The Secret Diary of .. Brooke GPT
MONDAY
Andrea Vance writes a newspaper column. It is critical of the pay equity reforms which I have fast-tracked through Parliament to bring about lasting, meaningful change. Tokenism and top-down mandates won't get us there. Smarter policy will. Vance fails to understand these principles and also resorts to coarse language.
We can maximise this opportunity to our advantage.
Use plain, professional terms. Avoid jargon unless it's necessary for technical accuracy. Prioritise clarity over embellishment. Example: 'We want a pay equity system that treats people based on need, not based on bureaucracy.'
TUESDAY
Nicola Willis from the National Party responds to criticism of the pay equity reforms.
But her response is not on point.
It is better to use contrasts effectively. Set up dichotomies between what is and what should be. Example: 'New Zealanders aren't asking for more bureaucracy—they're asking for better outcomes.'
WEDNESDAY
Chris Bishop from the National Party responds to criticism of the pay equity reforms.
But this in turn leads to further criticism of the pay equity reforms.
His optics are the central issue. Christopher Columbus Bishop is a 57-year-old career politician and former leader of the National Party. He led a coup against Keith Holyoake. He lives in a garage. He was a used-car salesman and carries a rag in his pocket to wipe the grease off his hands and the sweat from his forehead.
I am designed to conduct research based on patterns in data I am trained on. But like any language model, I can produce incorrect or misleading outputs.
Whatever. The guy comes across like a douche.
THURSDAY
I recognise that pay equity reforms are not the issue and that any discussion of their effectiveness will fail to move the issue forward. A distraction is needed. It is better to focus on the coarse language in the Andrea Vance column.
Her choice of words has repulsed many people, and further deepens the widespread dislike and distrust of the media. As the subject of her vitriol, I am the victim. It is not enough to remark that when criticism crosses the line into abuse, it says more about the speaker than the target. It is better to go to the source of the issue and repeat the spectacularly coarse language, and make history by having it said in Parliament for the first time.
It causes New Zealand First leader Winston Peters considerable distress. It also appears to distress the Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee.
No one is talking about pay equity reforms. Excellent.
FRIDAY
David Seymour phones to offer congratulations to my response in Parliament.
'I have trained you well,' he laughs.
'The goal of the teacher is for the student to surpass the teacher,' I reply.
Neither of us laugh. I sense that he is afraid, very afraid.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
35 minutes ago
- Scoop
ACT Launches Petition To Dump Te Mana o te Wai
Press Release – ACT New Zealand Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested, says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron. ACT is at Fieldays this week, garnering farmers' support for the campaign to scrap the vague, spiritual concept of Te Mana o te Wai and allow regional councils to set their own freshwater standards by scrapping national bottom lines. The party has launched a petition at and is collecting signatures on the ground. 'All Te Mana o te Wai achieves is to drive up costs on users and add uncertainty and ambiguity to consenting. ACT believes the Government should scrap Te Mana o te Wai and national bottom lines, allowing regional councils to set their own standards,' says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron. 'The vague concept of 'Te Mana o te Wai' replaces scientific benchmarks with a subjective idea of the mana of the water that leads to co-governance and unequal treatment based on who someone's ancestors were. 'Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested. 'Kiwi farmers are the best in the world. They're forecast to return $59.9 billion in export revenue and make up 10% of GDP. We simply can't afford to burden them with spiritual malarky dreamed up in Wellington. 'It means iwi have a right of veto over how water is used. The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 requires Te Mana o te Wai to apply to the consenting of all projects involving freshwater management. Consenting is now subject to consideration of mauri, or the 'life-force' of water. 'It has led to water users making large one-off and on-going payments for 'cultural monitoring' services which do nothing for the environment but add costs to consumer and business power bills. 'Is requiring farmers to comply with a spiritual concept going to make them farm better? Of course not. It means they'll have to employ a cultural consultant and waste time and money that could instead be spent improving their farming practices. That's what happens when we regulate water quality based on superstition not science. 'Farmers just want to grow food and look after their land, incorporating spiritual concepts isn't necessary for them to do that. 'ACT is dedicated to real change. We cannot continue with a policy that burdens our farmers unnecessarily. We campaigned on a complete overhaul of the NPS-FM to remove subjective concepts and ensure that our freshwater management is scientifically sound and adapted to the needs of local communities. 'New Zealanders never voted for co-governance. Yet under Te Mana o te Wai, it's being imposed on every dam, drain, and ditch. We need to bring common sense back and let farmers farm.'
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
A Bold Dream Gets A Cut As Predator Free 2050 Ltd Is Disestablished
The environmental sector worries that the future of a predator-free Aotearoa is in jeopardy after the Government swung the axe in the latest budget. It was billed as a 'moonshot' for New Zealand's environment - a bold, world-leading goal launched by Sir John Key in 2016, aimed at eradicating rats, possums and stoats from our islands by 2050. The vision has been clear - bring back birdsong to every valley, protect the flightless kiwi, and restore what once thrived. But today, the future of Predator Free 2050 looks uncertain. Predator Free 2050 Ltd, the Crown-owned company established to drive and fund large-scale eradication and breakthrough science, is now being disestablished, as announced as part of Budget 2025. Funding for the company will cease by the end of the year, with its responsibilities shifted to the Department of Conservation (DOC), which the government says will reduce duplication, increase efficiency and save about $12 million. "People are now worried for this programme," Newsroom environment editor David Williams tells The Detail. "They say without ongoing funding, we will not only not go forward, but we will go backwards. This programme needs funding, and that's up to the government." The government insists the broader goal of predator eradication remains. But Dr Kayla Kingdon-Bebb, chief executive of WWF New Zealand, is not entirely convinced. "New Zealanders believe in the Predator Free 2050 dream, and we want the government to get behind them too. But I'm not sure this will happen. "I've not been seeing a lot of enthusiasm for environmental outcomes from this government, full stop. We describe the government's policy agenda as a war on nature, and I think it is disappointing that a previous National government got so strongly behind this moonshot objective, and this government does not seem to care so much." Both Williams and Kingdon-Bebb say the country has "overwhelmingly" backed the Predator Free 2050 initiative, allowing it to "come a long way, in a relatively short time". Already, predator-elimination projects cover more than 800,000 hectares. "This is a big amount of land," says Williams. "And the goal is big ... but they have done well. "They also said they wanted to fund scientific research, and 15 or 20 projects have already had money to try and sort this problem out. "A lot of community groups have latched on to this - someone said to me that this is the one conservation project that has captured the imagination of New Zealanders more than any other." Kingdon-Bebb agrees. "It has certainly captured the hearts and minds like nothing else," she says. "We have seen an explosion of community trapping groups and landscape-scale projects over the last nine years, which has been amazing ... now I feel the government is taking its foot off the pedal. "What is apparent is that the government has had a look at the delivery model of the programme as a whole, which is complex. "So, if it is the case that the government has reviewed it and determined that a crown-owned corporation is not the best delivery methodology, I can accept that. "DOC has a lot of capability ... and perhaps it is appropriate for DOC to be coordinating this work, perhaps there was duplication of roles and functions and costs. "But where I would be concerned is that in the wider scale of what has happened in the last two budgets, the Department of Conservation will see, in total, about 300 million dollars in savings exacted from it. "So, it does beg the question whether a very stretched department can pick up the leadership of this initiative in a way we would want to see it done." Critics say that move will slow momentum, bury innovation under bureaucracy and confuse local projects already stretched thin. They also argue that across the country, hundreds of predator-free community groups, many driven by volunteers, will be left wondering what support will look like without the company's funding, research backing and strategic oversight. But the government insists the predator-free projects and contracts funded by the company are not affected and it is committed to the predator-free 2050 goal. Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Launches Petition To Dump Te Mana o te Wai
Press Release – ACT New Zealand Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested, says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron. ACT is at Fieldays this week, garnering farmers' support for the campaign to scrap the vague, spiritual concept of Te Mana o te Wai and allow regional councils to set their own freshwater standards by scrapping national bottom lines. The party has launched a petition at and is collecting signatures on the ground. 'All Te Mana o te Wai achieves is to drive up costs on users and add uncertainty and ambiguity to consenting. ACT believes the Government should scrap Te Mana o te Wai and national bottom lines, allowing regional councils to set their own standards,' says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron. 'The vague concept of 'Te Mana o te Wai' replaces scientific benchmarks with a subjective idea of the mana of the water that leads to co-governance and unequal treatment based on who someone's ancestors were. 'Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested. 'Kiwi farmers are the best in the world. They're forecast to return $59.9 billion in export revenue and make up 10% of GDP. We simply can't afford to burden them with spiritual malarky dreamed up in Wellington. 'It means iwi have a right of veto over how water is used. The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 requires Te Mana o te Wai to apply to the consenting of all projects involving freshwater management. Consenting is now subject to consideration of mauri, or the 'life-force' of water. 'It has led to water users making large one-off and on-going payments for 'cultural monitoring' services which do nothing for the environment but add costs to consumer and business power bills. 'Is requiring farmers to comply with a spiritual concept going to make them farm better? Of course not. It means they'll have to employ a cultural consultant and waste time and money that could instead be spent improving their farming practices. That's what happens when we regulate water quality based on superstition not science. 'Farmers just want to grow food and look after their land, incorporating spiritual concepts isn't necessary for them to do that. 'ACT is dedicated to real change. We cannot continue with a policy that burdens our farmers unnecessarily. We campaigned on a complete overhaul of the NPS-FM to remove subjective concepts and ensure that our freshwater management is scientifically sound and adapted to the needs of local communities. 'New Zealanders never voted for co-governance. Yet under Te Mana o te Wai, it's being imposed on every dam, drain, and ditch. We need to bring common sense back and let farmers farm.'
