Central government should rely less on fiscal policy to respond to economic shocks and leave the Reserve Bank to control cycles in most circumstances, a new Treasury report says.
Part one of Treasury’s long-term insights briefing, published Thursday afternoon, analyzed how governments could use the balance sheet to sustainably manage shocks and cycles.
It was a thinly-veiled review of spending decisions made during the Covid-19 response which concluded future governments should be more careful about taking on large debts.
“Experience across many countries shows that fiscal policy is easy to loosen in a downturn or shock but difficult to tighten in an upturn. This can lead to debt ratcheting upwards over time,” it warned.
New Zealand’s debt levels are still comfortably below the 50% of gross domestic product threshold Treasury considers to be okay to spend outside of a crisis. But the country no longer has abnormally low levels relative to other small and medium advanced economies.
This has largely been due to crises costing about 10% of GDP each decade. Examples include the Global Financial Crisis, the Christchurch Earthquakes, and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Governments have not saved enough to offset the spending done in response to these events and net public debt has risen from near zero in 2008 to over 42% today.
The response to Covid-19 was the most costly economic shock, with an estimated $66 billion price-tag equal to 20.4% of GDP. Whereas recovering from the Canterbury earthquakes cost the Crown $23 billion, or 11.3%.
While it avoids saying it directly, Treasury’s paper implies the Labour Government overspent on the pandemic response and continued to do so against the agency’s advice in 2021.
Treasury said the wage subsidies and similar schemes during lockdowns were around 35% of costs, while pandemic specific health systems cost another 18%. This left almost half of the $66 billion bill spent on “a wide range of initiatives with varied objectives”.
Examples included small business cashflow loans, Jobs for Nature, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, additional public housing, and even school lunches.
Treasury said it recommended strong fiscal stimulus at the start of the pandemic, as interest rates were already near zero and the financial system was not set up for negative rates.
But it started to advise more targeted spending during the August 2021 lockdowns and opposed any further stimulus from Budget 2022 onwards.
Then-finance minister Grant Robertson closed the Covid Response and Recovery Fund in that budget but spent the remaining $3 billion on other priorities. Programs such as Jobs for Nature, expanded school lunches, and shovel-ready infrastructure projects continued.
“The COVID-19 response showed the challenges of using fiscal policy to respond to shocks and cycles. Many programmes within the fiscal response, particularly those not tied to the shock, had a lagged impact on the economy and proved difficult to unwind in later years,” Treasury said in the briefing.
The agency specifically warned against building new infrastructure to offset economic downturns, due to the long lag between investment decision and construction. It would be more useful to quickly ramp up maintenance and repair work, it said.
Lessons learned
Treasury concluded that managing cyclical swings in the economy should mostly be left to the Reserve Bank, with discretionary fiscal policy only used when monetary policy was constrained or to tackle the distributional impacts of an economic shock.
Discretionary fiscal policy doesn’t include automatic economic stabilizers—such as increased benefit spending and weaker tax collection—or rebuilding and maintaining government functions and services if damaged.
“Monetary policy changes can be reversed more readily and can often be implemented faster. The government’s spending and taxation decisions should generally seek to optimise long-run value for money rather than moderating economic cycles,” Treasury said.
If future governments do need to use fiscal policy to manage a shock, it would be best to prepare a set of “tools” in advance so they can be deployed quickly and effectively.
Whether these are lump-sum payments, wage subsidies, infrastructure maintenance, credit guarantee schemes, or something else, they should always be temporary and targeted.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis took this briefing—which is prepared independently—as vindication of her criticisms of the Labour Government’s spending decisions.
“Treasury’s language is spare and polite, but its conclusions are damning,” she said in a press release.
“The report makes clear significant errors were made in the fiscal response to Covid. Treasury is urging policy makers not to repeat those mistakes. Our Government will not.”
She noted the “particular mention” of programmes funded from Covid money but not tied to the specific shock, such as school lunches and other semi-permanent stimulus measures.
“That is a very diplomatic way of saying New Zealanders are still paying the price of the previous government extending a big-spending approach initially intended for a pandemic response.”
59 Comments
Nice caption photo. Mr Spend! The RBNZ wilfully printed money and the sixth Labour government wilfully spent it, for instance, as revealed by Mr Ryan, the Auditor General. Over the years, lots of them, economists and such like, lots of them, unanimously knew that governments printing and spending money haphazardly on nondescript ventures is a like a flame to a lake of gasoline, that is inflation. But apparently not Mr Spend. And here we all are now. Yet the media at large in search of drama and headlines, continue to trumpet that there is likely to be a seventh Labour government elected in 2026. Go figure!
Core Crown debt went from $57b in 2019 to $175b in 2024.
Nothing else needs to be said, just think about what we could have spent that on. Yes, we followed the rest of the West like good little sheep and absolutely munted our economy and the future for our tamariki. Blindly following the WHO and UN and WEF and any other NGO.
As much as I'm not a fan of Peters and Jones, at least they have the minerals to stand up for what they feel is best for us and not what some NGO wants us to do. With a low debt level you dont have to appease the NGO's, when it climbs you do.
That government 'debt' absorbed the collapse of the private sector and a complete loss of income for nearly every business and person in the country. Would the best approach in this case be to keep government debt low and allow the private sector to contract? If not government 'debt' what is the better economic policy and outcome?
That's the question that no-one ever answers when they say the government borrowed too much. Okay - so what should the government done instead?
Suggest that there is a reasonable consensus that the financial support was necessary and implemented timely given the circumstances. In comparison it was quite obviously better considered and more appropriate than the bale out of shonky finance companies at the time of the 2008 GFC. The main thrust of the argument here though goes well beyond that and addresses the government spending that followed which was not necessary and nor was it meaningfully targeted or controlled. For instance exactly as per the report that Mr Ryan the Auditor General produced at the end of 2023 about which Finance Minister Robertson belatedly, begrudgingly had to apologise. This report here by Treasury is expressly underlining the same criticism.
You missed my point entirely.
We didn't need to shut the country down, most of the world didn't. The vaccines were really not effective. I've just had Covid. How did I know, because I've still got 50 tests at the bach when they were handing them out for free. The 2 red lines were a blast from the past.
Looking back it seems absurd that if people felt ill, they needed a piece of plastic to tell them so. As if our bodies didn't have the ability to tell us we are ill, and the govt told us we had to test to know.
I guess the reality is you can't spend your way out of a shitty situation for free.
Your view though seems to be we should currently be doing a watered down version of the COVID response for the current economic situation. Or basically any time the economy may contract.
At some point, you have to make up for that. And the bigger you make that liability, the harder it is.
So it'll just get deferred to your children. Hey kids, here's a bill for us to have avoided all the recessions we mighta had for several decades.
Precisely. The cycle goes on and some businesses would have gone downhill if there was no COVID and lockdowns given the economic trajectory. Many businesses were allowed to stay afloat, and notwithstanding many successful businesses may have gone under also without govt stimulus, but this allowed for much wastage. Had we gone downhill somewhat we would be halfway out of the woods by now with the dropping oil price across the last few years and if further stimulus was required then it could be targeted to support new business, adding jobs, value and building back our economy with optimism. Currently we have but cynicism and no real material investment by govt into progressing into infra projects to assist with the jobs and we still have businesses failing by the day, and many still leaving for Australia by the day. Which of the two would we be better with now? Pick your poison.
Exactly as per the author’s supplement 8/8 3.44pm - they should have spent the 53% that was necessary/ justified and stopped right there. Rather than ploughing on, against Treasury’s advice, and spending the remaining 47% that was wasted, ie unnecessary/unjustified.
'I'm not a fan of Peters"
Me neither, Te Kooti - you might like to check out why, in my comment at 5:50 pm.
Cheers
Col
Treasury...the 5th column of the banks
Jeez, this is awful. Although the conclusions on when to use what fiscal tools is more nuanced than suggested here.
What we discovered during covid is that many fiscal tools worked a treat. Govt pumped money into the economy, people spent it, and jobs were saved and created. What Govt failed to do was take the money back from where it pooled - in the savings accounts and portfolios of landlords, investors, etc. Remember: govt deficit spending creates private sector financial assets (savings) - spenders spend the money govt give them and rentiers collect it up.
The idea that monetary policy should play a greater role is absolutey absurd. It's slow, ineffective, and serves to either blow up asset bubbles (when loosening) or milk working people for the interest required to protect rich peoples saving (when tightening).
Can always rely on you to to give this proper perspective
It is a very odd statement isn’t it! Here you go ChCh, have some low interest rates, that will fix your city. Here you go locked down citizens and businesses, have some low interest rates, that will keep you fed and pay your expenses.
The whole reason to have a very low debt to GDP is so you have a buffer incase something bad happens!
We are witnessing now that 'monetary policy' can be ineffective
Thank you. The prioritization of savers can be observed in nearly every economic policy the current government comes up with. Handing out boring and simple public sector services to private sector investors - so now we will pay investor dividends when we use the roads, go to a hospital, use water, visit a park or send nanna to a care home.
Agree with you Jonny "The idea that monetary policy should play a greater role is absolutely absurd." What do they mean by that? That businesses in the economy with zero demand will respond to lower interest rates? What mechanisms other than fiscal were available in the COVID scenario?
Why the hysteria in NZ about government spending and debt? And are the alternatives Treasury proposes going to deliver better economic outcomes?
Just jumping in to note Treasury said the initial covid stimulus was needed because interest rates were at their lower bound and there was a need to keep people connected to the labour market during lockdowns. It was the ~$30 billion spent outside of lockdowns that it thinks was ineffective.
Very roughly: 53% was needed and the other 47% wasted.
That is the rub of the matter in a nutshell. Yet some on here seemingly, either cannot see or will not accept that as being what theTreasury report is essentially identifying and criticising and instead , just waffle off on a tangent.
And, if interest rates had not been at their lower bound, Treasury would have advised staying on the sidelines, waiting for low interest rates to save all those jobs during the lockdowns?
I've read the report and it is more nuanced than that obviously (but not much).
How about considering just for a moment simply, the pertinent point of the column, which the author thoughtfully has seen as being necessary to restate, as well as other contributing comment, that according to the Treasury the then government, under their Finance Minister, embarked on a spending spree that went well beyond the initial measures required to shore up the private sector etc and in so doing did not heed the advice of Treasury that it was as undesirable as it was unnecessary. In summary 47% of that expenditure as a result was utter wastage. Or is it by your book that governments should just be able spend what they like on whatever they like provided some sort of financial theory can be concocted to cover it.
I think what they really meant and what no-one is allowed to say out loud in NZ - is that 3% unemployment is too low for NZ business who cannot handle the demands that a tight labor market introduces. NZ businesses do not operate well with wage increases above 2.5% and employees with options.
NZ unemployment needs to sit at around 5% - that's where Treasury, the RBNZ and NZ employers need it to be. That additional government spending soaked up available capacity in the economy and no-one who exploits NZ labor liked it.
Agreed, Jonny - torture, self-flagellation to read - and what did we need to spend/borrow anyway?
My school of thought, for what it is worth, was posted late at 5:50 pm.
Cheers
Col
“Experience across many countries shows that fiscal policy is easy to loosen in a downturn or shock but difficult to tighten in an upturn. This can lead to debt ratcheting upwards over time,” it warned.
Well. We all knew that.
Folk are still exercised about Former PM Ardern. But that allows former Minister of Finance to fly under the radar.
He was a real menace.
Determined, smug and wrong.
Do you think history will look less kindly on Robertson than Willis? We came through covid in similar shape to our peers - better in many areas. The Govt's handling of 2024 and 2025 have been genuinely awful. RBNZ have just been consistently wrong throughout of course.
Robertson was a smug menace. Willis is stuck in the straitjacket of New Zealand's wide lack of practicality and realism.
Yes - we have heard of double entry accounting. But the debt millstone is the millstone.
Grant made some stupid mistakes. Willis has doubled down on stupid.
I won't bother getting into the debt discussion. But, it's the private debt pile that is our biggest millstone. Our companies have liabilities of over 350% of GDP and we wonder why things cost so much.
I won't bother getting into the debt discussion. But, it's the private debt pile that is our biggest millstone. Our companies have liabilities of over 350% of GDP and we wonder why things cost so much.
You should get in to this discussion though. It's an actual threat. I've highlighted before our h'hold debt dwarfs that of Japan, even at the peak of their epic bubble.
Our companies have liabilities of over 350% of GDP and we wonder why things cost so much.
How much of our GDP do they contribute?
Surely companies would be the only entities you'd really want having debt, no?
Just trying to wrap my head around what this means. Although it'd probably be better knowing what the debt was for, and whether the companies are profitable.
Business liabilities include their debts, shares, equity, unpaid invoices, so not just their bank loans (which are about 50% of GDP).
NZ businesses have the highest liabilities in the OECD as a % of GDP. This is only possible because they have expensive land and property on the asset side of their balance sheet. Now, if creditors / shareholders want a 5% return on the equity / shares / loans, how much is that? Yep, 17.5% of GDP, or about $75bn. That's over a third of total NZ wages. No wonder everything is so expensive.
I don't think that's why everything is so much more expensive here.
Do you have some sort of country goods price comparison that marries up with these liability levels? Germany for instance has low liability as per your link, but it's one of the most expensive places on the list.
Germany for instance has low liability as per your link, but it's one of the most expensive places on the list.
Well let's have a look P. The total land value in Germany is estimated at about 1.2x the country's GDP, driven largely by non-agricultural (urban and developed) land [https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/conferences/shared/pdf/20211216_7th_hfc…] Compare that to Aotearoa where the ratio is closer to 3x.
Germany is similar to Japan where credit creation for productive purposes is important. This typically constrains inflation, not exacerbates inflation.
And is Germany a cheaper place to live because of all this? Having spent a bit of time there, I'd say absolutely not.
Cost of living in Germany is lower when adjusted for salaries to be fair.
Robertson had six years in the seat, Willis eighteen months.The partisan muttering on here since 1 March 2025, has thankfully largely decreased, but quite obviously, not vanished.
Weird, I'm reading your comment as partisan muttering.
Yes such an interpretation would be as predictable as it is inevitable, wouldn’t it.
Check out my history, I am famously damning of all of our clueless leaders
What history is that, and under how many pseudonyms. To mask better, perhaps consider varying your syntax and tightening up on the subtlety. Context advocating such as (on the left hand) Grant, (on the right hand) Willis is noticeably repetitive.
Foxglove,
Well, if I have to choose between you and JFoe, my vote goes to him every time. Pointing out the faults on both sides requires much more effort-and thought-than simply choosing a side and sticking with them, right or wrong.
It's a serious problem for this country that our political system is so adversarial-we're right, you're wrong. We desperately need to become more collaborative across the political divide.
In pointing out one’s opinion of the flaws and mistakes of a government, or any one political party for that matter, it is neither necessary nor relevant to then provide an account of the alternatives positions, if those flaws and mistakes are so indisputably obvious. Res ipsa loquitur.
And as Vice-Chancellor of Otago University he's now in charge of educating the next cohorts of tertiary students. Or indoctrinating, depending on your fame of reference.
And I hope the irony of Otago's axing of PhD scholarships to try and balance a now-finite budget is not lost upon people.
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/concern-over-axing-scholarships
Robbo has milked Otago University his whole life. Was key instigator of the group that harassed Roger Douglas speech to the student body that had to be ended early. Disappointing because fee-paying students were there to listen to Douglas and ask questions. But Robbo and the agitators controlled proceedings as if they were some kind of mafia. To say Robbo was groomed and nurtured his whole 'political life' is an understatement.
Peak NZ has been and gone, we are sinking under the weight of debt and other issues Labour has rapidly brought upon us.
Still JA is lauded and Hipkins sits smirking like a drunk cat
Fact free ramble. Thanks.
Ya reckon, and you never ramble of course
How depressing is this article! With the track record they have, treasury are prob wrong and the actual impact of the govt of the days management of the crisis likely not measured yet. Someone knows. Current cabinet have briefings. Watch their action plan for clues on how many miles we have to walk back to get to that Y in the road. Gonna be a slog. Im long on real estate and know my exposure. Good locations so will be less impact. More liquidations of good family owned enterprises to come. My money on? Shares in the banks, hold onto your day job, tighten your belt, max out the kiwisaver but make sure you have international interests as NZ inc is not looking pretty. Hoard some cash, and wait for the RB to signal a change in their hawkish stance. Be quick into assets once they do. But not real estate, fundamentals are screwed. Rate sand insurance not yet corrected for inflation and the next climate/EQ event.
Speaking of wasted money. I wonder how much this report cost to publish. I would have offered to charge $200 to write the bleedingly obvious in a concise paragraph. The time it would have taken would have still put my hourly rate up to 2k.
One problem with much of our government is that everyone seeks absolute certainty, as much data as possible, as much collaboration as possible, etc, basically everyone is trying to avoid holding a baby or being on the wrong side of history.
So, we get very slow action, and an abundance of reports, committees, etc.
Many of us long for a Lee Kwan Yew. But we're more likely to get a tinpot dictator.
So if the previous government had turned off the tap earlier, it begs the question of what shape the economy would now be in.
A question some it would seem would prefer not to exist. Hence spouting of lame excuses, good ol’ NZ did as good as or better than most. But the question remains and the answer is in a question itself and that is, how much better would it have been if the wanton, heedless spending as identified by the Attorney General and now the Treasury, had not occurred.
I think the early stages of COVID were handled as good as you could expect, under the circumstances.
But that's a short term response to an emergency. The fallout is far too complex for most to be able to model, let alone respond to in a way that's not going to have undesired consequences.
As soon as the government started paying employers to keep staff it seemed fairly obvious we were going to be in for a caning, at some point. Looks like that's now.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Politicians were confronted with COVID and they got close to unrestricted access to the fiscal candy jar: of course they spent on their pet projects and partisans like soldiers on the last night of leave.
My first take on some figures given.
Holy shit South Canterbury Finance cost nearly 10% of the Chch earthquake.
Yep the Minister of Finance stuffed up,
the Reserve Bank Governor stuffed up,
and we may as well add Treasury stuffed up, as we never heard much from them about constraining spending etc during Covid. Most likely they kept low profile to retain their jobs, or did they get sucked into the Wellington rhetoric of not criticizing the govt / RB even though it was obvious they got carried away
2020/2021 annual report from treasury here
At a brief skim it is a load of waffle saying "look how much we have achieved, look, look"
THE RECKLESS OVERPAID CLOWN IN THE ILLUSTRATION HAS BLOOD UP TO HIS EYEBROWS
This is not a partisan view - IMO all of the incumbent political parties have been badly implicated in the Covid debacle and the slow trainwreck economy.
Quoted..."It was a thinly-veiled review of spending decisions made during the Covid-19 response which concluded future governments should be more careful about taking on large debts."
One of the most profound tragedies is that New Zealand’s COVID-19 response was one of the most aggressive and expensive in the world per capita. At more than $150 billion (~30% of GDP), this was one of the highest per capita costs globally. NZ will also pay at least NZ$2–4 billion/year in extra interest (2024–2030).
NZ could in fact have eliminated 99% of this cost, and 99.9% of our excess death debacle, if we had only used half a brain, fortified our immune systems with some simple vitamin/mineral protocols, and widely deployed a well-proven and harmless drug which cost less than 5 cents a dose to manufacture.
https://www.garymoller.com/post/ivermectin-ivm-the-drug-that-literally-terrifies-big-pharma
NZ, instead, chose to binge-purchase a total of 60 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) for ~$1.8 billion. Around 15 million shots were unused. It seems that they intended for the 5.12 million (2021) Kiwis to endure 12 shots/head, to resemble second-hand dart boards, the walking dead ---- or worse.
WE CHOSE TO BLOW MORE THAN $150 BILLION on poisoning most of our society
Geert Vanden Bossche and Luc Montagnier both predicted, well before the rollout even began, that these products would prove far more dangerous than any wild virus, and that the long-term health risks were completely outrageous.
Both of these two iconic scientists warned us about the carnage that would result from Antibody-Dependent Enhancement [ADE], and that the real damage from this effect would arrive with a vengeance once the boosters really began to kick in - they called it 100% correct.
'Our' Ministry of 'Health' and all the other agencies implicated in this corporate-sponsored mass-poisoning will continue to try to pass these deaths off as covid deaths.
The truth will come out eventually, that almost all of the deaths they try to label as 'from' or 'with' Covid, have been caused by either the cumulative poisonous s-proteins in the jabs, the destructive derangement of the patient's immune system, or a debilitating combination of these two effects.
Instead, NZ spent billions on a lethal concoction that would cause immediate carnage and permanently (multi-generationally) compromise ~80% of our nation's ovum and mitochondria stock.
https://www.garymoller.com/post/we-wouldn-t-dream-of-inflicting-this-on-cattle
AND WHAT DID WE GET FOR OUR $150 BILLION LOANS?
Pre-jab rollout, NZ had relatively stable mortality rates averaging around 32,000 - 34,000 per year. Due to strict lockdowns and border controls, NZ had negative excess deaths in 2020 (-2.2% below expected), and in 2021, deaths remained near baseline until the vaccine rollout began (mid-2021).
Younger cohorts (0–44) saw unusual rises in cardiac & stroke-related deaths post-vaccine rollout. Independent Researchers (e.g., NZDSOS, HART) show that this aligns with vaccine boosters and show patterns consistent with vaccine injury signals (e.g., myocarditis, clotting events).
Post rollout, whammo, with 3,300+ (~10% above expected) excess deaths in 2022, and they have remained elevated ever since. Total Excess Deaths (2022–mid-2024): ~6,000–8,000+ (Sources: NZ MoH, Stats NZ, WHO estimates)
+ ~30,000+ elective surgeries were delayed (2020–2023)
+ Cancer & cardiac treatment delays
+ ~25% increase in anxiety/depression (2020–2022, NZ Health Survey).
+ Youth suicide rates remained high
+ NZ students fell ~6 months behind in math/reading (OECD 2022 report).
MASSIVE BATCH VARIABILITY - from Pfizer’s Own Data (Leaked Documents)
Pfizer’s post-marketing analysis (Feb 2021, released via FOIA) showed wide variations in adverse event reports between batches. Some lots had 10–50x more AEs (Adverse Reactions) than others, suggesting inconsistent manufacturing (e.g., mRNA integrity, lipid nanoparticle defects, or contaminants).
Some batches (e.g., EW0217, FA6783) had disproportionately high AE reports (myocarditis, strokes, deaths). Other batches showed minimal issues.
Denmark & Germany: Researchers found 5–10% of batches accounted for ~50% of serious AEs. US VAERS Data: Confirmed "hot lots" with extreme toxicity (some linked to clusters of deaths). Some batches were so lethal that the recipient didn't even make it home alive.
"Hot Lots" (Highly Toxic Batches) - these show 10–100x higher death rates post-vaccination compared to milder batches.Example: Batch EW0217 (NZ, 2021) linked to multiple sudden deaths in young adults.
"Clean Lots" (Low Toxicity) - these batches had near-zero severe AEs.
mRNA Integrity Issues
Degraded mRNA = toxic spike protein variants (not properly folded).
Lipid Nanoparticle (LNP) defects - some batches may have had aggregated LNPs, causing clotting or organ inflammation.
Contaminants (DNA Plasmid Fragments? - recent studies (e.g., K. McKernan, 2023) found SV40 promoter DNA in Pfizer vials potential genotoxicity risk.
THE SV40 Story...
SV40 was literally used to induce tumours in lab animals to speed up testing. It was isolated in 1960 from rhesus monkey kidney cells used to produce polio vaccines. SV40 itself was a contaminant, not intentionally added, but it infected monkey cells during vaccine production.
SV40 is a DNA virus that can integrate into host cells and disrupt tumouur suppressor genes - injected into hamsters, SV40 caused aggressive tumours (sarcomas, brain cancers).
In human cell studies, it immortalises cells (bypasses normal growth limits), a hallmark of cancer. OK, it was not designed as a cancer-causing agent - these properties were discovered accidentally during vaccine safety testing.
As of late 2023, three independent research groups have confirmed the presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer sequences in Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine vials. NB, these findings were not part of regulatory agency testing and emerged from independent genomic analyses.
Theoretical Risks:
DNA integration: SV40 promoters may enhance nuclear entry of plasmid DNA, risking genomic integration (potentially disrupting genes or causing cancer).
Autoimmunity: Foreign DNA can trigger anti-dsDNA antibodies (linked to lupus-like syndromes).
Chronic inflammation: Residual DNA may activate TLR9/cGAS-STING pathways.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE?
Multiple countries with high mRNA COVID-19 vaccine uptake - including New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Germany, and the US - are reporting unexplained rises in aggressive, early-onset cancers ("turbo cancers") and advanced-stage cancer presentations.
The New Zealand Cancer Registry shows a 13% rise in registrations from 2021-2023, with very concerning patterns in younger cohorts. Similar trends are documented in UK and German insurance data.
Overall Cancer Incidence (2021–2023) showed a 13% increase in cancer registrations vs. pre-pandemic (2015–2019 baseline), per NZ Cancer Registry. The largest rises were in colorectal, breast, pancreatic, and brain cancers.
Alarming "Turbo Cancer" Clusters are being reported - oncologists report unusually rapid progression (e.g., stage 1 to stage 4 in <6 months), and young patients (25 - 50yo) are presenting with rare, aggressive cancers (e.g., glioblastoma, angiosarcoma).
Australia has shown a 16% spike in cancer-related deaths among 15- 44yo (2021 - 2023, ABS data), plus a 40% increase in emergency late-stage cancer diagnoses (2023, Cancer Australia report).
Germany had a 14% excess cancer mortality in 2022 (Destatis), largest in the 30 - 50yo cohort, and insurers report "unprecedented" claims for rare cancers in young adults.
Plausible Biological Links to mRNA Vaccines include...
An Immune Suppression...
IgG4 antibody class switching: Repeated mRNA doses may impair cancer surveillance (German Cancer Research Center, 2023).
T-cell exhaustion: Reduced CD8+ T-cell activity observed post-boosters (study: Front. Immunol., 2023).
B. DNA Contamination Risks
SV40 promoters in Pfizer vials may theoretically disrupt tumour suppressor genes. And residual DNA plasmids could trigger chronic inflammation or genomic instability.
C. Spike Protein Pathology
Spike-induced vascular damage may accelerate metastasis (studies show spike binds ACE2 receptors on tumours).
From those who collaborated in this mass-poisoning and who use Correlation/Causation obfuscation to try to save their backsides...
NZ Ministry of Health: Attributes rise to "pandemic-related delays in screening/treatment."
WHO/CDC: Deny causal links, claim data is "misinterpreted."
INCRIMINATING EXEMPTIONS
As if all of that is not bad enough, medical professionals, government officials, and even politicians received exemptions from the COVID-19 'vaccine' mandates, despite publicly promoting blatantly coercive and draconian 'vaccination' policies for the general population.
The mRNA COVID 'vaccines' were redefined semantically to fit emergency approval frameworks - THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY - it was all totally orchestrated. They were not 'vaccines', because they never had the slightest benefit in terms of avoiding infection or transmission - they had disastrously negative impacts on both - they were never any more than dangerous gene-based concoctions that always carried outrageous long-term risks.
LUXTON PETERS AND SEYMOUR ALL PUBLICALLY CHEERLED THIS CORPORATE-SPONSORED MASS-POISONING
We should also reflect on the fact that this rollout idiocy was criticised by Luxton, Peters and Seymour as being nowhere near far-reaching enough - it was described as an appalling Labour Party response - all three claimed the response should have been far more draconian and decisive - read more EXPENSIVE, and even more ruinous to the nation's health.
All three were, in essence, cheerleading for more health and economic carnage, and yet here we are now with the ultimate irony - seeing them ensconced in the three highest offices in the land, and with the FM Nicola Willis putting the boot in about Labour's spending, when all her party ever did was cheerlead the 'Vax the Nation' lunacy.
Vaxcinder, and the eternally smug, odious, and incompetent Robertson have, of course, landed on their feet with lucrative Ivy-League-style tenureships, whilst leaving behind them in their wake a tragic medical and economic trail of carnage that NZ will never fully recover from.
CONCLUSION
As long as this country chooses to sweep outrageously destructive behaviour like this under the mat, we are headed for a very dark future. The international corporate takeover of NZ began with the banks in the late 1930s (National sold us out to The City of London private banking cartel), and ever since the global corporate network has progressively swamped the banking sector, media, pharmaceuticals, govt agencies, and finally, even parliament itself.
Humanity gave this corporate blob, which is at the pinnacle of the human food chain, free access to the Western-centric 'money' printing apparatus, and as such, the means to buy up all the power they desire - that is precisely what they have done.
Their big push now will be on adding the finishing touches to a centrally controlled techno-gulag that they hope will be the end of what little freedom the working classes still cling to.
Regards
Col
Good grief.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.