President Trump on Tuesday announced the Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program, promising a 1% “commission” to Americans, including journalists, who report the theft of taxpayer dollars to the new tip line at fraud.gov.
Trump made the announcement in the Oval Office alongside Vice President JD Vance, chairman of the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, task force Vice Chairman Andrew Ferguson, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and independent journalist Nick Shirley.
“It’s the largest commission ever paid, probably for anything anywhere, because the numbers you’re talking about are in the trillions,” Trump said of the reward.
Trump said that his administration has already “uncovered $260 billion of fraud,” but “that’s peanuts compared to what the real number is.”
I'm old enough to remember Ukraine before February 2022. Before the great PR makeover. Before billions in British public money started flowing. Before the swastikas were quietly airbrushed out of the picture and yesterday's neo-Nazi problem became today's inconvenient history.… pic.twitter.com/AAqrNoD2tC
“I’m in tears… here are the rare photos of Limoges town hall, seen from the inside. 143 years of history and beauty, ravaged in a single night. It had survived two world wars.
“Inaugurated on July 14, 1883, thanks to the legacy of Alfred Fournier, designed by architect Charles-Alfred Leclerc (Grand Prix de Rome winner), it was the castle of the Republic for the people of Limoges: neo-Renaissance style inspired by the old Paris City Hall, grand staircase with pink marbles, marouflaged canvases by Henri-Paul Motte on the landing (the union of Limousin with France and the workshop of Léonard Limosin), ceiling of the Blue Salon, wedding hall painted with its ‘Ubi Fides Ubi Amor’…
“All of that—the gilding, the woodwork, the allegories of goldsmithing and enameling, the 43-meter bell tower—gone up in smoke.
“The historic section is almost entirely gutted inside. The roof has collapsed, the belfry has fallen.
“All that remains is an empty shell where generations were married, had their children registered, and sat to decide the city’s future.
“A historic monument since 1975, a symbol of the communal home, deliberately burned in just a few hours.
“The people of Limoges are in shock, angry, and grieving.
“The Republic still stands, some say, but the city’s patrimonial heart has been torn out. Talk of reconstruction is already underway, but nothing will replace those decorations, those memories, that particular light that filtered through those rooms.”
Remember that NZ Antifa are very cozy with the Green Party. —Eds
Why is it just the offender struck off? What about those who were supposed to protect the children and didn’t? Shouldn’t they be struck off, too?
by Judy Gill
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Nine girls were sexually abused by a teacher who should have been removed from the profession years earlier.
Timothy James Fisher was eventually convicted of sexual offending against children and struck off the teaching register.
But the independent review of his case raises a much bigger question.
How did a teacher with serious warning signs about him remain in a position of trust?
And what consequences should follow for those responsible for overseeing the system that allowed it to happen?
We hear plenty about holding teachers accountable.
But what happens when the regulator itself fails?Who regulates the Regulators?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
A Decade of Missed Opportunities The independent review conducted by Katherine Anderson KC examined the regulatory handling of Timothy Fisher’s case.
Its findings were damning. The review concluded that Fisher should have been removed from the teaching profession approximately a decade before his eventual conviction. The warning signs were there. The regulatory processes existed. Yet the system failed to prevent further harm. Fisher continued teaching, and nine female students subsequently became victims of his sexual offending. The consequences of these failures were not merely administrative — they were borne by children.
Children whose parents had every reason to believe that the teaching profession was properly regulated.
Children who should have been protected.
THE REGULATORY CHRONOLOGY 2002 — Fisher was convicted of indecency offences. May 2011 — He applied for teacher registration. The police vet did not disclose those convictions, and the regulator did not obtain separate character references. July 2014 — During a registration renewal process, a principal raised concerns about Fisher meeting the requirements for full registration. Police also recommended that he should not have unsupervised access to children, young people or vulnerable people. March 2015 — After a delay of several months, the regulator sought further information from Police. Fisher disclosed his 2002 convictions and that he had taught at two schools without a practising certificate. April 2015 — The former Teachers Council’s Complaints Assessment Committee decided to take no action over the disclosed convictions or teaching without a practising certificate. 1 July 2015 — The new Education Council assumed responsibility for teacher registration and disciplinary matters. Its governing members must not be presumed responsible for the earlier April decision. 2016 — Fisher’s practising certificate was renewed. 2017 — Fisher resigned from a teaching position following complaints. His school reported concerns about his competence and conduct to the regulator. 2018–2019 — Fisher continued to hold teacher registration and worked in education settings, including a private education provider. 2021 — Following the earlier complaints, the disciplinary process resulted in a censure. 2025 — Fisher was sentenced for sexual offending against nine girls; his teacher registration was subsequently cancelled. 13 October 2026 — The independent review by Katherine Anderson KC was released. The Teaching Council accepted its findings and apologised to the victims.
This chronology draws on David Farrar’s 20 October 2026 account and the Teaching Council’s published response to the independent review. It identifies regulatory actions and omissions, not findings of personal misconduct against the later Council members named below.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ What did the Independent Review reveal?
The review by Katherine Anderson KC exposed serious deficiencies in the handling of Fisher’s case. The fundamental question is why the regulatory system failed to respond effectively to the information available.
Education Minister Erica Stanford has publicly condemned what she described as a “rotten culture” within the Teaching Council. She questioned whether the interests of teachers and their unions had been allowed to overshadow the regulator’s responsibility to protect children. That is an extraordinary criticism of a professional regulatory body. The Teaching Council is not supposed to exist primarily to protect teachers from professional consequences. It exists to maintain professional standards and protect the public. And when children are involved, their safety must come first. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Who was Responsible for Oversight? The public deserves to know who occupied positions of responsibility within the Teaching Council, what authority they exercised, and whether warning signs were properly addressed during their respective periods of service. The following individuals held relevant positions within the Council or are central to the current controversy. Their inclusion does not establish that they personally made the decisions criticised in the independent review. But their roles raise legitimate questions about governance, oversight and accountability.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CLAIRE AMOS Former Teaching Council member. Convenor, Complaints Assessment Committee. The Complaints Assessment Committee has an important role in the disciplinary process. Its responsibilities make the effectiveness of complaints handling a matter of legitimate public interest. What safeguards existed to ensure serious complaints involving children were properly assessed? How were decisions reviewed? And who was responsible for identifying systemic weaknesses? These are questions about institutional accountability, not findings of personal misconduct against Claire Amos.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
RIPEKA LESSELS Former Teaching Council Deputy Chair. Former Risk, Audit and Finance Committee member. Current NZEI President.
Education Minister Erica Stanford has publicly questioned Lessels’ continued position as president of NZEI following the revelations about the Teaching Council. Lessels’ former leadership positions make questions about the Council’s governance and regulatory culture particularly relevant. What did the governing body know about weaknesses in its disciplinary processes? What steps were taken to address identified risks? And were the interests of children consistently placed ahead of those of the profession? Holding senior positions within a regulator should carry corresponding responsibilities for oversight.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
LYNDA STUART Former Teaching Council member. Risk, Audit and Finance Committee member. Former NZEI President. Stuart’s former governance and committee roles also warrant examination when considering the Council’s wider accountability. A Risk, Audit and Finance Committee is part of an organisation’s governance and risk oversight arrangements. Were serious regulatory weaknesses identified and escalated? Were adequate systems in place to recognise patterns of complaints and failures in professional discipline? These questions should be examined against the actual responsibilities, information and decisions of those serving at the relevant times.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
PATRICK WALSH MNZM Teaching Council member from 2019. Appointed Chair in 2026. Headmaster, Sacred Heart College, Auckland. Former President, Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand. Patrick Walsh’s appointment as Teaching Council Chair raises another important question. Walsh previously served on the Council before being appointed to lead it. Peter Allan Williams has questioned the significance of that earlier membership in light of the Fisher case and the subsequent independent review. If the Government believes the Council’s regulatory culture requires fundamental change, how should the previous governance experience of its new leadership be assessed? That question deserves a transparent answer. However, Walsh’s appointment in 2019 came after the April 2015 decision concerning Fisher. His later Council membership must not be confused with responsibility for that earlier decision.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
TIMOTHY JAMES FISHER Former teacher. Convicted child sex offender. Sexual offending involving nine female students. Fisher is the individual whose offending and regulatory history prompted the independent review. He was eventually removed from the teaching profession. But striking off Fisher does not resolve the wider issue. The damage had already been done. Nine girls had suffered sexual abuse. The purpose of professional regulation is not simply to punish offenders after children have been harmed. It is to identify risks, act on serious warning signs and prevent harm wherever possible. That is why the failures identified in this case demand scrutiny beyond Fisher himself.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION — THE 2015 DECISION
The April 2015 regulatory decision concerning Fisher preceded the establishment of the new Education Council governing body on 1 July 2015. This distinction matters. Individuals appointed to the later governing body cannot automatically be held personally responsible for decisions made before they took office. Any examination of individual accountability must establish precisely who held responsibility, what information they possessed, what decisions they made, and whether their conduct breached applicable professional obligations. But that does not remove the need to investigate the wider regulatory failures. It makes an accurate chronology and independent examination even more important.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SHOULD THE REGULATORS THEMSELVES FACE DISCIPLINARY ACTION? Teachers can face professional disciplinary proceedings for serious misconduct. They can be suspended. They can be struck off. They can lose their right to practise. But what happens when those responsible for maintaining professional standards fail in their duties? Shouldn’t the conduct of those individuals also be examined?
Where serious professional misconduct or neglect of duty is established, should disciplinary proceedings follow? And where a person is a registered teacher, should removal from the teaching register be considered if the statutory grounds are met? These questions must be answered through proper investigation and due process. Membership of a governing body does not automatically establish professional misconduct. Nor does every regulatory failure justify striking someone off. But neither should a position of seniority provide protection from legitimate scrutiny. The public deserves to know whether individual failures occurred, whether professional obligations were breached, and what consequences are appropriate. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ WHO WAS THE TEACHING COUNCIL PROTECTING? Education Minister Erica Stanford has questioned whether union influence contributed to a regulatory culture that placed professional interests ahead of child protection. NZEI has responded by pointing to Patrick Walsh’s earlier service on the Council. But this should not become a political argument in which each side simply points the finger at the other. The central issue is not which political party appointed which person. Nor is it which union someone belonged to. The central issue is whether the regulatory system fulfilled its responsibility to protect children. If it failed, why? Who knew? Who acted? Who failed to act? And what will prevent it happening again?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CHILDREN MUST COME FIRST Nine girls suffered sexual abuse. Their suffering must not be lost beneath arguments about governance structures, union influence, ministerial appointments and institutional reputations. The Teaching Council’s responsibility to protect children must be more than a statement of principle. It must be demonstrated through its decisions. When serious warning signs emerge, decisive action is essential. When regulatory failures occur, they must be investigated. And when individual misconduct is established, there must be appropriate consequences.
The same commitment to accountability expected of classroom teachers should extend to those responsible for regulating the profession.
This liberal woman was protesting with these thugs and then they turned on her and looted her store 🤣 She approved of their actions BEFORE they hit her store! FAFO pic.twitter.com/MO3gU4eW9r
