It's not the sort of stuff that I would condone
In the corridors where political identity is carefully curated, a shadow account has emerged to complicate Labour's moral self-presentation. A former parliamentary staffer, still connected enough to repurpose official footage, was found to be running an Instagram page targeting Prime Minister Luxon with homophobic memes and crude insinuations — content that multiple Labour MPs had quietly followed and occasionally amplified. Leader Chris Hipkins, confronted with the reality, acknowledged it without fully reckoning with what it revealed: that the boundaries between official conduct and unofficial animus had grown porous, and that the party's own materials had become instruments of something it would publicly disavow.
- A former Labour staffer's anonymous Instagram account was posting homophobic memes and obscene content about PM Luxon, including decontextualised clips from his corporate past weaponised as innuendo.
- The account had quietly gathered a following inside Labour's own caucus, with multiple MPs following and occasionally sharing its posts, raising questions about passive endorsement at the heart of the opposition.
- Investigators found that at least one post recycled footage from Labour's official channels, suggesting the former staffer retained access to — or intimate knowledge of — the party's content production.
- Hipkins confirmed he knew who ran the account, called the homophobic content objectionable, but stopped short of direct condemnation, offering instead a careful distancing rather than accountability.
- After a caucus meeting, Hipkins instructed MPs not to share material with external parties and reminded the former staffer not to use Labour resources — containment measures that left the deeper questions unanswered.
- The episode has exposed a gap between Labour's public values and what some of its own people were doing in plain sight, raising the uncomfortable question of why it took outside scrutiny to bring it to leadership's attention.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins was forced to confirm what an investigation had made undeniable: a former parliamentary staffer was running an Instagram account called luxury_marmite_sandwich_, posting homophobic memes and obscenities targeting Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Among the content was an edited clip from Luxon's corporate years at Unilever, stripped of context and captioned with a crude insinuation about his views on men in showers. Asked directly whether he knew who was behind the account, Hipkins acknowledged he did — and that the person had worked for Labour in Parliament.
The account had not been operating in obscurity. Multiple Labour MPs followed the page and had at times shared its content, though the Herald could not confirm any had shared the specifically homophobic posts. The passive amplification alone was enough to raise uncomfortable questions about what the caucus was quietly endorsing. More troubling still, an investigation by Stuff found that at least one post had repurposed footage from Labour's own official channels — a clip of a toaster in what appeared to be Parliament's kitchenette — suggesting the former staffer still had access to, or detailed knowledge of, the party's content production.
Hipkins called the homophobic content objectionable and said he would not condone it, but his language was measured rather than forceful. He insisted Labour was not knowingly feeding the account with current material, even as the recycled footage told a different story about how porous those boundaries had become. Following a caucus meeting, he instructed MPs not to share material with external parties and had his office contact the former staffer directly, reminding them not to use anything from their time as a Labour employee.
The damage control was swift, but it left the harder questions hanging. How had a former staffer come to feel comfortable producing this content openly enough that sitting MPs were following along? And why had it taken outside scrutiny — rather than internal vigilance — to bring it to the leadership's attention at all?
Labour leader Chris Hipkins found himself in the awkward position of confirming what had become increasingly clear: a former staffer working for the party in Parliament was behind an Instagram account churning out crude memes aimed at Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. The account, called luxury_marmite_sandwich_, had been posting homophobic content and obscenities about the Prime Minister, mixing in edited clips from Luxon's corporate days at Unilever. One video, stripped of context, showed Luxon discussing men's hygiene products and was captioned with an insinuation about his thoughts on men in showers. When Hipkins was asked directly whether he knew who ran the account, he acknowledged he did—and that yes, this person had worked for Labour in Parliament.
The account had accumulated a following among Labour MPs themselves. Multiple members of the caucus followed the page and occasionally shared its content, though the Herald could not confirm that any of them had shared the specifically homophobic posts. The discovery raised uncomfortable questions about what Labour's own people were amplifying and endorsing, even passively, on social media.
An investigation by Stuff revealed something more troubling: at least one post on the account appeared to have repurposed footage from Labour's official channels. The footage in question showed a toaster sitting in what looked like Parliament's kitchenette. The same clip had been lifted and reused by the Instagram account, suggesting the former staffer had access to or knowledge of Labour's own content production.
When pressed on the homophobic pig video specifically, Hipkins conceded it was objectionable. "It's not the sort of stuff that I would condone," he said—a careful formulation that acknowledged the problem without quite condemning the person behind it. He insisted that Labour was not, to his knowledge, feeding current material to the account holder. But the fact that old footage had been repurposed suggested the person still had access to or memory of what Labour produced.
Hipkins moved quickly to contain the damage. After a caucus meeting on Tuesday, he reminded his MPs not to share material with external parties—a broad instruction that seemed designed to cut off any further amplification of the account's content. His office also reached out directly to the person running the account, reminding them that they should not be using any material they had access to during their time as a Labour employee in anything they produce now.
The episode exposed a gap between Labour's public positioning and what some of its own people were doing in the shadows of social media. The account had been operating openly enough that multiple MPs followed it, yet the party's leadership appeared to have been slow to address it. The fact that footage from Labour's own channels had been repurposed added another layer of concern—it suggested either lax security around party materials or a more deliberate blurring of lines between official and unofficial activity. Hipkins' response was damage control, but it left unanswered the question of how a former staffer had come to feel comfortable producing this content in the first place, and why it had taken an investigation to bring it to the leadership's attention.
Notable Quotes
I do know who that person is, and they worked for the Labour Party in Parliament in the past— Chris Hipkins, Labour leader
Labour was not feeding any current material to that person— Chris Hipkins
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a former Labour staffer think it was acceptable to post homophobic content about the Prime Minister?
That's the question nobody's really asking. The account existed openly enough that Labour MPs were following it. There's a difference between someone venting privately and someone building an audience for this material. The fact that they felt comfortable doing it suggests they didn't think there would be consequences.
Does it matter that they used Labour's own footage?
It matters a lot. It shows either they still had access to party materials, or they kept copies. Either way, it's a breach of trust. You don't get to take what you made on the party's dime and repurpose it for your own project, especially not for something like this.
The MPs who followed the account—are they complicit?
That depends on what they knew and what they shared. Following isn't the same as endorsing. But if you're a Labour MP and you're amplifying memes from an account posting homophobic content, you're making a choice about what you think is acceptable.
What does Hipkins' response tell us?
He's trying to close the door after it's open. The reminders to MPs, the call to the staffer—it's all reactive. He didn't say he was investigating how this happened or what other materials might have been taken. He just said don't do it again.
Is this a bigger problem than one rogue account?
It suggests something about the culture. Someone felt comfortable enough to do this. Multiple people followed it. It took an outside investigation to surface it. That's not a one-person problem.