I Am Brie Elliott

I Am Brie Elliott Fighting for a fairer Aotearoa - with policy, parody, and people power. TikTok:

18/06/2026

The Education Ministry's Curriculum Insights study showed a quarter of Year 3s and Year 8s, and a third of Year 6s met expectations last year.

18/06/2026

School attendance is a national obligation. School transport should not become a local postcode tax.

In Ashhurst, there is no secondary school. Kids need transport to get to college. But after Ministry school bus changes, Horizons Regional Council had to step in with a temporary workaround - partly funded locally, with families also paying fares.

That is your rates. That is local communities paying to patch a central government problem.

Access to secondary education should not depend on whether your regional council can afford to patch a Ministry decision.

And the hypocrisy is wild: the Government is nationalising the blame for non-attendance, while localising the cost of getting rural kids to school.

They want to prosecute parents nationally, while pushing school transport costs locally.

A review is not a bus. A campaign promise is not a bus. Rural kids need transport now.

Erica Stanford told New Zealanders the new curriculum was “written by Kiwis for Kiwi kids.”That is a very clear claim.It...
17/06/2026

Erica Stanford told New Zealanders the new curriculum was “written by Kiwis for Kiwi kids.”

That is a very clear claim.

It means something.

It means parents should be able to trust that our national curriculum was designed by New Zealand educators, for New Zealand children, in our context.

But now RNZ is reporting that an Australian consultancy, Learning First, helped find content for the curriculum.

And this is not just me asking questions from the outside.

A former Ministry of Education staffer has already lodged a formal complaint about the curriculum rewrite, including concerns about due process, AI, and the role of the Australian consultancy.

Literally, people with curriculum experience inside the Ministry are asking the same thing:

- Who actually shaped this curriculum?

And the Ministry’s defence is very carefully worded.

They say Learning First did not “write” the curriculum.

But what does “write” mean here?

Because a curriculum is not just the final document someone types into a template.

Especially not a “knowledge-rich” curriculum.

The curriculum is the content children are expected to learn. It is the order that content is taught in. It is the examples, the structure, the sequencing, the choices about what matters and what gets left out.

That is the substance.

So if Learning First helped find content, supplied material, shaped sequencing, provided examples, benchmarked the structure, or gave the Ministry draft material that was later edited and finalised by Ministry staff, then saying they did not “write” it does not really answer the question.

It just narrows the definition of “write.”

And that is why this matters.

Because “written by Kiwis for Kiwi kids” is not the same thing as “finalised by Ministry staff after an Australian consultancy contributed to the development.”

Those are different claims.

One tells the public this was a New Zealand-led curriculum.

The other leaves open the possibility that the substance was shaped offshore, then packaged locally.

If that is not what happened, it should be very easy to prove.

Release the writing record.

Show what Learning First supplied.

Show what Ministry staff created themselves.

Show what the Contributing Groups actually wrote.

Show the drafts, the version history, the deliverables, the comments, the tracked changes.

Because right now the language keeps shifting.

First, the public was told the curriculum was “written by Kiwis for Kiwi kids.”

Now, when Learning First’s role is questioned, the answer is that they helped find content but did not “write” it.

That is not good enough.

In a curriculum, content is not a side issue.

Content is the curriculum.

And then there is the procurement problem.

RNZ reports that New Zealand companies were not offered the job because the Ministry was “already working with Learning First.”

But that does not answer the question.

That is the question.

How did Learning First become the company the Ministry was already working with?

The Minister met Learning First’s CEO multiple times before the formal services agreement began, here, and in Australia.

If Learning First was already doing curriculum work before the contract, where is the record?

If they were not already doing curriculum work before the contract, then “we were already working with them” is not a reason to shut out New Zealand providers.

It just means they had access.

And access is not procurement.

This is the part Erica Stanford and the Ministry need to answer plainly.

Was this curriculum genuinely written by New Zealand educators, as the public was told?

Or was it shaped by an Australian consultancy, finalised by Ministry staff, and then sold to parents as “written by Kiwis for Kiwi kids”?

I used to worry a bit about “preaching to the choir.”You know the criticism.“You’re only talking to people who already a...
16/06/2026

I used to worry a bit about “preaching to the choir.”

You know the criticism.

“You’re only talking to people who already agree with you.”

And yeah, sometimes I probably am.

But I’ve changed my mind about whether that’s actually a bad thing.

Because politics is not only about persuading the person arguing with you in the comments.

It is also about giving people language for what they already know is wrong.

It is helping someone explain an issue to their dad at dinner, their workmate in the staffroom, their friend in the group chat, their school board, their union, their community.

People are much easier to isolate when they think they are the only one seeing it.

They are much easier to silence when they don’t have the words.

They are much easier to dismiss when their anger stays private.

So maybe “preaching to the choir” is the wrong way to think about it.

Because a choir is not passive.

A choir performs.
A choir carries the song.
A choir makes one voice louder by joining it with others.

And sometimes the point is not to convert the person yelling bad-faith talking points at you.

Sometimes the point is to make sure everyone else watching has the facts, the confidence, and the language to push back next time.

So yes, maybe I am speaking to the choir sometimes.

But that's because strangers don't persuade strangers. Trusted peers do.

And maybe the choir has been isolated, talked down to, under-resourced, and told they are imagining things.

Maybe the choir needs facts.

Maybe the choir needs confidence.

Maybe the choir needs a song sheet.

And honestly, a smarter, louder, more resilient choir might be exactly what this country needs.

Winston Peters is boasting that his awful, bullying, bigoted and transphobic Facebook post has had 1.7 million views.Whe...
16/06/2026

Winston Peters is boasting that his awful, bullying, bigoted and transphobic Facebook post has had 1.7 million views.

When a powerful politician posts something cruel, people see a big number like that and start to feel like everyone agrees with him.

So let’s talk about Facebook metrics!

I have Facebook insights too and I'm happy to share them.

Views are not people.

“Views” are the number of times a post was displayed.

“Viewers” is the metric closer to how many people saw the post at least once.

For example, my latest post about Winston has had 117,667 views.

But it has had 58,716 viewers.

That means the view count is almost double the number of actual viewers.

So when Winston Peters says 1.7 million views, that does not mean 1.7 million people saw it.

It definitely does not mean 1.7 million New Zealanders saw it.

And it absolutely does not mean 1.7 million people agreed with it.

Now look at the engagement.

Winston’s post has 24,000 likes.

On his own claimed numbers, that means about 1.4% of views resulted in a like.

His comments - around 5.4k - are about 0.3% of views.

My much smaller post has around 1,800 reactions from 117,667 views.

That is about 1.5% of views.

It also has 863 comments. That is about 0.7% of views.

So Winston’s post had more than fourteen times the views of mine, but his comment rate was less than half of mine.

My post had roughly 1 comment per 136 views.

His had roughly 1 comment per 315 views.

So even by basic visible engagement ratios, my little Facebook post had more active engagement per view than Winston Peters’ supposedly massive national movement.

That is the point.

His post looks huge because the algorithm pushed it everywhere.

That does not mean the country is behind him.

It means Facebook gave hatred a megaphone, and Winston tried to pretend the echo was applause!!

Maybe some people were watching because they agreed with him...

Maybe some people were watching because they were horrified.

Maybe some people were watching because a senior politician received a legal letter, publicly doubled down, repeated the allegation, added more insults, and is now daring a community group to take him to court.

So if a senior politician wants to use Facebook metrics as proof that the country is behind him, maybe he should also explain why roughly 98.6% of those claimed views did not even press like.

Views are not people.

Views are not votes.

Views are not agreement.

And a big number on Facebook does not mean the country is standing behind you.

16/06/2026

With the BSA on the chopping block, I said I would start calling out journalists directly when they mislead the public.

And when one of the journalists on the byline has a publicly reported relationship with a senior ACT figure, the need for accuracy and transparency is even higher, not lower.... -_-

So Jenna Lynch, Glenn McConnell, Stuff - let’s talk.

Because you ran the headline:

"Party wants to cancel primary school testing"

And I now have the actual clip of what Ginny Andersen said.

So let’s compare!
...

Once you see the clip, the headline doesn’t just look misleading. It looks like a bold faced lie.

And gone is the credibility of everyone who signed off on that article.

Because Ginny did not say children should not be assessed.
She did not say parents should not receive reports.
She did not say schools should stop tracking progress.

She was talking about not mandating SMART.

That is a very different thing.

SMART is ONE assessment platform.

It is not “primary school testing” itself.

Teachers already assess children. Schools already report to parents. Parents already receive information about how their children are progressing. Have you heard of teacher parent conferences?

So when Stuff frames this as Labour wanting to “cancel primary school testing”, that is not a small misunderstanding.

That is lying to the public.

This entire discussion is based on a LIE.

Removing a mandate for SMART does not remove assessment.
Removing a mandate for SMART does not remove reporting.
Removing a mandate for SMART does not remove accountability.

It returns professional decision-making to schools.

And that is the part Erica Stanford, Laura McClure, and apparently, Jenna and Glenn from Stuff do not want to debate.

Because “Labour wants to cancel testing” sounds scary.

“Labour wants to trust teachers instead of mandating an overseas-built, AI-focused assessment platform” sounds reasonable.

So they lied.

That is not journalism.

You aren't reporting the story.
You are becoming part of it.

Since you both decided to put your names on a misleading headline, I’ll be watching your reporting very closely from now on. Every headline. Every framing choice. Every cute little omission. And every time you launder a political attack line as news, I’ll call it out.

You wanted public trust?

Try earning it.

It is genuinely embarrassing that members of the public have to fact-check political journalists because apparently some of you cannot hold yourselves to the most basic standard of journalism: accurately representing what someone said.

Shame on you both, and shame on Stuff New Zealand.

P.S. This is why people trust random women with pages more than political journalists with national platforms.

Read more: https://aecnz.substack.com/p/new-labour-policy-shocks-really-minister

Read Jenna and Glenn's propaganda for yourself: https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360993047/labour-will-scrap-nationals-new-primary-school-testing-tool-if-elected

15/06/2026

Laura McClure is a liar.

She is lying when she says Labour wants to remove primary school testing.

She is lying when she says Labour wants “zero accountability”.
And she is lying when she pretends Te Tiriti and educational achievement are somehow opposites.

The article she is reacting to literally says “Labour supports clear, regular reporting to parents.”

What Labour is criticising is the mandatory use of SMART - a clunky, overseas-built, AI-focused assessment platform.

That is not “removing testing”.

That is not “zero accountability”.
That is not putting Te Tiriti “above achievement”.

That is Laura taking a headline, twisting it into a culture war, and hoping nobody reads the actual article.

So yes, Laura.

I’m going to call it what it is.

You are lying to parents.

Read beyond the headline: https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360993047/labour-will-scrap-nationals-new-primary-school-testing-tool-if-elected

This is not an isolated incident.David Seymour telling a woman who questioned him, “are you ready to accept you’ve just ...
15/06/2026

This is not an isolated incident.

David Seymour telling a woman who questioned him, “are you ready to accept you’ve just had a beating?” is disgusting on its own.

But it is also part of a much bigger pattern.

This is how ACT responds to ordinary people who challenge them.

They don’t just disagree.

They belittle.
They mock.
They personalise.

They punch down.

A woman emailing David Seymour about hardship and ministerial spending, only to be told her situation was “not an excuse for lazy thinking."

I can criticise an ACT MP’s public policy position, and Laura Mcclure can post my face on her page like I’m a public punching bag.

Like what the fRICK? This is utter disdain!

ACT love to talk about free speech, but when members of the public actually use theirs, THIS is what happens.

If you question them, you’re lazy.
If you criticise them, you’re fair game.
If you push back, they try to humiliate you.

And if they go too far, they apologise only after the damage is done.

This is the deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand.

When do we draw the line?

I am ready to protest this government out. If ministers can cut services, mock the struggling, humiliate women who question them, and then hide behind “free speech” when they get called out, then the line has already been crossed.

Because this country belongs to the people - not to politicians who treat us like we should shut up and take a beating.

Read more: https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360993152/are-you-ready-accept-youve-just-had-beating-seymour-apologises-lashing-out-woman-questioning-mp

Address

Wellington

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when I Am Brie Elliott posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category