Luxon John Campbell Clash Over Big Polluters
Luxon to Campbell: ‘I’d be careful saying that, John’
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has given RNZ host John Campbell a blunt warning following questions about the potential influence of corporate interests on Government policy.
Stuff
Christopher Luxon’s warning to John Campbell matters because this is not some abstract argument about climate policy. Major emitters facing Mike Smith’s court case wanted protection from legal liability, the Government moved to give them exactly that, and Luxon John Campbell questions now expose how ugly that looks.
It is crystal clear from Mike Smith’s tireless forensic examination of timelines that the biggest polluters in NZ simply wrote the Government’s response and they implemented it to stop all current and future legal action against their pollution.
That is exactly what has happened here, and yet when challenged on that, the Prime Minister threatens John Campbell from even daring to ask the question.
How are y’all such simps for big polluting corporations?
Why would any one of you think simply allowing the criminals to write the laws for themselves is a rational response to the climate change challenges at hand?
This Government probably can’t believe how you are all letting them get away with this.
We now know that two major corporates —Fonterra and Z Energy — sent lobbyists into the heart of government to meet with a senior person in the prime minister’s office to argue for a change in the law to favour them and their selfish interests because climate activist Mike Smith had successfully convinced the Supreme Court of New Zealand that his case against major emitters deserved to proceed.
The highest court in the country said this issue was serious enough to be heard. In other words, ordinary New Zealanders may, through the courts, hold massive polluters accountable for the damage caused by climate emissions. And then suddenly this government, typically, moves to change the law. Not after a public campaign. Not after some overwhelming democratic mandate. But after private meetings with the very corporates facing legal exposure. That is the controversy here.
Because even if no explicit deal was done, and a deal was done, and even if every technical lobbying rule was followed, which it wasn’t, the public is entitled to ask a very simple question: Why did this meeting happen at all?
In essence, Fonterra and Z Energy met with a senior figure in Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s office and provided papers advocating their position in support of a change in law to cancel the court proceedings initiated by Mike Smith. Then we are told there are “no papers” on the meeting. No official records. No documentation. Nothing to see here. Yet the companies themselves acknowledge the meeting occurred.
So New Zealanders are left with an extraordinary situation: The corporates remember the meeting. But somehow the government does not, although it has now had to admit a meeting did take place. And the Prime Minister’s defence? He says it does not matter because the government was going to change the law anyway. But that answer creates an even bigger problem – If the government had already decided to change the law, then what exactly was the purpose of the meeting? Why did some of the country’s largest corporates need direct access to a senior political officer in Luxon’s office to provide documents in support of a law change that was supposedly already underway?
Was this consultation? Was it influence? Or was it powerful corporate interests reinforcing a government decision already aligned with their commercial interests?
This is where public trust begins to collapse. Democracy is not just about whether corruption can be proven in a criminal court. It is also about whether ordinary people believe their government acts independently of wealthy and powerful interests.
Right now, many New Zealanders will look at this situation and see a government appearing far more responsive to big corporates than to ordinary citizens worried about climate change, environmental damage, and accountability and indeed every day-to-day issues citizens have to deal with especially arising from the war that Trump and Israel commenced against Iran.
This perception matters especially when the proposed legal changes conveniently protect major emitters from future litigation. Especially when the people asking for the law to change are the very companies facing legal risk. Especially when the courts had already said the case deserved to proceed.
The message this sends is deeply troubling. If a legal case threatens powerful interests badly enough, those interests can simply walk into government offices and ask politicians to rewrite the rules. That is not how public confidence is strengthened. That is how cynicism grows.
And perhaps most damaging of all is the arrogance of the response. New Zealanders are effectively being told: “Yes, the meeting happened. Yes, the corporates wanted the law changed. Yes, the law has changed (in favour of the corporate emitters), but you should not be concerned.”
No democracy should ever ask its citizens to stop asking questions when power and influence intersect behind closed doors. Because transparency matters. Accountability matters. And the appearance of political capture by corporate interests matters. Especially in a country that prides itself on being one of the least corrupt democracies in the world.
The real issue here is not simply whether a meeting took place. It is whether New Zealanders still believe their government governs for the public — or for the corporates with the biggest balance sheets and the best access.
And to add insult to injury, Luxon issues a subtle threat to John Campbell when John raises it with him and the right-wing media simply report the issue without asking probing questions. Welcome to Trump land.
The right wing media didn’t raise questions in Jim Grennons NZ Herald though, why not? Because he was to busy trying to hide his funding to an anti left hate campaign…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360984942/judge-rejects-billionaire-jim-grenons-bid-stop-media-reporting
” Former Attorney-General, Hon Chris Finlayson KC, says the increasing risks of corruption in New Zealand’s political system highlighted in the report are very serious and reach beyond party politics ”
Even a former National Attorney General can see the serious danger.
Can we as a people unite regardless of party ideology and agenda’s and say no we aren’t going to be defined by the corrupt practices now plainly evident at all levels of our political parties and government that now seems to be an acceptable badge of honor for the current government , our PM and those with the money to subvert our rule of law and what’s left of our sovereign parliament that was always the people’s house but is now the ” corporate house “
“This observation from the Helen Clark foundation.
“Our political integrity and honesty has largely evolved from social norms over many decades. Politicians by and large knew the conduct that was expected of them by New Zealand society. Sadly, today, we’re naïve to think that’s enough,” says the author of the report, Philippa Yasbek.
“New Zealand needs stronger laws and regulations to improve trust and confidence in political decision-making, or we risk seeing the rise of populist leaders who are prepared to sweep away democratic norms.”
Former Attorney-General, Hon Chris Finlayson KC, says the increasing risks of corruption in New Zealand’s political system highlighted in the report are very serious and reach beyond party politics.
“Corruption is an insidious cancer. It is not enough for democracies like ours to pay lip service to principles of transparency and steps which need to be taken against corruption,” Hon Finlayson said.
“New Zealand must critically examine the issues raised in this report on a regular basis and implement law changes, if necessary, as quickly as possible.”
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/helen-clark-foundation-calls-for-tougher-rules-against-corruption-as-public-unease-grows-2/
Powerful lobby groups have been trying to influence govt policies for a long time. In some cases you could say lobbyists and their money get important things on the agendabut it works the other way also when self-interested corporations muscle in on decisions. Ig appears to be a feature of modern democratic governance but has likely been so for centuries.
No, it’s not moral or ethical when powerful self-intersted entities attemof to influence govt policies to their own ends. Yes, those elected into public office should take a stance when its clear this is happening, although that said the legal relationship between governments and corporations is a complex area. And absoluely yes, it should be called out, by citizens who have the knowledge and skills to so and by the media who have a responsibility to speak truth to power.
Luxon’s stance is typical, a shot across the bow. On the face of it directed personally but obstentively professional and legal. But if there is substance to the claim – and it certainly looks so – Luxon will have egg on his face. The Beehive will be working overtime to close it down. Luxon’s veiled threat has signalled this intention.
Bullying is in the DNA of this government. Tory scum from private schools learn that bullying is acceptable and carry it into adulthood.
In this instance it’s a sign of weakness because Luxon is a lightweight. He can’t survive a proper interview for more than 5 minutes, his mental fatigue becomes apparent as he retreats to meaningless slogans he can’t define.
As another blogger noted if Luxon isn’t lying about the notes and his recollection, it means he isn’t aware of what is going on in his office.
So he’s either incompetent OR lying, corrupt and acting in contempt of the OIA.
Or all of the above.
Oh! And now he’s not interested in asking Fonterra or Z Energy who they gave the notes to…
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/596286/ministerial-services-need-to-be-fully-aware-of-their-obligations-luxon
I know that when something goes wrong at work I NEVER ask my clients or staff about the details or examine the core of the matter. That would show leadership, accountability, responsibility and diligence. Instead, I choose to bully people and lie to their faces, it’s good business practice.
This government seems happy to breach the OIA which begs the question, what else have they withheld?
“RNZ reported on Sunday that a previously undisclosed briefing document had been provided to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) by Fonterra and Z Energy, regarding climate activist Mike Smith’s case against those companies and other major emitters
The briefing note discussed why legislative intervention was “necessary and appropriate”, and it proposed a two-sentence legislative amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 that would “resolve the uncertainty and risks posed by private law claims like Mr Smith’s”. ….. “The government announced this month it would amend climate laws to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions, stopping Smith’s landmark case in its tracks.”
Telling the truth is dangerous when you are run by criminals ,,,, just ask Assange
https://twitter.com/i/status/2057807139884716519
…..
While not appropriate John Campbell could have reminded Luxon that he has more to worry about in November if he lasts that long. We have seen how controlling the current government are so it’s not surprising to see Luxon step into the muck again as he evades answering any valid questions.
We have known for 3 years Corruption is a National party policy. And they have the audacity to have the media happily portray Labours name calling heading the weekly mainstream media. Luxon and his cronies must be voted out come November for the sake of Jacinda’s governments position on the stage as least corrupt. Now we are right up there as the most corrupt and threats by Luxon and Seymour to silence their critics sits alongside North Korea and Russia.
How can anyone trust these feckless fuckers?
Luxon is a narcissistic god- bothering hubristic braggart….The worst of the worst ….
A Johnny-come- lately who thinks divine intervention has requested him to swoop in from overseas… save New Zealand …and swoop back out again.
Luxon, compared to John Campbell’s 40 year career, love and devotion to his country, has been around for about 6 seconds.
And yet here he is, clearly denying knowledge of some highly suspicious dodgy stuff, but refusing to answer very appropriate questions that every citizen of N.Z. has a right to know the answer too
This clown is not a Prime Minister …not even close…he’s a dodgy fake… full of his own entitled self importance…and not a very good one…he’s corrupt…he needs to go…right now.
The Adults need to be back running the country…N.Z. drunk the coolaide..the experiment failed miserably…November will be too late.
Much like the land lords and tobacco companies did on their tax breaks
Winston will demand another 10 million be slashed from RNZ budget ,Seymour will demand John gets fired and Luxon will hide under willis skirt or take another trip to Te Puke
Willis don’t wear no skirt only pinstripe pants lately.