Carl Bates, the National Party candidate for the Whanganui electorate has posted the following on his Facebook Page:

The Whanganui Chronicle recently had a worrying story about the Te Pūkenga UCOL Whanganui campus having axed four courses because of low enrolment numbers. The issues at UCOL are actually worse than that; enrolments this year are down by more than 22%. UCOL’s Whanganui campus was absorbed into Te Pūkenga during 2022, and decisions about the viability of Whanganui are made in Hamilton, where Te Pūkenga is based.

From 2003 to 2007 I served on the UCOL Board. Board meetings rotated around the campuses to ensure that Board members knew what was happening at a local level when they were making decisions. We received advice from locally-based management staff and regularly met with Whanganui stakeholders at a governance level.

I am not prepared to stand by whilst this Whanganui asset is further downgraded. I have consulted with business and civic leaders who are likewise worried about UCOL’s downward trajectory. It’s not that long ago that the Whanganui School of Design, under the leadership of Professor Hazel Gamec was considered to be one of the top ten schools of its kind globally.

Today, I am launching a petition via the National Party website demanding a return to localized control at Te Pūkenga’s Whanganui campus. Labour is ignoring the massively negative impact Te Pūkenga’s centralisation has had, and continues to have, on provincial cities like Whanganui. We must send the Government a strong message; only by showing the Government the overwhelming opposition to their broken reforms can we stop them. But I need your support.

A National government will disestablish Te Pūkenga if we are in Government later this year, returning autonomy and decision-making to individual Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics and their communities. National’s Tertiary Education spokeswoman is Penny Simmonds, who for 23 years was CEO of Southland Institute of Technology, one of the country’s most successful tertiary providers .

Please consider signing this petition, and sharing it within your networks. Let’s send a message to our government that their one-size-fits-all Wellington-knows-best approach to tertiary education is not working, and to demand a return to localised management for UCOL Whanganui.

https://www.national.org.nz/makeucollocal

Last week Te Pūkenga let slip that merging the IT systems of the 16 constituent institutions will cost an eye-watering $295 million over four years, part of an overall request for additional funding totaling $422.6 million over four years. We only know the details of this because the business case was accidentally published online before being taken down.

That prompted Penny Simmonds to say “As the Chief Executive for the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) for 23 years prior to entering parliament in 2020, I know how misguided and inappropriate the establishment of Te Pūkenga has been and the waste of money in doing so has been heart-breaking.”  

Despite opposition from right across the country, then-Education Minister Chris Hipkins pushed on with the Te Pūkenga reform, clearly believing that Labour knows best. But in doing so, he has put vocational education at risk for hundreds of young New Zealanders.

It’s time to push back against Te Pūkenga. Please sign Carl Bates’ petition, and share it with your networks. It’s Whanganui today, but it may be your region under threat tomorrow.

We have rock solid proof that the Government has been denying OIA requests as out of scope, when they were beyond any dispute within scope. It is possibly no coincidence that the PM’s Deputy Chief of Staff who approved this, was also named by Dr Sharma as taking part in a seminar for Labour MPs on how to avoid disclosing information under the OIA.

A proper inquiry should examine the following issues:

1. Who was involved in the decision to declare the Nash e-mail as not falling within the OIA, and what was their reasoning?
2. Who decided to redact the e-mail being sending it to the Ombudsman, and what parts were redacted?
3. Why did the Ombudsman’s Office accept a redacted e-mail, and not insist in seeing the full e-mail before rejecting the appeal?
4. Have any other OIA requests to Ministers in the last five years been improperly rejected as having been out of scope, when they were not? I have been informed of at least one other specific request which was improperly denied as existing.
5. Did the two senior staffers in the PMs Office communicate in any way that substance of the Nash e-mail to the Prime Minister, the PMs Chief of Staff, the Deputy PM, DPMC, the Cabinet Office etc. If not, why not.
6. Did any person discuss with Stuart Nash before 2023, that the e-mail he sent was inappropriate and he should desist from further ones
7. Have the actions of the PMs Office staffers complied with the public service code of conduct for ministerial staffers, specifically the requirement to act lawfully and ethically, and using official resources and information carefully and only for proper purposes.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn highlights why this needs to be an independent inquiry by a KC or Judge.

I have two comments here. The first is that there seems to be no reason whatsoever for this request to have been escalated to the Prime Minister’s office, and it seems to be another example of Labour’s informational control-freakery. The fact that it was the PM’s staff who ruled the email “out of scope” because it wasn’t “received in his capacity as a minister” also echoes Gaurav Sharma’s claims about the PM’s office instructing MPs about how to hide information from the OIA by claiming it was received in a party capacity. (In this case its strictly false, because information from Cabinet discussions can only be held in a Ministerial capacity; the PM’s staff’s willingness to overlook this calls every OIA judgement they have ever made into question, and suggests they are systematically illegally withholding information on political grounds. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman can’t do anything about it, because OIA investigations can only be in relation to a specific request, while Ministers have ensured that the Ombudsmen’s Act, which allows own-motion inquiries into OIA practices, doesn’t apply to them. Convenient, isn’t it?)

I/S also states:

My second comment is that this is a perfect example of why the OIA needs criminal penalties for deliberate violations. Canada does this, with the Access to Information Act having a penalty of two years imprisonment for those who, with intent to frustrate a request, conceal, falsify or destroy records. We should do the same, to deter such behaviour and enable public servants to stand up to illegal demands from their political masters. But as with the Ombudsmen’s Act, the problem is getting Ministers to apply the law to themselves…

I agree. The OIA needs more teeth.

Either way, its clear that the announced review into what else Nash might have corruptly disclosed isn’t enough; we also need a full investigation into Labour’s handling of OIA requests. And if this government won’t do it, I’d hope the next one will.

That’s a good idea. National and ACT should announce they will launch an inquiry if they become Government.

The latest revelations around the Nash e-mail has taken it from merely an issue of bad judgment, to corrupt behaviour involving the Prime Minister’s Office.

Newsroom reports:

On June 8, 2021, Newsroom made a request to Nash’s office under the Official Information Act for “All written correspondence and details of the nature and substance of any other communication since the start of 2020” between Nash and 19 of his political donors. Included on the list of donors was Troy Bowker. Given that the June 2020 email to Bowker concerned discussions Nash was having in his capacity as a minister, it appears that the June 2020 email fell within the scope of Newsroom’s request.

In August 2021, however, Nash’s office responded, “I hold nothing that is within the scope of your request as the Act relates only to information provided to me as minister. I must therefore refuse your request under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act as the information does not exist or cannot be found.”

Failing to disclose documents within the scope of a valid request without justification is a breach of the Official Information Act. 

There is basically zero doubt that the law was broken here. When I heard the e-mail was deemed out of scope of the OIA request, I was very interested as to what the request was for. Was it a very general request for material on rental policy, or was it specific.

The request was as specific as you can get. It was for all correspondence between Nash and his donors. This was an e-mail between Nash and two donors. It was obviously exactly the sort of information Newsroom was seeking to obtain.

The Government decided it was out of scope as it was Nash communicating in his capacity as an MP, not a Minister.

Now sometimes there can be a grey area between whether a Minister is acting as a Minister or MP, but this is not one of them. Nash was referring to a decision made by Cabinet, and even detailing discussions around the Cabinet table and how different Ministers voted. It is impossible to say this is a communication in his capacity as an MP, not a Minister. MPs do not attend Cabinet, only Ministers.

But while Nash signed off on not releasing the e-mail, this was a decision taken jointly with Jacinda Ardern’s office.

Two staff members in the Prime Minister’s Office, deputy Chief of Staff Holly Donald and a senior advisor were aware of the original OIA

They were consulted on the OIA and concurred that the e-mail was out of scope. No one with any experience with the OIA could in good faith believe it was out of scope. They conspired to invent a reason not to release it.

And the reason they didn’t release it, is it was explosive. It was proof that a Cabinet Minister was e-mailing two people details of discussion and decisions in Cabinet.

Now this is the Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister. There are broadly only three possible explanations for what happened.

1. The Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister is so incompetent and derelict in her job that she didn’t think it was necessary to tell the Prime Minister (or the CoS) that one of her Ministers was sending e-mails to donor giving them a detailed description of Cabinet discussions and voting.
2. The Deputy Chief of Staff realised how explosive this was, and deliberately decided not to tell the PM or CoS so there was plausible deniability
3. The Deputy Chief of Staff did in fact tell the PM or the Chief of Staff

But it gets even worse. From the RNZ timeline:

1 March: Stuart Nash receives a letter from the Ombudsman regarding an investigation into his response to the 8 92021 OIA.

17 March: Stuart Nash’s office drafts a response to the Ombudsman and shares it with the Prime Minister’s Office. This did not include a copy of the 5 June 2020 email but did include a reference to withholding documents under s9(2)(j). The Prime Minister’s Office did not reply.

29 March: Stuart Nash replies to the Ombudsman including a redacted version of the 5 June 2020 email. Includes an explanation that the email was in his capacity as a Labour Member of Parliament rather than in his capacity as Minister.

30 March: Office of the Ombudsman responds to Nash’s office, acknowledging receipt of his response.

25 May: Office of the Ombudsman emails Stuart Nash’s office saying they would not be pursuing the complaint and the investigation was closed.

They sent the Ombudsman a redacted version?? You are not meant to redact anything to the Ombudsman. They obviously hid the substance which would have shown the e-mail clearly was in his capacity as a Minister. So the PMs Office and Nash’s office conspired again to hide the full e-mail from the Ombudsman. That is appalling.

I suspect and hope the Chief Ombudsman launches an inquiry into this.

But the issue is not just the breaches of the OIA. It is also about how the PM’s Deputy Chief of Staff knew what was going on and allegedly never told anyone.

I think we need a full inquiry into this led by a QC with powers to compel testimony and potential perjury charges for anyone who gives false testimony. I simply do not believe that two senior staffers in the PMs Office knew about the e-mail and did not tell anyone.

Labour has announced that it will start construction on a second harbour crossing by 2029.

Sadly some people will fall for this. The old saying is you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Let’s look at their record:

1. Promised Light Rail to Mt Roskill would be completed by 2021. It is 2023 and they now say it might be complete by 2031.
2. Promised 100,000 Kiwibuild houses by 2028. It is 2023 and they have built 1,599 or 1.6% of their target. At this rate they will hit 100,000 in the year 2305.
3. In 2017 Labour promised the new Dunedin Hospital would start construction by 2020 and be finished by 2023. It is 2023 and they are now saying it will be complete by 2029.

Why would you possibly believe them this time?

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins says Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s office was aware of a 2020 email, revealed by Stuff on Tuesday, in which sacked minister Stuart Nash divulged Cabinet discussionsto two donors.

Neither Ardern nor her chief of staff were informed, Hipkins said, and the severe breach of Cabinet rules was not “covered up”.

But National Party leader Christopher Luxon said it was clear there had been a two-year cover up that suggested a broader culture of improper behaviour.

“Clearly people inside the prime minister’s office were aware of the issue, and so what kind of culture is that if you don’t actually flag those issues higher up the chain?”

It is almost beyond belief that the PMs Office knew of this e-mail, and it was not elevated up.

I know the person who handled OIAs for the PMs Office for the Key/English Government. If she had come across an e-mail from a Minister which divulged details of a Cabinet meeting, including who voted which way etc, then she would have set a new land speed record on her way to the Chief of Staff’s office.

Unless the Ardern staffer was extremely extremely junior, such as a mail clerk, it is impossible to fathom how they didn’t raise this with someone.

What needs to be revealed now is what was the role or job title of the staffer, did they raise it with anyone else at all in Ardern’s Office, and is that staffer still there?

Linked to that is we also need to know what was the OIA request that it was deemed out of scope for.

If I had to have a mandatory book for school students to read it would be the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy series by Douglas Adams. E.g.

“A huge young Vogon guard stepped forward and yanked them out of their straps with his huge blubbery arms. “You can’t throw us into space,” yelled Ford, “we’re trying to write a book.” “Resistance is useless!” shouted the Vogon guard back at him. It was the first phrase he’d learned when he joined the Vogon Guard Corps.

When Ford enquired as to whether the guard enjoyed his job, he told him that the hours were good, but that most of the actual minutes were “pretty lousy”. According to his aunt, being a spaceship guard was a “good career for a young Vogon”, as it included a uniform, a low-slung stun ray holster, and mindless tedium. Although the guard didn’t seem to know why exactly he was doing his job, he couldn’t think of any alternative, and thought he’d better stick to what he knew, hoping to eventually be promoted to Senior Shouting Officer.”

Or

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

When you wonder why this is the case: “Almost a quarter of young Kiwis struggling with mental health – report.” And add in international reports that show NZ is the OECD country with the highest incidence of bullying.

Who do kids look up to? (And you may think children don’t notice the adult world but they actually watch in intensely).

• A Prime Minister who has not only failed in all of his portfolios but to preserve a political position lied for political gain at human expense: Former Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins has admitted he released incorrect and personal information about then-pregnant journalist Charlotte Bellis.

• A Prime Minister that lied about women travelling to Northland during the government’s covid-response: The women were publicly vilified for crossing the border with then Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins accusing them of using “false information to travel across the border”.

The Richie Cunningham act to impress the older folk of NZ does not stand up to the record of poor behavior from Prime Minister Hipkins.

• A Minister of a range of things – Michael Wood – who calls protesters at Parliament a “River of Filth”, calls an incredibly well qualified, experienced and acclaimed academic a “Right-wing hack” and then goes public on someone Immigration NZ has allowed into NZ and tells NZ that is not views that are “vile” but people: “I find many of her views repugnant, and am concerned by the way in which she courts some of the most vile people and groups around including white supremacists,” Wood said. Surely there needs to be an investigation as to whether he incited violence.

• Or a Minister of Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence who states: “I am the prevention violence Minister, and I know who causes violence in the world, and it’s white cis men’. Then doubling-down by offering no public apology (although – apparently apologized to the Prime Minister).

• Or teachers who are not getting what they want so put kids on the street (or cost parents a day of their 4 weeks annual leave) march on Parliament, presumably to hear from politicians, and then shout down the Minister of Education will bull-horns yelling “Do your job!”

• Or the closest thing we have seen in recent NZ to a lynch mob, preventing free speech, assaulting a NZ guest, thumping people, and yelling in the face of grand-mothers.” Then the justification that it is okay to assault someone as long as you have a sad back-story.

• Or venues being shut-down through threat of violence and speakers being shouted down.

It has all been profoundly embarrassing globally. To see how debate should take place see the most recent interview of Piers Morgan and Richard Dawkins. Or look up the debate of the late Christopher Hichens with his brother Peter. Or David Lange at Oxford.

With all of this from leaders and adults; why do we wonder about reasons for why young people go feral on social media and become violent in public and at our schools. The next time one of them abuses someone online, thumps them at school or throws a substance on them – they can simply say: “I did it because they disagree with my opinion.”

The Social Credit Party has deregistered from the Electoral Commission. Maybe it is because they finally got their wish and had a Government that just started printing money, or maybe it was the death of their leader, Chris Leitch in January.

While I am not a fan of the party and its anti-semitic origins, they were a major force in NZ politics. In 1954 they got 11% of the vote and in 1966 got 14% and one MP for one term. Then in 1978 they got 16% and a seat and in 1981 got 21% and two seats.

After that they decline over nine years to 1.7% and joined the Alliance. They split from it in 2005 and since then had got between 0.03% and 0.07%.

Are you passionate about local democracy? We’re looking for a Local Government Campaigns Manager to join our team in the fight to hold councils to account for their wasteful spending and bloated bureaucracy. 

You’ll be responsible for analysing trends in council spending, researching policy issues, and briefing our members and supporters on developments in the local government sector. 

You’ll also lead our work to make the case for reforming local government to protect local control, maintain democratic accountability, increase transparency, and improve incentives. 

You’ll present to elected members and speak persuasively on radio and television, and co-ordinate others to do so. Oversee multiple social media channels and create email and blog posts to inform. 

Our Local Government Campaigns Manager also runs our sister organisation: The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance. You will play a major role holding New Zealand’s largest local authority and its elected representatives to account.

We are looking for someone with a few years’ experience in politics, communications, public affairs or community activism. Some experience in either central or local government would be a bonus. 

The Taxpayers’ Union is New Zealand’s largest political advocacy group on the centre-right, using the power of our 175,000+ subscribed members and supporters to fight for Lower Taxes, Less Waste, More Accountability.

We combine hard-hitting original research with people power to expose examples of wasteful government spending, stop new taxes, fight for transparent government, and hold politicians to account at both the national and local level.

This role is based in our Auckland CBD office, and you will work closely with our Wellington office. 

So, if you’d be proud to play a leading role in one of the most subscribed and effective grassroots organisations in New Zealand, let’s talk!

Salary is competitive and negotiable based on experience. 

To apply for this role, please provide a CV and a cover letter outlining your experience and how it is relevant to the role by Friday, 14 April 2022. We reserve the right to make an appointment prior to this date should a suitable candidate be found.

For further details, please contact [email protected]

https://www.seek.co.nz/job/66389646

Stuff reports:

Stuart Nash has been sacked as a minister, after Stuff revealed he had emailed business figures, including donors, detailing private Cabinet discussions.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed the people Nash emailed were donors to his campaign, which he said was a serious breach of trust and expectations for ministers.

“His conduct is inexcusable,” Hipkins said. “He is no longer a Cabinet minister and won’t be coming back.”

Nash had already had three previous warnings, so this was a case of finally out on his fourth strike.

While there is no question Hipkins had to sack him, he will be a loss to Labour. He was one of their few moderate MPs who actually understood the private sector. He had good instincts on law and order issues, and not having him around the Cabinet table will weaken Labour.

Nash was not a tribal politician. I met him before he became an MP, and have always had a friendly relationship with him. He isn’t one who thinks his side is right on everything, and the other side are wrong on everything.

Presumably this means Nash will not contest the election. He was always far more popular in the seat than Labour were, so if he does stand down, this makes it more likely National wins it back.

This post is by PaulL, regular commenter and occasional contributor.

One of my early reactions to the Posie Parker / Stand Up For Women protest / meeting / debacle on the weekend was to ask “where were the Police?”

I’d seen earlier commentary suggesting that the organisers had needed to spend $10K for a security firm, and needed a security plan. I’ve seen mention of things like this before – that you have to ask the Speaker for permission to protest at Parliament, that you have to have a traffic control plan to march in protest etc etc. It always seemed a bit weird to me that if you’re law abiding and organise a protest you have lots of obligations, but when you’re Extinction Rebellion or whomever, you just go stop traffic, so clearly these requirements are things you can just ignore if you’re young and silly.

This time it was even more dissonant – I get that if you’re actively planning to disrupt traffic you might need to have a plan. But if you’re having a peaceful protest (mostly just a group of people meeting and having speeches), and someone else threatens to turn up and cause disruption, it falls on you to make the security and safety plan. Why are those turning up to counter protest not obliged to have a safety plan?

Radio NZ report:

Not a single warning sign has been installed near fixed speed cameras, three and a half years since the policy was first announced.

In November 2019, then-associate transport minister Julie Anne Genter said a new ‘no surprises’ approach to safety cameras would introduce warning signs in high-risk areas.

It was announced alongside a suite of programmes to tackle unsafe speeds, including reducing speed limits around schools, rolling out more cameras on unsafe roads, and streamlining the process for communities and local authorities to determine the appropriate speed limits for their regions.

While progress has been made on those other issues, it appears the warning sign rollout has not even begun.

Last month, in a Written Parliamentary Question to then-police minister Stuart Nash, National’s transport spokesperson Simeon Brown asked how many fixed speed cameras had been signposted with warning signs each year, for the past five years.

Nash responded: “I am advised that police has not signposted any fixed safe speed cameras with warning signs in the past five years.”

The only skill this Government seems to have is with announcements. When it comes to actual implementation, they once again score a zero.

Radio NZ reports:

Wellington’s mayor admits council is partly responsible for hospitality operators struggling in the capital. …

Golding wanted council to clean up the streets, better understand the industry’s needs, make consenting and licensing easier, and ensure the capital was affordable for students.

People were choosing other cities for their studies, leaving the capital’s bar and restaurant owners in the lurch, he said.

“That’s a huge workforce for us, not to mention their disposable income when they go out at night and they spend a bit of money, that all contributes you know, but they’ve got nowhere to live.”

Golding said hospitality was let down by a series of disinterested mayors, and they were pinning their hopes on Tory Whanau.

Whanau said she heard them – as an inner-city dweller who frequented local bars and restaurants, she was the person for the job, and things would soon change.

“I do know things have been a bit tough lately and our council has a part to play in that, especially along Courtenay Place and of course Cuba [Street], where it’s becoming quite pricey to even have a bar there.”

She would push council to strip back the bureaucracy faced by bar and restaurant owners, she said.

“The biggest issue that I’m hearing from our bar owners is the licensing and consenting process, we need to make it a lot easier.

“So I’m going to work with council officers to see what we can do, make it more streamlined, make it a bit quicker, so we can get those bars up and running.”

The paperwork was just signed for a fresh council role of city manager, who would work with bars and restaurants to make consents more accessible, Whanau said.

Pleased to see this attitude from the Mayor that the Council has been part of the problem, and they need to make licensing and consenting easier. I hope she succeeds.

One News reports:

The wait to admit ambulance patients is called ‘ramping’ and is seeing some ambulances parked up at hospital drop-off bays for more than an hour — frequently longer.

Things have to be bad when not even ambulances can get their patients into ED.

The latest data from 15 hospitals from Whangārei to Southland show that 3000 ramping hours were recorded in the first quarter of 2019.

That figure had jumped considerably by the last quarter of 2022, which showed ramping hours had risen to 9756.

So waiting time in ambulances has tripled in three years. Patients have spent a total of 407 days waiting in ambulances to even get into ED.

Radio NZ reports:

One of New Zealand’s spy agencies has revealed it helped prevent three recent domestic terror attacks by identifying people who made threats.

The information was shared at Parliament’s Intelligence and Security committee this morning.

Government Communications Security Bureau director-general Andrew Hampton told MPs one operation involved an ideologically motivated individual making bomb threats.

The other two involved a white supremacist who was displaying concerning behaviour online and another who threatened to use firearms and explosives at a public event.

“In all three operations, the GCSB was able to combine lead information from other agencies with our unique technical capabilities to help identify the individuals who had each taken great care to anonymise themselves online.”

Thank you GCSB.

A reminder that Green Party policy is to abolish the GCSB. For a party that goes on about the evils of white supremacy so much, it is fascinating that their policy is to prevent the GCSB from stopping them commit acts of violence.

A post by PaulL, regular commenter and sometime contributor.

Once again in NZ we’re seeing our public discourse being taken over by the fringes, and no room left for anything in the middle. You’re with us or you’re against us.

I see both sides feeling threatened, but not a lot of empathy for each other. I see both sides talking past each other, and attributing sinister motives to the other side.

I also see a lot of common ground, common ground that isn’t being identified and agreed upon, and that isn’t being talked about in the media. Without common ground there really cannot be discussion. This is a worrying trend I’ve seen overseas, and I guess Bryce Edwards is right when he says that it’s an ugly stoking of culture wars in an election year.

I see a debate that isn’t going to be easily resolved by focusing on rights. Because the core of the debate is a conflict between two different sets of rights, a conflict that can only be resolved by compromise. But compromise only occurs with discussion. I don’t understand what the path is to a resolution that is acceptable to both sides.

This is what Marama Davidson said yesterday.

There are two issues here. The first is that she is wrong. In New Zealand here is the data for violent offending for 2022:

• Gender: 79% male, 21% female
• Ethnicity: 51% Maori, 29% European, 11% Pacific, 2% Indian, 1% Asian

If she is talking about the entire world, then we also have some data. Different countries define violent crime differently but the definition of homicide and rape is similar so allows comparison.

The top five countries for homicide:

• El Salvador
• Jamaica
• Lesotho
• Honduras
• Belize

The top five countries for rape are:

1. Botswana
2. Lesotho
3. South Africa
4. Bermuda
5. Sweden

So it is very clear the Minister is wrong. But that is not the biggest issue. It is her trying to stir up racial hatred.

Imagine if a different Minister or violent prevention said “I am the prevention violence Minister, and I know who causes violence in the world, and it’s coloured cis men”

Would you not expect them to be out of office within minutes or hours if they had said that?

Davidson clearly has views and animosity that are impervious to the facts. Will Hipkins retain her as a Minister?

A guest post by Caitlin Griffin:

I am finally home and sitting down with shaking hands to detail what happened today – Saturday 25 March – at Albert Park in Auckland. 

I had been planning to go and see Kellie-Jay Keen speak when she came to New Zealand. I share many of her concerns about the erosion of female-only spaces and the medicalisation of gender non-conforming children. These issues generally get zero media attention in New Zealand and, when they are reported on, are reported in a very biased and one-sided way. 

As such, I was pleased to be able to go along and listen to KJK speak in Albert Park. Kellie’s main prerogative however, is to offer a platform for ordinary women to speak and so I prepared a speech and looked forward to being able to say my bit. 

I prepared a speech that began by talking about my own experience as a 10-year-old, being involved in a domestic situation. I was going to try and explain to the pundits out there the fear and anxiety I experienced for many years after this when I unexpectedly encountered a man. I was going to talk about the necessity at the time of seeking refuge in a women’s shelter, and the primal need for a secret safe space away from all men. And I was going to try and explain that it doesn’t matter if you’re a good guy, a bad guy or a guy in a dress – a man is a man and for women who have been traumatised that is enough to paralyse them with fear. It’s not personal, it’s just how it is.

I wanted to share this story to try and explain to the “we just want to pee” crowd that there are very good reasons why we have female-only spaces. Dignity, privacy, religious/cultural reasons, breastfeeding and trauma being just some of them.  

I wasn’t going to speak to much about why biological men shouldn’t be incarcerated with women or play in female sports – because I believe that to the majority of people this is self-evident. I was however going to use my platform as an opportunity to let New Zealand women know that this is not just a ‘U.S.A’ or ‘overseas’ issue – that we have men imprisoned with women here in New Zealand right now. We have men competing – and winning – against women here in New Zealand right now. Because where else would I have been able to say this? I have written to MPs of all parties – they know women are concerned, and many even say they care. But will they speak out? Will they represent these views? No. I have written to journalists whom have written incredibly biased and incorrect stories about this issue – but will they offer an opportunity for an alternative view? Will they correct their stories? Will the Broadcasting Standards Authority censure them? No. 

Finally though, I was going to have a platform to speak. I was going to use my platform to inform parents that surely – no matter where you stood on this issue – the idea of teaching children as young as 5 about that people can be born in the wrong body does not pass the sniff test. Surely having New Zealand’s own Ministry of Education encourage and formally advise schools to socially transition children without their parents’ knowledge would not sit well with many parents? Surely parents would be horrified to learn that the MoE refers to girls as “menstruators” and encourages schools not to use the term ‘mum and dad.’ I was going to use my platform to speak about the exponential increase around the world of distressed adolescent girls – with no prior history of gender dysphoria – suddenly declaring they are ‘trans’ and demanding puberty blockers and binders. We know that there has been an exponential rise in he use of puberty blockers in the last decade but we don’t yet know how big of a problem this is in New Zealand because robust centralised records are not being kept. We can’t measure it, report on it, analyse it. Therefore we may have a small population of children transitioning – or we could be world leaders. We wouldn’t know – officially anyway – how we are faring with this. 

While we have no way of recording or tracking official data, many parents, women and teachers have shared anecdotal stories. We have connected over Facebook and joined secret groups to share our stories, our concerns and try and research what we can. What we can see so far is that many people – particularly women and parents – are worried. We are seeing what is happening around the world – the closure of the Tavistock Clinic in the UK, Sweden, Finland and many US States banning the use of puberty blockers due to a huge rise in sterilised, irreversibly damaged ‘detransitioners’ standing up and asking why this was allowed to happen to them? And yet here in New Zealand we don’t even report what is happening overseas – let alone here in our own country. Most New Zealanders have no clue whatsoever that a debate is raging around the world about this.

So when I heard KJK was coming here I was excited. I like KJK because she doesn’t call herself a feminist, or ‘gender critical’, or any other label in particular. She is a mum who is just fiercely pro-woman. Just like me. And just like me, she is angry about what is happening. I put my hand up to help out and I offered to be a marshall on the day. 

With the increasing hysteria over her visit however, and the fact that I was newly pregnant, it was suggested that my being a marshall wasn’t a great idea. The concept that I might not be safe helping out was odd and foreign to me, but so be it. I would still go, I would still speak and I would do what I could to help. I also knew many women who had been intending to attend but the sheer vitriol and whipped up hysteria of the previous week from activists and many parts of the media meant they decided not to. Especially those who had been planning to attend with children or were physically vulnerable. 

I arrived early at the Art Gallery café to work on my speech and soon found that a number of other women had shown up to speak and listen. I was by far one of the youngest at 35 years old and surrounded by inspirational older ladies of all political persuasions, backgrounds and sexualities. One had come from Hamilton with her son, one had caught the train from Papakura and told me some fascinating stories about her grandparents in the war and how they got out of Germany. Many were quite timid and frightened, but determined to be allowed to say their piece. Several had bad hips, bad legs, and a myriad of other ailments that will pester us all as we age. I am describing here for you the overwhelming majority of women who attended – so that when I describe the fear and violence later you can compare that with this motley crew of determined silver haired women. 

On the way to the rotunda, I was surprised by the sheer number of counter-protesters. All the counter-protesters, at that stage, seemed pretty relaxed and chill and I hoped we could each do our thing. I was proud that it looked as though we may just be able to each have our views and have our say without any abuse or nastiness. As it drew closer to 11am however, more and more counter-protesters streamed in with loud speakers, whistles, recorded sirens, and other noise makers. The numbers were staggering and the noise was deafening. I started to wonder how we were going to be able to make our speeches and hear KJK. They encircled around the entire rotunda, penning us in and were a lot closer than I had anticipated. I was nervously waiting for the promised police presence to come and stand between us, but this never occurred. 

I moved into the rotunda and was in there when KJK arrived. As soon as she arrived, an activist who was also in there under false pretences, threw what looked like tomato sauce or soup all over KJK and the women who stood next to her. It seemed almost as though this was a signal of sorts, because suddenly there were no more barriers, no more fences – we were utterly surrounded without any protection. I couldn’t see a single marshall in the crowd and feared for their safety as the sea of screaming, chanting, and feral protesters swarmed around the rotunda. 

For awhile, they stayed off the rotunda and we made an effort to get a couple of elderly & disabled women up onto the rotunda with us. My thinking at that stage was that the police would arrive any moment and create a safety barrier around us, so if we could just hold on and keep the most vulnerable women out of the mob we would be ok. 

However, as time went on, it became apparent that the police were not there and were not going to turn up. I think the protesters sensed that as well, because they started to get more and more feral and entered onto the rotunda. KJKs security team formed a human shield around her and I believe that in doing so they saved her from serious harm. Eventually KJK and her security team made a break for it and I hoped this would settle the crowd down and that they would back off – it made no difference whatsoever. The protesters on the rotunda were overwhelmingly men. Not men in dresses as you might expect at such an event (although there were some) – just ordinary looking men. They shoved women, they screamed in our faces, they leered at us, spat at us, and they tried to forcibly topple over a section of steel gate onto the women sheltering from them on the other side of it. 

As we were completely surrounded, we could not escape. At one point I contemplated climbing out over the seats to exit the rotunda, but the rotunda is surrounded by rocks. I wasn’t confident that I wouldn’t get accidentally or purposefully shoved and fall onto the rocks and get trampled. At this stage had grave concerns for my personal safety and the safety of my 11 week old baby. I kept thinking if they surge, if I fall, if I get trapped under that fence section, if I get punched – I could lose this baby. I kept asking myself – where are the police? How can I get out? What can I do? 

I texted my husband who wanted to come and get me – but how? There is no way at that stage he would have been able to get to me and besides, there was no way he’d get there in time. I asked him to call 111. It took him 8 minutes to get through to them and they told him there were police already there and more on the way. This was patently false. There were no police as far as the eye could see, there were none on the way and I saw none when I finally did manage to get out. And the protesters knew it – you could tell. They knew they could act with impunity. You could tell they knew that had the blessing of the media, the Government and now seemingly, the Police. At one point someone pointed their flag at one of the ladies up there with us. She grabbed it and it broke. He then used the shard to try jab her in the stomach. I had to dodge out of the way to avoid getting accidentally stabbed with it. I’ve never been so scared. 

At this point, a tall man there asked if I was ok. Please bear in mind that when I say ‘asked’ I mean he ‘yelled’ because the noise was phenomenal, and you had to lip-read as someone yelled a question at you to maybe understand what they said. He had a camera so I asked if he was news and he nodded yes. I said no, I wasn’t ok, that I was 11 weeks pregnant and terrified. Despite my best efforts at bravery I started to falter at the point and got teary. Good reporter that he is I suppose, he took that opportunity to ask me some questions and get my name. He then – and I am so grateful for this – asked if I wanted help to get out. I did and so he grabbed my hand and led me out. Behind on the rotunda I left behind the elderly lady with the walking frame and at least two other marshalls who had been up on the rotunda and I’m not sure who else. I had no idea if KJK was safe or if she had made it out or if the Police had helped her at all. I was shaking, felt sick and just stood back watching the rotunda and cried. I desperately looked for some other Marshalls to see if they were ok, and eventually found some of the women I arrived with. 

All I wanted to do today was speak and try raise some awareness for how some of these contentious issues are affecting women and children. I didn’t want to hurt anyone, or scream at anyone or even really engage in protest activity. I just wanted a platform to say my piece. 

I knew the Labour Party, the Greens and the legacy media had whipped this up into some kind of fascist, Nazi, anti-trans hysteria based on lies and disinformation. But I still always had faith and belief that our police force would do their duty and provide a barrier between us and the counter-protesters. I still believed that even if some really wacky people turned up, the police would keep us safe. 

I underestimated the hysteria that had been whipped up. I overestimated the police. I never seriously thought I would be in real actual danger attending a speaking event in New Zealand. 

I think Heather Du Plessis Allen asked earlier in the week – why was KJK invited here? Wasn’t it just inviting drama? Well let me answer that. KJK was invited here because she is me. She is a mother, and a woman who is fed up with the erosion of female-only spaces, fed up with being called a ‘menstruator’ or ‘pregnant person’ and fed up with watching young gender non-conforming or children who will likely grow up to be gay or lesbian if left alone being prescribed off-label drugs developed to castrate male sex offenders or treat prostate cancer that lead to irreversible damage. KJK was going to give ME, a Kiwi woman, a voice, a platform. KJK was invited here because I wanted to listen to her, and last time I checked, I’m allowed to do that.

 We are not ‘anti-trans’ – I don’t particularly give a shit about whether people are trans or not to be honest. Dress how you want, sleep with who you want, and live your life. But don’t claim that your so-called “feminine” inner gender identity gives your male body the right to play on female sports teams, don’t record male rapists as women in the crime stats, don’t use our changing rooms and don’t be jailed with us. More importantly, don’t teach my child that boys can have a period, don’t teach my tom-boy daughter that she really must be a boy if she likes rugby and hates her period, don’t tell young lesbians they have a ‘genital fetish’ if they refuse to have sex with a woman-identifying-man with a penis and don’t socially transition my children at school behind my back. Is that really so fucking unreasonable? Did that really warrant the violence and mob today? Do those views really justify men shoving, stampeding, and spitting at women and having the media paint me as a Nazi?

This is an election year. I was put in danger today because of the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the legacy media whipping up a frenzied mob of hatred against KJK and therefore by extension, me and other ordinary Kiwi woman who have the temerity to believe that biological sex is real and it matters. I was in danger because the lies and fake tears of rainbow-clad thugs were printed and broadcast without any attempt at balance or even actual journalism.

I was in danger today because our police force – for whatever reason – decided not to do their job and stand between peaceful women trying to speak and a baying mob. I was ultimately put in danger though, because very few people in this country will stand up to the so-called “diversity and inclusion” bullies and defend women’s rights to our own services, spaces, and sports. Instead, the majority sit silently by and tacitly give your consent to this. And I have no idea why. Especially National and ACT. These people will never vote for you, no matter how many ‘big gay outs’ you attend. You say you believe KJK had the right to speak, but you all say you disagree with her views. Which ones exactly? Which view mentioned above precisely, do you disagree with? This isn’t rhetorical. 

It’s time to show up Christopher Luxon and David Seymour and not with weasel words about supporting freedom of speech. I want to know, as do thousands of other New Zealanders, where do you actually stand. Do you, or do you not, support my right as set out in the Human Rights Act for sex separated facilities, services, and sports. Do you or do you not support Matthew Nelson, aka Emma Nelson, aka Pandora Electra, who viciously stabbed three people in a restaurant being in a women’s prison because he feels “safe” there.

And if any of your female “liberal” MPs are telling you that this is all going to calm down and go away and to not rock the boat. Good fucking luck with that. 

Until you start speaking up for women, I will not vote for any of our major parties. I’m a mum of three (soon to be four), and a small business owner. I pay taxes out the whazoo and am engaged with my wider community. I am a good civic-minded citizen and today I learnt that it is all for nothing. I expect to be able to speak to MPs about what happened today in person and I expect MPs to stand up and ask why the police provided no protection today. I expect MPs to denounce the violence shown towards peaceful women today in no uncertain terms. And most importantly – I expect to know where your party stands on these issues.

One thing you can be sure of after today is that we won’t have to invite someone like KJK here from the UK again. I am angry after today – and so are many many women and men. If there is one thing being pregnant in the middle of a feral mob does – is it makes you fucking angry and it makes your husband even angrier. And unlike the violent rabid (mostly student & unemployed) trans activists, we won’t use that anger against middle-aged women. We will use that anger politically and publicly to shame politicians until you do your bloody jobs and represent us.

DPF: If anyone thinks that it was merely a loud and boisterous protest, I suggest you look at the video in this story on Radio New Zealand, and consider how safe you would feel in that situation.

Newshub reports:

There are serious concerns about the management of Te Pūkenga as it asks for more money for I.T. systems while course completions are plummeting and some enrolments are down. …

It’s not only staff that were struggling – provisional data provided to Newshub Nation revealed fewer students were completing their courses each year since 2019, with Māori and Pacific students suffering the most. 

Labour loves centralising, and their polytechnic merger has costs hundreds of millions of dollars and the outcome has been fewer students actually completing their courses.

It should be a sackable offence.