I Am Brie Elliott

14/08/2026

14/08/2026

What problem is being solved?

I keep seeing this announcement about the Holocaust now being “mandatory” in the school curriculum, and I think there’s a really important bit of context missing.

I was 14 in Year 10. 2014.

I’m 27 now.

And yes, I learned about the Holocaust at school.

I learned about Hi**er. N**i antisemitism. The persecution of Jewish people. Concentration camps. Auschwitz. The Holocaust. The human rights abuses. The consequences.

So did countless other New Zealand kids.

And before someone says “well, technically it wasn’t a mandatory topic” - YES. That is the distinction.

The old New Zealand Curriculum was compulsory. Social Studies was compulsory through Year 10, and the curriculum prescribed learning about things like the impact of historical actions on people’s lives, cultural interaction, and how people define and seek human rights.

The Holocaust Centre of New Zealand has literally provided teaching guidance showing teachers how Holocaust education met those existing Level 5 curriculum objectives.

In other words, Holocaust education wasn’t some rogue extracurricular activity that teachers were doing if they happened to feel like it.

It was already being taught extensively within the compulsory curriculum framework.

What wasn’t mandatory was that every single school had to use THE HOLOCAUST as the specific historical case study.

And that distinction matters.

Because the new curriculum is making Holocaust content explicitly prescribed.

That’s a legitimate policy change.

But it is very different from saying:

“We are finally making sure New Zealand kids learn about the Holocaust.”

Because… mate.

We already did.

I was literally one of those kids. 😂

Even funnier, the curriculum says Holocaust OR Irish independence!!!

So I have a question:

What problem is actually being solved?

If the answer is:

“We want every Year 10 student to receive a consistent minimum level of Holocaust education, rather than leaving the choice of historical case study to individual schools and teachers”

- okay! Say that.

That’s a perfectly reasonable policy argument.

But don’t create the impression that there was some enormous gap where New Zealand schools weren’t teaching the Holocaust and this Government has now swooped in to fix it.

There wasn’t an absence of Holocaust education.

There is a change in how specifically the curriculum prescribes it.

Those are not the same thing.

And honestly, I think the public deserves to know the difference.

Because otherwise this becomes another Government announcement where something that was already happening in our schools gets presented as though they have just invented it.

Jeez Chris, it couldn't be more obvious that you're trying to distract from a Government that would rather we weren't asking harder questions about its relationship with Israel...

14/08/2026

Remember Damien Rogers?

In September 2024, the Massey University security academic went on RNZ’s Morning Report and raised a pretty uncomfortable question about Rocket Lab’s launches from New Zealand.

Rocket Lab was increasingly launching payloads linked to US military and national-security programmes.

Rogers’ concern wasn’t that Rocket Lab had US defence customers. Rocket Lab openly acknowledged that.

His concern was this:

Are we becoming so embedded in US security strategy that we start treating America’s enemies as our own?

He pointed to the newly released NZSIS threat assessment and warned against a narrative in which threats to US hegemony automatically become threats to New Zealand.

And then there was the nuclear issue...

Rogers had previously served on the Government’s Public Advisory Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control, which had warned about the possibility that launches from New Zealand could, on their face, contribute to communications supporting nuclear command and control.

Rocket Lab did not simply answer those concerns.

Its US headquarters later threatened Rogers with defamation, calling his comments “serious, untrue and highly defamatory”, demanding an apology and retraction within 14 days.

Massey University backed him.

No defamation case followed. Which says it all, really.

But look at what has happened since:

National moved to streamline New Zealand’s space-payload approval system.

Chris Penk inherited the Space, Defence, GCSB and NZSIS portfolios in April 2026.

He subsequently became responsible for some of the most sensitive defence and intelligence policy in the country.

And now, on 12 August 2026, the Government’s approvals relating to Rocket Lab/BlackSky launches are facing judicial review.

Then, on 12 August, same day, Penk was stripped of Defence, Space, GCSB and NZSIS and announced he was leaving Parliament.

So go back to the question Rogers was asking nearly two years ago:

Are New Zealand’s security interests being defined independently?

Or are we increasingly folding US strategic priorities into our own?

Because that question has not gone away.

And perhaps threatening the person asking it wasn't the best way to make it disappear ;)

Read more: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/527015/strict-laws-control-space-launches-from-new-zealand-rocket-lab

13/08/2026

So this is Todd Stephenson MP, the person David Seymour has apparently decided was subjected to such an unacceptable debate environment that they’ve pulled out of the remaining Big Hairy News debates....

Todd’s actual assessment of the night?

“It was a well run event and I had a great time. That’s the point of democracy.”

😂

I think I’ll take Todd’s word for how Todd experienced it.

Because apparently the person who was actually standing on stage thought it was a good event, had a great time, and understood that democracy involves people having opinions you don’t necessarily like.

Meanwhile David Seymour has decided a few boos mean ACT wants nothing to do with the organiser.

There’s something very funny about the person who got booed being more comfortable with democracy than the party leader who wasn't there, and didn’t even get booed.

Todd has been involved in ACT from the beginning and ran ACT’s first-ever Dunedin campaign in 1996. I think we’ve found the ACT leader they actually need.

TODD FOR ACT PARTY LEADER!!!!!!

13/08/2026

So the reported National Party coup plan was:

Leader: Erica Stanford - background in communications and politics, with Cabinet experience including Education and Immigration.

Deputy: Chris Penk - former Navy officer, Australian Defence Force veteran, aide to Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright, lawyer, senior whip, former shadow Attorney-General, and a Cabinet minister who had held Defence, Veterans, Space, Building and Construction, Land Information, Small Business and Manufacturing, and responsibility for the GCSB and SIS.

And Penk - the guy trusted with some of the Government’s most sensitive portfolios - was apparently the one tasked with doing the numbers to make Stanford leader.

The coup fails.

Penk loses every single portfolio.

Three hours later, he announces he’s leaving Parliament.

Stanford?

Still there. Still a minister.

So...

The guy with the military, legal, caucus and Cabinet experience was apparently the numbers man for a leadership challenge that would have put someone with a considerably different résumé at the top.

The numbers were wrong.

The coup failed.

And the guy doing the counting took the bullet.

And now National has lost one of its most experienced MPs and ministers…

…and kept Erica Stanford.

You genuinely couldn’t write a better comedy of errors if you tried. 😂

13/08/2026

So here's a wild one.

In 2026, New Zealand's education system has somehow entered a bureaucratic version of Inception.

The Ministry of Education reviews and regulates the education system.

The Education Review Office reviews schools.

And now... both are facing some pretty serious questions about themselves!

The Ministry's curriculum group is undergoing an independent workplace-culture review after internal pressure, heavy workloads, staff departures and tensions around the massive national curriculum rewrite.

At the same time, we've got Ministry documents recording a shift away from co-design with Māori towards consultation on Ministry-drafted content.

We've had staff raising concerns about how curriculum writing teams were selected.

We've had former staff describing feeling sidelined and pressured.

And then there was the Ministry spending about $20,000 trying to figure out who was leaking documents to RNZ.

The investigation didn't even find the leaker.

It did, however, find poor document-handling practices and a gap between what Ministry policy says should happen and what was actually happening.

So that's fun.

Then there's ERO.

Schools and principals are increasingly pushing back on ERO's approach, including its new colour-coded reporting system.

The Aotearoa Educators Collective has argued that the system risks punishing schools doing some of the hardest work, particularly those dealing with students with complex needs.

And now ERO is about to take on even more power, with new regulatory responsibilities moving across from the Ministry.

So let's recap:

1. The Ministry sets the rules.

2. ERO checks whether schools are following them.

3. The Ministry is under scrutiny over its own workplace culture and how it handles curriculum development.

4. ERO is under scrutiny over its own institutional culture and accountability approach.

And then, because apparently this wasn't complicated enough, Erica Stanford told Parliament that she was introduced to Learning First founder Ben Jensen through the Ministry and ERO, which had already been working with him.

Learning First is now involved in the curriculum reform process.

So...

The people writing the rules are being scrutinised.

The people reviewing the people following the rules are being scrutinised...

The regulator is expanding its powers while facing calls for a culture change...

And some of the same external players are moving through both sides of the system.

Who reviews the reviewers?

Honestly, at this point I think the answer is:

Everyone!

13/08/2026

Maybe David Seymour underestimates how big the audience is.

I get hate every single day. People disagree with me, yell at me, call me names and occasionally tell me to get a real job. You know what I do? I keep going. Welcome to the internet and politics!

So it’s extraordinary that ACT pulled out of the Big Hairy Network debates because Todd Stephenson got mildly booed.

Todd told people that night he had a good time. So either he lied to save face, or David got offended on his behalf. Todd had a good time. David had a tantrum.

Seymour says BHN “can’t hold a respectful debate.” When Pat asked what he could do to make it a safe space, Seymour told him he wasn’t “essential,” that others were doing it better, and that ACT wants nothing to do with him.

For context: my post today about Space and Penk did 467,052 views and 265,893 viewers in one day. That’s just me. BHN has spent years building that same kind of audience. They don’t just get views - they get voters.

Almost $2 million in political donations and a few boos is what breaks you?

Grow up. Or go back to Dancing With The Stars. They might clap for you there.

13/08/2026

Look at all these rude comments calling me a conspiracy theorist!

Okay then. Let's do something really radical:

Read the Government's own documents.

Because the BlackSky story is actually much simpler - and much more serious - than “Brie thinks there's a conspiracy.”

Here is what we actually know:

On 20 December 2023, MBIE prepared a briefing called:

“Advice to authorise a payload permit for BlackSky Global LLC.” (MBIE, briefing 2324-1415)

Parliament later identified that briefing as the document that informed Judith Collins that BlackSky had worked with the Israeli Defence Ministry. (Written Parliamentary Question 45157, 2025)

The very next day, 21 December 2023, four BlackSky Global Gen-3 satellites were authorised.

And the Government's own permitting summary says the Minister had to be satisfied that the operation was consistent with New Zealand's international obligations and in New Zealand's national interest before granting the permit. (New Zealand Space Agency, https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/28000-permitting-decision-summary-4-x-global-gen-3-blacksky-global-llc-blacksky)

So this wasn't just a question of:

“Can the rocket safely launch?”

There was a legal and policy test around whether the operation was acceptable for New Zealand.

And we know the Government was aware BlackSky had military applications.

In February 2025, Judith Collins was asked whether she knew BlackSky planned to add laser-optical links to its Gen-3 satellites to give “war-fighters real-time access to imagery during time-sensitive military operations worldwide.”

Her answer was:

“Yes, I am aware.” (Written Parliamentary Question 5942, 2025)

Then there's another important part of the Government's own policy.

MBIE says that for commercial remote-sensing satellites, the assessment focuses heavily on the satellite's technical capability rather than trying to track every individual customer or downstream user, because those customers can change and imagery can be resold. (MBIE, Commercial Remote Sensing Payloads - National Interest Considerations and Approach to Permitting, https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31183-commercial-remote-sensing-payloads-national-interest-considerations-and-approach-to-permitting-pdf)

So, in plain English:

The Government knows these satellites can have military applications.

But it doesn't necessarily make a decision based on who ultimately buys the imagery or exactly what every customer will do with it.

Fair enough.

But then we have to ask:

What did the Government actually assess in this case?

Because Chris Penk later approved another 26 BlackSky launches in April 2026.

And when Parliament asked him about the Gen-3 application, he said a national-interest risk review had been performed, that GCSB and NZSIS provided national-security advice, and that officials had advised him the application met the relevant tests. (Written Parliamentary Questions 29814, 29816 and 29820, 2026)

So what did that review actually say?
What risks did officials identify?
What was recorded about the intended use of the satellites?
What did GCSB and NZSIS say?

And given that the Government already knew BlackSky had worked with the Israeli Defence Ministry, how was that information dealt with in the decision-making process?

Those are not conspiracy questions.

They're questions about whether the Government followed its own legal and policy framework properly.

And now there is an actual judicial review in the High Court challenging the BlackSky approvals.

That's the whole point.

Maybe the Government acted lawfully.

Maybe it didn't.

Maybe the plaintiffs are right.

Maybe they're wrong.

The COURT gets to decide that.

I don't need to prove that BlackSky “will” be used for a particular military operation. The issue is what risks the Government was required to consider when it approved the launches, what advice it received, and whether the decisions were lawful.

So yes, call me a conspiracy theorist if that makes you feel better. 😂

But I'm literally asking people to read:

The legislation. The MBIE policy. The ministerial answers. The Space Agency's permitting documents.

And the actual court challenge.

That's not a conspiracy.

That's what accountability looks like.

Now tell me what I've got wrong.

13/08/2026

The Free Speech Union - Isn't a union protecting free speech for everyone. Its a right wing group set up to help the right wing parties further their agenda by pretending like they care about Free Speech for everyone.

Anis own bio on The Campaign website says
"Ani's work history includes political campaign experience gained through roles at New Zealand National Party, including Director, Digital, and Senior Media & Research Advisor. They also served as Head of Digital at The Platform NZ"

13/08/2026

Of fu***ng course it was...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/free-speech-union-board-member-ani-obrien-revealed-as-complainant-accusing-blogger-martyn-bradbury-of-ridiculing-posts/NEGAELZ2AVA63IIO7MJSRJKGEU/

Ani happily called me a methhead on her X account though.

Guess it's only an issue when it's her getting attacked.

Free Speech Union - thoughts? HA. HA.