Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Peter Dunne’

National’s Ohariu candidate admits contact by Simon Lusk

6 September 2014 Leave a comment

.

brett hudson - simon lusk - ohariu candidate - national

.

Wellington, NZ, 31  August – At a meet-the-candidates public meeting in the Rongotai Electorate, National’s Ohariu candidate, Brett Hudson, confirmed that he had been approached by “a mate”, who passed on a message from  National Party operative, Simon Lusk.

Simon Lusk is a far right-wing apparatchik who runs a private, self-styled “candidates school” for potential National Party candidates. Amongst those National MPs linked to Lusk are Taupo MP Louise Upston, Maungakiekie MP Sam Lotu-Iiga, Napier MP Chris Tremain, Rodney MP Mark Mitchell and former list MP Aaron Gilmore. Disgraced Minister, Judith Collins, is also an  associate of  Simon Lusk.

The media reported that some National Party insiders were so concerned by Lusk’s activities  that they leaked documents to the media in 2012, and the following year. At least one senior Minister, Michael Woodhouse, discussed his growing unease with National’s president, Peter Goodfellow .

Brett Hudson

On Sunday, this blogger put a direct question to National’s Ohariu candidate, Brett Hudson, enquiring  if he has had any recent contact with Simon Lusk; Lusk’s so-called “college for candidates”; Cameron Slater, or any of their associates.

Hudson confirmed that he had been approached, explaining that he had been offered Simon Lusk’s services through a third party,

“I have [had an] indirect approach. Someone else had said that, that gentleman had said if your mate wants to get involved, let me know. And I turned it down.”

When I enquired who that “someone else” had been, Hudson refused to disclose the name.

“I’m not going to name who it was, it’s not relevant to this situation.”

Hudson insisted,

“They just said, I’ve had a message from this guy Lusk, who sez if your mate is interested let me know. Tell him to get in touch.”

Hudson stated categorically that the un-named person who approached him was not National Party parliamentary staffer, Jason Ede.

When questioned further, Hudson stated,

“I’ve no contact with Slater or Lusk. I have no intention to never, nor would ever consider entering their scheme.

So I made my own message, which I think it was Facebook, I can’t recall exactly, just went to Lusk, and don’t want to participate.”

Upon further questioning, Hudson confirmed that he contacted Lusk directly to decline the offer,

“It was just a message to say I’m not interested… so I’m not involved, I’ve had no conversations.”

When I asked when this exchange took place, Hudson was vague, and said,

“I can’t recall, last year probably. Or even… probably… could’ve been late 2012. I don’t know. Honestly, ‘cos I’ve no intention of being involved.”

I asked when he was selected as a candidate and Hudson replied,

“End of April this year.”

I asked,

“End of April this year? So why would he have contacted you… in 2012?”

Hudson replied,

“Because if he wanted people to join his college, which as I understand it, and I don’t know, but it would be a paid for thing, then maybe he was touting for business, I don’t know.”

Hudson was emphatic when he denied all involvement with Lusk;

“And also I think the message was, if your mate was interested then he could contact me. And I said I’m not interested.”

Despite repeated enquiries,  he refused to name who the “mate” was who acted as a go-between him and Lusk.

Interestingly, Hudson joined Facebook on 5 May 2011, so why would Lusk have offered his services through a so-called third party, rather than FB messaging Hudson directly?

Especially when Brett Hudson is one of  Simon Lusk’s FB friends;

.

Lusk - Hudson facebook friends

.

Lusk does not appear on Brett Hudson’s FB friends list.

If Hudson was approached by a “third party”, there are two well-known associates of Simon Lusk who appear on Brett Hudson’s Facebook Friends list; right-wing lawyer Jordan Williams, and blogger, David Farrar;

.

jordan williams -facebook - simon lusk - Brett hudson - ohariu

.

 

david farrar -facebook - simon lusk - Brett hudson - ohariu

.

Chris Finlayson

At another public meeting in Rongotai, on the same day, National’s Treaty Negotiations Minister and Attornery General, Chris Finlayson was also asked what dealings, if any, he had had with Simon Lusk or Cameron Slater.

At this point, as I put the question to Finlayson, National Party supporters attempted to shout me down. Nearly all middle-aged men and women, their behaviour was mob-like, reminding me of the “F**k John Key” Youtube video we have seen recently,  and attempted to stop me from questioning the Minister.  They took particular exception to a hand-held voice-recorder in my hand. One particularly observant older National supporter yelled, with a hint of panic,

“He’s got a recorder! He’s got a recorder!”

I turned to the greying-haired lady and responded,

“Why yes, so it is.”

The chair of the meeting felt the need to address the matter and called for a voice “vote” on whether or not I should record Finlayson’s response to my question. The loud vocal braying from the National Party supporters would have done a village mob proud, with one National supporter sitting directly behind me adding,

“Sit down! Not relevant!”

At the Chair’s request, I turned my recorder off and said,

“But I will put the question, as it’s an important election issue.”

Minister Finlayson responded (with far more grace than his supporters, I might add). The following notes were jotted contemporaneously,

“No, [I] haven’t been contacted by them. I haven’t read the book. But all I know is I think they called me a tosser who tried to speak latin.”

I thanked the minister, sat down,  and turned to the National Party supporter seated behind me,

“Are you a National or Conservative Party (he had cheered and clapped for several comments made by the Conservative candidate) supporter?”

Doesn’t matter, irrelevent,” he replied.

“Well, it is relevent. You’ve expressed strong views and I’d like to know where you’re coming from.”

“No, irrelevent, just like your question to Chris,” he said.

I replied, “it can’t be ‘irrelevent’, because it’s a major election issue.”

“Well,” he said with some smugness, “we’ll have to agree to disagree then, won’t we?”

I replied,

“Really? That didn’t stop you from trying to shut me down, did it?”

At the conclusion of the public question and answer session, I approached Chris Finlayson and introduced myself. I asked if he would go on record, to answer my question. The Minister seemed quite happy to do so, and added an interesting ‘aside’.

I asked,

“So you’ve never had no contact or anything with Simon Lusk or  Cameron Slater, say in the last year or so?”

Finlayson replied, without any hesitation,

“I’ve never had contact with them.”

He added,

“I suggest you ask the same question of Stuart Nash, the Labour candidate in Napier.”

When I asked why I should ask Nash that question, Finlayson refused to say why, and instead repeated that I should put the question to him.

Accordingly, I have put the question to  Stuart Nash via  Facebook messaging,

Kia ora Stuart,

I’m putting together a story for the Daily Blog, regarding Simon Lusk and Cameron Slater, and your name has come up in discussions with certain people. Can you confirm what dealings you have had with Simon Lusk (or his intermediary) , and what services he has offered you for your election campaign? Have you paid any money for any services he might offer, or has any amount been agreed on? Furthermore, what was the nature of the agreement and did it refer to the Mana-Internet Party? Also, are you aware of other Labour candidates who are currently in contact with Simon Lusk (or his intermediary, or Cameron Slater). I look forward to your responses on these questions, to shed some light on matters that have arisen.

The message was seen at 1.46am on 1 September, but no reply has been forthcoming.

Mr Nash, if you wish to reply and address the question, the opportunity is still open.

It is the contention of this blogger that Cameron Slater and his dealings are a matter of intense public interest. People who are putting themselves up for election to Parliament should have nothing to hide when it comes to disclosing what contacts they have had with controversial public figures and matters of considerable public interest.

I will continue to ask these questions, and noisy supporters of National (or Labour) would be well advised that attempting to shout down the truth does not serve their interests.

 

 


 

References

NZ Herald: National Party had high-level concerns over member’s influence

NZ Herald: National turns on hard right advisor

Fairfax media:  Seriously happy to upset the status quo

TVNZ News:  National Party selects Ohariu candidate

Facebook: Simon Lusk FB Page – Friends

NZ Parliament: Chris Finlayson

Previous related blogposts

Power Struggle in the National Party?!

David Farrar – Challenging Slater for Sultan of Sleaze?

National MP admits collusion with bosses to set up strike-breaking law!!

Other blogs

The Paepae: Simon Lusk in the headlines again!


 

.

20 september 2014 VOTE

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 2 September 2014

.

.

= fs =

Dunne won’t read ‘muck-raking’ Dirty Politics

2 September 2014 1 comment

.

peter dunne - dirty politics

 

.

Full story: Dunne won’t read ‘muck-raking’ Dirty Politics

Because as we all know, ignorance is such bliss. Eh, Mr Dunne?

.

.

= fs =

National under attack – defaults to Deflection #1

.

Labour forced our hand on timing - key

.

I

Blaming the Labour Party? Blaming a Party that is not in government, and has been out of office for five years?! How does that even begin to work as sounding plausible?!

This is a new “variant” on the three deflections that National defaults to when it scrambles to avoid taking responsibility for it’s botch-ups. Those three default-deflections are;

  1. Blame previous Labour government
  2. Release story on ‘welfare abuse’
  3. Blame Global Financial Crisis or similar overseas event

In this case blaming the previous Labour government won’t wash. Legal highs/psychoactive substances were barely known prior to 2008.

So it seems that blaming the current Labour Party will have to do instead.

II

The news-story on the RNZ page made reference to Key claiming “ cabinet decided last Tuesday on a ban but wanted to keep quiet about it to cut down on stockpiling by consumers“.

But listen to the actual interview and words used by  Dear Leader;

John Key: “Because the fortyone that we decided some time ago, in principle, we decided the Health Department made the wrong call in giving them a waiver. Now, we-“

Susie Ferguson: “And when did you decide this?”

John Key: “We decided that in Cabinet some while ago.”

Susie Ferguson: “Peter Dunne said it was agreed last Tuesday.”

John Key: “Yup, that’s some while ago…”

Since when   “some time ago” equate to last week?

Lying hound.

.


 

References

Radio NZ: Labour forced our hand on timing – Key

Radio NZ: PM defends timing of legal highs decision ( audio )

Previous related blogs

National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2


 

.

Peter Dunne

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 April 2014.

.

.

= fs =

Peter Dunne – willing seller & buyer

22 August 2013 2 comments

.

NZ spy agencies need urgent review

Source: Marlborough Express – NZ spy agencies need urgent review

.

Peter Dunne and John Key are knocking back a couple of 100 year old scotches from Dear Leader’s private stock. They’re both pissed, and Key looks at Dunne and asks,

“Peter, would you bend over my Prime Ministerial desk and let met shag you from behind, if I paid you a million bucks?”

Peter Dunne – knowing that Key can afford a million dollars from his “Uncle Scrooge” petty cash tin, and considering how useful that money would be for next year’s election campaign replies,

“Why, yes, I would, John.”

Key grins slyly and carries on,

“Peter, what if I paid you half a million? Would that still be ok with you for a bit of rear-rogering?”

Dunne is a bit deflated. Half a million is not as much as a full million… but still, it’s better than nothing to fund his campaign.

He replies,

“Sure, John. Half a million would be ok, I guess,” and stands up to undo his belt.

“What about fifty bucks?” asks Key, downing the last of his glass of $50K-per-bottle scotch.

Dunne, fuming, screams at him,

“What?! Fifty bucks?!?! What do you take me for?!!!”

Key cooly replies,

“Oh, I think we both know what you are. We’re just haggling for the price, now…”

(With apologies – I know it’s an old joke…)

.

.

= fs =

USA, Vietnam, Peter Dunne – Pot, Kettle.

.

US criticizes Vietnam new Internet control decree

Source: NZ Herald – US criticizes Vietnam new Internet control decree

.

The US Embassy in Vietnam goes on to state,

“Fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline,” the embassy said in a statement. “We are deeply concerned by the decree’s provisions that appear to limit the types of information individuals can share via personal social media accounts and on websites.”

Source: IBID

Yes, of course our American cuzzies want the Vietnamese people to allow ”  information individuals can share via personal social media accounts and on websites”.

Then their National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain’s GCHQ can mine that data via their PRISM,  XKeyscore, and god-only-knows what other systems are used to store data on citizens.

.

XKeyscore - NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'

Source: The Guardian – XKeyscore: NSA tool collects ‘nearly everything a user does on the internet’

.

The government of Vietnam is right to be concerned with what it’s citizens may put online. With British and American spy agencies trawling the planet for information, it is now a matter of national security that nations protect themselves from this illegal spying.  The internet poses a real danger to victims of this rampant,  out-of-control spying.

The sheer hypocrisy of the US Embassy when it piously states that    “Fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline” is breath-taking in arrogance.

It’s like Big Brother throwing a tanty when someone refuses to share their personal information, thus thwarting the spooks who are patiently waiting to hoover up the data.

Meanwhile, the Opposition parties, led by the Greens, have succeeded in stalling the passing of the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill for two weeks.

Their ‘filibustering’ has successfully stalled the passing of the Bill, as this Radio NZ report explains,

.

Legislation covering the Government Communications Security Bureau won’t pass all the way through Parliament this week as had been hoped by the Government.

The bill is now in its committee stages, where MPs debate it clause by clause.  The opposition has employed delaying tactics since Question Time on Tuesday afternoon.  An urgent debate on the Fonterra contamination scare delayed the debate further.

The Government will have to wait at least two weeks to pass the controversial legislation.

Source: Radio NZ – GCSB bill won’t pass this week

This gives opponants to the GCSB and Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bills an opportunity to grow opposition and to educate the public what is at stake.

As for Peter Dunne, who is complaining about protesters targetting his home – my sympathy for him is zero.

.

Dunne lashes back at noisy protesters

Source: Dominion Post – Dunne lashes back at noisy protesters

.

Protester, Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati is 100% quite right when she says that their presence is to  “to give him a taste of what it feels like to have your privacy intruded on“.

Mr Dunn doesn’t like being surveilled?

Neither do we.

Do the right thing, Mr Dunne – vote the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill and GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill down.

It’s the decent thing to do.

You still have time.

Don’t be John Key’s errand boy.

.

314770_10150396588331397_707526396_10526548_1193185338_n

.

What would George Orwell – author of ‘1984’ – have made of all this, I wonder?

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 8 August 2013.

 

.

.

= fs =

The GCSB Act – some history…

4 August 2013 6 comments

.

spying

.

New Zealand, 2003

.

From an excerpt from Hansards in Parliament, on 27 March 2003, when the original GCSB Bill was being debated;

“This is a good bill. I do not accept the criticism of those who speak against it, that somehow it means that information about people will be gathered improperly…”

Source: Hansards – Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading

Who said that?

Why, no other than this gentleman;

.

Peter Dunne

Peter Dunne

.

Ten years later after Dunne made that statement, it was revealed  that his faith in the GCSB was badly misplaced,

.

Illegal spying - 85 Kiwis watched - Fairfax Media - Andrea Vance - Kitteridge Report - 85 people spied on

Source: Fairfax Media – Illegal Spying: 85 Kiwis Watched

.

So in March 2003, Mr Dunne was adamant:  he did not accept criticism “that information about people will be gathered improperly”.

I think those 85 (actually 88) people – including Kim Dotcom – might have differing views on that point.

I wonder if Mr Dunne is also adamant about the current Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill and it’s “sister-legislation, the  Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill?

Will “information about people will be gathered improperly”?

What say you, Mr Dunne?

.

.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: ,

Nationwide rally condemns animal testing for party-drugs (part rua)

3 August 2013 5 comments

.

Continued from: Nationwide rally condemns animal testing for party-drugs (part tahi)

.

30 July - rally - protest - animal testing - party pills - Peter Dunne - Parliament - synthetic cannabis - Psychoactive Substances Bill

Image courtesy of  HUHANZ

.

NZ, Wellington, 30 July – Thousands of animal rights campaigners,  animal lovers, and other people who oppose testing party drugs and synthetic cannabis on animals protested against the Psychoactive Substances Bill on Tuesday 30 July.

TV3’s news crew filming the protesters;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

I don’t want to die for someone to get high” – a good point. And one that National ministers and Peter Dunne seem unwilling to address;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

Ok, this is right off the Cuteness Scale factor;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

(But animal testing on these party pills is still wrong, regardless of cuteness or not.)

The legalise-cannabis lobby were represented by this gentleman;

.

legalise cannabis

.

It has been said that real cannabis is actually safer (in adults) than the synthetic stuff. Plus it’s been  “consumer-tested” for hundreds (thousands) of years. So wouldn’t it make more sense to de-criminalise the natural stuff and ban the synthetic variety?

Or is that too much common sense for politicians to handle?

About half an hour later, the procession moved off,

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

The procession, at the northern end of Wellington’s Cuba Mall – on the right;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

… and on the left, waiting to set off across Dixon Street;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

And the marchers – four-legged as well as two – were off;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

After a brisk march through Wellington’s CBD, the rally ended up in Parliament’s grounds beneath the stature of Richard Seddon;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

Rally Organiser and HUHA founder, Carolyn Press-McKenzie, addressed the rally, surrounded by MPs and media crews;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

Epsom MP, John Banks, was the first MP to address the rally;

.

http://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

In a somewhat fervant speech, Banks said,

“I say no to farming animals in China and India for the purposes of drug testing.  I say no to putting animals at the alter of drug dealers and importing for the purpose of recreational drugs…”

…I say to my Parliament colleagues testing fun drugs on animals is obscene.It is obscene in a country that prides itself on animal welfare and  animal ethics. Britain banned testing; Britain banned testing of fun drugs on animals in 1997. The EU has banned the  testing of cosmetrics of on that beautiful rabbit down there some years ago.

… If we want to be leaders; if we want to be leaders in the safety of fun drugs in this country, if it’s necessary to have these mind-changing chemicals, then test them on the idiots that want to take  them, because there’s hundreds that want  to do it. There are hundreds and hundreds of idiots up and and down the country that will willingly take fun drugs to test their toxicity.

…And I say to my Parliamentary colleagues,  don’t test them on animals at all!”

He looked pleased at the crowd’s response, obviously enjoying the cheers to his speech. (He probably hasn’t received such cheers and applause since he sat down to  a nice cuppa tea with the Prime Minister, in November 2011.)

Green MP, Mojo Mathers, was next to address the rally;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

“I am angry! I am angry that animals are going  to have to suffer.  I am angry that animals are going to have to die, for the sake of  a legal high. I am angry because the government has not been listening! The government is ignoring public opinion! It ignoring your conscience.  Because the the general public has a conscience! The general public cares. The general public does not want to see animals suffering in  this way!
The government has ignored the hundreds of people who have put in a huge amount of time and energy to provide detailed information [and] submissions on the Bill, on the issue of animal testing. And what happened? The Select Committee said “no we won’t hear you”! That was wrong! The information these people have in their submissions is directly relevant to the issues of the Bill. Because what that information showed was that there are alternatives to animal testing. And that we care about our young people. We can’t use these alternatives [background noise]  for safety.
The Government ignored the 64,000 people who signed the petition in one month.And this government voted against my amendment that would have ruled out these awful tests. That is apalling and I am angry about that. I am angry that the government covered it’s ears and hands over it’s eyes and refused to look at the evidence of alternative tests and refused to rule out animal. testing of party pills.”

Mojo said,

And we have to keep up the pressure!”

And I intend to keep up the pressure in Parliament. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is another opportunity to keep up the pressure and I will be asking for Party Pill testing on animals to be ruled out of this Bill.”

She added,

“What you have done here by coming out en masse today is that you’ve shown this government that you  are not going to forget this issue.”

Mojo’s speech received an enthisiatic  response from protesters and organisers alike;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

Labour MP, Iain Lees-Galloway, also took an opportunity to speak to the rally;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

“I sat on the Health Committee when we considered to the Psychoactive Substances Bill. And I want to tell you about how the National Party completely refused to listen to any of the discussion around animal welfare.
When we received all the submissions; we received all those hundreds of submissions saying that people wanted to come to the Select Commitee and talk about animal welfare and wanted to make your voices heard and make the animal’s voices heard, in front of us, the people who are making the decisions about the Bill…
…The Select Committee had to eventually to  have a vote about whether or not we would hear those submissions. And the vote actually  went five/five. There’s five National Party members on the Select Committee. They voted against hearing your submissions.
The other five members are  from Labour, The Greens, and New Zealand First and we voted in favour of hearing your submissions.”

Ian Lees Galloway said that the motion to hear submissions was lost, in favour of the status quo. He said,

“That was a decision  by the National Party and I think it’s a real shame [cheering drowned out speaker] that the National Party is not interested in giving you your democratic right to be heard by Parliament. We have a wonderful transparent system in New Zealand where everybody has the right to be heard about whatever piece of legislation we are putting through Parliament. And you had your democratic right taken away from you by the National Party.
So I want you to know that the Labour Party voted in favour of Mojo’s amendement. We did not want to see animal testing… for party pills. And I agree with Mojo’s recommendation to you, which is that we have the Animal Welfare Bill coming up next. That is the opportunity to have your voice heard again. Make sure the National Party understands that you want to be heard about this and that you want to get in  front of the Select Committee that is considering the Animal Welfare Bill, because you have a democratic right to be heard and Labour will  support you all the way on that.”

Inexplicably, as  Carolyn Press-McKenzie pointed out,  no National Ministers, nor Peter Dunne, appeared to present their case to the rally. Perhaps their courage deserted them on this day.

Never mind, I’m sure that there will be many in Mr Dunne’s elecorate who, next year at election time, will be only too happy to attend public meetings and ask Mr Dunne a few pertinent questions.

Politicians can run and hide – but eventually they have to surface, to seek our votes again.

We can wait, Mr Dunne, Mr Key, et al.

Expect us.

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

Near the conclusion of the rally, Ms Press-McKenzie handed new evidence for alternative testing to John Banks, and asked him to present it to the Prime Minister.

Banks accepted the documents and acknowledged that the submission would be passed on to John Key.

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

Grumpy cat is not happy. Politicians would do well not to annoy Grumpy cat;

.

wellington-anti-animal-testing-rally-30-july-2013

.

One hopes that National listens to public concerns on this issue. Because it seems that their Focus Group polling is not delivering the message that, generally,  the public are disgusted with the notion of testing synthetic highs on animals, so that a small minority  can enjoy a moment of chemically-induced pleasure.

There is more than a hint of disquiet on this issue – for many it is quite obscene.

So never mind the morality of this issue – evidently morality doesn’t factor with National MPs.

Let’s talk votes then. How many votes can possibly be in this issue for the Nats?

Bugger all, I suspect.

It could be said that National “gone soft on drugs and animal welfare”.  How will that play out with animal lovers at the next election, I wonder?

Not very well, I think.

.

"Emo", the bunny

“Emo”, the bunny

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 August 2013.

Links

Helping You Help Animals (facebook)

Helping You Help Animals (Website)

SAFE  (website)

References

Parliament: Psychoactive Substances Bill

Parliament: Psychoactive Substances Bill – Related Documents

Green Party: Psychoactive Substances Bill could have been great

Copyright (c)  Notice

All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,

  •     Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
  •     At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
  •     Acknowledgement of source is requested.

.

.

= fs =

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 942 other followers