I Am Brie Elliott

05/06/2026

I’m really not happy with the Ministry of Education NZ's response to RNZ.

The Ministry says any assessment of whether the guidance has been followed would depend on the specific facts...

The facts are now public.

RNZ has reported that Mike Butterick visited most schools across the Wairarapa electorate delivering tote bags, pens, notebooks, stress balls, lunchboxes and mints emblazoned with the National Party logo, his name, contact details and the House of Representatives crest.

Parents have confirmed children came home with the bags.

A school has said it felt uncomfortable and did not know what to do.

Butterick has defended it as a way to advertise his contact details to students and families.

To children. At school.

The Ministry itself says schools must be politically neutral and cannot allow political promotion, campaigning or advertising on school grounds.

So I’m sorry, but how much more context does the Ministry need?

I am sick of the Ministry of Education acting like members of the public have to build the entire case file before anyone can act, when the facts are now literally sitting in mainstream reporting.

This is not one bag in one bin. This is not a vague allegation.

This is a sitting MP defending the delivery of National Party-branded merch to schools, and parents confirming children brought it home.

If Ministry guidance says schools cannot allow political party advertising material, then the Ministry needs to answer a very basic question:

Does National Party-branded swag being delivered to schools for children comply with that guidance?

Yes or no?

And if the answer is no, then who is taking responsibility?

Mike Butterick has visited most schools across Wairarapa delivering tote bags, pens and notebooks, stress balls, lunchboxes and mints all emblazoned with the National Party logo.

05/06/2026

Why are we fighting hypotheticals?

“What if Labour did this?”

They didn’t.

“What if the Greens did this?”

They didn’t.

“What if another party theoretically offered branded merch packs to schools for children?”

Then I would call that out too. But they didn’t.

Right now, the person who has actually admitted offering branded bags to schools for “students and families” as a way to advertise his contact details is Mike Butterick.

So let’s deal with the thing that happened.

Stop holding everyone else responsible for the low standard National keeps setting.

Hold National to a higher one.

If it is wrong, it is wrong.

And offering MP-branded merch to schools for children is wrong.

05/06/2026

First of all, shoutout to The Post for upgrading me to “popular political social media commentator".... The last outlet that wrote about me called me "a girl who is critical of the government". So thanks!

Mike Butterick for Wairarapa has now responded to The Post / Wairarapa Times-Age.

And honestly, his response raises even more questions.

He did not deny the bags existed.

He did not deny offering them to schools.

In fact, he said he “offered bags to schools” containing contact information for students and families, and described them as “a useful way to advertise my contact details as the local MP.”

To children?

At school?

What the ???????

Schools are not advertising channels for MPs.

If an MP visits a school, the role should be to support the school, listen to teachers, understand governance issues, and engage appropriately with civics education - not offer branded merch packs for children.

And let’s stop pretending this was just a business card.

I have been told these packs included tote bags, lunch bags, notepads, peppermint packs, soft toys and little blue rugby balls - all with his name on them. And they went to at least 5 different schools.

That is not just “contact information.”

That is merch.

Mike Butterick appears to be shifting responsibility onto schools by saying he merely “offered” the bags and schools could choose whether to distribute them. But schools should never have been put in that position. If Ministry guidance says schools cannot allow political party advertising material, why was a National MP offering branded bags to schools for students and families at all?

Butterick also claims the bags had publicity approval under Parliament’s Speaker’s Directions.

The Public Service Commission has said this is not its jurisdiction and that school boards are required to follow Ministry of Education guidance.

The Ministry of Education guidance is clear: schools must not allow political party advertising material at school, including “other political party advertising material.”

So the questions remain:

Did Parliamentary Service approve these bags specifically to be offered to schools and students?

Who approved the use of the National Party logo and parliamentary crest on items intended for school distribution?

Were any of these packs handed to children?

And who is taking responsibility for what appears to be a breach of political neutrality rules in schools?

Because “I was advertising my contact details” is not the defence he seems to think it is.

And...

It is especially uncomfortable that this appears to have been offered to school communities where families may already be under real pressure.

Children in lower-resourced school communities do not need political merch.

They need properly funded schools.

They need decent lunches.

They need support staff, teacher aides, learning support, safe classrooms, reliable transport, and families who are not being squeezed from every direction.

So when a National MP offers schools branded bags, lunch bags, toys, peppermints, rugby balls and notepads with his name on them, it does not feel like “public service.”

It feels like political branding being pushed into the lives of children who are not old enough to vote.

And that is not okay.

Questions have been raised online after an image of bags printed with Wairarapa MP Mike Butterick’s details, allegedly found in a bin on a Wairarapa school property, was posted by a popular political social media commentator.

05/06/2026

I got polled this week for the first time ever.

And honestly? It made me trust polling less.

Not because I think polling is automatically useless, but because the actual experience was so uncomfortable.

People my age are digitally literate.

We have been taught not to answer random overseas calls. We have been taught not to give personal information to strangers. We know scams exist. We know data harvesting exists. We know political bots exist.

So when an Australian number calls me and starts asking for my name, email, income, household details, and political opinions, of course I’m suspicious.

I literally thought: is this a scam? Is this an Atlas bot trying to find out my family income?

They asked for a lot of personal information. I felt uneasy, so I didn’t even give my own name and email. Then the questions were rushed so quickly that I answered things wrong.

When I tried to clarify what was being measured, I was usually encouraged to just give a quick answer.

A lot of people my age are not going to sit on the phone giving personal information to a stranger while being asked to make instant economic forecasts.

This could be done so much better.

Use online surveys. Give people time. Let them reread the question. Let them correct obvious mistakes. Ask clearer questions.

For example, instead of forcing someone to invent a precise percentage on the spot, ask whether they think house prices will rise a lot, rise a little, stay about the same, fall a little, or fall a lot.

Because otherwise, are we measuring public opinion?

Or are we measuring how well people perform under pressure during a weird phone interview?

I don’t think polling should be dismissed altogether.

But after experiencing it myself, I absolutely think we should be asking better questions about how the data is collected - especially if younger people already don’t trust the process enough to participate.

If polling companies want younger people to participate, maybe the process needs to look less like a phishing attempt and more like a trustworthy civic exercise.

Because right now, I don’t think a lot of young people are refusing to engage because they don’t care.

I think they are refusing because the process itself feels dodgy.

Anyway, don’t read too much into Roy Morgan’s next house price expectations. Somewhere in that dataset is a very stressed person accidentally predicting the apocalypse.

04/06/2026

I have been sent photos of Mike Butterick for Wairarapa branded pencil cases allegedly found dumped in rubbish at a school in the Wairarapa area.

He has publicly said he’s been visiting schools. He has publicly said he went into classrooms with Erica Stanford.

And now National-branded Mike Butterick pencil cases have allegedly been found at a school.

Were these given to children????

Ministry of Education guidance is extremely clear that schools cannot show political party information and must not allow political party advertising material at school, including “other political party advertising material.”

So were these pencil cases given to children, offered to children, or taken into schools during Mike Butterick’s visits? Who paid for them? Who approved them? And why was party-branded material anywhere near a school?

Shoutout to whoever dumped these in the bin, that was the right thing to do! (Y)

04/06/2026

Over 1,100 people have now responded to our co-signed letter calling for Elizabeth Rata’s damehood to be reviewed.

The letter is now on The Daily Blog. Michael Laws has talked about it on The Platform. And the comment sections are already doing exactly what comment sections do when a nerve has been hit: screaming “looney lefties,” “Marxists,” and “cancel culture” instead of answering the actual question.

So I guess the “nobody cares” stage is officially over.

And just to correct the record: this is not even the petition.

This is a co-signed letter to the Honours Unit and the Prime Minister asking for the honour to be reviewed.

Not the Governor-General.

The Governor-General carries out investitures on behalf of the King. The honours system is administered through the Honours Unit, and honours are approved by the King on the Prime Minister’s advice.

So before anyone gets too smug about the process, maybe check the process :)

The petition comes next - and it will be led by academics with the expertise to speak directly to the issues at the heart of this.

Because despite how badly some people want to make this about me, it is not about me at all!

It is about the honours system. It is about public recognition. It is about what gets elevated by the Crown, and what values we are told to celebrate.

If over 1,100 people responding to a letter is enough to send them running to the microphones, imagine how nervous they’ll be when the public campaign actually grows legs.

Read the daily blog here: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/brie-elliots-letter-seeking-a-review-of-elizabeth-ratas-damehood/

Add your name: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfBtyg2_uV3-04H13Ni2Fh3lwUdf8GeObxOaSYWOTFLcUUWuw/viewform?usp=sharing&ouid=113672919647767116392

This honour was awarded for "services to education," yet the ACT leader is celebrating it as a political victory against "the woke government." The recipient’s work includes ending "decolonisation’s success." We demand an independent review. Add your name below. These names will be submitted as ...

04/06/2026

See the tiny line at the bottom of these ads?

“Funded by Parliamentary Service.”

That tiny line is why I complained to the Auditor-General.

Because we are heading into an election.

And in an election year, voters deserve to know the difference between party campaigning and publicly funded parliamentary work.

These ads did not look like neutral updates about parliamentary work.

They looked like political attack ads.

And at the bottom, they carried Parliamentary Service branding.

Parliamentary Service funding is public money. It is there to support MPs and parties in their parliamentary work, not to blur the line between parliamentary communication and election-style attack advertising.

The Auditor-General has now published a letter to Parliamentary Service about this issue.

To be clear: the Audit Office has not found that these examples were directly funded by Parliamentary Service.

Parliamentary Service assured the Audit Office it had not directly funded the examples they reviewed.

But that raises the obvious question:

Why were political attack-style ads carrying Parliamentary Service branding if Parliamentary Service had not approved direct funding for them?

Or was public funding branding appearing on political material in a way that made it look publicly funded when it wasn’t?

That is exactly the kind of grey area that matters before an election.

Because voters should not have to guess.

The Audit Office also raised the issue of staff time.

Parliamentary Service could not confirm whether party support staff time had been used to prepare the examples.

And the Audit Office said:

“We would be concerned if any party support staff time had been used to fund the examples of publicity we saw.”

Taxpayer-funded staff time is still a public resource.

And now, something has changed!

Before this, Parliamentary Service was effectively unable to confirm or deny whether specific political publicity had actually been funded by them.

Now, Parliamentary Service will begin confirming or denying whether specific publicity was actually funded by them.

That is huge heading into an election...

Because the next time political material carries Parliamentary Service branding, the public should have a much stronger ability to ask:

Did taxpayers fund this or not????

That does not stop parties from campaigning.

It does not stop parties from criticising each other.

It just makes it harder to blur the line between campaigning and publicly funded parliamentary resources.

And that is good for democracy.

And it is exactly why ordinary people should never be made to feel silly for paying attention. Even if you don't have a degree, lol.

Read the full report here: https://ao.parliament.nz/2026/publicity-material?fbclid=IwY2xjawSOCCtleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeZmsq4a2ctNYn7yiGZKLDrbdU9-SdjpcA1OnNApYQaz50q9H-kLxutyf0WLI_aem_WFjMnCZMyBxfpaytq3qmYw

04/06/2026

David Ferguson has now been made Chief Review Officer and Chief Executive of ERO - the Education Review Office.

According to an email sent today, he is leaving The Teachers’ Institute to take up the role next month.

First, The Teachers’ Institute has had more than $5 million in identifiable public programme funding attached to it through TEC and SOTP.

Then, on top of that, The Teachers’ Institute charges schools to participate.

So public money is not just funding trainee teacher places. It is helping prop up a training model that schools then have to pay into as well.

That is money from school budgets - money schools need for resources, learning support, teacher aides, relief pressure, support staff, and the day-to-day running of classrooms.

So schools are being asked to pay into a teacher-training pipeline for the teachers they desperately need. During a teachers shortage.

He was also appointed Chair of the Teaching Council - the body that regulates the teaching profession.

He is also on the NZQA Board.

And now, he is going to be the Chief Review Officer and Chief Executive of ERO.

ERO helps shape how parents, communities, boards, officials, and Ministers understand whether a school is “good” or “concerning.”

And ERO has just released a parent guide framed around helping parents “choose a school.”

“How can parents find out if a school is good?”

Why isn’t EVERY publicly funded school being resourced, staffed, supported, and trusted to be good?????????

Public education should not be a marketplace where parents are told to shop for a “good school.” Every publicly funded school should be good - and if it isn’t, the state’s job is to fix the conditions, not brand the school as a bad choice.

Conflicts do not stop mattering just because someone writes them down.

They have to be managed.

Standing down from TTI before taking ERO may deal with the most obvious conflict on paper. But it does not answer the public-trust question: why is the person coming directly from a publicly funded teacher-training provider that charges schools now being put in charge of the agency that reviews those schools?

Was there REALLY no one with deep public service leadership experience, evaluation experience, regulatory independence, and distance from these conflicts who could do this job??????????

I doubt it.

03/06/2026

“Tough on crime” was apparently so broad they’ve started treating parents like offenders because their children are struggling to attend school.

Parents are sending me examples of what this looks like in real life, and it does not look like support. It looks like frightened, overwhelmed families being pushed further away from the very system that claims it wants them to engage.

The letter starts with all the soft language you’d expect: “we’re here to support you,” “we want the best for your tamariki,” “we’ll listen without judgement.”

But then attached to the letter is the law.

Offences. Prosecution. Fines.

Up to $30 for every school day.

And here is the part that makes this even worse: this parent says there had been no previous contact at all from this attendance service.

And I’m sorry, but you cannot put a legal threat in the same envelope as “we’re here to support you” and then act confused when whānau feel threatened.

If a child is absent because they are grieving, anxious, traumatised, neurodivergent, disabled, sick, overwhelmed, being bullied, unsupported, or dealing with chaos at home - what exactly does a fine fix?

Does $30 a day bring someone’s grandfather back?
Does $30 a day make a depressed child feel safe?
Does $30 a day get a kid transport?
Does $30 a day provide counselling?

Or does it just punish families who are already struggling?

And if the money is not going back to support that child, then what exactly is the point?

Education is not supposed to operate like the justice system.

Attendance is a social issue. It is a wellbeing issue. It is a poverty issue. It is a disability issue. It is a mental health issue. It is a learning support issue. It is a relationship and trust issue.

But this government keeps reaching for punishment like it is a policy solution.

And then they call it accountability.

But accountability for who?

Because the parent gets threatened. The child gets shamed. The whānau gets poorer.

And the system that failed to provide enough support gets to pretend it did something.

They can call it attendance policy all they want, but when the words being used are offence, prosecution, conviction, and fines, we need to be honest: this is social policy being dragged into a criminal punishment framework.

You cannot respond to grief, poverty, disability, trauma, anxiety, bullying, and unmet learning needs with threats and fines, and then act confused when young people start looking for safety, identity, protection, or belonging somewhere else.

This is not me saying one attendance letter creates gangs.

It is me saying this is LITERALLY how alienation works.

It happens when the systems that are meant to support people become systems people learn to fear.

And when the state leaves a vacuum where care, belonging, and trust should be, someone else will fill it.

It's shameful and you should be embarrassed of yourselves Erica Stanford and David Seymour.