I Am Brie Elliott

15/12/2025

Interesting timing.

After weeks of public confusion, OIAs showing missing detail, and today - on the day of rollout - frontline road policing officers commenting that they still don’t know the process, Police went on the news tonight to “clarify” roadside saliva testing.

The key stat they led with was:
“Between 2019–2023, 34% of people involved in fatal crashes had drugs in their system.”

That figure comes from post-crash toxicology data reported by Waka Kotahi / NZTA. It measures drug presence in blood after fatal crashes - not impairment at the time of driving, and not whether drugs caused the crash. That distinction matters.

Having a drug in your system does not automatically mean someone was impaired, or that drugs contributed to the crash. And it matters even more when the roadside testing regime itself also measures presence, not impairment.

Road safety policy should target actual risk and impairment, not just what’s easiest to detect. Leading with a headline stat after the fact - instead of being upfront about what it does and doesn’t show - is exactly the kind of messaging that undermines trust.

This is why people are uneasy.

We’re seeing messaging and justification rolled out AFTER the powers, not before. Stats are being used to reassure the public, but without the nuance needed to understand what they actually mean.

Road safety matters. Deterring genuinely impaired driving matters.
But good governance means being clear, precise, and transparent before enforcement - not filling in the gaps once the questions start piling up.

And this isn’t a one-off - it’s the same rushed, detail-later approach we’re seeing with charter schools and other “urgent” reforms.

14/12/2025

This government is genuinely bad at policy design. We keep seeing rushed legislation, half-formed ideas, and details left to be figured out later - straight out of the unedited think-tank playbook.

Roadside drug testing is a textbook example. The powers were legislated before the device was chosen, before thresholds were set, and before the operational rules were made public. Even basic questions had to be answered with “that will be decided later.” That’s NOT how good policy is supposed to work.

Good governance means evidence first, clear rules second, and enforcement last - with the public actually informed along the way. Instead, we’ve had powers first, answers later, and widespread confusion on the ground. That’s why people are uneasy. It’s not hysteria, it’s a predictable response to a backwards rollout.

This isn’t anti-Police. It’s about the competence of our government. When governments rely on half-baked ideas and sort out the consequences after the fact, public trust takes the hit.

People are right to question this. Not because they oppose road safety, but because they expect better governance than this.

14/12/2025

After the McSkimming scandal, public trust in Police oversight has clearly taken a hit.

When confidence is low, the answer shouldn’t be to expand intrusive powers and expect compliance without question.

That’s why this move feels out of touch. At a time when trust needs rebuilding, we’re introducing roadside powers that require people to provide bodily samples, punish refusal, and rely on “comply now, challenge later.” Even if the intention is road safety, the approach risks deepening mistrust rather than restoring confidence.

Expanded powers that make bodily compliance a condition of mobility raise real civil liberties concerns. If institutions want public buy-in, they need to lead with transparency, restraint, and accountability - not ask for more authority before trust has been repaired.

Rebuilding trust should come before expanding power - not the other way around.

From tomorrow, Monday 15 December 2025, Police will be able to screen drivers for the presence of impairing drugs in the Wellington District – the first-time testing of this kind will be conducted on New Zealand roads.

Police will begin roadside screening for four key drugs - THC (cannabis), m**hamphetamine (m**h), M**A (ecstasy) and co***ne - using the new device that screens for the presence of impairing drugs.

Similar to testing for alcohol levels, there are thresholds for each drug that are set to indicate the recent use of one or more drugs rather than historical use, passive exposure, or accidental ingestion which would be unlikely to cause impairment.

Alongside roadside drug testing, Police will continue to use the behavioural test called a Compulsory Impairment Test (CIT) where Police can assess a driver if they have good cause to suspect the driver is impaired by drugs.

Drivers who are prescribed medication are advised to continue with their medication as directed by their health practitioner and consider any impairing effects it might cause. Ultimately responsibility remains with drivers to consult their practitioner for medical advice. If they are experiencing any impairing effects, they should not drive.

Drivers cannot use a prescription or medical note at the roadside to stop them from undergoing a test or to dispute a positive saliva screening test result.

If an infringement is issued after laboratory testing, drivers will have the ability to apply for medical defence if it is for a drug that has been prescribed to them. Information on how to apply for medical defence can be found on Police’s website from Monday 15 December.

Those who refuse or fail to comply with a roadside drug screening test will be issued with an infringement notice that includes a $400 fine, 75 licence demerit points, as well as being forbidden to drive for 12 hours.

Superintendent Greally, Director of Road Policing, says having the ability to screen drivers for the recent use of drugs allows Police to detect and deter drivers from this dangerous behaviour that endangers not only themselves but other lives.

“The message is clear to drivers who blatantly drive impaired by drugs – don’t take drugs and drive.

“We’ve seen too often the devastating impact of fatal crashes due to drug driving and the flow on effects it has caused families and communities. If you intend to get behind the wheel after consuming impairing drugs, you will be caught.”

Read more - www.police.govt.nz/news/release/drug-testing-starts-wellington-monday-heres-what-you-need-know

14/12/2025

Kia ora koutou,

It’s so nice that so many people noticed my page was down, and thank you to all the people who reached out to me.

I took my page down to give myself a break, and tidy up my content. I love talking politics online, but I don’t have an active moderator or administrator, and I am doing this in my spare time around study and work, so I just needed a short break.

The CEO of the Charter School Agency has reached out to me with a response to my complaint, and a personal apology for the affairs of last week.

However, I am still concerned about the way this government has set-up the agency, and the direction it is taking… You can sign my petition to halt the charter school approvals until transparency & safety are guaranteed:

https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/pause-charter-school-approvals-until-transparency-safety-are-guaranteed?just_launched=true&fbclid=IwY2xjawOlaMFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFKM3o1Q0VZRDFwMFNaUDRqc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHvEo_JgOOVBhk4TUxB3W2lYKxWnySWofl9UDJbbSJ90beiVicABMiEAeQ-Z5_aem_2pQT5ej96o1-h8l8YTHa4Q

Tonight at 7pm, I’ll be on The Collective on the Big Hairy Network alongside Sean Ackland Author, Jordan Rivers, Paul the Other One and the amazing Tania Waikato - Lawyer. This will be our final show for the year, so make sure you come along and get involved in the chat!

Alright team, back to it!

12/12/2025

National and ACT love “law and order” when it means cracking down on protestors, beneficiaries, and Māori communities. But when law and order means holding powerful insiders accountable, suddenly it’s “process”, “protocol”, and “nothing to see here”.

I’m realising how badly this whole story has been misunderstood - and honestly, that’s on the way it’s been framed, not on the public.

Most of us thought the Jevon McSkimming saga was about a senior police officer watching inappropriate p**n on a work device. That was part of it - but it was never the core issue.

[Just to clarify som**hing - I say “inappropriate p**n”, to describe how this story was originally framed publicly, not minimising the seriousness of the material. Subsequent reporting made clear that the material involved included child sexual abuse material and animal sexual abuse material on a work device. That is extremely serious, and language should reflect that. The fact that the public narrative initially softened this into “p**n” is actually part of the problem I’m pointing to - it made a very serious situation sound smaller and more containable than it was.]

Here’s what actually happened.

A woman (referred to publicly as “Ms Z”) raised serious concerns about the behaviour of Jevon McSkimming, who at the time was the Deputy Police Commissioner - one of the most powerful people in NZ Police. The full detail of her allegations isn’t public (and shouldn’t be, while court matters are ongoing), but they were serious enough that they required careful, independent assessment.

That didn’t happen.

Instead, senior Police failed to properly assess the substance of her concerns. According to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (the police watchdog), the way her complaint was handled was deeply flawed at senior levels. Processes were used that shut the issue down rather than properly testing it.

As she tried to escalate her concerns - sending repeated emails because she wasn’t being heard - the focus shifted away from what she was alleging and onto how she was communicating.

She eventually ended up being charged under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

Let that sink in: the complainant was prosecuted before her allegations were properly examined.

Now here’s the part that should alarm everyone.

Ms Z sent 36 emails to the Police Minister’s office about the conduct of the Deputy Police Commissioner. Those emails never meaningfully reached the Minister. They were redirected internally to police leadership instead.

Mark Mitchell says he didn’t see them. Hipkins’ name comes into this only because Andrew Coster later claimed he “informally briefed” him, which Hipkins disputes and it was never documented. Whether you believe them personally or not almost doesn’t matter - because the real issue is that Police leadership had the ability to intercept, filter, and contain serious allegations about one of their own before they reached political or independent oversight.

That is a systemic accountability failure.

After all of this, the IPCA stepped in and released a damning report. It confirmed serious failures at senior levels of Police, including failures to properly assess Ms Z’s concerns and problems with how information was handled internally.

As for the court cases:
• One charge relating directly to McSkimming was withdrawn, because he chose not to give evidence.
• However, Ms Z is still before the courts on other harassment-related charges connected to communications with another police officer and that officer’s wife. Her lawyer is now arguing that the ongoing prosecution may be an abuse of process, given what the IPCA has found.

So no - this didn’t “go away”. And no - it was never just about p**n.

The p**n angle was a convenient, minimising frame. It made this sound like personal misconduct, when the real issue was som**hing much bigger: how institutions behave when serious complaints are made about powerful people inside them.

If you were confused about this saga, that’s not on you. The public narrative made it smaller than it was.

This isn’t about speculating on guilt or interfering with court processes. It’s about recognising a pattern that should worry all of us: This is what happens when power answers only to itself.

And if that can happen at the very top of NZ Police, it can happen anywhere.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell talks about the moment he found out about Ms Z, his relationship with Coster, and why emails were diverted from his office.

11/12/2025

Som**hing really concerning just happened, and I think the public deserves to know about it.

After raising serious concerns about the charter school conversion application of BEWT (Kelston Boys takeover) a month ago - concerns backed by over 4,000 signatures - after initially blocking my email as "spam", the Charter Schools Agency has reached out to me… Here’s the part that shocked me:

1️⃣ They told me they “can’t talk about the specific application while they complete their process with the school and the applicant.”

- That wording suggests the process is STILL active.

But the school publicly announced the application was withdrawn.
So which is it? Why are the public being told one thing and the Agency another?

2️⃣ They also said they wanted to explain “the process for making a formal complaint.”

This is the first time anyone has mentioned a complaints process to me - despite my concerns being raised publicly and directly for weeks.
Why was this not treated as a formal complaint when it was first raised?

3️⃣ They also asked for a PHONE CALL.

No written record. No accountability.
Given the seriousness of this issue, and the involvement of oversight bodies, I declined. Everything needs to be in writing.

For transparency, I’ve CC’d the Privacy Commissioner contact into my reply.

This situation raises some really serious questions about process, transparency, and public accountability within the Agency.

The public deserves clarity, not contradictions. This entire agency is a joke. Sign my petition here: https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/pause-charter-school-approvals-until-transparency-safety-are-guaranteed?just_launched=true&fbclid=IwY2xjawOlaMFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFKM3o1Q0VZRDFwMFNaUDRqc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHvEo_JgOOVBhk4TUxB3W2lYKxWnySWofl9UDJbbSJ90beiVicABMiEAeQ-Z5_aem_2pQT5ej96o1-h8l8YTHa4Q

Screenshots below.

10/12/2025

The Chair of the Teaching Council, David Ferguson, runs a private teacher-training programme - and right now, sweeping reforms are being rushed through while a caretaker CEO is in place. His programs could be approved directly by the Ministry, bypassing independent oversight. The organisation punished one person for conflicts of interest, yet the board has a member with a private stake in teacher education at the top. The CEO is absent. Teacher voices are being silenced.

Standards and ethics could shift with political priorities. Te Tiriti-based practice is at risk.

Minister Erica Stanford says this is the “right time” to centralise power - even dismissing teacher concerns as “not helpful” or “disgusting.”

⚠️ Teachers, educators, whānau - speak up now. Make submissions. Protect our profession and tamariki.

Submit here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/ECommitteeSubmission/54SCEDUW_SCF_65445E46-256B-4800-37F2-08DE25831691/CreateSubmission

10/12/2025

I’ve been sent information by anonymous educators about changes to the Teaching Council that are deeply concerning. They’re too afraid to speak publicly because of the risks, but what they’ve shared shows this isn’t just a minor “update” - it’s a major takeover of teacher standards, ethics, and registration by political appointees. I will expand on this in a video but I needed to get this out there ASAP.

What makes it even worse? These changes are being pushed through while the Teaching Council itself is unstable. The current “caretaker” leader is actually someone from the Council’s own governing body, appointed by the Minister of Education. That means the very person supposed to oversee the system is now running it - creating a built-in conflict of interest at the highest level.

Currently, teachers have a say in how the profession is regulated. The Teaching Council independently manages:

- Teacher registration
- Practising certificate requirements
- Initial teacher education qualification standards
- Teaching standards (Ngā Paerewa)
- The Code of Professional Responsibility (Ngā Tikanga Matatika)

Under this Bill, all of that power moves to the Secretary for Education, a political appointee. That means the collective voice of teachers disappears, and decisions are made based on politics, not professional expertise. Instead of leading the profession, enforcing ethics, and setting standards, the Council would mostly process registrations and paperwork. Teachers would no longer have a real say in what counts as good teaching.

Education Minister, Erica Stanford has publicly dismissed teacher concerns and labelled efforts to highlight these issues as “not helpful” or “disgusting.” She has publicly said this is the “right time” to push these changes because the Council is under review. Erica has publicly confirmed that she is happy to exploit a moment of vulnerability to centralise power. By sidelining teachers, dismissing concerns, and pushing through a Bill that removes professional autonomy, Erica is demonstrating a shocking lack of judgement and understanding of what it means to lead a profession responsibly.

It's happening right now, and the consultation period is designed to fly under the radar during the holidays. Teachers must speak up now. If educators don’t submit feedback, speak to colleagues, and make their voices heard, these changes will go through without any professional input. This isn’t just about policy - it’s about the future of your profession and your students.

🔗 Consultation and submission link:

Public submissions are now being invited on this Bill

10/12/2025

Hey friends! 👋

Labour is looking for locals in Port Waikato who want to get involved leading up to 2026. If you live there - or know someone who does - comment below and the local team will reach out directly.

PS - I’m not paid, not endorsed etc. Just sharing for anyone who wants the opportunity to help hold this government to account.

09/12/2025

This week, the government revoked a charter school notice because it was issued to a trust that didn’t exist. But the story doesn’t end there. In this video, I take a closer look at New Zealand Performance Academy Aotearoa (NZPAA), a school now registered as a private company, and connect it to what happened with Mt Hobson Academy and Crimson Education.

I break down the timeline, explain why a company - not a charitable trust - is running this charter school, and explore why this raises questions about transparency, governance, and how public funds are used.

If you care about public education and accountability, this deep dive will help you understand what’s happening behind the headlines.

https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/pause-charter-school-approvals-until-transparency-safety-are-guaranteed?just_launched=true

09/12/2025

I’ve been digging into som**hing about schools in New Zealand that really concerns me, and I want to explain it in plain terms. I tried to make a video but I rambled too much, sorry.

It starts with Mt Hobson Academy and the Villa NCEA Academy - private schools run by the Villa Education Trust, owned by Alwyn and Karen Poole. Mt Hobson was founded in 2003 as a registered private composite school, focused on individualised learning, small class sizes, and specialised teachers. In 2022, it shifted to an online platform covering Years 1–15. The school had ambitions to become a designated character school - which is a type of state school - but that application was denied, creating real uncertainty for students and parents.

Then comes Being AI, a company started by wealthy parents Katherine Allsopp-Smith and Evan Christian. They wanted a special school for their son because, apparently, normal school wasn’t good enough for a robotics-loving six-year-old. They created a multi-million-dollar school called AGE, or “A Gifted Education,” in Takapuna.

Around the same time, Being AI acquired the education division of the Villa Education Trust, including Mt Hobson Academy, AGE, staff, and the operational systems that had been under the trust. This is where Karen van Gemerden (formerly Poole) moves into a senior leadership role in Being AI, running schools that had previously been under her own trust. She’s now in a position where she’s directing operations and education strategy for these private assets. Alwyn however, left the VET in 2021 and was no longer involved.

Later, Crimson Education purchased Being AI’s education division, which included Mt Hobson, AGE, and all the operational assets. Mt Hobson itself hasn’t been converted into a charter school, but when parents recently tried to enrol there, many were redirected to Academic Institute Aotearoa (AIA) - one of the newly announced charter senior schools in the same Crimson network. Some families even felt pressure to move their kids because “senior roll numbers dropped.”

The founders of Being AI didn’t just walk away. They’re still shareholders through their charitable trust, Te Turanga Ukaipo, holding 14.25% of the company. Media reporting confirms they were to receive stock in Crimson instead of cash.

Here’s the tricky part: these are taxpayer-funded charter schools. The same people who profited from the private school side - through the sale and leadership roles - are now running schools that receive government funding per student, but with much less oversight than a normal state school. Families are effectively being guided from one school to another, with public money following the students, while the leadership benefits from influence and continuity across both private and charter sectors.

Mt Hobson Academy started as a private school, part of the Villa Education Trust. Private schools cannot legally convert directly into charter schools, which are publicly funded. But Crimson owns both Mt Hobson and the newly announced charter senior school, Academic Institute Aotearoa (AIA). When students tried to enrol at Mt Hobson, many were redirected to AIA. Effectively, this is a private school transitioning students into a charter school through a loophole. The Charter School Agency (CSA) and the Charter School Authorisation Board (CSAB) would have been aware of this, but it seems they hoped no one would notice.

I’m not here to throw accusations or suggest anyone broke the law. But this raises serious questions about transparency, accountability, and whose interests are being prioritised. When private school operators end up controlling publicly funded schools, it’s no longer just about education - it’s about who controls the schools and who benefits financially.

Public funds are supposed to serve students and communities. When the same leadership moves students and schools around in ways that also benefit their own private interests, it just feels icky - because it is.

We need to ask hard questions about how charter schools are being run, how families are being directed, and whether public money is truly being used for the benefit of students. Because if we don’t, the system quietly shifts from serving students to serving those already in control.