week, ACT announced plans to scrap Labour’s rental loss ring-fencing rules, reigniting the debate over whether taxes targeting landlords ultimately hurt renters.

And there’s a rather interesting history here.

Back in 2017, Treasury and Inland Revenue warned Labour that ring-fencing could push up rents and hit lower-income tenants hardest. Labour pressed ahead anyway, introducing the rules in 2019.

Over the following four years, average rents for new tenancies rose by $100 a week. That’s an extra $5,200 a year for renters (although, in fairness, many other factors also contributed to rising rents).

Then came the battle over mortgage interest deductibility.

Labour spent years attacking National’s restoration of interest deductibility as a “tax cut for landlords”. It was a nonsense line, and should be abandoned now that Labour has committed to keeping the deductions in place.

And since interest deductibility was restored, annual rent growth has slowed from 4.8 percent to just 0.5 percent.

Now ACT wants to go a step further, allowing landlords to offset future rental losses against their other taxable income, just as other businesses and investors generally can.

The cost of providing rental housing matters to renters too. Whether it’s rising council rates or tax rules that squeeze landlords’ cashflow, those costs can ultimately put pressure on rents.

The lesson is simple: a tax aimed at landlords doesn’t stop with landlords. Renters ultimately end up paying the price.

And it’s not just renters facing an expensive bill…

Tick tock: New Zealand Government debt hits $300 billion today!

There’s a rather grim milestone today, and unfortunately it’s not one we are celebrating.

The Official New Zealand Government Debt Clock is on track to smash through $300 billion for the first time.

That’s $300,000,000,000. An awful lot of zeroes, and not the sort we’d like to see on the Government’s balance sheet.

And here’s the really worrying part: the Government is still borrowing $56 million every single day, while every Kiwi household’s share of the debt has now passed $144,000.

As our Head of Policy, James Ross, points out, despite all the promises to get spending under control, we’re still on track to finish the 2020s without a single year of government debt actually going down.

Even the better-than-expected economic forecasts released by Treasury last month haven’t changed that trajectory. The debt clock keeps ticking, and the bill keeps growing.

Just in time for this milestone, we’ve released New Debtland, our new pocket guide to New Zealand’s debt.

And the comparisons are rather staggering. New Zealand’s debt is equivalent to 167 years of publicly funded medicines, while the annual interest bill alone is equivalent to the entire cost of primary and secondary education in 2026.

This is a flashing red warning to whoever forms the next government: stop adding to the bill and start paying it down.

And with the Government’s debt already heading past $300 billion, what are the political parties promising to spend next?

Bribe-O-Meter Week 6: ACT finds savings while NZ First passes the $50 billion threshold

Week six of our Election Bribe-O-Meter is in, and this time ACT and National have been busy releasing their fiscal plans.

But the two parties are heading in rather different directions.

ACT is now promising $17.86 billion in net savings over four years, equivalent to $8,619 per household.

That’s made up of $22.6 billion in spending reductions, offset by $4.74 billion in new commitments. The biggest savings come from reducing government spending, changes to superannuation, and cuts to foreign aid and welfare.

National, meanwhile, has increased its spending promises to $5.16 billion, or $2,489 per household, with new commitments for roads, Pharmac, and school lunches.

But there are some rather eye-watering figures further down the leaderboard.

NZ First has sailed past $50 billion, reaching $51.8 billion in promises, or $25,000 per household. More than half of that is its $26.7 billion proposal to buy BNZ [why? —Eds].

Meanwhile, the Greens are closing in on a quarter of a trillion dollars! Chlöe has now clocked up $247.22 billion in promises, while Opportunity has reached $229.42 billion after quietly announcing a commitment to restore the old pay equity regime without accounting for its $10.97 billion cost.

And remember the $17.9 billion gap we exposed in Labour’s fiscal plan last week? Labour’s fiscal gap is larger than ACT’s entire net savings package. Labour’s running total now stands at $33.18 billion.

There’s been movement in our transparency ratings too. ACT has joined National on four stars after publishing its fiscal plan, while Opportunity has slipped half a star over its uncosted pay equity commitment.

With election day approaching, our economists will continue to crunch the numbers so voters can see what all these promises add up to.

See the full Week 6 Bribe-O-Meter breakdown here.

Next stop: Tukituki Debate and the Hawke’s Bay A&P Show!

Our election debate roadshow is heading to Hawke’s Bay next week, and we’re bringing the beautiful mobile Debt Clock to the A&P show!

On Wednesday 21 October, we’ll be putting the Tukituki candidates through their paces at Off The Track in Havelock North, from 7 pm.

Hawke’s Bay local Anna Lorck and commentator Damien Grant will once again be asking the questions and keeping the candidates on their toes.

And, as with our other debates, we’ll be revealing a brand-new Tukituki electorate poll live on the night, giving locals a first look at how the race is shaping up.

Tickets are just $10 and include a complimentary drink.

The team will also be bringing our giant Debt Clock to the Hawke’s Bay A&P Show, reminding visitors just how quickly the Government’s debt is piling up.

If you’re heading to the show, come and say hello! We love meeting supporters, hearing what’s on your mind, and thanking you for making the work possible.

Enjoy the rest of your week,

Tory Relf Head of Comms New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

Oxford University has advised its staff to avoid common English idioms such as “learn the ropes” and “find your feet,” on the grounds that they may confuse international students or that they perpetuate negative stereotypes.

The guidance appears in the university’s official style guide, which also recommends replacing gendered terms and softer language around socioeconomic status, prompting criticism from free speech groups that Oxford is prioritising sensitivity over cultural immersion.

The style guide tells writers to favour “plain English” and cautions: “Be mindful of idioms that may not be familiar to international readers or that may use stereotypes. Use common words, short sentences and familiar constructions.”

Staff are also advised to use “they/them” rather than alternating “he” and “she,” to describe “deprived” students as “lower income” or as having experienced “socioeconomic disadvantage,” and to prefer “gay” over “homosexual” (except in legal or medical contexts) and “older people” over “the elderly.”

Oxford University guide ditches traditional British phrases in favour of 'inclusive' language for foreign studentshttps://t.co/K3S44IcKQe

— GB News (@GBNEWS) October 12, 2026

Using ‘they/them’ in reference to one person suggests that the person has multiple personality disorder — what used to be called schizophrenia. We use ‘he/she/it’ if someone claims to be ‘non-gender specific’. —Eds

Breaking;‼️ Milaan ziet er nu uit als een oorlogsgebied.

Een coalitie van extreemlinkse activisten en bendes van moslimmigranten is momenteel aan het rellen en vernielt de stad omdat Italië weigert een Palestijnse staat te erkennen.

Totale chaos. pic.twitter.com/6RPfUqZJgZ

— Stephan (1) (@springfield1952) October 14, 2026

“Milan now looks like a war zone.

“A coalition of far-left activists and gangs of Muslim immigrants is currently rioting and destroying the city because Italy refuses to recognize a Palestinian state.

“Total chaos.”

By John Crump. The layout of the dunes and waterways shown indicates this is quite a long time ago, probably a century or more.