Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

14 Comments

  1. A counter argument is that what was used when Hager used dubiously obtained emails to write a book or when the brash emails were leaked.

    In those occasions it was deemed to be in the “public interest’ that those matters were given the once over in daylight.

    Is the funding of NZFirst not in the “public interest”?

    Judging by the bullying tactics of lawyer Henry (including the latest drip fed revelations in Stuff this morning) there is much that needs to see daylight and be placed before the public.

    Or is the CoL exempt from having a reveal that may be in the “public interest”.

    1. I think part of Chris Trotter’s thrust is that NZ First finances are obviously of MORE interest to “someone”, than for instance the Blind Trusts the Nats are known for using. Such as the Waitemata Trust in the Key era. Or the Bridges/Ross donation splitting. Why might that be?

      This is not about public interest at all, it is Dirty Politics in full view. That the Nats aim to take office by any and all means is becoming clearer by the day.

      By the way, in his forward to “The Hollow Men”, Nicky Hager makes it clear that NZ National Party insiders were his significant sources.

      1. Tiger Mountain Yes. I’d thought that there is big money behind the continuing attempts to destroy Winston Peters, but the target must be Mr Peters and NZ First. The media focus on just one party could be back firing.

        Funny how we all thought that dirty politics would be following John Key down the hill.

    2. No party should be exempt. But the fact is democracy can protect itself from corruption by having state funding of political parties.

      1. Totally disagree. No state funding. As private organisations, no political party should be receiving any state funding.

        What we need is complete transparency where every cent donated to a political party comes from. No funding from trusts, no funding from foundations, no anonymous donations, no funding from unions, etc. Only individuals (even restrict that to citizens only) may contribute in a complete and transparent manner.

        So when say FOR EXAMPLE the Vela Brothers donate to NZFirst and the horse racing plus fisheries policies of NZFirst align with the interests of the Vela Brothers, we the voter can make the call where to place our vote.

        State funding wont stop private cash donations or physical support from interested groups with a mind to persuade the political parties — like free helicopter rides or union members organising pamphlet drops or foreign government interference.

        1. Rather than direct funding perhaps the government should provide more free time on national Radio and TV. And perhaps equal time for all parties that have met the registration criteria to give new parties a chance to break through. Holdings could be voluntary work . If a party can’t enlist voluntary contributions of time it can’t have much appeal.
          We sure as hell don’t want the complete domination of politics by the wealthiest elite that pervades the US system.
          D J S

          1. To David Stone
            “We sure as hell don’t want the complete domination of politics by the wealthiest elite that pervades the US system”
            Agreed 100% BUT we have shades of that already and that needs to be rectified.

        2. “So when say FOR EXAMPLE the Vela Brothers donate to NZFirst and the horse racing plus fisheries policies of NZFirst align with the interests of the Vela Brothers, we the voter can make the call where to place our vote.”

          Or say for example a Mongolian racehorse billionaire mogul, offers National $150,000 for favours or federated farmers…we the voter can make the call where to place our vote.

          https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/150k-foreign-donation-national-deeply-alarming

        3. Sure party funding restricted to two sources – membership dues and identifiable individual donations (regardless of amount) is the other option – albeit advantaging those with more money.

          And state funding could well involve an end to private cash donations. In the US there is the option of public funding or unlimited private money.

          No system will stop lobbying by those with interests, including foreign government interference, nor related third party advertising

    3. A fair comment, Gerrit.

      The question is always “Cui bono?” – who benefits?

      In the case of Hager’s receipt of Rawshark’s hacked e-mails, the beneficiaries were, overwhelmingly, the people of New Zealand. We learned of the way the fabled “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” aided and abetted by people in the PM’s office, had shaped and re-shaped the political narrative – smashing hard into a host of government and business opponents as they did so.

      Not that it worked. Not even Hager’s “Dirty Politics” could derail the John Key Express.

      The 2008 attack on Peters, and the attack just initiated, have a very different purpose. It is clearly intended to drive Peters and his party out of Parliament – thereby destroying the Coalition Government. This partisan objective is confirmed by the fact that all of the attention is focused on NZ First – rather than on the entire system of political funding. Obviously, the latter is in urgent need of reform, but the media is studiously avoiding subjecting National, Labour, the Greens and Act to anything like the same scrutiny as peters and NZ First.

      The short story above is a work of fiction. Max and Malcolm do not exist. All that I hoped to do by writing it was encourage people to ask the sort of questions which very few, if any, of my journalistic colleagues are asking. Who, exactly, is the source of these documents? How were they obtained? And, what did he/she/they/it hope to achieve by leaking them?

      As a thought experiment, ask yourself this question. Would your estimation of The Washington Post’s celebrated Watergate investigation have been as positive if you had known that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (both low level court reporters at the time) were being guided by the Deputy-Director of the FBI?

  2. A relevant point/question that I think has been left out of the news articles so far is who are the beneficiaries of the NZFirst trust and who are the executors.

    1. A cheque addressed to NZ First which (if this ever happened) ended up in the Spencer Trust or the latest KNOW entity – comes perilously close to misappropriation Crimes Act stuff.

      No matter who.

Comments are closed.