Archive
Some troubling questions about the Ross Affair
.
.
Jami Lee Ross vs Simon Bridges
Whatever drama is taking place before our eyes, one certainty should be borne in mind: this is not a story of Good vs Evil; Light vs Darkness; a lone battler for justice vs corruption in our highest political places. What we are seeing are two faces of the same coin at war with each other.
One is motivated by revenge – for ambitions thwarted.
The other is motivated by desperation – for pure political survival.
Jami Lee Ross has been associated with a small cabal of far-right political activists; Simon Lusk, David Farrar, Judith Collins, Aaron Bhatnagar, and Cameron Slater. (There are others, but they are bit-players.) More on this shortly.
Ross was better known for his Employment Relations Amendment Bill in 2013 which would allow businesses to break strikes by employing temporary scab labour during industrial action. Ross’s undisguised hatred for unions was apparent when, in June 2012, he released a vicious attack public attack on the Maritime Union (involved in a bitter dispute at the time with the Ports of Auckland management);
This is in fact a story of the Maritime Union biting the hand that feeds them. It is a story of industrial action that, if left to go on much longer, could have disastrous consequences for the Ports of Auckland.
For commercial users, it is a simple matter of certainty and continuity Union action, and the threat of further strikes, have put a serious dent in the Ports of Auckland’s ability to provide their bread and butter services Customers are now voting with their feet. The value of Ports of Auckland and the value of the investment that every Aucklander has in the company will continue to suffer if resolution to this matter is not swift.
Aucklanders can rightly be concerned at the increasingly rogue nature of the Maritime Union. However there are 500 men and women that work at the Port with even more skin in the game and a lot more to lose. The trade union movement evolved through a desire for workers to band together to protect their common interests. This is not a dishonourable goal. But when a union loses sight of its members long term interests and cavalier negotiating tactics start to backfire, the union itself begins putting its own member’s livelihoods at risk.
Unions still occupy a privileged position in New Zealand’s employment law; a relic of the last Labour administration which has not seen significant overhaul for some years. Few non-government organisations can boast clauses in legislation specifically designed for their benefit. Despite only 18 percent of the nation’s workforce being unionised, trade unions can look to whole sections of the Employment Relations Act written exclusively to aid union survival through legislative advantage.
Up until recently, cool heads and rational people sitting around negotiating tables have meant that little focus has been placed on the role that unions play in society. However, with the bare-faced mockery that the Maritime Union is making of civilised negotiations New Zealanders will soon begin to question what position unions should hold in the modern Kiwi workplace.
As the fight for Auckland’s waterfront reaches the tipping point, for ratepayers and workers alike this present stand off must come to an end. The city’s $600 million port investment and worker’s jobs are now on the line. Also on the line is the country’s acceptance of the role of trade unions. It can not be tolerable or acceptable for a union to demonstrate continued disregard for the economic consequences of their actions.
For Simon Bridges, he is better known for enabling legislation criminalising/banning protest action against deep-sea oil exploration;
The government is set to crack down on environmental protesters with fines of up to $100,000 or a year in jail for those who target offshore oil and gas operations.
Energy minister Simon Bridges today announced “stronger measures to protect offshore petroleum and minerals activity from unlawful interference”.
Individuals who intentionally damage or interfere with mining structures, like rigs, or vessels face a 12-month prison sentence or a $50,000 fine. Organisations face a penalty of up to $100,000.
Activists who break a 500-metre “no-go” zone around structures would be liable for a $10,000 fine.
A year later, and National continued to curtail public rights to protest oil and gas exploration in our waters;
The public will lose their right to formally oppose deep-sea oil and gas exploration from tomorrow.
A law change will see applications by oil giants go through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They will now be “non-notified” preventing members of the public lodging a formal protest.
Environment Minister Amy Adams said the new classification was the “pragmatic option” for exploratory drilling. She believed it provided regulation “proportionate to its effects”.
Neither men fit any notion of being “Champions” for public scrutiny and openess when it comes to political matters. Both are on record willing and able to curtail workers’ rights for collective bargaining, and public rights to oppose environmentally damaging fossil fuel exploration.
Furthermore, if we disregard the (now admitted) sexual shenanigans and the controversial (though not illegal) tape recordings by Jamie Lee Ross, there remain several questions that deserve far greater scrutiny.
The $100,000 Donation (the real one, not the fabricated Donghua Liu/NZHerald version)
Was a donation of $100,000 made by Chinese businessman, Zhang Yikun?
According to Southland mayor, Gary Tong, who was on a recent business trip to China with the businessman, Mr Zhang denies ever making such a donation.
Assuming that a donation was made, where was the $100K deposited? In his now infamous recorded conversation with National Parliamentary leader, Simon Bridges, Jami-Lee Ross pointed to the amount being deposited into a “Botany electorate account”.
“What would you like done with it? It’s currently sitting in a Botany electorate account.”
In a follow-up text message to National Party president, Peter Goodfellow, Ross said;
.
.
In what form was it deposited – one lump sum, or in smaller amounts?
According to Ross – in the same text message – they were “all under $15,000”.
The following conversation between Bridges and Ross is suggestive that there is a question how the donation should be disclosed to Peter Goodfellow;
.
Bridges: The money’s fine sitting there in the Botany account. I don’t know what your arrangement is with Goodfellow or not, that’s all. I need to talk to him. I’m actually seeing him tonight, I wonder if I should.
Ross: I don’t think we can.
Bridges: I should wait and get the right words.
Ross: I don’t think we can raise tens of thousands and completely keep him out of the loop.
Bridges: No, no we can’t.
Ross: Maybe if you’re just honest with him about it.
Bridges: I think that’s right. I’ll raise it with him but we should probably just think it through. I mean, it can be in the Party but I do just want to make sure we’ve got that money to do those things. Don’t you think?
Ross: Donations can only be raised two ways: Party donation or candidate donation.
Party donation has a different disclosure which is fine, and the way they’ve done it meets the disclosure requirements…it meets the requirements where it’s under the particular disclosure level because they’re a big association and there’s multiple people and multiple people make donations, so that’s all fine. But if it was a candidate donation that’d be different. So making them party donations is the way to do it. Legally though if they’re party donations they’re kind of under Greg’s name as the party secretary.
Bridges: We need to tell them, I get that. I get that. I’m going to tell him…I think he’ll accept it I just need to explain to him what it is I want it for. Unless I get him to…leave it with me. I might talk to McClay as well; see what he’s got up his sleeve. Because Peter is going to be with me at this meeting in Wellington, is all. If I then brought him after that…good work though man, that’s a lot of money.
.
In the last highlighted extract Ross practically spells out to Bridges that the donation was made by “multiple people and multiple people mak[ing] donations“.
Tellingly, Bridges accepts Ross’s statement without question. He reconfirmed his acceptance of multiple donations/donors on Radio NZ’s Morning Report on 24 October. When asked by Suzie Ferguson if he had “found the $100,000 donation yet“, Bridges replied;
“We’ve established that the position is , it was some seven donations from eight people. I didn’t know that at the time – [inaudible].”
Ms Ferguson pressed the point by asking if it added up to $100,000. Bridges replied;
“Look, I think it’s something very much like that, yeah.”
Bridges’ claim he was unaware of multiple donors is at variance with what Jami Lee Ross told him during their recorded conversation;
“Party donation has a different disclosure which is fine, and the way they’ve done it meets the disclosure requirements…it meets the requirements where it’s under the particular disclosure level because they’re a big association and there’s multiple people and multiple people make donations, so that’s all fine.”
National Party President, Peter Goodfellow confirmed unequivocally that no “$100K” donation had been received by the National Party office;
“There was no such donation. The Botany Electorate of the National Party received eight donations, and Mr Ross declared eight donations to us.”
It will be a simple matter for Police to conduct a forensic accounting investigation. Once deposited into the Botany-National account the electronic money trail will be relatively straight forward to follow.
If – as Peter Goodfellow claims, and Ross outlined in his recorded conversation with Bridges – it was deposited in smaller amounts, again it would be straight forward to trace the source(s) and donor (s).
If dodgy dealings were involved and the $100k was split into “eight donations“, an electronic trail will reveal the donor(s). The Police probably have those details by now.
Furthermore, if seven of those “eight donations” were individuals who happened to receive an identical sum of, say, $12,500 from Zhang Yikun; and those seven individuals then donated precisely the same sum of, say, $12,500 to Botany National – then a prima facie case exists that an attempt was made to circumvent the Electoral Act 1993.
If it became known that Mr Zhang received that $100,000 from a foreign government – or state-sanctioned entity controlled by a foreign government – that would be explosive! It would cripple the National Party for years to come.
The bottom line is that a donation was made. The question is: how was it made? Both claims of a single $100k donation and “eight donations” cannot be reconciled.
Someone is lying. By now the Police probably have a good idea who.
Perhaps not quite so “insignificant?
All of which makes Bryce Edwards recent remarks questionable;
“The extraordinary National Party scandal currently unfolding before our eyes is undoubtedly high drama. It has it all – leaks, anonymous texts, threats, secret recordings and explosive allegations… At its heart, however, the scandal is empty. It contains nothing of significance for democracy and society.”
As a series of stories on Radio NZ’s Morning Report began to explore – whilst the prurient side-show of sex, tapes, and personality-plays dominated media headlines last week (15- 19 October) – the real issues of campaign donations is yet to play out.
Ross’s allegations may be the critically-needed spark that reviews our party donation rules by casting the glare of public scrutiny over ways the Electoral Act has been, and is, being rorted.
The Four Anonymous Women, What The Nats Knew, And When They Knew It
The issue raised by the story of four women allegedly harassed by Jami-Lee Ross was raised by independent media, Newsroom, on 18 October – three days after National party leader Simon Bridges held his press conference identifying Ross as the leaker of his travel expenses.
The story was written by Newsroom veteran journalist Melanie Reid and Cass Mason.
Initially, all four complainants were anonymous. Which made any similarities to the revelations by three women against US Supreme Court (then-)nominee, Brett Kavanaugh questionable. Those three women – Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, Julie Swetnick – came forward and made their identities public.
One, Christine Blasey Ford, appeared before a Senate Judiciary committee where she was subjected to intense scrutiny and questioning. Her demeanour and testimony was composed, compelling, and credible.
One day prior to the Newsroom story being published, National’s deputy leader, Paula Bennett accused Ross of unspecific “inappropriate behaviour”;
“He had gone out there and said we had been accusing him of sexual harassment of women and that’s not true, and we haven’t done that and he likened himself to Brett Kavanaugh, which was quite extraordinary in his hour-long stand-up, so I continued to be asked about sexual harassment and we hadn’t put sexual harassment to him, but we had put inappropriate behaviour to him.”
It was also in this story that Ross’s allegation that Simon Bridges had met with businessman Zhang Yikun was first confirmed by the National Party. Until this point, Bridges had been evasive in answering media questions on any donations.
All four women are apparently connected to the National Party. One has come forward – former National Party Candidate for Manurewa, Katrina Bungard;
.
.
Ms Bungard’s conflict with Ross began in 2016/17. Ross was campaigning vigorously to have his wife, Lucy Schwaner, appointed to the Howick Local Board.
This was National Party intra-politics with Ross allegedly threatening Ms Bungard for not supporting his wife onto the Howick Local Board. At one point, Ross had served a trespass order against Ms Bungard, to prevent her attending a National Party event. Far-right political operative, Simon Lusk, became involved on behalf of Jami Lee Ross.
Ms Bungard complained to the National Party hierarchy. Apparently, Ms Bungard was satisfied at the time with the National Party’s action addressing Ross’s alleged bullying;
“They helped me at a really stressful time and I am thankful for their assistance.”
Ms Bungard has stated that if Ross resigned , she would run for his Botany seat in the by-election.
As our American cuzzies put it, Ms Bungard “has skin in the game” – she would stand to benefit materially and politically if Jami Lee Ross resigned.
The other three alleged complainants remain anonymous and their stories cannot be scrutinised or verified.
Other Complainants come forward
David Collings, chair of the Howick Local Board, alleges that he also had a confrontation with Ross. On TV3’s The Nation, Mr Collings painted a grim picture of Jami Lee Ross;
“It got very nasty. He actually threatened, attacked my members, for support. For example, my deputy chair [Katrina Bungard] has aspirations – she’d be a great National MP… he’s used that over her to try and get his way. Threatening her – ‘you’re political career will go nowhere’ – other members of the board, even a sworn police officer, veiled threats about your employment.
[…]
Oh, it got very nasty.
[…]
I wasn’t even contacted. But obviously, I knew exactly what was going on, even was privy to… I think it was on the actual day of our meeting when we elected the chair. He called through – and I’ve said it before – in, like, a Darth Vader voice, ‘I can’t believe you’re willing to give up your political career.’ Sorry, I can do a better Darth Vader voice than that, but that’s what it was like. But like Freddy Krueger or something.
[…] I’m not sure if he said it was him, because I was actually going to try and get my phone to try and record it, so I missed the end of it. But it was on – what do you call it – a cell phone that was untraceable, sort of thing – no number.
We complained to the National Party, and Greg Hamilton – who was the manager at the time – was quite helpful. He said, ‘What you’re telling us is not right. An MP shouldn’t’ be getting involved in something in local government, particularly when his wife is involved.’ Greg was quite helpful, but it didn’t stop.”
Mr Collings went on to describe Ross as;
“Look, this guy – we’ve got a guy in our area that makes Todd Barclay look like an angel.”
National Party member, Katrina Bungard is Deputy Chair of the Howick Local Board.
TV3’s The Nation co-host, Simon Shepherd introduced David Collings as the chairperson of the Howick Local Board.
.
.
What wasn’t disclosed is that Mr Collings was elected on the right-wing ‘Vision and Voice‘ ticket; a local grouping of members that appears to be National Party-aligned;
David Collings
Bob Wichman
Garry Boles
John Spiller (formerly member of National-aligned )
Peter Young
Katrina Bungard (former National candidate)
Adele White (supported by Jami Lee Ross in a petition, 2013)
Lucy Schwaner (Jami Lee Ross’s wife).
As described in a Newsroom story;
Many on the Howick board are National Party types but the party doesn’t stand candidates directly.
It would appear that David Collings also “has skin in the game”.
Obvious questions should be raised as to why the complainants have only now made their stories about alleged harassment public. As Tim Macindoe, MP for Hamilton West, pointed out to Newshub;
“You’re jumping to a whole lot of assumptions about behaviour you don’t know about and I don’t know about.
There are allegations that have been made, but I think given the situation we’re now in, the best thing is for us all to just step back, allow authorities do the jobs they’re needing to do, and I don’t think it’s helpful for us to be involved in public speculation.
As I say we have some allegations that have been made, they may be wildly at variance from the facts.”
The conclusion that this is a “pile on” by National Party members and supporters cannot be easily ignored. Alleged bad behaviour is apparently tolerated by National as long as everyone ‘tows the party line’ and remains loyal.
National Party action over past harassment charges
Justifying Ross’s expulsion, an un-named National Party spokesperson said;
“What Jami-Lee has done and continues to do is unacceptable and the more that comes to light the more we know we made the right decision to expel him from the Caucus.
We are supporting those women who came to us as a result of Jami-Lee’s behaviour.”
However, many of the allegations made against Ross appear to have been recent-historical and have only now surfaced.
Whilst National was “supporting those women who came to us as a result of Jami-Lee’s behaviour” one complainant was encouraged (?) to sign a NDA (non-disclosure agreement). Signed two years ago, National Party president, Peter Goodfellow, denies it was a NDA;
“We haven’t used any NDAs. That matter was a private matter and they wanted confidentiality, so they both agreed that it would be kept confidential.
That’s the only instance that I’m aware of in my time as president that we’ve had an issue like that and it’s certainly the only time that the parties have requested confidentiality.
It was a matter that was raised by a couple of people and was dealt with – and actually to the satisfaction of the parties.
We acted quickly and helped them to resolve the differences and move on.”
According to Peter Goodfellow, the document was not a NDA but rather a “gentlemen’s agreement”. Which is a quaintly odd euphemism, as one of the signatories was a woman.
Despite the agreement; despite the complaints made over his alleged behaviour, Ross’s career continued to rise within the National Party. He rose to become National’s Senior Whip.
Though the National hierarchy had been aware of complaints about Ross’s alleged behaviour, at least one woman who complained was silenced through a non-disclosure agreement – and in the meantime Jami Lee Ross continued his rise through the National hierarchy. He was rewarded, whilst complainants were silenced.
His promotion makes a mockery of the sanctimonious utterances of both Simon Bridges and his deputy, Paula Bennett;
“I am in admiration of the courage of these women for what had happened. As soon as I was aware of inappropriate conduct, I acted immediately I knew nothing before the leak investigation about any of these sorts of things … within a day of knowing about them I confronted Jami-Lee Ross about this.” – Simon Bridges
“I think there are bound to be other women, at various degrees, he was grooming. I feel a sense that people deserve to feel safe and particularly from someone in power. I think those women are incredibly courageous and strong to have spoken out. I’m sure when you are dealing with that potentially narcissistic personality, then any kind of position of power would feed into that.” – Paula Bennett
Simon Bridges denies any knowledge of Ross’s alleged bad behaviour. This seems unlikely in a ‘pressure-cooker’ political environment where people talk to each other and gossip runs rampant. Bridges’ claim of not knowing is simply not credible.
In Parliament, people talk. Especially staff. And often that chit-chat gets back to politician’s ears.
The culture of the National Party seems geared toward rewarding brutal politics and hiding away the victims of those who wield the power. This fact has been made abundantly clear to the public.
Sectioned into care?
On Sunday 21 October, the media reported that Ross had been taken into “mental health care“.
There were suggestions he had been “sectioned” – admitted under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. This usually involves psychiatrist reports and a decision before a sitting judge. A Court Order is made for compulsory treatment. It takes time to be “sectioned” and is not an easy process;
For the first month, the patient must accept treatment. From the second month onwards, the patient is not required to accept treatment unless they give informed consent, or treatment is considered in the interests of the patient by an independent psychiatrist (not being the responsible clinician), or the patient needs emergency treatment and it is not possible to get their consent.
Two days later, on Tuesday 23 October, Ross was discharged from care.
Two days.
According to David Fisher at the NZ Herald, the “friend” assisting Ross after his “discharge was none other than – Cameron Slater;
It is believed Slater has been personally supporting Ross since the weekend and his assistance extended to helping the MP in his release from Middlemore Hospital’s mental health facilities yesterday.
In the two days that Ross was in “mental health care”, the media spotlight went from the beleaguered rogue MP facing numerous allegations of “bad behaviour”, harrassment, extra-marital affairs – to National Leader Simon Bridges.
Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘ on Tuesday 23 October focused on interviews and hard questions put to Bridges, the National Party, campaign donations,mental health, and workplace harassment. Anything but Jami Lee Ross;
- 6:37 Mental Health Foundation warns over Jami-Lee Ross coverage
- 7:10 Parliament after Ross saga – political analysis
- 7:27 Jacinda Ardern defends political donations system
- 7:40 Mental Health Foundation urges greater care over Jami-Lee Ross
- 7:52 Sectioned MP Jami-Lee Ross uncharted territory for Parliament
- 8:10 National Party president could go following Ross saga – Edwards
And more the following day on ‘Morning Report‘;
- 6:40 Parties wouldn’t need to fundraise in ideal world – Ardern
- 7:10 National slips behind Labour in latest political poll
- 7:14 National slips, Bridges drops in poll – political analysis
- 7:40 National Party inquiry to ensure staff ‘feeling safe’ – Bridges
- 8:10 National Party culture review – political analysis
- 8:23 Greens urge political donation reform
All of a sudden, the blow-torch of media attention was off Ross and on Simon Bridges and the National party in most instances.
If Ross really was admitted into “mental health care” – it was a timely coincidence.
If not, it was a strategic master-stroke – whoever planned it would fit the role of a Bond villain with perfection.
Which leads us to…
The Dirty Politics Cabal
Conspiracy of cock-up? Jamie Lee Ross’s recording of conversation(s) with Simon Bridges was either a shrewd decision to cover his back-side as he fell from grace with his Leader – or something far more calculating and sinister.
Bridges claims that he believes Ross have may been planning and executing his strategy for a considerable period of time;
“I think he has been recording me, and potentially many other members of Parliament, for a very long time.”
So obviously not a spur-of-the-moment, rash-impulse kind, of thing by Ross.
As the Ross/Bridges crisis unfolded since 15 October, several names began to show up – names which feature prominently in Nicky Hager’s expose, Dirty Politics:
- Simon Lusk – currently advising Jami Lee Ross. Don Rowe wrote an insightful backgrounder on this right-wing operative for The Spinoff.
- Cameron Slater – running a series of articles deriding Simon Bridges’ leadership as “weak” and expressing subtle sympathy for Ross. In one piece, Slater calls into question and rubbishes assertions made by Bridges and Paula Bennett. Slater reportedly assisted Ross after his ‘discharge’ from mental health care.
- Aaron Bhatnagar – the person behind the so-called “Cathedral Club” which was listed in National Party election finance returns as donating $10,000. Ross claimed “that Bridges signed off an election return which included a $10,000 donation from the “Cathedral Club” even though he knew the identity of the donor”. Was this a set-up to ‘prove’ the National Party leader to be “corrupt”, as Ross alleged?
Assuming – for a moment – that the most machiavellian planning has gone into destroying Simon Bridges as the leader of the National;
- Who would benefit?
- What would be the likely outcome for the Party?
In answer to question one, the likely successor to Bridges being deposed would be Judith Collins. Ms Collins featured recently in the TVNZ-Colmar Brunton polls, just marginally behind Simon Bridges;
.
.
Jami Lee Ross’s full scale assault has inarguably destroyed his political career. He may even be unemployable in the private sector, as Kiwiblogger David Farrar, and former MP, Tau Henare, pointed out recently.
But his attacks on Simon Bridges has also undermined his leadership – perhaps beyond repair.
If National falls any further in polling; and Bridges’ popularity drops further; and Collins’ popularity rises – the inevitable would happen. Bridges would be rolled and Judith Collins installed as the new leader.
In answer to question 2: National would lurch hard-right. New Zealand politics would suddenly become more partisan; more divisive – in short, more like Australia. The hard-right warriors Simon Lusk, Cameron Slater, Aaron Bhatnagar, Jami Lee Ross, et al, would have their new leader and National would become the vehicle for their political agenda and aspirations.
Jamie Lee Ross would eventually be “rehabilitated” politically and would be appointed to various SOE boards as Collins’ ‘head kicker’.
Far-fetched conspiracy la-la stuff? Perhaps… though even David Fisher seemed compelled to write in the NZ Herald;
“It’s impossible to know exactly when Ross took a step down what he sees as a righteous – and what Bridges calls treacherous – path. It’s also difficult to know where it ends. Ross’ actions have shown clear signs of strategy.”
.
.
.
References
NBR: Ports behind strike-breaking bill – Ross
Scoop media: Jami Lee Ross – Union biting the hand that feeds
Newstalk ZB: Ross saga – Businessman denies making $100k donation
Fairfax media: Environmental protesters’ Govt crack down
Fairfax media: Law will hit deep-sea drilling protesters
Fairfax media: Jami-Lee Ross admits affair with MP, pledges to stay on in Parliament
NZ Herald: Full transcript – The Jami-Lee Ross tape of Simon Bridges
Mediaworks: As it happened – Jami-Lee Ross vs Simon Bridges saga reaches new heights
Mediaworks: Read Jami-Lee Ross’ texts to Greg Hamilton about $100,000 donation
Radio NZ: National’s hollow political scandal entertaining but insignificant
Radio NZ: Morning Report – National Party inquiry to ensure staff ‘feeling safe’ – Bridges (alt-link)
Legislation: Electoral Act 1993
Radio NZ: Morning Report for Tuesday 23 October 2018
Newsroom: Jami-Lee Ross: – Four women speak out
Radio NZ: Jami-Lee Ross identified as National Party leaker
New York Times: The Women Who Have Accused Brett Kavanaugh
NPR: Kavanaugh And Christine Blasey Ford Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee
Radio NZ: Bridges did talk to businessman at centre of donation claim – Bennett
NZ Herald: Simon Bridges continues to stonewall questions about donations and sexual harassment claims
Fairfax media: National party candidate allegedly harassed by Jami-Lee Ross speaks out
NZ Herald: National candidate speaks out over harassment by rogue MP Jami-Lee Ross
Auckland Council: Contact Howick Local Board
Scoop media: C&R Howick Announce Local Board Team
Talking Southern Auckland: Honesty and Integrity Part Two
Newsroom: Nats have a long Jami-Lee agenda
Mediaworks: Jami-Lee Ross’ behaviour allegations might not be accurate – National MP Tim Macindoe
Interest.co.nz: Jami-Lee Ross to remain in Parliament as an independent MP for Botany
Scoop media: TV3 The Nation – Chris Simpson and David Collings
Fairfax media: Vision and Voice dominate Howick Local Board
Radio NZ: National defends handling of woman’s complaint against Jami-Lee Ross
Radio NZ: National aware of Jami-Lee Ross grievances for years
Fairfax media: Toxic relationships with Jami-Lee Ross reported
The Spinoff: ‘I am just motivated to cut throats’: meet Jami Lee-Ross’s political mastermind
NZ Herald: Jami-Lee Ross saga – Identity of ‘Cathedral Club’ donor revealed
TVNZ: After horror week, Simon Bridges takes a hit in latest 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll
Radio NZ: Tau Henare – ‘NZ has never seen anything like this’
NZ Herald: MP Jami-Lee Ross admitted to mental health care
Mediaworks: Jami-Lee Ross has been ‘sectioned’ – but what does that actually mean?
ODT: Jami-Lee Ross out of hospital, ‘not focusing on politics’
NZ Herald: National’s leader Simon Bridges rings Dirty Politics blogger to talk Jami-Lee Ross
Radio NZ: Morning Report – 23 October 2018
Radio NZ: Morning Report – 24 October 2018
Additional
Newsroom: Jami-Lee Ross and the shadow of Dirty Politics
Twitter: Jami-Lee Ross – 15 August 2018
Sharechat: Bridges denies Ross allegations, welcomes police inquiry
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon Political Panel (alt-link)
Other Blogs
Whaleoil: Despicable text sent to Jami-Lee Ross by female MP
Kiwiblog: The terrible personal cost
Chris Trotter: Questions, Questions, Questions
Martyn Bradbury: Could the Spinoff be possibly wrong about JLR? Maybe?
The Standard: Bridges loses connection with reality
The Standard: Nothing to worry about
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu Affair: One Year On
National MP admits collusion with bosses to set up strike-breaking law!!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 October 2018.
.
.
= fs =
“The Nation” reveals gobsmacking incompetence by Ministers English and Lotu-Iiga
.
.
If there is a crystal-clear example why a functioning democracy must have vibrant, critical current affairs programmes on free-to-air televesion, then TV3’s ‘The Nation‘ on the morning of 2 May was top-of-the-pile. Without doubt, this land-mark episode was a powerful insight into the general competence (or lack, thereof) of two of the government’s senior ministers; Finance Minister Bill English and Corrections Minister, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.
.
(L-R) Corrections Minister, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga — TV3’s ‘The Nation’ host & interviewer, Lisa Owen — Finance Minister Bill English
.
The highly talented host-interviewer, Lisa Owen, interviewed both, drilling deep down, and extracting information; admissions; and more critically – waving aside pathetic attempts to fudge legitimate answers. The resulting exchanges did not make for a ‘happy day’ for either government minister, revealing one totally out of his depth, and the other unwilling to admit that his stewardship of the country’s economy has been an abject failure.
1. Finance Minister Bill English
In the opening months of World War 2, there was a period from September 1939 to May 1940, known as “the Phoney War“. Both the Allied Nations (led by Great Britain) and the expanding Third Reich were technically at war, but major military operations did not commence until Nazi Germany invaded Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940.
In New Zealand, we might have referred to those first eight months as a “Clayton’s War” – the war you’re having when you’re not really having a war. (For those old enough to remember, “Clayton’s” refers to a non-alcoholic beverage marketed in New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s. It was heavily promoted with the catch-phrase, “the drink you have when you’re not having a drink”. The marketing campaign was an advertisers dream-come-true, catching the public’s attention. The product, unfortunately for the manufacturers, was less successful. )
The same could be said of New Zealand’s so-called “rock star economy” and “recovery”.
By nearly all accounts, our recent growth has been predicated on three factors;
- The Auckland housing boom/bubble
- The Christchurch Earthquakes re-build
- Exports – particularly dairy – to China
The first is reliant purely on borrowing from off-shore to fund speculative activity. When that bubble finally bursts, we will be left with a multi-billion debt; thousands of bankruptcies; and an economy in tatters as capital flight takes place.
The second is a short-term growth-spurt which owes it’s origins to two natural disasters – literally disaster capitalism.
The third is built upon China’s unsustainable growth, and has recently fallen away, returning Australia as our number one trading partner, as the value of dairy commodities plummet.
The first two are unsustainable. The last is reliant on a major trading partner’s economic well-being. As with New Zealand’s lamb and butter exports to the UK prior to it joining the EEC in January 1973, we have placed our export “eggs” in one, very big, very fragile, basket.
Against this backdrop of The Phoney Economic Recovery, the following financial facts should give us cause for concern;
- The on-going cost of the 2009 and 2010 tax-cuts, estimated to be around $3.8 billion per year, and up to $4.26 billion last year
- Plummeting dairy prices resulting in lower payout to farmers and taking $7 billion out of the economy
- Reduced tax-take by the government is around $4.5 billion
In view of unsustainable tax-cuts in 2009 and 2010; the economy taking a $7 billion “hit”; and lower than anticipated tax revenue by this government, it was hardly unexpected that Bill English’s promises of a surplus this year have collapsed.
Lisa Owen challenged the hapless Finance Minister in a sixteen minute long interview. In this excerpt, English is evasive when asked questions about the governments surplus;
.
.
Throughout the interview, English was upbeat and insisted that a surplus was just around the corner;
“Well, okay, it would be nice if the number got there this year; it’ll just take a bit longer. What’s important here is the trajectory. So Government is closing its deficits; it’s getting to surplus. We’ll soon be in a position to start paying off debt. Our expenditure’s under control; the revenue’s a bit harder. You’ve just seen in the last day or two, dairy prices are going down again; that has an impact. So we’re sufficiently confident in the direction that we’re not going to cut services or cut entitlements to try and chase a larger surplus number.”
Lisa Owen asked the Minister: “Okay. Well, before on The Nation, you said that the Government would not make any cuts to reach surplus. Is that still your plan?”
English replied; “That’s right. We’re not going to make any specific extra decisions now just because our tax revenue’s a percentage point – 1% down.”
Then, incredibly, English maintained that tax-cuts were still on National’s agenda;
Owen: “I just want to look at some of the big promises, like tax cuts. They were meant to come from that $500 million that you now don’t have. But is it fair to say that they’re not really likely now?”
English: “As we indicated last year, we wouldn’t be able to contemplate that until 2017 for some of the reasons that you’ve outlined. So at the moment, the ability to deliver some kind of moderate tax cut hasn’t changed and we would have the next couple of budgets to work out how that would happen.”
Owen: “Hang on, Minister. It has changed, hasn’t it, Minister, because you’ve just identified the fact you’ve got less money, so it must have changed.”
English: “Well, we’ve shifted the money from next year to the year after; that’s technically what’s actually happened. We’ll deal with that as time goes on, but the point I’m making is our finances are-“
Owen: “Is it likely that your tax cuts then will be delayed as well? Maybe 2018, not 2017?”
English: “No, we’re not suggesting that. We said at the end of last year that they would be possible in 2017. We’ve made allowance for that.”
It beggars belief that we have a Finance Minister willing to entertain the notion of tax cuts at a time when dairy prices are dropping; tax revenue is falling; and public debt has ballooned to $59.9 billion and rising by $27 million per day, every day.
.
.
Never mind tax cuts – when do we, as a nation, start to repay this debt mountain?!
The reality is that if National proceeds with promises of tax cuts in 2017 (which is an election year – bribe anyone?) New Zealand will have to borrow from offshore to make up the shortfall in revenue. Our debt mountain will continue to grow.
English himself admitted that the deficit this year will be in the order of around half a billion dollars;
“…It is what it is, and that is for the 14/15 year, we budgeted $370 million surplus. It looks like it will be a $500 or $600 million deficit, and the surplus will be the next year. So we’re on track.”
Somewhere in National’s gross mis-management of the economy, they have gone from a $370 million surplus to a potential $600 million deficit – just shy of $1 billion lost.
How does a government make such a colossal mistake? “It is what it is” is hardly an explanation.
Throughout the interview, English kept repeating the mantra of a future surplus;
“The direction is pretty clear. Our surpluses will come and they will grow, and we’ll be able to pay off debt.”
“The target remains getting to surplus, and in the Budget, you’ll see the details of where the Government is up to with it. But I’m indicating that despite falling a bit short in 14/15, we’re on track for surplus.”
Though English insisted that there would be no cuts to spending, he did use coded language for possible reductions to welfare spending;
Owen: “Is it likely that your tax cuts then will be delayed as well? Maybe 2018, not 2017?”
English: “No, we’re not suggesting that. We said at the end of last year that they would be possible in 2017. We’ve made allowance for that.”
Owen: “Okay. So what about measures to curb poverty, then? Will they have to be delayed? Because the Prime Minister identified them as something of a priority. Is that going to be delayed?”
English: “Well, we’ve been working on these issues for a while, particularly focused on communities and families with persistent deprivation and caught in a cycle of dependence. And so you could expect to see us continue with that sort of programme through this Budget…
… Or sickness and invalids beneficiaries with more support for their health issues and more support for employment, could actually get out of dependency, off welfare and remain in work.
Because as we all know, invalids don’t actually have real disabilities or debilitating injuries or diseases – they are simply on a “cycle of dependence”.
When in trouble, blame someone else. In this case, invalids.
Owen then moved on to the issue of Auckland’s growing housing crisis and nailed English on this government’s spectacular inability to manage and address that city’s housing shortage. English simply blamed the Auckland Council;
“Well, the migration numbers have stayed high, bearing in mind about half of migrants appear to go to Auckland; the other half go to the rest of the country. But there’s pretty clear signals that Auckland City Council need to get on with the job. They are the ultimate decision-maker around the infrastructure and around the consenting for new houses. We’re giving them the toolkit to enable them to do it faster, but there’s clearly a lot more to be done, and we’ll keep looking for more tools to help the Auckland City Council to do the job they need to do.”
When still in trouble, keep blaming someone else. In this case, the Auckland Council.
Thus far, National’s grand strategy to cope with Auckland’s housing crisis is to shift ownership of 2,800 properties from Housing NZ to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company – as if shifting properties around on a giant ‘Monopoly’ board will somehow solve the problem?
Owen pointed out to English that in transferring 2,800 houses to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company, that he was breaking a previous committment;
Owen: “Now, hang on a minute. There you offloaded 2800 houses, and I thought you had a cap on getting rid of state houses of about 2000. So is that cap gone now?”
English: “Well, no. What we’ve said is Housing New Zealand will own at least 60,000 houses, and that certainly hasn’t changed. Government remains the owner—”
Owen: “No, you said a cap, Minister. So has the cap gone now with this 2800 houses? The cap’s blown?”
English: “No. Government will remain the owner of the Tamaki houses. We’ve simply put them in a different government company, which has been set up specifically to regenerate that community, because it’s a very particular skillset.”
English had all but surrendered to Owen’s persistent questioning by outright admitting his government’s failure to address Auckland’s mounting housing crisis;
“That’s right. We’re not meeting demand. I certainly agree with that. Whether it gets worse before it gets better, forecasters can argue over that. We’ve got plenty to do to meet the demand that’s been there for a while. And as I said, the Government’s supporting Auckland City, trying to get them a better toolkit and making our own contribution through redeveloping our own land in Auckland.”
For English, this interview was possibly the worst in his political career. He had to explain why his commitment to returning to surplus this year was now in tatters, and why his government’s housing plan for Auckland consisted of moving state housing from owner to owner, without adding significantly to the overall stock.
The only reason why National’s reputation for being a “sound prudent fiscal manager” survives intact is because New Zealanders are not paying attention.
But worse was to come when Corrections Minister, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga took the chair and was also interviewed by Lisa Owen. What followed was a debacle of Hekia Parata proportions.
2. Corrections Minister, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga
With on-going privatisation of State services dressed up as so-called “Public-Private Partnerships” (PPPs), Lisa Owen put several questions to the Corrections Minister on the role of UK company, Serco, which has been contracted to run the new prison at Wiri.
His responses were jaw-droppingly incompetant. The man was totally out of his depth, as these excerpts show;
Owen: “So are they getting paid and how much?”
Lotu-Iiga: “Well, the contract is between Serco and PlaceMakers, and I’m not privy to those sums, but—”
Owen: “So you don’t know how much the business is going to make—”
Lotu-Iiga: “I don’t have the figures on me, but we could ask Serco what the contract’s for.”
Owen: “Out of the inmates building framing and having these contracts. So who makes the profit out of the contract?”
Lotu-Iiga: “ Well, we don’t know whether there’s profits being made, but what PlaceMakers—”
Owen: “Why don’t you know that, Minister? Because this is under your watch.”
Lotu-Iiga: “Well, I spoke to the managing director of PlaceMakers yesterday, and they said that they will pay a standard contract for fees to Serco. I don’t know what that amount is…”
Owen: “Right, so in terms of rehabilitation, but you don’t know who’s making a profit or if one’s being made?
Lotu-Iiga: ” Hang on. They’ve got a commercial transaction between Serco and PlaceMakers. I don’t know what that figure is, but we can work it out.”
Owen: “Even with that $30 million? Even with that $30 million profit that they’re making per annum?”
Lotu-Iiga: “I don’t think they’re making a $30 million profit.”
Owen: “You don’t think it’ll make $30 million, and what you’re saying is it’s still saving money even though this company is making a profit out of it? It’s still saving us money even though they’re taking that profit.”
Lotu-Iiga: “It’s… Well, it’s saving the taxpayer money. It is saving the taxpayer money.”
And then this astounding admission from the Minister that must have had every viewer that Saturday morning choking on his/her milo/tea/coffee, and the Prime Minister speed-dialling his Chief-of-Staff;
Owen: “Who employs those monitors? Who employs the monitor in the prison? “
Lotu-Iiga: “There will be— If I can just finish, there will be an ombudsman. They will be subject to complaints—”
Owen: “So the monitor in the prison, Minister, just to be clear, the monitor in the prison; who employs the monitor?”
Lotu-Iiga: “My understand is that the monitors are based in the prisons, but they report to the Department of Corrections.”Owen: “Who employs the monitor and pays their wages, Minister?“
Lotu-Iiga: “Well, I don’t have those facts on me, but they do report—”
Owen: “Well, I do. The person who employs the monitor— the person who employs the monitor is the company, Serco. They employ the monitor, and pay their wages.”
Lotu-Iiga’s spectacular ignorance of his own portfolio has almost certainly destroyed his political career. He will also have disappointed his political strategist and mentor, controversial far right-winger, Simon Lusk.
Lusk was employed by Lotu-Iiga during the 2008 election campaign for the Maungakiekie Electorate Campaign. In return, as well as being paid by Lotu-Iiga, in his Maiden Speech in Parliament the newly-elected MP openly acknowledged Lusk’s involvement in his election to Parliament. In this Youtube video, Lotu-Iiga mentions Lusk at 3:56. Note who is sitting behind Lotu-Iiga – Aaron Gilmore, another Lusk protégé.
Bad luck, Simon.
It is not often that I feel sympathy for a Minister of a National Government. When I do, it is the pity I feel for a doomed man whose career has come to a grinding, crushing halt.
At the next Cabinet re-shuffle, Lotu-Iiga will be joining Kate Wilkinson, Phil Heatley, and Aaron Gilmore in political oblivion.
Dead Minister Walking.
3. Political Panel
Mike Williams, Bernard Hickey & Jamie Whyte comment on interviews with Bill English and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. Note ex-ACT leader, Jamie Whyte’s cringe-worthy apologistic comments on behalf of English, and why he thinks government debt does not matter.
4. The Programme
All in all, this was one of the most outstanding episodes of “The Nation” with excellent interviews; topical subject matter; and insightful analysis by (most) of the panellists. Lisa Owen joins Kim Hill as two of this country’s most formidable interviewers.
This is the sort of programming Mediaworks should be broadcasting at Prime Time. My “money” would be on people desperate for informative television – who are sick to their stomachs on a sickly diet of “reality tv” – to flock to such a viewer-friendly scheduling.
Good, quality, current affairs should never be tucked away as some sort of “guilty pleasure”.
.
References
Wikipedia: The Phoney War
Wikipedia: Claytons
Rabobank: Country Report New Zealand
Farming Show: Australia becomes top trading partner once again
Radio NZ: Price drop another blow for dairy farmers
NZ Herald: Brian Gaynor – Plans for jump-start reveal differing styles
Scoop media: Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting
Fairfax media: Dairy prices fall at Fonterra GlobalDairyTrade auction
Beehive: Fact sheet – Personal tax cuts
Radio NZ: English concedes surplus target unlikely
Youtube: The Nation – Can National promise a surplus by 2016?
TV3: The Nation – Interview – Finance Minister Bill English
Treasury: Debt
Fairfax media: Public debt climbs by $27m a day
Fairfax media: Government offloads 2800 state houses to Auckland development company
TV3: The Nation – Interview – Corrections Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga
Wikipedia: Serco
Simon Lusk: Clients
Fairfax media: The rapid rise of a well-educated man
Youtube: Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga MP – Maiden Speech
Previous related blogposts
Tax cuts and jobs – how are they working out so far, my fellow New Zealanders?
Did National knowingly commit economic sabotage post-2008?
Budget 2014 – Why we will soon owe $70 billion under this government
The Mendacities of Mr Key #3: tax cuts
When the Rich Whinge about paying tax
Two Tax Strikes against Dunne?
“It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash”
National’s Ohariu candidate admits contact by Simon Lusk
Power Struggle in the National Party?!
Other blogs
Unframed: John Key has no credibility on debt and no Plan B
Acknowledgement
Tim Watkin, Producer of “The Nation“, for interview transcripts; link to Youtube excerpt featuring Bill English; and valuable insights.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 May 2015.
.
.
= fs =
National’s Ohariu candidate admits contact by Simon Lusk
.
.
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 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;
.
.
.
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!
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 2 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
When Karma caught up with Cameron Slater
.
.
1. “Conspiracy Theories”
Psychopath, bully, faux-Christian, convicted criminal, Right wing blogger, and germ-masquerading-as-a-human-being, Cameron Slater has finally had his arse nailed to the wall by veteran investigate journalist*, Nicky Hager.
Slater’s response, on Newstalk ZB was a pitiful attempt at deflection;
WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater has already responded to the book, and appears to recommend reading it.
Cameron Slater says he hasn’t got a copy yet, but it’s likely to a be very one-sided affair.
He says it’s a direct attack on the government to hurt it at election time, and appears to avoid what happens on the left side of the spectrum.
Slater’s memory is getting worse as he breathes in the methane fumes from the shit he continually wallows in.
Hager has also written an expose on Helen Clark’s government, “Seeds of Distrust“, which nearly destroyed Labour’s chances of re-election in the 2002 general election. Environment Minister, Marion Hobbs, from the left-wing Labour government of the time said of Nicky Hager;
“Nick Hager’s conspiracy theories do not match the facts.”
And John Key today (13 August) said of Nicky Hager;
“Most people know that Nicky Hager is a screaming left-wing conspiracy theorist,”
So Cam; if that’s your best come-back – tragic fail.
2. Karma
However, my memory is a tad better.
I remember an event in January 2014, regarding the death of a passenger in a car, in Greymouth, West Coast. At the time, Slater reached rock-bottom with his vileness, writing “Feral dies in Greymouth, did world a favour“.
The grieving parents of the man killed in the accident were appalled by Slater’s gutless attack on their late son, Judd Hall.
As Grey District Mayor Tony Kokshoorn said at the time,
“This young lad has a mother and father who are going through a great deal of hurt at the moment. It’s compassion and support they need at the moment, not condemnation from the likes of Slater.
They (the parents) are people that Slater has never met, does not know, so for him to describe their offspring as feral is the lowest of the low and an utter disgrace.”
I also remember writing this piece on my own blog, on 29 January, in response to Slater’s grubby rubbish;
“He obviously still does not understand that if you attack, denigrate, and abuse people – that eventually he will strike someone who will hit back. Hard.
Karma is not a mystical thing. It is humans getting pissed off.”
It seems that seven months later, my prediction has come true;
3. “Crusher” Collins
This précis from the book, from a TV3 report, is noteworthy;
Justice Minister Judith Collins was another of Slater’s informants and emailed him an account of Labour’s Trevor Mallard making a fool of himself – “You can use this if you like but just don’t say it was me”
Judith Collins on offensive over Radio NZ comments
But relate to the leaking to media of ACC complainant Bronwyn Pullar’s identity along with an email from her support person, former National Party president Michelle Boag.Ms Boag sent the email onto Judith Collins and a staffer, who forwarded it to ACC chairman John Judge and chief executive Ralph Stewart.
All deny being the leak, but somehow it got out.
“I’ve been very clear all along,” says Ms Collins. “I am 100 percent certain there was no leak from me or my office.”
Probe into email leak welcome, says Collins
Confirmation that Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff will investigate the email’s trail from Ms Boag to an eventual report in the Herald on Sunday came as Labour claimed Ms Collins, National Party operative Simon Lusk and right-wing blogger Cameron Slater all played a part in the leak.
So now we have the clearest evidence yet, of who leaked Michelle Boag’s email, relating to ACC claimant, Bronwyn Pullar, to Cameron Slater.
Leaker, I name thee: Judith “Crusher” Collins.
4. Conclusions
1.
This is a small country.
Secrets are fleeting.
2.
Key’s $55 million backside has just been given a swift kick. His “credibility” will have taken a severe beating after this.
3.
If the National Party politburo have a shred of common sense and functioning neuronal-activity left between them, using Slater as a conduit for dirty tricks will cease. The game, you Tory Twats, is up.
4.
A major source of “easy news” for the mainstream media has just dried up. From now on, journos will actually have to do their own work.
5.
If information was sourced from the SIS, and Labour wins this election (chance now increased), expect a major shake-up of both security agencies and resignations. Heads will roll like bowling balls.
6.
I love karma.
.
(*a real journalist – not the faeces-shovelling variety found at “Whaleoil”)
.
References
Fairfax media: Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater guilty
NewstalkZB: Nicky Hager’s book attacks National’s links with bloggers
Scoop media: Government Upfront On Corn Seed
TV3 News: Nicky Hager book shows National’s ‘dirty politics’
The Press: Blogger’s harsh words rile grieving parents
Greymouth Star: Blogger puts the boot in
TV3 News: Judith Collins on offensive over Radio NZ comments
NZ Herald: Probe into email leak welcome, says Collins
Previous related blogposts
The Mendacities of Mr Key #4: “Trolls & bottom-feeders”
The Mendacities of Mr Key #2: Secret Sources
Whalers go gunning for Whaleoil
Other Blogs
The Standard: Cameron Slater dirties John Key (or vice versa?)
The Dim Post: Dirty politics
Public Address: Dirty Politics
The Pundit: Cri du cœur
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 August 2014
.
.
= fs =
A Query to the Taxpayers Union – ***UP DATE ***
.
.
Further to an earlier blogpost where I emailed Jordan Williams, at the Taxpayers Union, regarding Judith Collins’ taxpayer-funded trip to China, where she visited a milk importer (Oravida) of which her husband is the sole Director…
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Judith Collins DATE: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:39:48 +1300 TO: "Taxpayers Union" <tipline@taxpayers.org.nz>.
Kia ora, I am aware that your Union recently condemned the cost incurred by Green MP, Ms Mojo Mathers, in a trip she made to Masterton to participate in a radio interview on disabilities. Accordingly, will you be investigating and commenting on the trip made by National MP and Minister, Judith Collins, for her recent taxpayer-funded trip to China? Ms Collins' portfolios include Minister for Ethnic Affairs; Minister of Justice; and Minister for ACC. It is unclear what purpose was served by a trip to China as none of her portfolios relate directly to foreign affairs or trade. Will you also be investigating and commenting on the conflict of interest posed by her visit to Orivida - a Chinese company of which her husband is a Director? This appears to be little more than a tax-payer funded 'junket' and I await your response to this in the light of your critical stance taken regarding Ms Mathers' trip to Masterton. Regards, -Frank Macskasy
.
Mr Williams, from the so-called Taxpayers Union, responded on the same day;
.
.
Several commentators on my previous blogpost suggested that blogs are a part of the media (or “new media”) and that Mr Williams should, accordingly, be responding to my query as if the NZ Herald had contacted him for a comment.
I took note of the suggestions and wrote back to Mr Williams,
.
FROM: "f.macskasy"
SUBJECT: Re: Judith Collins
DATE: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:37:51 +1300
TO: "Jordan Williams" <jordan@taxpayers.org.nz>
.
Kia ora Jordan!
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my query, and in
such a timely fashion. That was greatly appreciated.
Regarding your point on the Mojo Mathers issue; I understand
that you stated you did not initiate contact with the
Herald, and that you responded to their query.
As you may be aware, I blog on various issues, including
covering public activities such as Select Committee
hearings; protests; etc.
I am therefore part of the so-called "new media" of citizen
journalists/bloggers, as your colleague, Cameron Slater also
maintains.
Accordingly, I seek a response from you, on behalf of the
Taxpayers Union, on National MP and Minister, Judith
Collins' recent taxpayer-funded trip to China.
It is unclear what purpose was served by a trip to China as
none of her portfolios relate directly to foreign affairs
or trade. Ms Collins' portfolios include Minister for
Ethnic Affairs; Minister of Justice; and Minister for ACC.
Considering that none of her portfolios relate to foreign
affairs or trade, was this trip necessary? What purpose did
it serve, and for who?
What is the Taxpayers Union's response on the
perceived/actual conflict of interest posed by her visit to
Orivida - a Chinese company of which her husband is a
Director?
Does the Taxpayers Union view Collins' trip as little more
than a tax-payer funded 'junket'?
Does the Taxpayers Union consider the $36,000 spent by
Collins on this trip "value for money"?
I look forward to the Taxpayers Union's statement on this
issue.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
As at 11.59PM, on 18 March, I have received no further correspondence from Mr Williams, nor from any other representative of the Taxpayers Union. Not even a simple acknowledgement of having received my 16 March email.
It is interesting to note the circumstances surrounding this issue.
I emailed the Taxpayers Union because it had commented – and roundly condemned – Mojo Mathers’ flight from Christchurch to Masterton, to attend a radio interview on the issue of disabilities.
On 2 March, Jordan Williams made this statement on the resulting furore surrounding his remarks on Ms Mathers’ travel;
.
This morning there has been some criticism of my comments in a story on the Herald website about a trip Mojo Mathers took to Masterton from Christchurch apparently just for a short interview on a community radio station.
For clarification:
- The Taxpayers’ Union did not seek media attention on this story. There is no associated press release. The Herald called yesterday evening asking for comment, as happens often.
- The Taxpayers’ Union operate 24 hour media line for comment on taxpayer issues. Yesterday’s call came through to me and I was asked whether it was value for money for an MP to fly 800km for a radio interview on a small community station. I said it was not value for money when the interview could have been done on Skype as well as the comments that are quoted in the story.
- I’ve made no comment about Ms Mathers disability. In fact, if the travel was necessary I would not criticise the spending. But answering questions posed by the Herald, on matter which as far as I know are completely unrelated to her disability, is legitimate.
- Accusations that I (or the Union) sought to go after Mathers are ridiculous. To repeat, we were asked for comment by the Herald who were running the story. The comments would have been the same whoever the MP.
- Accusations that the Taxpayers’ Union are partisan are also silly. I am proud that the Union has gone after National MPs and the current government for expenses, wasteful expenditure and corporate welfare. Seehttp://info.scoop.co.nz/New_Zealand_Taxpayers’_Union
On reflection, I wonder why an MP from a party that prides itself for having a low environmental footprint choose to fly to a radio interview that could have been done on Skype. Perhaps Ms Mathers had other engagements in Masterton. If so, that was not the information provided to me at the time by the Herald reporter.
Jordan Williams.
Note Mr Williams’ statement;
Accusations that the Taxpayers’ Union are partisan are also silly. I am proud that the Union has gone after National MPs and the current government for expenses, wasteful expenditure and corporate welfare
Aside from a handful of press releases aimed at National Minister, Steven Joyce, most of the Taxpayers Unions public comments seemed to target Auckland mayor Len Brown; government departments (whilst not mentioning their Ministers); and strangely, the Labour Party – which is not even in government.
The Taxpayers Union has not commented on Judith Collins’ trip to China, despite there being glaring questions which demand to be asked. Questions such as why a Minister of Justice/Ethnic Affairs/ACC felt the need to spend $36,000 of taxpayers’ money on a junket overseas.
Mr Williams has not deigned to respond to my queries with a comment.
Yet, he was only too happy to launch into a savage excoriation of Green MP, Mojo Mathers, for spending an estimated $500 to speak on an issue that was actually her portfolio – and which, because of her disability, is a matter she is intimately familiar to speak on.
One can only assume that Mr Williams does not wish to be drawn into this issue. The reason is quite apparent.
Jordan Williams is closely connected to the likes of David Farrar, Cameron Slater, and Simon Lusk – all of whom are hard-Right National/ACT supporters and apparatchiks.
Right-wing blogger, David Farrar, is one of the Board members of the Taxpayers Union. His ‘bio‘, however, mentions nothing about his close links to the National Party,
“David is a well known political blogger and commentator. David also owns and manages the specialist polling agency Curia Market Research and has an active involvement in Internet issues. He is an experienced political campaigner and former parliamentary staffer.
“I helped form the New Zealand Taxpayers Union because I believe that New Zealand needs a lobby group to stand up for the rights of taxpayers and ratepayers, and fight against those who treat them as a never ending source of funds”.”
David Farrar’s Disclosure Statement on Kiwiblog;
“Since I joined Young Nationals in 1986, I have been affiliated to, and a member of, the National Party. I do not regard National as always right, but it is the party which I believe gives me the greatest opportunity to achieve the New Zealand I want.
As a volunteer, I established National’s initial Internet presence in 1996 and have held various roles in the party up until 2005. I have three times been a temporary contractor to National HQ, helping out with the campaign in 1999, and also between staff appointments – in 2004 and 2007 for a total of ten months.”
Other Board Members are;
John Bishop; businessman; columnist for the right-leaning NBR; and authored a “puff piece” on National’s Deputy Leader, Bill English; Constituency Services Manager, ACT Parliamentary Office, April 2000 – August 2002, “developing relationships with key target groups and organising events”.
Gabrielle O’Brien; businesswoman; National Party office holder, 2000-2009.
Jordan McCluskey; University student; member of the Young Nationals.
Jono (Jonathan) Brown; Administrator/Accounts Clerk at the Apostolic Equippers [Church] Wellington, which, amongst other conservative policies, opposed the marriage equality Bill.
None of this is mentioned even in passing on the Taxpayers Union ‘Who We Are‘ page.
By now, it should be patently obvious that the Taxpayers Union is little more than a thinly-disguised, right-wing, front organisation for the National Party.
In which case, it would be “counter-productive” of the Taxpayers Union to be criticising Judith Collins’ trip to China. It would be a case of attacking one of their own.
.
*
.
References
Taxpayers Union: A question of value for taxpayer money
TV1: Key puts Collins on warning, opposition calls for sacking
Fairfax Media: Anti-MMP plan leaked
Taxpayers Union: Who we are
Kiwiblog: Disclosure Statement
Finda.co.nz: John Bishop Communicator
Johnbishop.co.nz: Bill English – Minister of Infrastructure
Advisoryboards.co.nz: Curriculum Vitae: John Bishop – Advisory Boards NZ
LinkedIn: Gabrielle O’Brien
LinkedIn: Jordan McCluskey
LinkedIn: Jonathan [“Jono”] Brown
Newswire.co.nz: ‘Not up to church to dictate on gay marriage’
See Also
NZ Herald: John Drinnan – High-risk PR strategy flies
Sciblogs: Jesus heals — but not cancer! [Equippers Church]
Previous related blogposts
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
A Query to the Taxpayers Union
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 March 2014.
.
.
= fs =
National MP admits collusion with bosses to set up strike-breaking law!!
.
.
National MP (Botany), Jami-Lee Ross, has admitted that he has colluded with POAL (Ports of Auckland Ltd) bosses to draft his proposed strike-breaking amendment, the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill. On TV3’s The Nation on 22 June, Ross confirmed that he had been in talks with employers during the height of the industrial dispute between the POAL and MUNZ (Maritime Union);
.
Source: Youtube –
.
At 0:50, Rachel Smalley asks Ross,
“Do the Employers and Manufacturers Association support it?”
Ross’s answer was not at all truthful, and his response was utterly mis-leading. Smalley has to point out to him that the Employers and Manufacturers in fact do not support Ross’s Bill.
This is the first indication that Ross is prepared to ‘spin’ lack of support or outright opposition, in a sly, dishonest fashion. Smalley, who is aware of the Employers and Manufacturers Association position, corrects him,
“I don’t think they support it though, do they, which is quite interesting.”
In fact, the Employers and Manufacturers Association said in a media statement, that “while its principles are worth exploring it could prove very divisive.”
Acknowledgement: Scoop Media – Balloted Bill possibly a bridge too far
The same media release went on to slate Ross’s Bill,
“New Zealand communities place a high value on fairness and the Bill could have consequences that would be considered unfair.”
Acknowledgement: IBID
When even employers start perceiving a piece of anti-union legislisation as unfair, then that speaks volumes. Employers are not stupid. They understand that it only takes one unjust law to make workers more militant. That, in turn would generate increased support for a much-weakened trade union movement in this country.
At 1:40, Smalley asked,
“Does the NZ Initiative support it?”
Ross again evaded giving a straight answer, and Smalley pointed out to him that even the right-wing think-tank is dubious about the worth of the Bill.
Then at 2:18, Ross gets to the nub of the matter,
“There’s the potential once the economy really picks up again that we could seeing a whole lot more strikes.”
Ross’s statement is his first candid admission that the raison d’être of his Bill is not the “fairness”, “balance” or “choice” that he has been espousing.
Ross’s sole agenda is to crack down on strikes. Ross is targetting the most fundamental rights of human beings;
- to work together collectively, for mutual benefit
- to with-hold labour when workers deem it necessary
Working together collectively is not just a worker’s prerogative. Collective action is also used by employers who have their own groupings,
.
.
.
.
Ross’s next admission was political dynamite. At 3:26, Rachel Smalley asked Ross,
“Where does this Bill have it’s origins?”
Ross deflected with waffle about “the rights of New Zealand”.
Smalley persisted,
“Or is it on the wharves of the ports of Auckland, is that where it’s origins lie?”
Ross side-stepped by remarking that “a drawn out strike can have a quite a big impact on the wider economy“.
Then, at 4:00, Smalley asked the million-dollar question,
“Have you discussed this Bill with Ports of Auckland [Ltd]?”
At last, Ross could not evade the questioning and admitted,
“A long time ago. That was an issue that was raised.”
Smalley asked,
“How long ago?”
Ross replied,
“Oh, might have been when the industrial dispute was in full swing…”
This blogger has a fairly good idea when Ross and Ports of Auckland Ltd bosses had their little “chat”: around
On 11 January 2012, Jami-Lee Ross wrote this anti-union opinion piece for Scoop Media,
.
The latest development in the protracted Ports of Auckland industrial dispute must give all parties to the issue pause for thought. Continued industrial action would adversely affect the Port even further and could undermine the Maritime Union’s very reason for being.
The announcement by Fonterra recently that it is moving the company’s business from Auckland to Tauranga and Napier was a blow for the Queen City. While the negotiations between the Maritime Union and Ports of Auckland management may be a distant and removed matter for the average Aucklander, they must know the issue is now one of a fight for their port’s survival.
Every Aucklander has a stake in the Ports of Auckland. It is not a privately owned company. Nor is it listed on any stock exchange. Each and every share in the company is owned by the Auckland Council on behalf of 1.4 million Auckland residents and ratepayers. The destruction in value in one of our city’s largest public assets is alarming and has to be of concern to us all.
I don’t use the term “destruction in value” lightly. It is a strong term, but one that is appropriate for this issue. Just as losing the business of Maersk in December was no laughing matter, losing Fonterra can not be ignored. At a reported weekly trade value of $27million, annualised the loss of Fonterra’s custom represents around $1.4 billion of export business.
But numbers aside, it is obvious that losing the trade of New Zealand’s largest company, only a month after losing the business of one of the worlds largest shipping lines, has to be a wakeup call. Yet sadly for the Maritime Union, it isn’t. Sadly for port workers and Aucklanders alike, the Maritime Union continues to be unphased.
This isn’t a story of a greedy corporate hammering the little guy. This isn’t a story of a David versus Goliath battle where workers are being ripped off or paid a pittance. Few could call poverty on an average annual wage for a wharfie understood to be north of $90,000, with a proposed 10 percent hourly rate increase and performance bonuses of up to 20 percent, sitting on the table. To the average person on the street, the latest Ports of Auckland offer to the Union would almost seem generous.
This is in fact a story of the Maritime Union biting the hand that feeds them. It is a story of industrial action that, if left to go on much longer, could have disastrous consequences for the Ports of Auckland.
For commercial users, it is a simple matter of certainty and continuity Union action, and the threat of further strikes, have put a serious dent in the Ports of Auckland’s ability to provide their bread and butter services Customers are now voting with their feet. The value of Ports of Auckland and the value of the investment that every Aucklander has in the company will continue to suffer if resolution to this matter is not swift.
Aucklanders can rightly be concerned at the increasingly rogue nature of the Maritime Union. However there are 500 men and women that work at the Port with even more skin in the game and a lot more to lose. The trade union movement evolved through a desire for workers to band together to protect their common interests. This is not a dishonourable goal. But when a union loses sight of its members long term interests and cavalier negotiating tactics start to backfire, the union itself begins putting its own member’s livelihoods at risk.
Unions still occupy a privileged position in New Zealand’s employment law; a relic of the last Labour administration which has not seen significant overhaul for some years. Few non-government organisations can boast clauses in legislation specifically designed for their benefit. Despite only 18 percent of the nation’s workforce being unionised, trade unions can look to whole sections of the Employment Relations Act written exclusively to aid union survival through legislative advantage.
Up until recently, cool heads and rational people sitting around negotiating tables have meant that little focus has been placed on the role that unions play in society. However, with the bare-faced mockery that the Maritime Union is making of civilised negotiations New Zealanders will soon begin to question what position unions should hold in the modern Kiwi workplace.
As the fight for Auckland’s waterfront reaches the tipping point, for ratepayers and workers alike this present stand off must come to an end. The city’s $600 million port investment and worker’s jobs are now on the line. Also on the line is the country’s acceptance of the role of trade unions. It can not be tolerable or acceptable for a union to demonstrate continued disregard for the economic consequences of their actions.
*Jami-Lee Ross is the Member of Parliament for Botany. He was formerly a member of the Auckland and Manukau City Councils.
Acknowledgement: Scoop Media – Union biting the hand that feeds
.
Four months after his statement, Jamie Lee Ross spoke in support of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, allowing secret ballot’s before workers decided to take strike action.
Ross put it thusly,
“Today is liberation day. Today is liberation day for New Zealand workers who are members of unions that have not yet embraced the democratic principles of holding a secret ballot when strike action is being considered. I say it is a shame that members of the Opposition are not supporting this bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill.” – Jami-Lee Ross, 9 May 2012,
Acknowledgement: Hansards, Parliament
Ross further advocated for secret ballots prior to strike action,
“If members want to stand in this House and say that they do support the concept of secret ballots, which is what a number of speeches have been saying in both the first and second readings—and we have heard it a few times this afternoon as well—and that they think it is a good thing that a number of unions already have secret ballot provisions in their rules, then they should go the step further and support this bill, and do the right thing by giving workers the freedom that they deserve.” – Jami-Lee Ross, 9 May 2012,
Acknowledgement: IBID
(Irony of ironies, all MPs votes on legislation are a matter of public record, and recorded in Hansards. There is no secret ballot when MPs vote.)
The Bill passed and became law on 14 May 2012
So what was the relevance between the law that Ross supported and the Ports of Auckland dispute? It seems that the POAL dispute was weighing heavily on the MP’s mind during the third reading of this Bill,
“I want to also touch on the Ports of Auckland for a moment, because I think it is important that we talk a little bit about what has become the key and well-known industrial dispute this year. It is fair to say that the Ports of Auckland dispute probably would not have got as bad as it did if there was the opportunity for those Ports of Auckland workers to have a secret ballot for their strike.” – Jami-Lee Ross, 9 May 2012,
Acknowledgement: IBID
It should also be noted that the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill was a Private Member’s Bill sponsored by National backbench MP, Tau Henare – also noted for his hostility toward the trade union movement.
As is the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill – sponsored by Jami-Lee Ross.
The government, it seems, does not want to get it’s hands dirty with Union-smashing legislation. Dear Leader John Key made his feelings abundantly clear in March 2012 when he played the positive-sounding propagandist mouth-piece for POAL bosses,
“I think they went through a genuine good faith process,” he told TVNZ’s Breakfast programme.
The company believed it was losing business, primarily to the Port of Tauranga, because it wasn’t competitive.
“Their view is unless they change, it will be death by a thousand cuts.”
Demand from the council for a 12 per cent return from the company within five years, up from a current 6 per cent, had not lead to the dispute, Key said.
The port had struggled with financial problems for some time and cash flow issues had forced it to sell Queens Wharf to the Government.
“Unless that’s an efficient workplace, unless it’s competitive, ultimately they will continue to lose business.”
The company was trying to make savings at the port to protect all its jobs, he said,
“And I guess they have moved to this issue where they want to go to outsourcing.”
The company needed to find almost 300 workers and would take people with experience.
“I suspect quite a lot of the people who have been made redundant will actually reapply and funnily enough get their job back just through a different vehicle… the conditions will be different.”
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Jackson pulls back from port comments
So how involved was the Ports of Auckland Ltd bosses in motivating, encouraging, or actively sponsoring Ross to write his strike-breaking Bill?
Rachel Smalley put that question to Ross in the same interview. At 4:28 she asked,
“What was the Port’s input into the Bill?
Ross replied,
“The Ports [of Auckland Ltd] indicated that during a strike like every organisation that is affected by a strike, they’re unable to keep their business going…”
So the bosses at POAL indicated to Ross that they were unable to keep their business going – and the MP for Botany duly obliged with a Bill that he fully admits POAL mananagement had input into.
This is commonly known as collusion.
What makes it all the much worse is that POAL is a publicly-owned company (by Auckland ratepayers) – and it’s own management acted against the interests of the community, as if it were some predatory trans-national corporation.
Indeed, that is precisely how Ports of Auckland Ltd management have behaved during the long-running industrial dispute;
- 12 January 2012 – Leaked POAL papers showed that management were running their own agenda “of ramping up the current industrial dispute while saying they want to resolve it.The draft management plan sets out a comprehensive contracting out plan, disparages the ports owners and board of directors, and predetermines there is no intention of seeking a negotiated solution.” (source)
- 22 March 2012 – Ports workers were served a lockout notice from Ports of Auckland LTD management just hours before a vote to bring to an end strike action. (source)
- 22 March 2012 – A POAL manager involved in negotiations with the Maritime Union was linked to a company, Pacific Crew Holdings Ltd, recruiting non-unionised wharfies for a new company, registered with the Companies Office only a month earlier. (source)
- 27 March 2012 – Employment Relations Authority issued a judgement in favour of Maritime Union not to harass workers; not to make union member redundant; not to hire scab labour; not to engage Drake New Zealand Ltd or Allied Workforce Ltd or any other person to perform the work of striking/locked-out employees; not to pressure union members to sign contracts with Drake or Allied Workforce, etc. (source)
- 12 April 2012 – POAL bosses admitted leaking private details of a port worker to a right wing blogger. The maritime worker had lost his wife to cancer. The blogger was closely connected to POAL, and may have been paid for writing pro-management propaganda on his blog. (source)
- 13 August 2012 – Maritime Union outlined cases of bullying by POAL management, ”every time somebody coughs there is a disciplinary hearing, they are attacking people continuously, making their lives miserable. There are people getting disciplined for all sorts of things, – it’s ridiculous for infinitesimal little things. They [workers] think it’s part of their [management] campaign to undermine the workforce to try and get them a little bit weakened so they will agree to what is put to them.” (source)
It should be obvious to all by now that POAL management had no intention whatsoever of negotiating with the Maritime Union in good faith, as the Employment Relations Act requires.
It was also suggested that POAL management were setting up the Ports company for eventual privatisation (see: NBR – Plea for ratepayers to give up port control). Rationalising a workforce is usually a precursor to a privatisation agenda.
Whether or not Jami-Lee Ross’s strike breaking Bill becomes law is by no means guaranteed. Even if National finds the couple of votes needed to pass it into law, this blogger has no doubt that an incoming Labour-Green-Mana government will consign it to the rubbish bin of political history. Where it rightly belongs with other laws that threaten the livelihoods of New Zealanders and their families.
Make no mistake, this Bill has nothing to do with “fairness”, “balance”, or “choice” , etc.
This Bill has only one goal; to force workers not to strike, by fear-threat of losing their jobs and replaced by strike-breaking scab labour. With unemployment at 146,000 unemployed according to a recent Household Labour Force Survey, there would be many desperate to get into a job – even if it meant displacing a striking worker. This is the dog-eat-dog world of the “Free” Market, and which Jami-Lee Ross wants to aggravate for the ordinary working man and woman.
It is fairly clear that Jami-Lee Ross and Ports of Auckland Ltd management have colluded to draft this Bill.
It is further clear that POAL had this Bill in mind to break the authority of the Maritime Union to negotiate on behalf of it’s members.
And it’s further clear that POAL had in mind this strike-breaking Bill as part of it’s over-arching agenda.
For Jami-Lee Ross, he is in a no-lose situation. If his Bill becomes law, he cements his reputation as a willing tool of the employers to do their bidding. (Much like Simon Lusk advocated in his far right plan to make MPs beholding to donors. See: National turns on hard right advisor)
And if the Bill fails, he still builds a reputation as a right wing politician willing to work with fiscal conservatives; employers; and any others who advance the neo-liberal agenda.
Jami-Lee Ross – willing servant of bosses; conservatives; and cashed-up donors.
Finally,
“Going on strike cannot be easy. It can be financially and morally devastating.” – Jami-Lee Ross, 9 May 2012,
Acknowledgement: Hansards, Parliament
Yes, indeed. Very “financially and morally devastating“. Especially if Mr Ross get’s his way.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 2 July 2013.
.
*
.
References
Scoop Media: Union biting the hand that feeds (11 Jan 2012)
Fairfax Media: Port workers claim bullying continues (13 Aug 2012)
Fairfax Media: Bosses bypass new era (11 Nov 2012)
Fairfax Media: Kiwi bosses’ attitude repels expats (15 Dec 2012)
Fairfax Media: Unionist slams ‘assault on workers’ (27 April 2013)
Scoop Media: Balloted Bill possibly a bridge too far (14 June 2013)
Other Blogs
Bowalley Road: The Right To Say – “No.”
Waitakere News: National’s generic press release for introduction of new bill
.
.
= fs =
David Farrar – Challenging Slater for Sultan of Sleaze?
On Kiwiblog, on 4 June, David Farrar posted this curious item,
.
Acknowledgment – Kiwiblog – A Question
.
In effect, Kiwiblogger, David Farrar – a known contractor, supporter, and apparatchik for the National Party – accused prominent progressive blogger, Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury of a “shocking breach of ethics” by allegedly not disclosing being on the “parliamentary payroll for the last 18 months to two years as a parliamentary communications advisor to a political party“.
More on problems with Mr Farrar’s own disclosures here: Continuous disclosure
Is it true?! Did Bradbury hide his links to the Mana Party?
Hardly. As Martyn’s own disclosure on The Daily Blog quite clearly states,
“He has appeared at numerous political and union functions over the last few years. He is a political consultant to organisations of the left and centre-left and argued for the creation of the MANA Party as a party to the Left of the Greens as a means for the Left to win back Parliament. Mr Bradbury also hosts the current affairs show ‘Citizen A’ on Face TV and was Editor in Residence at the Wintec School of Journalism. “
Acknowledgment – The Daily Blog – About Martyn Bradbury
So as a ‘Shock! Horror! Probe!’ story – it’s pretty much a non-story. Anyone with two inter-connecting neuron-cells could’ve found this info with three mouse-clicks. (Has Farrar investigated whether David Shearer is a member of the Labour Party? That’d be a real revelation!!)
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is precisely where Farrar sourced his info from; Martyn’s own disclosure at The Daily Blog.
So, if it’s no secret, what was Farrar’s agenda in all this?
Slow news/blog night?
Boredom?
Or… was it a little more devious?
Let’s look behind this event…
Arch right-wing ‘shaker and mover’, Simon Lusk has been in the media lately, with his bizarre plans to move New Zealand politics to the right; capture and politicise the civil service; “dominate” the media and blogosphere; seeking donations from American neo-conservatives; and to increase his power-base in the National Party;
.
Acknowledgment – NZ Herald – National turns on hard right advisor
.
Acknowledgment – Fairfax Media – Seriously happy to upset the status quo
.
Acknowledgment – NBR – PM responds to secret plans to push the Nats to the right
.
So it’s fairly clear – there’s one helluva sh*t-storm going on behind the scenes in the National Party.
Recent headlines at major blogs such as The Daily Blog, The Standard, and elsewhere, have also focused on Lusk and his machinations,
Breaking News: Dark plot about to be exposed within National Party
Lusk & Slater: Dirty Deeds Done Poorly
Will the mainstream media continue to use Cameron Slater as a commentator now he’s been exposed?
What the left can learn from Lusk
Many of the critiques were penned by Martyn Bradbury.
Was Farrar’s blogpost on Martyn a random event? Or is there a more sinister aspect to this story – especially as Farrar’s blogpost was backed up by Cameron Slater on the same day – 4 June (see slimy Whalesoil blogpost: Paid Blogger outed, It’s Martyn Bradbury).
The answer, I submit to the reader, can be found here;
.
Acknowledgment – Fairfax Media – Anti-MMP plan leaked
.
Lusk. Jordan. Farrar. Cameron Slater. A cabal of four known right-wingers, who are deeply connected with each other, socially and politically.
And just to drive home the connection;.
Acknowledgment – Selection Training Weekend – Dates: Saturday 28th & Sunday 29th of january
.
The above screen-cap was taken from a document outlining a “training session” from one of Lusk’s private “training camps” for wannabe National Party candidates. (More on those “training camps here: National turns on hard right advisor)
Those are the the links.
It’s obvious to all that this has been a particularly nasty vendetta against Martyn by a small clique of rabid right-wing activists.
Martyn’s “crime”?
Being highly successful at being one of the best centre-left bloggers in this country and critic of the right wing agenda.
When the Right target you in such a deceptive, spiteful manner, it proves just how effective you are. And how desperate the Right are becoming as the centre-left gains ascendency.
Well done, Martyn.
Carry on.
.
*
.
References
Fairfax Media: Anti-MMP plan leaked (29 May 2011)
Previous Related Blogpost
Power Struggle in the National Party?!
Some thoughts on the anti-MMP campaign
.
.
= fs =
Power Struggle in the National Party?!
.
.
It seems that National’s right-wing faction is starting to flex it’s muscles.
More disturbingly, this faction – which includes shadowy National apparatchik, Michael Lusk – has also been connected to ACT and the anti-MMP coterie, “Vote for Change”.,
“Another important figure is Simon Lusk, a specialist in negative political campaigns, an adviser to a number of National MPs, and a key figure in the Brash/Hide coup. Brash’s putsch was about as negative as a political campaign can get, and sources say that some of Lusk’s National mates were angry with him about it…
… Lusk, 38, is based in Hawke’s Bay and is a tough political activist and a well-known hunter and fisher. He has helped run campaigns for a number of National MPs, and was involved in National’s 2005 discussions with the Brethren church. He hunts with Williams.
Another hunter helping in the campaign is National blogger Cameron Slater, known as Whale Oil. “I’m going shooting with him [Lusk] next week,” Slater told the Star-Times. He also said Lusk “may well be [involved in the campaign], but that’s up to him if he wants to do that.” “
See: Right has MMP in its sights
Simon Lusk is also closely involved with right-wing blogger, and National Party provocateur, Cameron Slater.
Lusk has been closely connected with several National MPs and has assisted with their elected campaigns,
“But Lusk is a gifted operator. Besides the Brash coup, he helped National’s Louise Upston win Taupo in 2008 – she thanked him “from the bottom of her heart” in her maiden speech for leading the campaign. Maungakiekie National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga thanked Lusk in his maiden speech in 2008 for his “shrewd counsel”.
In 2005, Lusk was running National’s campaign in the Napier electorate, and was involved with discussions with the Exclusive Brethren and their undeclared campaign to back National, as Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men reveals. Lusk keeps out of the limelight, but it is known that he lives in Waipawa and works for The Venulum Group, a wealth management firm based in the British Virgin Islands.”
– Ibid
He was also implicated in Don Brash’s now-infamous coup d’état of the ACT Party, which saw the over-throw and replacement of Rodney Hide as Party Leader, and other shady dealings,
“Behind the scenes, key players will be Simon Lusk and Jordan Williams, two men who played major roles in Don Brash’s recent ACT Leadership coup.
Simon Lusk is an adviser to many National MPs and was involved in National’s 2005 discussions with the Exclusive Brethren, exposed in the Nicky Hager book ‘The Hollow Men’. “
See: Anti-MMP campaigners motives criticised
Lusk’s name also came up in the Nick Smith/Bronwyn Pullar/ACC/Michelle Boag/Judith Collins fiasco,
” Confirmation that Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff will investigate the email’s trail from Ms Boag to an eventual report in the Herald on Sunday came as Labour claimed Ms Collins, National Party operative Simon Lusk and right-wing blogger Cameron Slater all played a part in the leak. “
See: Probe into email leak welcome, says Collins
TV3 thought it enough of a story to air this segment on it’s 6PM News Broadcast tonight (8 May),
.
.
(As a side note, John Key’s memory seems to be as poor as John Banks. The water in the Beehive should perhaps be tested for memory-eating microbes.)
What is cause for concern is that National MP Michael Woodhouse told the Board,
“Candidates College
Michael reported that he has had a discussion with those MPs that have had an involvement with Simon Lusk. He has let them know that it is not appropriate for any MPs to engage with any alternative Candidates’ School that is not sanctioned by the Party. He said that this has been understood by all.He noted that these discussions had given rise to further discussion about the Party’s Candidates College and the gap in content that it potentially has.
He reported that Simon Lusk is running a further meeting purportedly aimed at educating local body aspirants. This has led some in Caucus to ask where the Party is positioned with local Body politics particularly in Auckland. Some Caucus members feel that they should be involved in this training programme. Michael believes however that they should remain distant and will have that discussion with those MPs.
Update on Simon Lusk
Michael reported a disturbing discussion that he has had with Simon Lusk that highlighted his motivations and a very negative agenda for the Party.
It was agreed that light needs to be shed on these issues with key influencers within the Party.
It was further agreed that his agenda represents a serious risk to the Party and this issue will be followed up with a further meeting between the President and the Whip.”
See: Scoop – Leaked National Party Bd Minutes Re, Simon Lusk
Considering that Lusk has right wing tendencies; and if Woodhouse considered Lusk’s comments to be “disturbing” and “very negative”; then it is a fairly safe assumption that Simon Lusk has an agenda to push National so far to the right of the political spectrum – as to make ACT thoroughly redundant.
This would make National un-electable for the next few decades, at least. But how much damage could a far-right National-led governmment do in the meantime, until it was thrown out of office?
In a previous blogpiece, on 29 March, I wrote this about Lusk’s hunting chum, Cameron Slater,
“Using Third Parties such as Slater, to spread muck has it’s inherent dangers.
Eventually, the entanglements and the copious volumes of information at the hands of someone like Slater creates it’s own risks for his “handler(s)”. Slater will have considerable dirt on those who have leaked information to him. He will have to be “kept sweet”, to deny him cause to go rogue and threaten to disclose information embarressing to those who have fed him material in the past.”
See: Born to Rule
I have no doubt the same applies to Simon Lusk.
In the 1990s, the Alliance Party was be-devilled by a marxist-leninist faction known as “Permanent Revolution”. Though tiny in number, they were a disruptive influence. The Party hierarchy took action and expelled the faction, on the basis that PR was a separate party, and therefore conflicted with the Alliance’s membership rules.
National may have no choice but to distance itself from Simon Lusk, Cameron Slater, and their associate, Jordan Williams. The last thing the Nats need right now is a small cabal of agitators within their ranks.
Not that I have any great love for National – but an unstable government will ‘spook’ the markets, raising interest rates, and mess up my mortgages.
It’s time to “clean house”, Mr Key.
.
*
.
Other Blogs
Waitakere News: Has Banks been training Key how to answer questions about Simon Lusk?
The Standard: Nat Civil War: ceasefire breached
.
.
= fs =
Some thoughts on the anti-MMP campaign
.
.
With the referendum come and gone, it’s worthwhile looking back at the anti-MMP clique, the so-called “Vote for Change“.
As far as campaigns go, “Vote for Change” had to be one of the most amateurish in living memory.
First, it was uncovered that “Vote for Change” was to be organised by National and ACT apparatchiks. People like Simon Lusk, David Farrar, Cameron Slater, and Jordan Williams – all deeply connected or associated, in one way or another, with right wing politics,
.
.
If those revelations were deliberately “leaked” to the media for free publicity – it was not a “good look” to let the public know that “Vote for Change” was a front-organisation for National and ACT.
If that leak was not authorised, then someone in the “Vote for Change” camp was not happy. An unhappy camper was not a very auspicious start.
Then, it was discovered by another blogger, Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, of “Tumeke”, that one of “Vote for Change’s” supporters was a white-supremacist who advocated nazi-style racial separation,
.
.
“Vote for Change” was quickly developing an image as an elitist club for assorted right wingers.
The only exception to “Vote for Change’s” roll call of conservative businesspeople; right wing politicians; and National/ACT activists was former Labour Party president and Waitakere mayor, Bob Harvey.
But he quickly realised the political bed-fellows he was associating with, and made his own call to quit,
.
.
These were fatal blows to the anti-MMP lobby group. They never really recovered from these gaffes and the public perception was of a conservative organisation that was wanting to take New Zealand backward, to the days of single-party Parliamentary rule.
Even “Vote for Change’s” announcement on 29 October that their group had chosen SM (Supplementary Member) to promote as an alternative to MMP was seen by many as a return to FPP-by-the-back-door. It was another blow to their credibility; “Vote for Change” was not advocating change at all.
It was a strategic mistake for “Vote for Change” to promote SM. SM was the least known of all electoral systems, and in the 1992 referendum had polled the lowest at just over 5%.
If “Vote for Change” had really wanted change – they should have chosen STV. But they did not – STV is also a proportional system and that is the last thing Williams, Lusk, Farrar, et al wanted for New Zealand.
It was blindingly obvious that their agenda was to destroy any semblance of multi-party government and replace proportional representation with a system that would allow for single-party rule.
They were seeking absolute power for National.
Most people, I believe got this. Older, Baby Boomers, of a liberal persuasion, had unpleasant memories of the outrageous abuses of power by Muldoon, Douglas, Bolger, Richardson, et al.
Younger people who had no experience of FPP regimes most likely had no interest in a system that favoured only two parties and reduced their choices. (Neo-liberals, in this respect, had successfully socially re-engineered NZ society to prefer choice over a two-party, take-it-or-leave-it, offering.)
Aside from National Party supporters, New Zealanders did not want to take A Giant Leap Backwards. “Vote for Change” offered nothing except an old, discredited electoral system, and fear-mongering,
.
.
Using Winston Peters as a scare-mongering tactic was not just clumsy – but evidence that “Vote for Change” had no real intellectual rigour in promoting their cause. Demonising one man – as disliked as he might be by some voters – is not really a sensible reason to throw out MMP and turn our entire electoral system upside down, on it’s head.
This was the tactics of spoilt children who could give no other reason to cater to their whims except, “do it – or else!”.
Not exactly a convincing argument.
But perhaps the best example of a *facepalm* situation was having National Party candidate, Simon Bridges (now MP), on their website,
.
.
Bridges was positively fuming when he complained,
“It gets under my goat that list MPs are not subject to direct democracy. They’re chosen by a small power elite in each party, so MMP has taken power off the voter.”
FYI: Simon Bridges was #30 on National’s Party List. Had he not won the electorate of Tauranga, he would have returned to Parliament as a Party List MP.
That would’ve been interesting.
.
Additional
Pundit: I’ve just been internalising a really complicated situation in my head
.
.
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 