What If We Ranked Government Ministers by the Ethical Standards of their Ministries?
Jordan Kelly • 13 May 2025

There's A Whole Different Way to Conduct Polls & Opinion-Gathering that Deserves Investigating

So there's this small but growing  (but still small, viz a viz the size of the New Zealand market)  YouTube-based news channel hosted by a former Parliamentary press gallery journo, Duncan Garner. Tonight, he ran a segment in which he ranked the "10 Best Ministers" in the country's Cabinet.


But it occurred to me that his rankings were based in part on "results" (and whether he agreed with the desirability of those results or not) and in part on (as I saw it) public optics. How well the various portfolio holders came across in the theatre that is New Zealand politics.


I want to propose an alternative (radical but shouldn't be) method of ranking those with whom the buck supposedly stops for the performance and ethics of Ministries, Departments, Bureaus and Agencies in this country. I propose that, "We, the People" rank these "Honourable" individuals based on the actual "honourability" of the organisations bearing the name of their portfolios.


I know they'd scream in protest, saying that Ministers have no jurisdiction over the operations of their Ministries - but at the end of the day, that's a total cop-out. And I'm not sure at what point in the last few decades that cop-out got introduced - but when I was a Ministerial Press Secretary, I can tell you that NO head of a Department wanted to arrive in of a morning and find a "Ministerial" sitting on their desk. I suspect the accepted authority in place in those times gave way to the emergence of New Zealand's very own "Deep State" . . .  in the form of the "Parliamentary Service" aka the Wellington Bureaucrat Mafia. (But don't tell them I know they're called that around the traps.)


Frankly, I think the neutering of Ministers in this power shift has not served this country or its citizenry well at all.


Let me count the ways . . . which I will do by way of my own ranking of our "honourable" Ministers . . . and again, I'll do it in terms of how "honourably" their Ministries operate. You're going to see in just how many cases that picture leaves a whole lot to be desired. On which note, it's therefore more appropriate that MY rankings will be a "Worst Of" list. I''ll let the above-mentioned ex-Parly journo give out any "Best Of" Honours. (He struggled to get past No. 5 on his list.)


One last thing before I hook into it:  I'm going to offer you my "Worst Of" list in instalments.


The No. 1 Worst Minister in the New Zealand Cabinet


Without a doubt, the "Worst Of" award goes to the (not so) Honorable Louise Upston, the Minister of "Social Development".


What an appalling piece of work she is, with little care that her optics directly reflect her attitude, and her Ministry's culture, towards even the most under-privileged and vulnerable members of New Zealand society.


By way of example, the disabled and the sick (who may have been contributory and tax-paying members of society) are treated, in many instances, as grossly inferior to multi-generational dole bludgers. It seems to be a particular pet project of hers i.e. to target the already greatly struggling disability community and the various individuals within it.


She also appears to be perfectly happy to allow rampant wokist, reverse racism prevail in her "Ministry".


And there are multiple case studies and interviews on this very publication to prove the green lighting of the heinous conduct of a serious percentage of the personnel of this frightful agency (here's just ONE example), as well as the practices they enlist external service providers to engage in (who are only too eager to dip their ladles into the trough of taxpayer funds it "administers" to do its dirty work).


And No. 2 Spot Goes To . . . . the "Honorable" Mark Mitchell, Minister of Police.


An indisputable buffoon in front of the television cameras, his media presence failure is exceeded only by his inability (or unwillngness?) to instil performance ethics into his own office staff - and certainly at street-level operations.


Here's one case that's simply unspeakable (whereby an out-of-control, off-the-chain, egomaniac bully boy cop cost a genuinely innocent young woman her life) . . . . with the usual "blind eye" turned to the whole affair, and to the deeply grieving parents, by government "watchdog" agencies, of course.


As far as even the most moderate respect for the public from his own office staff goes . . . I have my own story to tell:


When my car was broken into and burgled, I did what we New Zealanders have always done. I rang the police. But the jeering cop on the police "help line" told me, "Nah, we don't attend break-ins."


So I did what a more proactive New Zealander would do, and I wrote to the Minister of Police, seeking clarification of this new policy. Of course, no answer ever came. So I sought the help of one of the few individuals I've happened across in the 'Hive who has integrity, who endeavoured, on my behalf, to prompt a reply from the Minister's staffers. The begrudged, prompted, one-sentence reply came:  "We will respond in due course."  Of course, more than six months later, "due course" has never arrived.


So, my Dear Readers (who are organically growing in number, and I'm honoured; thank you) . . . those are my Top 2 "Worst Of's" and why.


Spot No. 3 is tied between two Ministers who seem to have forgotten that New Zealanders might want a say in the major decisions their lobbyist mates would prefer they DON'T allow the New Zealand people to have a say in.


Stay tuned.


OH . . . and one last thing . . . this time, to the Ministers, the "Bureacrat Mafia" (i.e. the ones in the shadows that  actually run the show), the MPs,  and   those closely "monitoring" alternative media channels and publications at your behest . . . you know, the well-paid thugs you have lying in wait for an opportunity to meter out a bit of good old-fashioned (taxpayer-funded) reputational revenge. The ones who, err, "remove" "difficult" individuals (their words, not mine).


You might think YOU'RE watching US. Some of US are watching YOU.


So while you gasp in shock that I have knowledge of your behind-the-scenes "processes", please pass this on to those you retain to lurk in the shadows waiting for the nod to "execute your briefs" (I choose my words strategically, of course):

Karma can be a right bitch sometimes, and can hit you square in the face from the direction of those you (might wrongfully) assume are completely powerless to mount a defence.


ALSO OF INTEREST:


How Wellington REALLY Works: The '5 Ds' - A Series by Jordan Kelly . . . Learn the Plays & Ploys of New Zealand Government Agencies to Beat Them At Their Own Sordid Game


And . . .


Ministry of Social Development Staffer Sends Client's Personal File Information to Journalist

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 15 March 2026
Editor’s Conclusion : Unqualified. Unsupervised. Unaccountable. And Still Accredited.
by Jordan Kelly 10 March 2026
UPDATED: 10.3.26 Will This Badly Behaving Institution Finally Allow the Full Truth to Be Revealed?
by Jordan Kelly 8 March 2026
Hidden in Plain Sight: Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin
by Jordan Kelly 4 March 2026
Time for Change : New Zealand's Pet Parents Say NO MORE to the Poor Standards, Compromised Care & Outright Contempt We Put Up With from the 'Products' of the Massey Veterinary Degree Factory
by Jordan Kelly 27 February 2026
Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.
by Jordan Kelly 17 February 2026
Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD . 
by Jordan Kelly 15 February 2026
This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )
by Jordan Kelly 12 February 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE . My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation
by Jordan Kelly 11 February 2026
While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.
by Jordan Kelly 8 February 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)
Show More