NZ views on Trump versus Bannon

David Farrar at Kiwiblog: Trump vs Bannon

So of Trump’s two campaign chairs, one is indicted for money laundering and the other he now labels as mad. What does that say about the judgement of the person who hired them?

David Garrett:

Trump is one seriously unhinged unit…If you allow yourself to think about it, it’s terrifying that this guy’s hand is on the nuclear button at the same time an equally unhinged unit in North Korea has his hand on another nuclear button.

Surely 2018 will be the year the world is closest to a nuclear conflict since the height of the cold war? Doesn’t bear thinking about…

MickySavage at The Standard: Duck and Cover

Makes you wonder if the nuclear button tweet was an attempt at diversion.

And Trump has lost his cool with Bannon.

Whale Oil may have a bit of a dilemma over the Trump-Bannon split. They were still championing Trump yesterday:

Bannon’s Breitbart may now be a front runner. WO have modeled themselves on Bannon/Breitbart,  and I suspect someone may have fancied themselves as a Bannon-like PM maker, but now Trump has dumped on Bannon (not posted about at WO) that may cause some flip flopping between champions, trying to ignore the bust up.


More 2018 predictions

David Farrar has posted his Predictions for 2018. Most are fairly general and aiming for success (of the predictions), and of little interest outside political circles.  There’s a few of greater interest.

2. Bill English will remain National Party Leader

That contrasts with the Stuff prediction he would step down this year. It could be as better informed (inside information) prediction, or it could be a PR ploy.

5. Eugenie Sage will be elected Greens female co-leader

Stuff also predicted Sage over Genter and Davidson. She could be a compromise option, or she could be popular as a co-leader option alongside James Shaw. I think she would be a good choice.

6. The End of Life Choice Bill will pass its third reading

If MPs follow public opinion that’s likely, but ‘will pass it’s third reading’ leaves open the possibility that it will go to referendum to determine whether it will become law, or it will take longer than a year to get there.

14. The Tax Working Group will recommend a Capital Gains Tax

That’s a safe prediction – about the only question mark is probably whether it will happen this year or not.

17. Lisa Owen will be the next Political Editor for Newshub

Someone has to replace the outgoing Patrick Gower, and she is a likely candidate. I think she would be an improvement, unless overdramatics and political agendas are a job requirement imposed by directors.



Lorde and Israel

A singer has removed a gig from their schedule. In the circumstances I have concerns about the use of social media pressure to coerce, but this is just the entertainment industry and the bottom line is financial, and that’s likely to be the reason for the change.

But some seem to think it’s a big deal.

The Standard:


It’s fair to question why Lorde has singled out Israel, but why single out Russia as a comparison? Activists in the world could probably argue against every venue if so inclined.

Tough talk from a dirty gutless flake? WO should know all about financial compromises and imperatives.

But this may not be the end of it, as the other side of social media pressure plays it’s hand.

Complaint against David Garrett/Kiwiblog


Tanya Toailoa says the guest post is inflammatory, racist and irresponsible. She notes that assertions made by the piece are factually wrong i.e. that all Samoans and Tongans hate each other; and that they all are aware of historical reasons for Tongan/Samoan enmity.

Mr Farrar says his offer of a right of reply to the complainant was the appropriate response to the complaint; and believes agreeing to the complainant’s request for removal of the article would have a chilling effect on the ability of publications to allow strong opinions to be expressed.

Mr Garrett’s guest post is unpleasant, grossly exaggerated and provocative for many readers and possibly intended to be so.

The complaint is not upheld, dissenting from this decision.


CASE NO: 2639





On 8 November 2017 the online commentary site Kiwiblog published a contribution by David Garrett headed “Guest Post: Pasifika is Bollocks”. The post was made after the recent Tongan/Samoan rugby match and the associated public disturbances including fighting between Tongans and Samoans, as reported in the media.  Among other points made, the guest post stated “Samoans and Tongans hate each other with a vengeance”. It also claimed the recent events described above disproved the implications of the term “Pasifika”, i.e. that underneath cultural differences, Pacific Islands people are all one big happy family.

The Complaint

Tanya Toailoa says the guest post is inflammatory, racist and irresponsible. She notes that assertions made by the piece are factually wrong i.e. that all Samoans and Tongans hate each other; and that they all are aware of historical reasons for Tongan/Samoan enmity. She does not accept that the article is acceptable, is fair comment or ‘just an opinion’. She wants the article removed from the site. The complainant cites two Press Council Principles: Comment and Fact; Discrimination and Diversity.

The Response

David Farrar, editor of Kiwiblog, says that from time to time he publishes guest posts offering a variety of points of view. This does not mean he, as editor, agrees with all the opinions expressed, as in this case.

He responds that in relation to Principle 4, Mr Garrett’s article is clearly an opinion piece, and that no reasonable person could regard his assertions as factual. Principle 7 provides that race is a legitimate subject for discussion where relevant, and the context of the piece was extensive media coverage of Tongan/Samoan disturbances.

Mr Farrar says his offer of a right of reply to the complainant was the appropriate response to the complaint; and believes agreeing to the complainant’s request for removal of the article would have a chilling effect on the ability of publications to allow strong opinions to be expressed.

Discussion and Decision

A search of the Internet reveals that there are traditional stories of past Tongan and Samoan rivalry, and unverified accounts of recent incidents, including some involving rugby matches. Apart from that is hard to find a basis for Mr Garrett’s surprising claim that Tongans and Samoans hate each other. In fact he contradicts himself by noting “you would never know it at pan-pacific gatherings – at least until cocktail hour”. Mr Garrett’s guest post is unpleasant, grossly exaggerated and provocative for many readers and possibly intended to be so. It is not surprising that many people commented online about the guest post, both positively and negatively.

Sporting events worldwide can provide an emotional environment where racial prejudices are revealed and unruly behaviour occurs. The Press Council believes the media are entitled to report these occurrences, and commentators to express their opinions. The complainant certainly has a legitimate contrary opinion to Mr Garrett. She has been given the opportunity to express that in a balancing Kiwiblog opinion piece, but has to date not taken that up.

On Principle 4, Comment and Fact, the Council believes the article is an opinion piece and marked as such by the heading “Guest Post”. The contentious statements in the guest post are assertions, and we accept the editor’s submission that they are clearly Mr Garrett’s opinions. The facts of the historical basis and recent history of Tongan/Samoan rivalry are publicly (although perhaps not widely) known and do not appear to be contested.

The Press Council Principle 7 notes that issues of race are legitimate subjects for discussion where relevant.  In this case Samoan/Tongan sporting rivalry was an essential part of the news story sparking the opinion piece. Given this context, we consider that dealing with the Tongan/Samoan issue in an opinion piece could not be considered gratuitous emphasis on race.

The complaint is not upheld, with one member Hank Schouten dissenting from this decision.

Press Council members considering this complaint were Sir John Hansen, Liz Brown, Jo Cribb, Tiumalu Peter Fa’afiu, John Roughan, Hank Schouten, Marie Shroff, Christina Tay and Tim Watkin.

Also posted at Kiwiblog: Press Council decision on complaint against Kiwiblog


Assassination comments on Kiwiblog

I’m going to go in to bat for both David Farrar and lprent here regarding the challenges of moderating blogs.

Note in advance: I have chosen to include unacceptable language in the following post to demonstrate what has happened. The comments have been seen and circulated widely and are still public on other sites. Inciting, promoting or encouraging political violence of any type is totally unacceptable here on Your NZ, as it should be in New Zealand generally.

Controversy was sparked by a comment at Kiwiblog on Saturday morning when ‘rightoverlabour’ posted a comment saying:

I believe in eliminating terrorism. Winston is a political and economic terrorist. He has held the country to ransom, and is obfuscating on everything. His assassination would not be something I would shed a tear over. I have time for Jacinda, and the greens (even though I oppose most of their policies), as they have been open and transparent. But Winston is a despicable, narcissistic individual. Emperor Nero comes to mind as a close comparison. Sometimes the elimination of a clear and present danger is a neccesity for the survival of a reasonable society. Assassination may be a step too far, but a society has to protect itself from these types of individual gaining power. Ask the Russians, Germans, North Koreans.

I don’t think this is a threat to assassinate, but it clearly suggests and probably encourages considering it as a political act. As such it is clearly a silly, and a very irresponsible thing to say on a public forum. It deserves condemnation.

A warning was posted in response: “be careful inciting assassination is a crime”.

‘rightoverlabour’ replied to that:

Hmm, I’m not inciting it as such, just wouldn’t care if it happened. However eliminating terrorism is not a crime. I suppose it depends on how one defines terrorism. I am happy to retract the post if it is breach of the rules etc, (in which case, DPF delete it) but when does freedom of speech come in?

The problem is that even if there was no intent to incite it could possible do exactly that, so the risk must take precedence over ‘free speech’.

This cause a stir in social media and was seen as an example of the bad right and dirty politics and a sign of vicious attacks on the incoming government, amongst other things. More on that soon.

Some time later yesterday, over a day later and after it had been well publicised elsewhere, David Farrar moderated the comments:

I believe in [deleted by DPF for advocating murder and Strike 1. Do not do again]


Hmm, I’m not inciting it as such, just wouldn’t care if it happened. However, eliminating terrorism is not a crime. I suppose it depends on how one defines terrorism. I am quite happy to retract the post if it is in breach of rules etc, ( in which case, DPF delete it) but then where does freedom of speech come in?

Now I give DPF the benefit of doubt here, I think he would likely have deleted the comments with a warning as soon as he found out about them. Blogs can’t be moderated 24/7, especially on holiday weekends and DPF has a baby in the family. Blogs rely on others alerting moderators them when someone steps over the line.

When concerns were raised ‘rightoverlabour’ should have contacted DPF to alert him to his comments. Others should have also done this.

As previously mentioned, these comments spread around social media and were strongly criticised for obvious reasons. They deserved condemnation. However some of the reaction was itself over the top.

A post on this appeared at The Standard mid-Sunday: Kiwibloggers discuss assassination of “terrorist” Winston Peters

There were comments in response that made unsubstantiated assertions – this is normal and allowed at TS in some situations, in contrast they demand proof and links of just about anything I post there, but that’s another story.

Brendan posted:

I hope someone contacts the police. I also hope the new government use their resources to stamp out this vitriol and disturbing behaviour.

Political disagreement is fine. Calling people names (rather than criticism of a person’s actions) is not productive, but still fine. But sanctioning violence (life-threatening violence) because you disagree with somebody’s position has no place in a peaceful democracy like ours. I’m embarrassed these people exist in New Zealand.

Embarrassing and at times disgraceful behaviour are fairly common at both Kiwiblog and The Standard. In my opinion Kiwiblog is not monitored closely enough and moderation can be lax – at one stage I deliberately broke the rules there to highlight a recidivist liar who frequently repeatedly attacked and defamed people, but I doubt it made much if any difference to ongoing behaviour there.

Kiwi blog and Whaleoil might be the haven for National’s minions, but it’s a breeding ground for New Zealand’s own far-right hate trolls. Never, ever have I seen anyone here at The Standard advocate or sanction the use of violence against political opponents.

I have, however it has usually been dealt with appropriately.

This is sick, and it’s a right-wing problem, not a left-wing problem (well not here in New Zealand), that’s inherent to the anti-democratic mind-set they espouse.

An interesting moderator response:

[lprent: It isn’t just a right-wing problem. It gets moderated out here pretty fast and long bans are often issued. Partly because most advocation of violence are offences against some of NZ’s laws, but mostly because it adds absolutely nothing to any national debate, robust or polite. Which is pretty clear when you read the sewer where the moderation is sporadic, lackadaisical and professionally inept. Even Whaleoil is better these days. ]

I pretty much agree with that. There is a real problem at Kiwiblog that I think sets it part from any other site in the way abusive and harassing behaviour isn’t controlled – it’s often out of control, and it has been for as long as I have been an observer (7-8 years).

But any site can have idiots letting loose. As happened later in that same Standard thread in two comments by ‘millsy’ (who has a history of over the line comments):

OK. if they want to kill WP, then perhaps [deleted]

They will probably be looking at about 10-20 years in Paremoremo. But seeing as they think its a 5-star luxury hotel with silver service, should be all good.

[lprent: Suggestions of illegal acts is actually a crime. Could you calm the fuck down before I have to make you? ]


Oh, we have only just begun, Ian. We have only just begun, The Second October Revolution has taken place, You have lost all right to complain when you have made the choice to poison your communities water supply to ensure a boost in your profit margin. As far as I’m concerned, you deserve everything you get.

[lprent: You really need to read moderator warnings. Implied threats are still threats. Banned for two weeks. ]

That was last night, and it appears that lprent was on to it quickly. I expect he would have been aware of risks and would have been keeping a closer eye on things.

So on two blogs irresponsible and possibly illegal and certainly a poor show for the forums they were posted on were moderated appropriately, albeit slowly on Kiwiblog.

It is bloody hard moderating a blog. Most people are fine most of the time, but with relatively free speech forums people sometimes say stupid and irresponsible things, and sometimes people deliberately try to put blogs at risk – there was a spate of that here two years ago, which is eventually like to prove costly for some of those involved.

After Dirty Politics went public three years ago DPF said he seriously considered shutting Kiwiblog down, but decided to keep it going. He will have ongoing risks allowing a feral element to continue commenting there largely uncontrolled.

Anthony Robins just announced today that he is ending his stint as one of the most respected bloggers active at The Standard. He was the mainstay of The standard through the campaign, and they are likely to miss him a lot. I can criticise some of what he claims, even in his valedictory, but as far as I have seen (which is a lot) Anthony has always stayed away from dirty attack politics, he has always come across to me as a decent guy.

But I can fully understand why Anthony has chosen to move on. It can be a time consuming and at times demoralising task, especially when you try to keep standards others choose to shit in your nest.

As we shift from a Government of nine years to a completely different combination of parties there is likely to be upheaval on blogs and across social media – there are already signs of tension and conflict from both sides. Some are sour about the result, some are very defensive about any criticism of the incoming government or the parties who have formed it.

I think blog moderators will need be vigilant about bad reactions, change directions of attack, and also alert to the potential of deliberate sabotage. Small things can easily blow up into major scandals or arguments.

I think it’s sad, but in enabling and encouraging political debate it also gives the immature and the uncontrollable a means to mess things up.

All I can do is ask those contributing via comments here to keep things decent and fair – robust criticism is fine, but aim at issues and policies and actions of politicians, and keep the personal shit kicking out of it. Please.

Blogs hard out on attack

Political blogs tend to cater for their own audiences much of the time, but in an election campaign tend to put a lot of effort into attacking the other lot. That’s certainly evident at this stage of the campaign.

Kiwiblog is run by David Farrar, who has close associations with National. He can be critical of National and praise other parties, but is mostly posting praise of national and attacks on others. Posts over the last day:

Farrar should be considering displaying an authorisation statement under the Electoral Act, something The Standard displays as a precaution. Recent posts there:

For some time the Standard posts have been promoting the Greens and attacking National, and have recently rediscovered their Labourness joining the Ardern adoration club.

Whale Oil has been noticeably anti-National and pro-Winston for months, but recently has been spreading attention across the spectrum, attacking Ardern and Labour, the Greens, TOP – pretty much anyone but NZ First.

The Daily Blog is a mess of messages. Authors are out in force trying to promote their favourite issues.

John Minto doesn’t see much hope in Who to vote for?

Voting involves a moral choice.

In a capitalist economy you either vote with capitalism’s winners or with the losers. With those who have used the system to enrich themselves at the expense of others or those forced to struggle at the margins.

After this election the new government will be dominated by either National or Labour – not the dramatic choice it should be because Labour brought only a tentative, watery policy mix to the election and capitulated on tax before the first vote was cast.

Labour by itself won’t make a significant difference. Ardern has addressed the desperate social situations of child poverty and homelessness with the usual hand wringing rather than policies.

Labour talks values but these are useless without policies to give them meaning.

The best hope for a half-way decent, policy-driven, progressive government comes with a strong Green Party in coalition with Labour.

Greens are the only option this election for left wing revolutionaries.

Anyone voting National this election has a personal moral deficit.

Trying to attract voters by shaming them? Negative political attack is the fall back option for political activists, and that is evident across the blogs.

Poll trends

Polls are useful indicators, albeit backward looking. Trends are also worth keeping an eye on, but they can disguise sudden shifts.

David Farrar tweeted on a post at Kiwiblog:

This is quite misleading. I don’t know whether this is deliberate or not but the timing of this is questionable. August polls are already out of date. Farrar is National’s pollster.

There has been three public polls in September that add a lot to knowledge of poll trends.

Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2017 is more up to date, and much more informative.

This shows that the dramatic Labour upswing has been sustained in September, and National support is diving.

It also highlights the Green dive in support, and shows that so far there is no sign of the  much touted late campaign improvement for NZ First.


Abuse unabated at Kiwiblog

An abusive and toxic environment at Kiwblog seems to continue unabated.

Kiwiblog is one of the most unmoderated blogs in New Zealand, with ‘free speech’ abuses often ruling over decency and fairness.

I have an extensive history at Kiwiblog probably still stand as one of the most prolific commenters there, but I have mostly given up on following comments threads. Too much abuse and awful comments directed at other commenters, politicians and anyone dragged into a topic.

David Farrar had another wee dig at Jacinda Ardern in Interesting recollection

In response Huevon commented:

I couldn’t finish reading the article without feeling I would throw up.

What a self righteous bitch. Brash was voicing perfectly legitimate concerns from many people about race relations in this country and the bogus privileges and exemptions applied to Maori. He is the rarest of creatures on the right in NZ – a man of principles AND courage.

She clearly holds most white NZers in contempt. She wants power simply to fulfil her ideological fantasies. God help us if this woman gets power.

Upticks 55, downticks 3

Daphne Whitethigh replied:

(Hidden due to low comment rating)

I wish commenters would stop the ad feminam insults.

Upticks 6, downticks 46

Rich Prick:

Why? Some of us just don’t have the stomach for the show pony. You are free to scroll past opinions or expressions thereof that you don’t like. But not the right to demand that they not be expressed. We are the right. Here you are free to express an opinion I may not like, and it may surprise you to know that I will take the time to actually read it, rather than grabbing my pussyhat and go rioting.

Upticks 47, downticks 4

Daphne Whitethigh:

(Hidden due to low comment rating)

It demeans your opinion if you can’t make your point without insult.

Upticks 6, downticks 41

Wayne Mapp:

On this point I agree with Daphne. I am heartily sick of seeing the level of misogyny of some of the commenters.

And even if that does not concern you, it is politically counter productive. The attitude reflected in far too many of the comments on Kiwiblog will be a real turn off to middle of the road voters, and generate a sympathy vote.

Take a cue from Bill English and Paula Bennett. They both instinctively knew they should condemn Gareth Morgan for his comments.

So, sure you have the right to say what you want. It would just be better not to say stupid things.

Upticks 13, downticks 8

There were a lot of comments following that, mostly ignoring Waynes advice and continuing unabated and abusive.

Farrar runs his blog with minimal moderation, that’s his choice. But it looks bad for Kiwiblog, and with Farrar’s close party associations it looks bad for National as well.

I used to confront crap there often but it was pointless because the abuse continued unabated. I pushed boundaries at one stage because someone kept repeating lies about me, but that changed nothing, I copped my only demerits ever over that.

It’s very sad to see one of New Zealand’s most prominent political blogs continually portraying the worst of politics and some of the worst of public behaviour unabated.

A lot of what goes on at Kiwiblog is disgraceful, this is a relatively mild example where someone decided to speak against and got abused for it.

Political debate is poorly served by this. National is tainted. I have no idea why Farrar has let it continue for so long, but it looks very ugly.

Contrasting comments on Hipkins

Contrasting comments on the involvement of Chris Hipkins in citizenship in relation to Australian politics.

David Farrar at Kiwiblog:  Labour causes rift with Australia

This is a huge blunder by Hipkins, who used his special position in the NZ Parliament to try and help Australian Labor topple the Australian Government.

But what is a big thing is for an MP of one country’s Parliament to use their role to help the parliamentary party of another country’s Parliament. And that is what Chris Hipkins did by asking these two written questions (12)on behalf of Bill Shorten.

It would have been obvious to Hipkins that Australian Labor wanted this information to bring down a Government MP. He may not have known it was the Deputy Prime Minister but he would have known why Australian Labor was asking, and also be aware the Australian Government has a one seat majority in the House of Representatives and so the loss of even one seat could bring down the Government.

Here’s why Hipkins involvement was important, even though there had been media inquiries also. There is no deadline for DIA to respond to inquiries by foreign journalists. Even if it was a NZ journalist asking, they could take up to four weeks to answer under the OIA.

But by having Hipkins ask a parliamentary question, the Minister is obliged to answer within five working days or one week. So Hipkins was able to get Australian Labor the information as much as three weeks earlier.

Make no mistake this has caused huge anger within the Australian Government. Helping the Opposition to try and bring down the Deputy Prime Minister will mean very frosty relations if Labour forms a Government in New Zealand.

Mickysavage at The Standard:  Strewth Cobbah

You would think that New Zealand Labour was in possession of nuclear tipped medium range missiles and had threatened to let off a few into the sea near Tasmania just to make sure they worked.

Such has been the overwhelming response from Australia’s right about Labour’s Chris Hipkins asking Peter Dunne twosimple questions:

Are children born in Australia to parents who are New Zealand citizens automatically citizens of New Zealand; if not, what process do they need to follow in order to become New Zealand citizens?

Would a child born in Australia to a New Zealand father automatically have New Zealand citizenship?

And these were simple written questions to get bits of information, not significant oral questions where the opposition tries to embarrass the Government.  There have been over 7,000 of them this year.

You do not have to be a media genius to conclude that the tip off to Gartrell may have come from within the ranks of Australia Labor.  But to think that New Zealand Labour and Hipkins were responsible for what happened requires multiple levels of stupidity.

Their basic problem is that the media was already onto the issue well before Hipkins asked his questions…Hipkins had nothing to do with it.

Australian media may have beaten him to it, but Hipkins still got involved in some  questionable digging after talking to a mate working for an ALP senator.

I guess the right in Australia and in New Zealand are fearful of losing power and are lashing out in an attempt to damage their opponents.  But it is clear to me that on both sides of the Tasman the clock is ticking for the right.

So far Ardern seems to have handled things well, but she has made it clear she doesn’t approve of Hipkins getting involved.

The clock could be ticking for Hipkins.

Just now on RNZ – Ardern “refused a request” to be interviewed this morning, and Hipkins isn’t answering calls.

Single child tax?

Labour (Andrew Little) has claimed Single Child Tax hidden in Budget

Buried in National’s so-called family Budget is a Single Child Tax that will hit medium to low income families, says Labour Leader Andrew Little.

“National’s Single Child Tax will see a family with one child lose as much as $830 a year in Working For Families payments.

But there is no ‘single child tax’. Labour seem to have found that in some situations (dependant on income and number of children) some people won’t benefit as much from tax changes in the budget as others.

It seems very dumb calling not as much of a reduction on tax as a tax.

David Farrar at Kiwiblog: Labour now calls an increase a cut as someone got a bigger increase

So actually they are around $750 a year better off. Claiming they are worse off is like claiming that if you win $800 in Lotto and someone wins $1,000 in Lotto you are $800 worse off.

Stuff: Govt’s income package leaves 20,000 families with one child worse off: Labour

Leader Andrew Little is calling it the “single child tax”, and says it’s the consequence of a more aggressive abatement rate that the Government also introduced to ensure the package was targeted to those who needed it most.

But it had failed to look after a large chunk of low to middle-income families, he said.

While those families would still see a net positive gain to their weekly pay packet, ones with a single child would get a smaller piece of the pie.

So Labour’s complaints are misleading and stupid. Do they think that everyone should get the exact same net positive gain (less tax taken off them)? Except rich people.

“Whenever you’re putting these packages together, there’s always a complexity about it. But I’d be surprised if they understood there’s 20,000 odd single-child families that will now be worse off – but that’s the reality. “

Joyce said those families still saw an overall gain, and Labour was failing to see the bigger picture.

“The abatement changes mean they don’t get as much from the Working for Families part of the package, but they gain more from other parts of the package, in particular the tax changes. They may also in some cases gain from the Accommodation Supplement Changes.

Farrar claims:

They are $15 a week better off as a minimum and if they get accommodation supplement may be up to $115 a week better off.

The Standard pushes the Labour line in Family package that punishes families but does include :

While those families would still see a net positive gain to their weekly pay packet, ones with a single child would get a smaller piece of the pie.

It’s notable that that post got very few comments – perhaps deflated by ‘JamieB’:

From reading the headline and first couple of paragraphs I was under the impression this was a demographic that would have their incomes reduced from the changes.

But then “While those families would still see a net positive gain to their weekly pay packet, ones with a single child would get a smaller piece of the pie.”

So they’re not actually worse off, and Labour and this opinion post are really grasping at straws to find an actual problem with this budget.

Labour have handled their budget reaction quite poorly.

It will be interesting to see if Little or Grant Robertson try to push this in Question Time today.