Not-so-secret reply to . . . Steve Braunias
Dear Steve,
How are you? Good, I hope.
Here I am on a train to Paris, staring at your "Secret open letter of ... Sir Ian Taylor," which is staring right back at me. I think I'll be the one to blink first. You may be wondering why I'm on a train instead of a plane. Silly me! I thought de Gare meant airport in French. At least there's a seat on the train ... and I can see my bag.
SUNDAY
Dear Steve,
Sorry I'm a bit late getting back to you. I got distracted by the obese conspiracy theorist sitting beside me on the train yesterday. All he wanted to talk about was the All Blacks. I tried to change the subject to Jacinda, but he was having none of it. "Sacre bleu," he said, "that was our C team."
I said, "You need to have more empathy." He ordered another wine.
MONDAY
Dear Steve,
I'm finding this open letter harder to write than the ones I send Jacinda, because I suspect you might actually read it. I made a coffee to steady myself. It was terrible. I blame you. I haven't touched coffee in 20 years, but your writing is so persuasive I couldn't help myself.
TUESDAY
Dear Steve,
I'm at my desk in my Airbnb in Paris. My thoughts are still somewhere over New Delhi, wondering how I ended up on a flight to India when I was meant to be heading to Dubai to see if Jacinda's picture was still on the Burj Khalifa. It reminded me how easy it was to end up in odd places trying to get home to New Zealand during those Covid lockdowns. That thought came back to me when I saw her cover photo at Auckland Airport. Not that I blame Jacinda, of course. I probably just forgot where I was going. I did turn 75 last week and my mind isn't what it used to be.
WEDNESDAY
Dear Steve,
Do you ever get mental blocks when you write? I don't, usually, but today I'm stuck in the middle of my own thoughts. Not the animated ones that come with being founder and managing director of Animation Research Ltd. More wedged between admiration for your craft and mild resentment that you read my mind better than I do. You gave me a whole new perspective on my letter to Jacinda, one I simply failed to see. I still have no idea how I missed it.
THURSDAY
Dear Steve,
On reflection, rather than another open letter, I think I owe you a drink, or at least a half-decent coffee, assuming we can find one between Tihar Prison and the Koru Lounge. I might even bring A Different Kind of Power. We can put it on the table between us and stare at the cover together. Sometimes it's better to look at the photo than open the pages.
FRIDAY
Dear Steve,
Not sure if I've mentioned it before, but I'm a huge fan of your writing. I never imagined I'd end up the subject of one of your columns. Thank you for your piece. Thank you for the mischief. Long may you keep us honest, and just uncomfortable enough.
Yours, not so secretly, Sir Ian Taylor
PS. Do you think it was possible that when Jacinda said "Be Kind" she meant that we had to be kind to her for the decisions she was making otherwise we weren't part of the Team of 5 Million, and we would be thrown off the waka? I remember feeling quite wet during Covid.
By Sir Ian Taylor
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Alas, demonised Cunliffe
Would the devil please step forward. Grant Robertson's new political memoir Anything Can Happen trashes his former Labour leader David Cunliffe with the same loathing and even some of the same language as Jacinda Ardern in her book A Different Kind of Power. The word they both choose to describe him is 'inauthentic', meaning a phoney, a fake, more interested in power than Labour principles. Their various attacks position Cunliffe as vain and toxic. 'The disastrous Cunliffe saga,' writes Robertson, thinking back to his 2014 campaign; 'For the first time in a long while, I felt relieved,' writes Ardern, when he stepped down. ReadingRoom reached out to 10 parliamentarians inside the Labour camp during Cunliffe's leadership. All were asked the same question: 'Was Cunliffe as bad as Ardern and Robertson say he was? What did you make of him?' Each were offered anonymity. Five ran for the hills, including the MP who remarked, 'This feels like kicking him when he is down.' Muldoon once famously responded, 'What better time to kick someone?' And so it was that one former colleague of Cunliffe's said, 'He was a man of overweening and largely unjustified self-confidence, from the time he entered Parliament. 'A clue came at a campaign launch at Auckland Town Hall, at which DC asked his local electorate supporters to wear red wigs … in honour of his own ginger self.' The parliamentarian remembered an exchange with Grant Robertson after Cunliffe had been deposed as leader. 'How's David doing, Grant?' 'Increasingly unhinged.' Robertson's section on Cunliffe in Anything Can Happen also somewhat comes off its hinges. As well as the extract that appeared in ReadingRoom on Tuesday, he claims Cunliffe pushed the line that Labour could not have a gay leader, 'was not burdened with modesty', had no EQ, created an atmosphere that he describes as 'toxic', and writes of Helen Clark promoting him as Minister of Health, 'I vividly remember him becoming Minister of Health and announcing to the House like some kind of sheriff that there was a new kid in town running the show. I wanted to crawl under my desk.' But another contemporary in the Cunliffe years was more favourable. 'I liked David a lot. He was bright and capable. He wasn't perfect, who is? 'I personally was disappointed that Helen Clark anointed Phil Goff and Annette King as her successors after the 2008 election as it felt like it was going back to the past instead of allowing the party to go forward. We will never know what would have happened. David was blamed for the loss of the 2014 election – unfairly in my view.' A third colleague tried to take the long view. They emailed, 'With the benefit of hindsight I'm a little more charitable than I might have been if you asked me 10 years ago. I think David didn't really know himself and was broken rather than malicious. In his own mind I believe he meant well, but he was fundamentally lost and seemed to be forever seeking the approval of others. As we later found out, he was also going through some significant personal issues at the time which would have been a distraction. 'This all played out in ways that were harmful to those around him and which weren't conducive to effectively leading a political party. It was a horrible and traumatic time for all involved, but there's no benefit in dwelling on the past. It happened, we've all moved on, and I try not to hold on to bitterness or resentment. I only hope he's found some stability and happiness in his life outside politics.' (Cunliffe was also contacted. He replied by email, 'After careful consideration, I must respectfully decline your offer of an interview. As with previous requests regarding Jacinda's book, my decision is based on differing recollections of events, the fact that the issues discussed were not brought to me directly, and my desire to move beyond reactive political discourse. At this time, I do not intend to participate in further interviews of this nature. I hope you understand my position, and I thank you for your professionalism in your approach.') A fourth colleague gave an interview on the phone on Tuesday morning. 'Oh gidday Steve. I've actually just read the excerpt from Grant's book that you published at ReadingRoom.' And? 'And I absolutely recognised the bit about Grant saying he had a habit of disappearing from important events to go and spend time on his phone. I experienced a couple of examples of that myself. My abiding memory is hosting him in my electorate, having him scarper from an event exactly the way Grant describes in his book. You know, which isn't great when you're trying to win your local community over. 'I mean – he was very disappointing. You know, he had a lot of support across the party and he had backers in caucus who kind of put their neck on the line with caucus colleagues to support him. And I think a lot of those people felt very let down by his leadership. 'He was a very high IQ individual, but had very, very low EQ. He just had no idea how to go about managing people, working with people. Of course he was working with a group of people who were somewhat hostile to him and had no idea how to deal with that. 'Some of his decision making was very haphazard. He would make major decisions apparently on the fly. But when he actually sat down and worked through policy detail, he was great at thinking things through. 'But he just didn't have the attributes required either to manage his caucus or to be a spokesperson for the party and to win people over on an emotional level.' The final interview was a change in emphasis: rather than asking about Cunliffe, questions were asked about Robertson, and Ardern. The parliamentarian said, 'Their obsession with demonising him is odd. David did his very best to get Labour elected to government. But when he was the leader, he was consistently undermined by parts of our caucus. So that made life difficult. He was always watching his back because of the kind of vitriol that you are seeing now.' They meant the memoirs by the former Prime Minister and her deputy. They continued, 'I've always taken the view that whoever the leader is of my party, my job as a caucus member was to back them 100 percent so that we could get a Labour government elected and we could address the issues that New Zealanders needed addressing. But that wasn't a view held by all my caucus.' Including Robertson? 'Not that I'm aware of. But certainly, you know, people who he was closely associated with were. There was a lot of commentary from within the Labour Party caucus that was undermining David Cunliffe at the time. To me that is indefensible as it is with any of our leaders.' What does it say about Robertson and Ardern that they are singling out Cunliffe to trash him? 'It looks defensive to me. Like they have a need to demonise someone who was actually doing his best for the things that we all believed in and giving those policies over the line. 'It was publicly known at the time, you know, leading up to David Cunliffe's election as our leader, that there was a group within our caucus who chose to tell the media that they called themselves the ABCs and that stood for Anyone But Cunliffe. 'That's not collegial and it's not collective and it's not unified. That undermining continued through his leadership. I mean I'm not going to say that he was the perfect leader, but he was a very good leader. He always stuck to the principles and policies that we were promoting as a party. And he was, you know, really good at communicating those ideas and that information. 'David was a great communicator. I mean it was widely regarded that he got the better of John Key in the leaders debates. But the defeat that we suffered at that election was recognition from the voting electorate that we had a caucus that was working against itself. 'And I think that there's been an attempt over the years to create the narrative that David Cunliffe undermined David Shearer. David Shearer undermined David Shearer. I mean he couldn't say a sentence straight whenever he spoke in front of the media. That was the basic problem there. 'What happened is that parts of our caucus circulated a petition calling for him to step down as leader. David Cunliffe was not involved in that petition. It was people associated with the ABC group. History is kind of being rewritten of David Shearer being forced to stand down as something that David Cunliffe and his supporters brought about. But the record will show that it was actually people from within the Grant Robertson camp that actually executed that pressure and that petition.' Was Grant Robertson – later the deputy Prime Minister and finance minister, and now the author of Anything Can Happen, which tells his version of events during his political career – the leader of that camp? 'Grant wasn't the ringleader,' they replied, 'but he was quite careful not to be the person carrying the message'. ReadingRoom has devoted most of the week to coverage of the former finance minister's book. Tomorrow: the memoir is reviewed by Tim Murphy.
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
'Show trial': Robertson on turning down Covid inquiry public hearing
Former finance minister Grant Robertson has defended turning down an invitation to appear at public hearings of the Covid-19 inquiry, describing the process as a "show trial" and saying he's already given hours of interviews. A second week of public hearings at the inquiry was cancelled after former prime minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, current Labour leader Chris Hipkins, Robertson and former health minister Ayesha Verrall all turned down invitations to appear. Commissioners opted not to use their powers to summons the four ex-ministers. Robertson told Q+A earlier this week that the second phase of the inquiry, initiated by the National-led government, seemed to have a "show trial approach". Labour pandemic-era ministers Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall have also declined. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT "I have participated in both phases of the Covid inquiry. In total, now I'm up to about four and a half hours worth of interviews," he said. "When I finished my most recent interview with this phase, one of the staff of the Royal Commission said to me, 'You've answered all of the questions we've asked and more.' "We have participated. I have participated. I don't know that in a lessons learned inquiry, the kind of show trial approach is actually that valuable." Asked why he thought it was a "show trial", Robertson argued: "We've got precedent. We haven't done this in Royal Commissions in New Zealand in the past, [where we] have politicians and former politicians come into the public arena." Government party leaders have criticised the ex-Labour ministers for not appearing at the inquiry, saying they were not fronting up to critical questions about their actions. Grant Robertson (file image). (Source: 1News) Robertson was appearing on Q+A in advance of the release of his memoir, Anything Could Happen, which is being released later this week. ADVERTISEMENT In the interview, he was also asked about the Labour government's pandemic-era spending levels, his views on New Zealand's tax system, and reflecting on moments in his life. After leaving politics, Robertson became the vice-chancellor of Otago University. Former finance minister defends pandemic-era spending Robertson was also asked about the release of a recent Treasury report, which intimated the government spent too much during the pandemic response. The former finance minister defended his actions and emphasised the proportion of spending that went towards initiatives, like the wage subsidy scheme. He said: "If we think about the period in the latter part of 2021, Treasury was absolutely saying, 'You've got to be careful about the amount you're spending.' "But they also recommended in papers I remember from August and September of 2021, when Delta arrived, that we should keep support going. Grant Robertson. (Source: Getty) ADVERTISEMENT "They said don't increase it too much, but keep it going. By May 2022, when the Budget was put forward, we closed the Covid fund. In a sense, I don't really disagree with them, at one level. I just think there's a little bit of hindsight there too. Yes, we had to be careful. "But they also said you need to look after businesses and families when Delta arrived." Robertson said he thought the delivery outcomes of the previous Labour government at the time "generally" matched the scale of spending on programmes. But he conceded "there are going to be things where it didn't work", including so-called "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects that turned out "weren't quite ready to go". "The spending there ended up happening both over a longer time, and perhaps not in quite the way we might have wanted." In its long-term insights briefing, Treasury officials wrote that "many programmes" in the Ardern government's fiscal response had a "lagged impact on the economy" and "proved difficult to unwind in later years" as high inflation emerged. Officials said the previous government spent on a "wide range of initiatives with varied objectives over the period. These included, among others, shovel-ready projects, the Jobs For Nature scheme, more public housing, and even the school lunch programme." ADVERTISEMENT Inquiry due to report back in February Covid-19 inquiry commissioners restated that they had "not changed its view that an open hearing would enhance public confidence in its processes". Inquiry chairperson Grant Illingworth KC said: "The Covid-19 pandemic was a significant event that affected every New Zealander. "The government at the time, through its ministers, made decisions about how we as a nation responded to that pandemic, which had implications for all of us. "We have been tasked with reviewing those decisions, and we thought it was important that the public see and hear for themselves important evidence about why some key decisions about the response to Covid-19 were made and for what reason." GPs say they've seen busy winter periods before and the system is ready to cope. (Source: 1News) Commissioners were due to report back to the Governor-General at the end of February 2026, and the decision not to proceed with a hearing would not impact timelines. ADVERTISEMENT A second phase of the Royal Commission into the Covid-19 response was introduced by the Government after a "first phase" which was completed last year. Some of the previous Labour government's decisions around the pandemic response proved to be extremely contentious – so much so that both ACT and NZ First campaigned on expanding an inquiry into those decisions. Expanding the terms of reference and public hearings into the Covid-19 response were part of National and NZ First's coalition agreement to form a government. For the full interview, watch the video above Q+A with Jack Tame is made with the support of New Zealand On Air
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Immigration appeals spike after officials ‘open doors' post Covid
Lawyers warn a growing backlog of immigration appeals before an independent tribunal could leave vulnerable people in limbo. Some say the spike in appeals is the result of loosened visa criteria in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, with one lawyer saying the coalition Government should consider a general amnesty for those who came here but are now being threatened with removal.
