Chris Bishop Frustrated By 'Politicised' Stan Walker Aotearoa Music Awards Performance

Senior government Minister Chris Bishop says he was frustrated by the politicisation of Stan Walker's performance at the Aotearoa Music Awards, when he said "what a load of crap".
During Stan Walker's performance of Māori Ki te Ao, performers took to the stage with flags displaying Toitū Te Tiriti, a movement borne out of opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill and other government legislation.
Bishop, who was in attendance, was seen criticising the performance, and has since said he should have kept the comments to himself.
On Tuesday, Bishop told reporters his comments were not directed specifically at Walker.
"I was frustrated and annoyed by the sort of overt politicking around it," he said.
"It's not about Stan Walker, I actually quite like Stan Walker, actually quite liked his performance. It was just the sort of politicisation of it that frustrated me," he said.
Bishop singled out the Toitū Te Tiriti "banners and paraphernalia" as the source of his frustration, not the performance itself.
He said he would not be apologising to Walker.
"It's not clear what I'd be apologising for."
His comments led to backlash from other performers, including Don McGlashan, who was seen on video confronting Bishop.
The minister said the irony was he was a "huge" Don McGlashan fan.
"I love the Mutton Birds. But Don McGlashan is a noteworthy non-supporter of the National Party. People might remember the 2008 election, in which he expressed some frustration at 'Anchor Me', which is a great Mutton Birds tune, being used by TVNZ on the election night coverage," Bishop said.
"His political views are quite well-known, but look it is what it is, he's entitled to his views in the same way I'm entitled to mine."
Arts, culture and heritage minister Paul Goldsmith, who was also at the event, brushed off whether the performance was controversial.
"There's always controversy at music awards. It goes without saying," he said.
Māori Crown relations minister Tama Potaka said he disagreed with Bishop's comments, but they were for Bishop to respond to.
"I absolutely love Stan Walker and his commitment to te reo, and the mahi that he does particularly in his engagement with Ratana, the hāhi. I don't agree with minister Bishop's comments, however those are a matter for him to comment on," Potaka said.
Labour's Māori Development spokesperson Willie Jackson said Bishop, as a music fan, should know that music had always been political.
"He should know music better than anyone. Look around the world, people have been doing that for years. Whether it's Bob Marley, Bono, whatever, it's been happening, it's not like something new. He should talk to his Shihad heroes, cos the lead singer there's got pretty good politics too."
The Prime Minister told Morning Report he was comfortable with Bishop's response, and had spoken to him over the weekend.
"I just got his side of the story about what he said and it was exactly as reported. He corrected it well before I got to him... he just acknowledged he should have kept his thoughts to himself," Christopher Luxon said.
"The bottom line is your listeners aren't losing a lot of sleep over what a politician sharing his opinion on some music was about."
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Bishop's behaviour was disappointing, but it was for the Prime Minister to bring his ministers in line.
"You've got to remember when you're a government minister that you're on public display all of the time."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Otago Daily Times

14 hours ago

• Otago Daily Times

The efficacy of a submission is dubious in this Bill's case

David Seymour. File photo: Gregor Richardson We can now see on the Ministry of Regulation website a "summary of submissions" as a result of a consultation on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. The summary is dated May 2025, so we cannot be sure as to when it was published. We do know that the Bill itself was given its first reading on May 19 and is now before the select committee. The minister in charge of the Bill would have us believe that there is both widespread support for a grave need to legislate a prescriptive standard for our laws and regulations to comply with, and also that his, or the Act New Zealand party's, formula for such legislation is that which the public was asked to make a submission on, in December 2024. On closer examination, the minister's pronouncements would appear to be somewhat of a stretch, or perhaps he is not familiar with the summary of the submissions made on the proposal and now published by his own ministry. The executive summary contained in the document records the receipt of "approximately 23,000 submissions" (1) and that "analysis showed that 20,108 submissions (around 88%) opposed the Bill, 76 submissions (0.33%) supported or partially supported it, and the remaining 2637 submissions (about 12%) did not have a clear position". It does not take a genius to conclude that by a huge majority of those that responded to the consultation, this Bill is not wanted nor seen as necessary. Less than a third of 1% of those citizens who knew or cared enough about this important issue expressed support for it. A summary of reasons for opposing the proposed Bill included that it would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking"; "undermine future Parliaments and democracy"; "lack recognition and provision for the Treaty of Waitangi"; "prioritise individual property rights over the collective"; and "lead to worse social, environmental and economic outcomes". Notwithstanding this overwhelming expression of opposition to the proposed Bill, we find it introduced to the House with none of these matters having been addressed, the minister in charge (David Seymour) stating with confidence that it will be passed in the current session of Parliament and come into effect on January 1, 2026. That the minister, with the support of his coalition partners, can bring this Bill into law is not questioned. The question is whether it is in the interest of his major coalition partner to continue to support this Bill without, at least, addressing the issues that have been raised by an overwhelming majority of submissions in its consultation stage. These will no doubt be mirrored in the submissions to the select committee, charged with considering the Bill, as was the case with the Treaty Principles Bill. The potential negative effects of this Bill arguably outweigh those of the Treaty Principles Bill, which both National and New Zealand First did not support past the first reading. Historically, two National party-led governments have rejected legislation in the same form as now presented for very sound constitutional and political reasons. These reasons remain as sound and as pressing as ever. Our prime minister will be treading a very narrow path should he choose to overlook the historical rejections of this Bill by earlier National Party-led governments and enact legislation contrived and promoted by the founders of Act, which blatantly tips the balance in favour of the protection and enhancement of property rights over those of good governance and preservation of the common good. Such a step, in combination with the negative response to the recent unseemly passage of the Fair Pay Amendment Act 2025 and the excessive response by the coalition parties to the performance of Ka Mate in the House, could see dark clouds gather over the prospects of this coalition retaining the Treasury benches come November 2026. • Noel O'Malley is a Balclutha lawyer. He is a past president of the Otago District Law Society.

Scoop

21 hours ago

• Scoop

New Zealand Government Feigns Neutrality In US-Israeli War Against Iran

New Zealand's right-wing National Party-led coalition government is seeking to portray itself as uninvolved in the murderous US-Israeli assault on Iran and neutral in the escalating war in the Middle East. On July 13, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon described Israel's unprovoked missile strikes against Iran as 'unwelcome' and 'potentially catastrophic.' He told reporters, 'The risk of miscalculation is high. That region does not need any more military action… What we want to see is the parties coming together and having a conversation.' Speaking to Radio NZ on June 17, however, Foreign Minister Winston Peters refused to condemn Israel's ongoing attacks, which by then had killed hundreds of people. Asked whether his government 'supports Israel taking this unilateral action,' Peters replied: 'we do not take sides in a conflict of this nature.' He called for 'de-escalation and diplomacy' but added that 'Iran is not an innocent player in this.' He said both sides were engaged in 'provocative behaviour.' Such statements amount to a falsification of what is taking place and a defence of Israel. The regime in Israel, led by fascist criminals, is engaged in a genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza and has waged illegal wars against Lebanon, Syria and now Iran. Its aim, working with the full collaboration of the US, is to expand Israel's borders and redivide the entire Middle East in favour of the imperialist powers. The pretext given by Israel—that Iran was close to producing a nuclear weapon—is a transparent lie, just like the lies that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction' that were told to justify the criminal US-led invasion and destruction of Iraqi society. After President Donald Trump demanded the 'unconditional surrender' of Iran's government and said there were no plans to kill its leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 'for now,' the New Zealand Herald asked Peters on June 18 whether he would support a US strike on uranium enrichment in Iran. The foreign minister replied that 'we do not believe in war when we haven't fully exhausted negotiations and diplomacy.' He added that New Zealand was a 'small country, way out here in the Southwest Pacific… I wish New Zealanders would understand our limitations here.' The reality, however, is that New Zealand is actively supporting Israeli and US military operations in the Middle East. In January 2024, a group of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel were sent to Saudi Arabia to assist in the US bombing of targets in Yemen, in response to the Houthi forces' efforts to stop ships from supplying the Israeli war machine. New Zealand is a minor imperialist power allied with the US and a member of the US-led Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, raising further questions about its involvement. Asked during a press conference on June 16 whether New Zealand had received advance notice from the US about the attack on Iran, Peters replied, 'Well, we don't make those discussions public.' If the NZ military had foreknowledge of the illegal Israeli missile strike and kept quiet, that would make it complicit in the attack. The far-right Platform podcast's host Sean Plunket asked Peters the next day whether or not the NZ military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia had 'provided any intelligence or material support to the Israeli operation' against Iran. The foreign minister replied: 'Even if I could confirm that, I would not be doing that,' because to do so would endanger the lives of these personnel. The entire political establishment is nervous about widespread anti-war sentiment in New Zealand, which has been expressed in repeated protests against the genocide in Gaza. The opposition Labour Party's deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni told RNZ on June 17, 'we don't support what Israel is doing and we don't support [Iran's] response either.' Like Peters, she called for 'diplomacy' between the two sides. Sepuloni expressed support for the government's decision to join Canada, Australia, the UK and Norway in imposing sanctions on Israel's extreme right-wing Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. She called for 'greater sanctions,' including on companies operating illegally in the occupied Palestinian territories. All of this is completely hollow and is intended to divert attention from the fact that Labour continues to support the military alliance with the US, which is funding and supplying Israel's military and supports the complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza and war against Iran. Previous Labour Party-led governments have sent troops to the criminal US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2022 Jacinda Ardern's Labour-led government, which included the Greens, sent hundreds of troops to Britain to assist in training Ukrainian conscripts to fight in the US-NATO proxy war against Russia. Labour agrees with the current government's plan to double military spending over the next few years, from 1 to 2 percent of GDP—at the expense of social programs that working people rely on. The aim, spelled out in numerous official documents and statements, is to prepare the military for joint operations with the US and Australia, particularly against China, which is considered the main 'threat' to US global hegemony. The war against Russia over Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, the war against Iran and the military build-up against China are all interconnected fronts in a rapidly developing world war aimed at seizing resources and markets and resolving the crisis of capitalism centred in the US. New Zealand's ruling elite is preparing to deepen its involvement on all these fronts, behind the backs and against the will of the population, who are overwhelmingly against war. The working class must take action to stop the war, but for this it needs its own socialist political party and strategy—in opposition to all the capitalist parties including Labour and its allies. The only way to put an end to war is through the unified action of the international working class to abolish the source of war: the capitalist system. Those who agree with this must take the decision to become politically active and join the Socialist Equality Group, which is fighting to build a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world party of socialist revolution, in New Zealand. By Tom Peters, Socialist Equality Group 22 June 2025

Otago Daily Times

3 days ago

• Otago Daily Times

MPs scrutinise the cream cheese latte, among other things

Another Scrutiny Week is done and dusted, although some ministers and ministries came under more scrutiny than others. Take Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson, for example. Under the benign and avuncular chairmanship of Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson, the biggest tension of Mr Patterson's appearance before the primary production select committee came even before proceedings began, from the revelation there was such a thing as a cream cheese latte. It would be fair to say this discovery divided MPs' opinions as much as the likes of the Treaty Principles Bill — and not down party lines either. The Taieri New Zealand First list MP's appearance was primarily with his Minister for Rural Communities hat on, although no appearance anywhere by Mr Patterson would be complete without a mention or two of wool. Of which, more shortly. Mr Patterson's opening remarks emphasised rural communities is not a Cinderella enterprise set up to keep a backbencher busy: last year it reviewed more than 120 Cabinet papers to advise how decisions might impact country folk, as well as engaging directly and regularly with 12 other ministries. Mr Patterson — a farmer himself — said the four main issues he had focused his team on were health, education, connectivity and law and order. Now, it can be argued they are almost everyone's four main areas, but not everyone lives up the road from a school, down the road from a medical centre, has ultra-fast broadband or is within minutes of a police station. "Rural communities is not all about agriculture, it is about the needs of about 860,000 people," Mr Patterson said. Wellbeing — in particular mental wellbeing — was a focus of Mr Patterson's presentation. In the recent Budget the Rural Wellbeing Fund received an extra $2 million to double its funding over the next four years, and the government also committed $3m to Rural Support Trusts. "They have proven their worth, not just during adverse events but also managing farmers facing mental health issues ... there is a real issue with isolation and the issues that come with that," Mr Patterson said. "The trusts have credibility and are well led, we have confidence in them ... a lot of this is driven by volunteers, it is genuine peer-to-peer, farmers talking to farmers. That's their secret sauce and it is us leaning into that and saying you have something here that works, what can we do to help it?" The previous week Mr Patterson, along with almost every MP, had been at the annual Field Days event in Hamilton. There he got to push many things, not the least of which was wool — he and Finance Minister Nicola Willis were there as the not at all coincidental announcement was made by Kainga Ora that it had signed a deal for wool carpets to be supplied to state houses. A week later, Mr Patterson was keen to stress this was likely to be only the start — which was music to the ears of committee members like Mr Anderson, who until entering politics was a sheep farmer. "There are 130 procurement arms in government so there is significant ability to be able to leverage government procurement to assist the wool industry," Mr Patterson said. Scrutiny Week is an innovation of this Parliament and in the run-up to last week's hearings each select committee released a report as to how members thought it was going. The primary production committee noted it had spent eight hours on estimates hearings in 2024-25, and under the previous regime it heard from the relevant ministers and officials for just four hours. Even more impressive was the amount of time spent on annual reviews — up from four hours to 13-14. "Our committee has enjoyed the opportunity Scrutiny Weeks provide to dedicate time to hearing from ministers or entities, with that being the only focus for the week," the report said. "It has meant that we get to drill down on particular matters of concern, current issues, and spending without having to squeeze this in around normal business. Being able to focus on scrutiny, and take our time with hearings, has made the process less challenging than the previous approach of scheduling scrutiny hearings within normal meeting times." So far so good, but not everyone was happy. Opposition MPs — some of whom seem to feel that scrutiny was invented just for them — have complained (and not just on primary production) that they are not getting enough time for supplementary questions. Although not endorsing the idea, the committee suggested consideration be given to having an Opposition MP become its chairperson for scrutiny hearings could help avoid that perception. The social services and community committee (chaired by National Southland MP Joseph Mooney) reported in a similar vein, saying it had also increased its time on scrutiny, but warning its workload was already considerable so it had not been feasible to double that allocation of time. The report also noted that while Mr Mooney had allocated the majority of questions to non-government MPs, "some of us consider that a culture shift is still needed to honour the Opposition's role in leading scrutiny of the executive". The committee resolved to "continue to reflect on this over the parliamentary term," although good luck coming up with a definitive answer. The general tenor of all the reports was in similar vein: great concept but needs some tweaking, which seems a fair call. Anything that obliges the government to fully explain what it is up, to to the people who put them there, is welcome accountability — but it only means something if the level of questioning actually makes someone accountable. In the meantime, cream cheese latte anyone?