Ray Chung's 'vile' email condemned across the political spectrum
Both the prime minister and the opposition leader have given scathing rebukes of Wellington councillor Ray Chung's email about Mayor Tory Whanau, saying it is "absolutely disgusting" and calling it "vile and unacceptable."
Whanau has rejected the contents of the email, saying it is false and contains "malicious and sexist" rumour.
The email - seen by RNZ - was sent to three fellow councillors, recounting a story Chung had been told by his neighbour about the neighbour's son allegedly having a sexual encounter with the mayor.
The mayor received an apology from Chung earlier today over the email claims, which he sent to other councillors in 2023, but surfaced last week.
Asked about the email in today's post-cabinet media conference, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said first and foremost it was "unacceptable" and "really pretty vile" stuff.
Luxon said he did not know Chung, and did not remember meeting him.
"I wouldn't be able to tell you who he is or point out who he is."
With the upcoming local body elections, Luxon said "you get what you deserve" if you don't show up and vote, and "get good candidates in races".
Asked whether Chung should stand down, Luxon replied: "I think the email was entirely inappropriate and utterly unacceptable.
"But ultimately, it's up to the fine people of Wellington, who I'm sure will work through who they would like to represent them in that role."
Chris Hipkins also criticised the councillor, saying the email was "absolutely disgusting" and there was no place for that content in "good, civilised, democratic debate".
"Critiquing an opponent is one thing - those kind of personal, abusive, denigratory messages are just totally unacceptable."
Asked whether Chung should stand down, Hipkins said it was a matter for Chung.
"But I just think that kind of language should be called out in the strongest possible terms.
"It denigrates an opponent. It's undoubtedly sexist, if not misogynist, and I just think there's no place for that in a fair election competition."
Strained council relationships could undermine the 'good work' - observer
Meanwhile, Lindsay McKenzie, the Crown Observer assigned to Wellington City Council, said he had made his concerns about the events known to Local Government Minister Simeon Brown as well as Mayor Whanau, councillors and council chief executive Matt Prosser.
He said it was likely that the community perceptions of elected members "will be further harmed by what has gone on and will adversely affect the organisation".
McKenzie said the strained relationships could undermine the "good work" the council had achieved over the eight months since he was brought in.
He said the council still had significant decisions to be made ahead of implementing the amendment to the Long Term Plan and submitting the quality water services delivery plan.
"Despite their focus on the election ahead, candidates who are councillors have been reminded that they are still elected members, are still being remunerated and should be focused on the duties and obligations that go with that status.
"I have sought reassurances that elected members will stay focused on the interests of the community they are there to serve," McKenzie said.
McKenzie said his role with the council would finish at the end of this month and he had no part in the "the formal pre-election period or in relation to electioneering".
"I do have a stake in seeing that the gains of the past seven months or so are not lost and Council successfully navigates its way to the end of this term of office," McKenzie said.
Prosser confirmed "a number of complaints" had been made against Chung following the revelations.
"A number of complaints against the elected member have been received, including some complaints under Wellington City Council's Code of Conduct. Those complaints are currently being reviewed," Prosser said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
34 minutes ago
- The Spinoff
The cost of living crisis is over – this is just our reality now
New Zealanders are participating in mass delusion by insisting we are still in a 'crisis', argues a nihilistic Mad Chapman. Imagine you don't smoke. You tell everyone you don't smoke, and it's true. Then one night you drink a few too many beers at a party and find yourself smoking a durry on the deck with your new best friend who you just met. You wake up the next morning, throat feeling disgusting, and think 'that was weird and out of character'. When someone tells you they didn't know you smoked, you say no, I don't smoke, that was just a silly thing I did in a moment of weakness. The next weekend it happens again. You still don't smoke, except when you're really drunk. Then you start a big work project and find yourself staying late at the office a lot. Sometimes you have a beer to take the edge off while you work. What goes hand in hand with a beer? A smoke. Just one pack you think. I don't smoke but this project is hectic and one pack could help with the stress. As soon as that big project ends, another one begins. A year later, your colleague sees you smoking outside the office at 11am and asks when you started smoking. No, you insist, I don't smoke! There's just a lot going on right now. They look at you for a second too long before nodding and walking away. This is how we all sound in the year 2025, insisting the cost of living is still a temporary crisis. We've become so used to the phrase it's hard to remember when it actually began. Such a concept is relatively modern. A search of newspapers (some as recent as 1989) returns no results for 'cost of living crisis' but does reveal that in 1918, Australian butter prices shot up and prompted public protests to the Price of Commodities Commission, 'a sort of Cost of Living Appeal Board'. The writer suggested this sort of thing was needed here in New Zealand too. What is a crisis? A crisis is 'a time of intense difficulty or danger'. A crisis can be personal, societal or economic, and demands immediate action and attention. The Covid-19 pandemic was a crisis. Effects of that are still being felt across the world but most people would agree the 'crisis' element has passed, largely due to that aforementioned urgent action and attention. The delayed impact was the cost of living, which became an official crisis in New Zealand around the beginning of 2022. Three and a half years later and you can still expect to see 'cost of living crisis' in a headline at least twice a week. That's a long time to be in need of 'urgent action and attention'. Which actually begs the question of whether or not our cost of living crisis can even be called a crisis if there has been a distinct lack of urgent action and attention? Like a cursed Schrodinger's cat, can a crisis exist if it is, by all practical measures, ignored? The finance minister certainly intends to address it, as the finance minister before her intended to. Nicola Willis told RNZ last week she agreed with Kiwibank economist Jarrod Kerr's assessment that we still live in a 'severe cost of living crisis'. She acknowledged the near-exponential increase in prices over the past five years (across groceries, power, transport etc) but suggested the true solution is a growth in wages to afford those skyrocketing costs. The government has a to-do list that is going to 'rebuild the economy' in the third quarter of its term, including specific cost-of-living actions around supermarket competition – which have not yet been checked off. When asked for a timeline for legislation that could potentially stem the rate of inflationary prices, Willis instead returned to a promise on rising wages. In other words, things aren't going to ever get cheaper but maybe you'll get a promotion. Wages did in fact increase recently – including a smidge increase in the minimum wage in April – but that hasn't scared the high prices away. In fact – and I'm no economist so don't quote me on this – a rise in wages typically encourages higher spending (higher demand) which tends to lead to increased prices unless there are, hmmmm I dunno, rules restricting that. Until then, it seems New Zealanders will continue to flock to Australia where wages really are higher and groceries are expensive but somehow still cheaper than here. Everything is getting more expensive (fun) but the arbiter of the cost of living is butter. A product of the biggest industry in New Zealand and a staple item considered an essential ingredient on any shopping list, butter is virtually unavoidable and the cost of it feels somehow directly tied to our collective mental health. In 2022, one of the most-read articles on The Spinoff all year included the words ' $4 blocks of butter '. The article itself was a fascinating business feature on the expansion of The Warehouse into the supermarket space but I don't think that's why everyone clicked on it. I think everyone clicked on it because they Googled 'cheapest butter nz'. Back then a $4 block of butter was certainly the cheapest but only by a dollar or so. Now, an ad for a $4 block of butter means you're about to have your credit card information stolen. Any time someone dares suggest that New Zealand is a blissful paradise, a raspy voice will remind them that butter is $10. That it costs $50 to buy butter, eggs, milk and a couple of chicken breasts. And these prices are only heading in one direction, with no end in sight. (Willis has since said she's asked Fonterra some questions about the cost of butter and milk. Can't wait to hear the answers!) In the meantime, there's a comfort in calling something a crisis, because a crisis is temporary. A crisis has an end point (even if that end point is really blurry on the horizon and may in fact be a mirage). If the crisis went away but butter was still $10, what are we supposed to do then? Perhaps our mass delusion in believing that someone, anyone, will eventually do something about the cost of living is the real crisis. And if we really are in a crisis, we are well past the point of urgent action and attention. This is just our lives now. A cost of living reality. We're all huddled on the shaky deck of the New Zealand economy, passing around a single durry.
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Ray Chung's 'vile' email condemned across the political spectrum
By Lillian Hanly of RNZ Both the prime minister and the opposition leader have given scathing rebukes of Wellington councillor Ray Chung's email about Mayor Tory Whanau, saying it is "absolutely disgusting" and calling it "vile and unacceptable." Whanau has rejected the contents of the email, saying it is false and contains "malicious and sexist" rumour. The email - seen by RNZ - was sent to three fellow councillors, recounting a story Chung had been told by his neighbour about the neighbour's son allegedly having a sexual encounter with the mayor. The mayor received an apology from Chung earlier today over the email claims, which he sent to other councillors in 2023, but surfaced last week. Asked about the email in today's post-cabinet media conference, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said first and foremost it was "unacceptable" and "really pretty vile" stuff. Luxon said he did not know Chung, and did not remember meeting him. "I wouldn't be able to tell you who he is or point out who he is." With the upcoming local body elections, Luxon said "you get what you deserve" if you don't show up and vote, and "get good candidates in races". Asked whether Chung should stand down, Luxon replied: "I think the email was entirely inappropriate and utterly unacceptable. "But ultimately, it's up to the fine people of Wellington, who I'm sure will work through who they would like to represent them in that role." Chris Hipkins also criticised the councillor, saying the email was "absolutely disgusting" and there was no place for that content in "good, civilised, democratic debate". "Critiquing an opponent is one thing - those kind of personal, abusive, denigratory messages are just totally unacceptable." Asked whether Chung should stand down, Hipkins said it was a matter for Chung. "But I just think that kind of language should be called out in the strongest possible terms. "It denigrates an opponent. It's undoubtedly sexist, if not misogynist, and I just think there's no place for that in a fair election competition." Strained council relationships could undermine the 'good work' - observer Meanwhile, Lindsay McKenzie, the Crown Observer assigned to Wellington City Council, said he had made his concerns about the events known to Local Government Minister Simeon Brown as well as Mayor Whanau, councillors and council chief executive Matt Prosser. He said it was likely that the community perceptions of elected members "will be further harmed by what has gone on and will adversely affect the organisation". McKenzie said the strained relationships could undermine the "good work" the council had achieved over the eight months since he was brought in. He said the council still had significant decisions to be made ahead of implementing the amendment to the Long Term Plan and submitting the quality water services delivery plan. "Despite their focus on the election ahead, candidates who are councillors have been reminded that they are still elected members, are still being remunerated and should be focused on the duties and obligations that go with that status. "I have sought reassurances that elected members will stay focused on the interests of the community they are there to serve," McKenzie said. McKenzie said his role with the council would finish at the end of this month and he had no part in the "the formal pre-election period or in relation to electioneering". "I do have a stake in seeing that the gains of the past seven months or so are not lost and Council successfully navigates its way to the end of this term of office," McKenzie said. Prosser confirmed "a number of complaints" had been made against Chung following the revelations. "A number of complaints against the elected member have been received, including some complaints under Wellington City Council's Code of Conduct. Those complaints are currently being reviewed," Prosser said.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT's Campaign Calculus To ‘Keep The Government' And Keep Its Edge
Article – RNZ The party's challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. , Deputy Political Editor Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed – most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now reemerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's reelection. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. 'It would be the easiest thing in the world… to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow,' Seymour told supporters. 'But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking.' Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year – landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners – all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. 'Our partners… abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles,' he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to 'keep this government'. The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: 'We need to keep these parties in power.' These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 – which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to 'remove any doubt' next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40 percent to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9 percent – a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode – trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the 'gutsy' pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: 'People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership.' The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25 percent had a favourable view of ACT, while 47 percent were unfavourable – the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the 'maturation of MMP'. But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a 'confidence-only' deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
