Jacinda Ardern continues to sabotage our economy

by Cameron Slater on March 20, 2018 at 9:00am

Jacinda Ardern is just a sloganeering, virtue-signalling fool.

Her latest foolish position is to put on her concern face and say she is looking into ending oil exploration, ignoring potential wealth under our very own soil.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has delayed attending a state visit to personally receive a Greenpeace petition calling for the end of oil exploration.

Standing in front of a series of posters of Labour leaders which had made high profile environmental decisions, Ardern said her Government was “actively considering” the issue.

Although her statement was light on details and Ardern has previously refused to rule out ending offering new exploration blocks, the decision to walk to the front of Parliament was highly symbolic.

Several hours later Ardern appeared to play down the comments and National has dismissed the move as a “quickly invented publicity stunt”.


She’s know all about those. Why insult the Indonesians to pander to Greenpeace? Other than it was after the parliamentary wing of Greenpeace handed all their questions over to National.

“We’re working hard on this issue and we know that it’s one that we can’t afford to spend much time on,” Ardern said at the Greenpeace rally.

“But we are actively considering it now and we are considering all of these issues in mind and with this government’s pledge that we will be carbon neutral by 2050, that’s not in question.

“But these are the intermediate decisions that we have to make in between. So while I ask for time, I’m not asking for much. But just enough that we can make sure that we factor in everything that you would ask us to factor in,” Ardern said, including “grave environmental concerns”.

But is it really an issue? Are people marching it the streets to stop oil explorations? Would they in Taranaki?

Ardern told the crowd she was supposed to be attending a state visit but had elected to receive the petition because of its importance. Behind her the Parliament flagpole was flying the Indonesian flag to mark the visit of President Joko Widodo.

Important to Labour to start beating up the Greens. But to no one else.

By 4pm Ardern appeared to walk back the comments, saying consideration of what to do with the process under which areas are offered for oil exploration was something that “every government does around this time of year”.

National leader Simon Bridges said there was nothing in the announcement.

“I think this is a quickly-invented publicity stunt by the Prime Minister to distract from her week from hell,” Bridges said, accusing Ardern of giving different messages to different audiences.

“By all accounts it seems the Prime Minister was trying to give an impression of high symbolism, of leaving a foreign leader waiting because this was such a pressing issue,” Bridges said.

“The reality of her post-Cabinet press conference was much more business as usual.”

Bridges speculated Labour would make nothing more than process changes around the way the Government offered exploration areas to industry.

“If we are to transition to a low carbon economy, we will continue to need fossil fuels and particularly gas, just to keep the lights on.”

Spot on Simon. He’s starting to come good.

Since taking office the Labour-led Government has been under mounting pressure to end oil exploration in New Zealand.

Greenpeace said the petition was signed by 45,000 people, including Dame Jane Campion, Taika Waititi and actor Lucy Lawless.

So what? That isn’t mounting pressure and who cares what those three think? Typical FAG members.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Kate Simcock said Ardern had won praise for describing climate change as New Zealand’s “nuclear free moment” but now had to put the words into action.

“The world can’t afford to burn even existing fossil fuel reserves let alone seek out new oil and gas if we want to avoid catastrophic warming.”

The planet isn’t warming, and it isn’t catastrophic if it is.

Energy Minister Megan Woods is due to speak to the New Zealand Petroleum Conference, an event run by lobby group Pepanz, in Wellington next week.

Pepanz chief executive Cameron Madgwick said while Ardern’s statements suggested no decision had been made, the move on Monday did appear to point to a direction the Government was going.

“Coming out to accept a petition from an environmental NGO [non government organisation] would appear to suggest that a decision may already be very close to being made,” Madgwick said.

The organisation did not know what to make of the Prime Minister’s actions, because the only written statements from Labour was an energy policy which stated an ongoing role for oil exploration.

“The country will still use oil and gas production for many, many years to come, even if we don’t look for them here or produce them here.”

Jacinda Ardern would rather we keep paying Arab nations for oil instead of using our own. It is economic sabotage.



Good luck sweetie, you called him orange and he won’t have forgotten

by Cameron Slater on March 20, 2018 at 9:30am

Jacinda Ardern is mounting a forlorn hope.

At her first international outing she insulted Donald Trump, calling him orange, and Winston’s pal Rex Tillerson is now gone, so the chances of this exemption happening are remote.

The Prime Minister has written to the United States president seeking an exemption from his steel and aluminium tariffs.

Donald Trump signed off earlier this month on tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminium imports, but exempted some countries, including Canada, Mexico and Australia.

Jacinda Ardern said she outlined in the letter her understanding of his concerns and what drove the imposition of the tariffs.

“We are awaiting a response, as are many other countries who have sought an exemption as well.”

Finance Minister Grant Robertson earlier said he did not support the tariff and did not want a trade war.

The tariffs are expected to come in on 23 March.

We shall see if a letter will work. I suspect not. The US loses nothing in slapping tarrifs on our steel and aluminium.

Who knows. It may well finish off the smelter and free up some power for those god-awful electric cars.


About all that booze at the Labour camp

by Cameron Slater on March 16, 2018 at 11:30am

Labour party officials may care to check out the following sections of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and the huge applicable fines – none of which I have seen mentioned to date in any form of media.

Now that we know there was a walk-in chiller and a mountain of booze, these clauses of the Act are particularly pertinent.

235 Use of unlicensed premises as place of resort for consumption of alcohol

(1) A person who is the occupier, or has or takes part in the care, management, or control, of any unlicensed premises commits an offence if that person allows those premises to be kept or used as a place of resort for the consumption of alcohol.  


(2) A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $20,000.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the consumption of alcohol—

(a) by any person on any premises on which that person resides, whether that person is the occupier of the premises or not; or
(b) supplied to any person by way of gift by any person who resides on the premises on which the alcohol is consumed.

(4) A person who acts as, or as if he or she were, an occupier or a person having any part in the care, management, or control of any premises is to be treated as an occupier of the premises, but without affecting the liability of any other person.

(5) Premises may be treated as being kept or used as a place of resort for the consumption of alcohol even though they are open only for the use of particular people or particular classes of person, and not to all people who wish to use them.


236 People found on unlicensed premises kept as place of resort for consumption of alcohol

(1) A person who is not a constable acting in the execution of his or her duty commits an offence if he or she is found on any unlicensed premises kept or used in breach of section 235.

(2) A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $2,000.

(3) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) if the defendant satisfies the court that he or she—

(a) was present on the premises for a lawful purpose; and
(b) neither took part nor intended to take part in any unlawful sale, supply, or consumption of alcohol.


241 Supplying alcohol to minors

(1) A person who supplies alcohol to a minor commits an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $2,000.

(3) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) if the person supplying the alcohol (the supplier)—

(a) is a parent or guardian of the minor, and supplies the alcohol in a responsible manner; or
(b) believes on reasonable grounds that the minor is not a minor; or
(c) believes on reasonable grounds that subsection (7) applies to the minor, and supplies the alcohol in a responsible manner; or
(d) believes on reasonable grounds that he or she has the express consent of the parent or guardian of the minor, and supplies the alcohol in a responsible manner.

(4) When considering for the purposes of subsection (3)(a), (c), or (d) whether alcohol was supplied to any person in a responsible manner, the court may, in relation to the occasion on which the alcohol was supplied, take into account the following:

(a) the steps taken by the supplier to supervise the consumption of alcohol:
(b) whether food was provided with the alcohol:
(c) whether a choice of low-alcohol or non-alcoholic beverages, or both, was offered:
(d) the nature of the occasion:
(e) any arrangements for, or provision of, safe transport:
(f) the period over which the alcohol was supplied:
(g) the strength and volume of the alcohol supplied:
(h) the age of the minor:
(i) any other matter it thinks relevant in the particular circumstances.

(5) Subsection (1) applies irrespective of any liability that may attach to the licensee or any manager or other person in respect of the sale or supply of the alcohol.

(6) A person does not commit an offence against subsection (1) by supplying alcohol to a person who then supplies it to a third person who is a minor, unless it is proved that the person knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the alcohol was intended for a minor.

(7) This subsection applies to the minor at any time if he or she is then no longer subject to guardianship by operation of section 28 of the Care of Children Act 2004.

That is almost impossible for Labour to get out of. The supplier of the booze and the supervisor of the camp are in the gun. Ultimately, they are also responsible for the ensuing alleged sexual assaults.

Labour can’t escape their responsibilities. They even had someone at the camp who runs a bar in his private life. He knows what host responsibility is, and the adults in charge should have known what “duty of care” and “in loco parentis” mean as well.

They should be for the high jump. We shall see.

What is the worst thing about the Labour youth camp scandal?

by Deb on March 16, 2018 at 12:30pm

Much has been published over the last few days about the Labour youth camp scandal.

There is so much about this whole sorry saga that is rotten, that I have found myself stuttering with indignation from bad decision to weasel excuse, trying to decide which screw-up, of the many, is the worst.

I will leave the sexual assault allegations to one side: that’s a matter for the police. I’ll also not dwell on the delay in offering support to the victims immediately. That’s just a no-brainer: worst decision made. Hands down.

As for the rest, let’s look at the prelude and the aftermath: which of these is the biggest screw-up?

Serving alcohol to minors and inadequate supervision

All kinds of rules broken with this one. Given this was a Youth Labour event, I don’t understand why alcohol wasn’t completely banned, and why that rule wasn’t strictly enforced. That just removes a whole lot of risks and complications. Some of our readers have told anecdotally of school camps where there is a complete alcohol ban: not even the parents are allowed to drink. This makes a lot of sense: it removes any ambiguity about degrees of intoxication and there’s no risk of alcohol falling into the wrong mouths.

I’m also a bit stunned that the person in charge was not present when all this went down. As Camp Mother, her job was to supervise and ensure the safety of those attending. She should not have bailed until the last little poppet was tucked up safely in their own bed. Even if she had to prop her eyes open with matchsticks, she’s the last one to call it quits for the night. That’s her job and her sole reason for being there.

Not telling the parents

Kate Hawkesby wrote a good opinion piece in the ‘Herald’ and covered this. Her point of view is summed up well with this sentence:

 “I would hope no amount of ‘but that’s the law’ would stop any other parent or adult telling me if my child had suffered or experienced something so gravely traumatising.”

Kate also raised some good points about 16 being the age of consent and how there is no clear step from child to adult. It is ambiguous, and even at 16 support from parents is desirable.

The consensus I’ve read and heard is that most people think the parents should have been told. Would it be easy to tell a parent that someone has messed with their child in some way? No way. And, for the same reason, I don’t think a 16-year-old should ever have to make that choice or be the one to do the telling. The parents should have been told straight away. No ifs, buts or excuses.

The cover-up

Labour can try and spin this until they are red in the face. The “we were acting in the best interests of the victims” is a crock. If that spin was even remotely true, they would have given them all the support they needed immediately, instead of doing nothing for three weeks and hoping it went away. This is a cover-up, pure and simple. They cared more about the party image than the kids in their care. That makes me see red. And I’m not a red-seeing kind of person.

The hypocrisy of it all

Just a few weeks ago, on 27 February while this was quietly ticking away in the background, Ms Ardern was appealing to landlords, saying, “Landlords should ignore market signals and poorly designed public policy, and instead just look to ‘morality’.“

Morality. Right. You sit there and lecture landlords about the morality of charging a market rate rent, while your party is quietly spinning the wheels, and desperately hoping they won’t come off; silently doing nothing, except cover up an alleged sexual assault at a Youth Labour camp.

I think for me, the hypocrisy is what really sticks in my craw.

Hosking on Ardern’s handling of Labour’s summer samp sex abuse

by Cameron Slater on March 17, 2018 at 8:00am

Credit: Luke

Mike Hosking is less than impressed with the Princess:

So this, I think we can all agree, is the new Government’s first major crisis – and it’s into day four.

Day six now… and not looking like abating any time soon as more people come forward.

The good news for them is the lawyer they’ve hired takes the heat off them until the report is published, due to the fact that they can, with their most earnest of expressions, every time they’re asked from here on in, say we have placed it under review.

And they can add, as the until-yesterday-invisible president of the party so extravagantly said, this is the most comprehensive review of a political party ever carried out.

But – and here’s where they’ve failed and are still failing – no heads will roll. How on earth can they say that, if they don’t know what the report says?

Unless, of course, the report will say pretty much what they want it to say. There were parental consent forms signed, under-age kids present, an MP supposedly looking out for trouble. All of that, ultimately, as we know only too well, turned to mush.

They’ve admitted guilt in terms of care and responsibility, they failed to call police or parents, they failed to do anything until weeks later. And with all that already on the table – and God knows what else coming – they can sit there and say no jobs are in trouble?

They’ve got rocks in their heads, and why this has been badly handled was there for all to see. Politics 101, I think even they would privately admit it now: never keep the party leader in the dark.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern failed miserably in terms of leadership in not owning this.

She failed miserably in trying to protect Labour Party general secretary Andrew Kirton and his actions.She failed miserably in waiting till Wednesday to get hold of this and own it.

She knew about this earlier than she has admitted to. The party are trying to protect the Princess, but she is too busy trying to keep a dog on the porch. Flying hither and thither making sure she is home each night in Auckland.

No one cares about Andrew Kirton or the president,they care about the Prime Minister. And they want to be reassured the prime minister is strong forthright, knowledgeable, capable and on top of matters. Both with the state and within her Cabinet, her party and wider organisation, she has not been.

It is James Shaw and Metiria Turei all over again: pretend it’s not a big deal, bluster your way through for a day or two hoping it will go away, and then when it’s all too late and the damage has been done, it ends up the way it was always gong to end up – but with more victims and casualties dragged in for good measure.

We now have more cases and it is likely more will come out of the woodwork. Wait until MPs are implicated in historic Summer Camp rooting.

This isn’t a case of denial in which a report can offer solace or escape. There are already too many damning details and admissions.

This report will either be ugly, or really ugly, and by failing abysmally on that night in question they dug a hole for themselves, and then when it went public, kept digging. It’s not a hole they can’t get out of. They’re six months into three years.

But the opening stanza of any government is about developing credibility and professionalism and, as so many who have contacted me so rightly ask, if after six months they’re shown not to be able run a youth camp, how they going to run a country?

They are the party that have been pushing for the voting age to lower to 16 and changing the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence in sex abuse cases. Their virtue signalling has meant they should be held to a higher standard than any other ratbag political party.

Labour have become the Weinstein party with a legacy and history of cover-ups.


-NZ Herald

Another sex complaint hits Labour

by Cameron Slater on March 16, 2018 at 8:00am

Please, make it stop

Another sordid sex complaint has hit Labour, and yet another MP knows nothing.

Labour really are becoming awfully like Sgt Shultz.

The Labour Party has been hit with new allegations of sexual harassment, this time involving Young Labour volunteers in Christchurch.

Labour’s Secretary General Andrew Kirton was made aware on Wednesdayabout a case of alleged sexual harassment and a separate case of alleged sexual abuse in the Christchurch sector of Young Labour.

The alleged harassment occurred during last year’s election campaign period.

It is claimed a Young Labour volunteer in Christchurch sexually harassed another volunteer using an App after identifying them through a Young Labour Facebook group chat.

When asked about the allegations, Kirton said he was not prepared to comment as a police investigation was under way.

It is understood Kirton is aware that the sexual harassment claim involves an alleged known predator, while the sexual abuse allegation may involve an underage teenager.

Christchurch East Labour MP Poto Williams said she was unaware of any complaints and suggested it was a matter for police.

I think it is safe to say that Labour has systemic issue with sexual harassment and sexual assault going back years.

Poto Williams is also caught between a rock and hard place after lobbying hard to reverse the burden of proof in sex crimes.

Labour’s sexual violence spokesperson, Mrs Williams has called for radical reform of the sexual justice system which would see rape accusers believed by police as a starting point.

This would place the burden of proof on the accused – directly contradicting the philosophy of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Ms Williams said many victims of rape do not report it because they have little faith in the justice system.

She said the country needed to have a discussion about how to address that power imbalance.

“Now, I know that runs up against ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and that would be one of the issues that we’d really have to consider long and hard, but I’m of the view that we have to make some changes.”

Poto Williams said she didn’t yet know how the policy would be implemented.

Yet another Labour MP caught with a big yap that, when reality hits, is nowhere to be seen or doing the exact opposite of what they claimed when in opposition.

Mike Williams admitted to dealing with a similar complaint, then there was Darren Hughes, then the four from Waitawheta, plus another from several years ago, and now this one.

Looks like Labour really have entered into the #MeToo campaign and for all the wrong reasons.


-MetroNews, RadioNZ

‘Medals’ Mark taking troughing far too far

by Cameron Slater on March 16, 2018 at 8:30am

This is truly weapons-grade troughing from Ron ‘Medals’ Mark:

National is accusing Defence Minister Ron Mark of misusing his position by using the Air Force as a taxi service and getting helicopter rides to his home in the Wairarapa.

Former Defence Minister and National defence spokesman Mark Mitchell says official information shows Air Force NH-90 helicopters and a B200 King Air aircraft have repeatedly been diverted to Mark’s home town, Masterton, “apparently to ferry the minister from his home to events around the country and back again.”

Mitchell said the flights were happening so often that locals were asking questions about it.  

“There is no Royal New Zealand Air Force base in Masterton, which suggests the aircraft are being sent from Ohakea Air Base for the minister’s personal convenience,” said Mitchell.

“Mr Mark has even used an NH90 to travel from Masterton to Waiouru and back in the same day – a three-hour trip each way by car.

“Why did he not save the taxpayer the cost and the NZDF the time and use a much cheaper Crown car instead? It’s happening so regularly locals are asking questions about it.”

At a time when the Defence Force was being asked to do more than ever and also being asked to tighten its belt, it was appalling that the Minister of Defence was using the Air Force as a personal taxi service.

“I want to know why the minister has either requested this service, or refused to decline it, as he would have known there is no way the flying hours, fuel and cost could be justified.

“This is an incredibly inappropriate use of Defence resources.”

Mark has issued a list of the flights he has taken and said he was acutely aware of the perceptions when taking NZDF flights.

Five flights are to or from Masterton.

“Each of the flights was taken to an official engagement. For two of the seven commitments I embarked and disembarked in Masterton. I live in Carterton.

“Please note one of these flights was a regular scheduled flight that would have departed with, or without me,” Mark said.

“On several occasions I have declined NZDF’s offer of transport.

“I wish to emphasise that none of these flights was for personal use. Please note that on a number of these flights I have been accompanied by NZDF officials, MPs from other parties, and/or media representatives. If at any point the Defence Force advises me that such travel is inappropriate or outside policy then I would naturally comply.”

Seppo cabinet members have be forced to resign for this sort of thing:

According to Politico, Tom Price, President Trump’s secretary of Health and Human Services, has chartered jets at taxpayer expense at least two dozen times since May to attend conferences, tour healthcare facilities and conduct other official business. Politico estimated that cost at more than $300,000, easily 10 or 20 times what it would have cost Price to take commercial flights — as previous HHS secretaries typically did.

The explanation from HHS? Sometimes it’s not “feasible” for Price to fly commercial. Hey, he’s a busy guy. Places to go, people to see, things to do — just like countless U.S. executives who still manage to rely on commercial flights.

Those aircraft cost a lot per hour to operate, and necessitate ground crew for refuelling, tower crew for flight operations plus the flight crew. The costs are enormous when compared to a crown limo with one driver.

Ron Mark is just making excuses. He’s been busted again. How many chances does one man get?


-NZ Herald, LA Times

Labour camp: “A recipe for disaster”

by Cameron Slater on March 16, 2018 at 9:00am

Credit: Luke

Labour have big problems because the media have now tracked down attendees. It is only a matter of time before the alleged perpetrator is identified.

Meanwhile we get daily reports now from people who were there and the reports are not pretty.

An eyewitness at the Young Labour party during the Waihi summer camp says it was a “recipe for disaster”, describing it as an unsupervised party where people were throwing up in toilets and in the bushes from excessive boozing.

And there was a giant walk-in fridge where anyone, including people as young as 15, could just walk in and grab any booze they wanted.

The man, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the public deserved to know the true nature of the event, during which a 20-year-old is alleged to have sexually assaulted four people aged between 16 and 18.  

“On the Saturday night, even before dinner, people were playing goon bag roulette with the clothes line, hanging a bag of cask wine and sitting underneath it and spinning the clothes line,” the man said.

“On the Sunday morning after the incidents occurred, people were vomiting in toilets and in the bushes and were not able to attend morning speeches because they were so intoxicated from the night before.”

He said partying was the unofficial purpose of the weekend, where about 60 people attended, including about 20 people under 18 and as young as 15.

“It’s been spun as a conference gone bad, but it was really a weekend-long piss up, with no supervision of young people.

They chose that venue because it has a full-size walk-in chiller. A mountain of alcohol is absolutely correct. People could just go in and grab as much booze as they wanted. People were drinking within hours of arriving.”

That kind of belies Jacinda Arderns claims that she didn’t see anything. They were drinking within hours.

The man said that the young people at the camp had agreed not to drink or take drugs.

“But there wasn’t any supervision of any kind. It was an honour system, but there was no enforcement.

People at the camp were told about a helpline they could call, but he said mobile coverage was so limited that the helpline was practically pointless.

​”They told us on the morning of day three to send a text, because it was more likely to get through.”

He said he did not witness any of the alleged offending, nor any drug use.

I witnessed the [alleged] offender and a victim having a conversation. It seemed to turn a little bit nasty. It went from being quite a benign conversation to quite a tense situation.”

He said the next day he was told someone had been sent away for drunken behaviour, but there had been no mention of possible sexual misconduct. An email from Young Labour to the victims in the days that followed was not good enough.

“There was no offer to talk to parents or support in making a police report. There was no phone call follow-up.

“It was treated as an individual thing that happened between two people, much like if it had happened at a flat party. But it wasn’t a flat party. The Prime Minister attended the event, sanctioned by the Labour Party, even if it was run by Young Labour.

“It is a bit hypocritical as a party, seeing as their values are about protecting people and standing up for those who need assistance.”

This just keeps on getting worse for Labour. Heads are going to have to roll pretty soon to staunch the bleeding.

The booze is just an excuse. The sexual offending is what gets you jail time.


-NZ Herald

Jacinda needs a reminder or two about sexual assault in socialist circles

by Cameron Slater on March 15, 2018 at 10:30am

Labour would have you believe that this scandal is all just a one off. They ignore Mike Williams talking about any, even of similar circumstances, when he was president. They forget the Darren Hughes incident. And, now they are trying to say this an isolated event.

Jacinda Ardern has clearly forgotten one of her speeches that she gave when President of IUSY (2:38)




She has also probably forgotten this article from 2016 when she wrote about the Chiefs and Kevin Roberts:

I’m a big believer that conversations can be the start of change. So let’s talk about the Chiefs.

I should disclose up front that they’re my team – have been since the very beginning. I’m a Morrinsville girl.

In part I blame my early onset tinnitus on moo loo bells. That’s how I know that, regardless of whether you are a rugby fan or not, these players are role models for a lot of young people. And that’s why headlines like the ones we’ve seen this week are so depressing to read.  


They must be even more depressing when they are about your beloved Labour party, which you lead.

It’s 2016, and these are professional players – and that means being held to a high standard on the field as much as they are off it.

Indeed, and the same for MPs and party officials. But, funny that, she has discounted the President and General Secretary resigning, or anyone else for that matter, over allegations a minimum of four youths were sexually assaulted at a Labour party event.

In an interview revealed this week, Kevin Roberts, the kiwi global advertising boss, suggested that gender diversity wasn’t an issue in his field. I obviously don’t work in his world, but many who do have stated that Roberts is unequivocally wrong.

But what do we do about that? In fact, what do we do about the vast range of fields where we continue to have massive under representation of women in senior roles? We should be asking why.

If there are claims that some are apparently choosing not to take on management roles, why is that? Are they completely unappealing work environments? Is there unconscious bias?

How about we ask women. Find out what’s going on and address it. I’m not holding my breath that will be the outcome in this particular case.

These conversations stop the moment there’s a resignation. It’s the PR quick fix – usher the source of the controversy away. But that solves nothing.

I don’t think Kevin Roberts should have been shown the door, or chosen to walk through it as the case may be – not when he needs to be a part of the conversation.

After all, apologies followed by silence changes nothing, and change is what we need.

Covering up, doing nothing, acting late in the piece as the story is about to break, then getting former PSA activists now working in counselling services to state that silence is golden, to protect the victims, isn’t really a good look. In fact, it goes against what Jacinda Ardern was claiming was needed back in 2016.

Of course, she is now hiding behind the fact that there is a police investigation underway. It is amazing how one’s words can come back to haunt you, especially when you were virtue signalling all along.

Do I believe Jacinda Ardern knew nothing? Not bloody likely. Labour and Jacinda Ardern need to start telling the truth.