By Bernard Hickey
With 25 days to go until the September 20 election, here's my daily round-up of political news on Tuesday August 26, including polls showing most voters want restrictions on foreign buying of land and houses and a survey showing 'Dirty Politics' may affect the votes of around a third of those surveyed.
The shadow of 'Dirty Politics' still hangs over the campaign. John Key is not answering questions about the book on the trail anymore.
He is trying to draw a line under it in the hope it has not damaged his and National's position too badly. National's internal polling is said to show the book's revelations are not resonating with the public.
However, TVNZ's Vote Compass survey found the book had affected 36% of the 13,913 voters who took the online poll, who said it may change their vote to varying degrees. 10% said it had affected their decision "a lot", 11% said "some" and 15% said little. The survey found 25% thought the book contained "a lot" of truth.
The knife-edge nature of the electoral mathematics of MMP mean a loss of 2-3% support from National would be enough to put its re-election in doubt, and it is already going into the election with opinion poll support around 2-3% lower than in the lead-up to the 2011 election, which it won by less than 10,000 votes.
The foreign ownership debate is also not helping National's poll ratings, which had begun falling early in the campaign when the Lochinver station sale news dominated coverage -- before it was blown out of the water by 'Dirty Politics'.
Foreign ownership
A 3News Reid Research poll released last night showed 77% of voters believed there should be stricter controls on foreign ownership and 20% said there should not be stricter controls. It found 65% of National voters also wanted stricter controls.
The poll found 68% thought the Government should decline Shanghai Pengxin's OIO request to buy Lochinver, while 25% said it should be approved.
Elsewhere on the campaign trail, John Key told reporters on Monday National would give some indication about future tax cuts before the election, which contrasted with Bill English's comments at last week's PREFU that a tax cut package would not be announced before September 20.
Key justified the apparent contradiction thus: "The way he was referring to that was an actual package of X and Y. If you go and ask him the other questions where we talk about the outline of what might happen, you get quite a different answer."
Key said National was still going through the PREFU to see what headroom it had for tax cuts.
Assange to help Dotcom?
Despite all the business as usual activity yesterday, 'Dirty Politics' is still bubbling away underneath. Brent Robinson , the candidate beaten byMark Mitchell in the race for the Rodney pre-selection, told the NZ Herald he hoped 'Dirty Politics' would clean up politics. The book revealedCameron Slater and Simon Lusk coordinated a dirty tricks campaign to ensure Mitchell's election at Robinson's expense.
To get a deeper sense of the nature and activities of Cameron Slater, this piece by David Fisher in the NZ Herald is instructive.
The prospect of Kim Dotcom revealing something damaging on September 15 also lies ahead. TVNZ reported last night that Julian Assange would help Dotcom "drop a bomb" on Key.
Coming up
John Key is campaigning on the West Coast of the South Island.
David Cunliffe is campaigning in Rotorua and is scheduled to make an announcement on NZ Power in the early afternoon.
Russel Norman is campaigning in Queenstown and Wanaka ahead of the ASB 'Great Debate' between the finance spokesmen in Queenstown. Bill English, David Parker, Jamie Whyte and Colin Craig will join Norman in the debate.
I'll update this regularly through the day.
See all my previous election diaries here.
See the index for Interest.co.nz's special election policy comparison pages here.
83 Comments
Crim dot wot - convicted hackerist and fraudster, wanted in the US of A for copyright violations. Reviled in NZ for purchasing his very own Political Party.
Julian Assange - wanted in Sweden to answer assault allegations, currently holed up at the back of Harrod's in a small foreign embassy.
And this pair of clown shoes is gonna 'drop a bomb'???
Bernard, I think you need to include a Stephen Sondheim sound-track today: 'Send in the Clowns' (a favourite rendition, Judy Collins)
"Where are the clowns? Send in the clowns....Don't bother, they're here"
I myself would be surprised if Kim and Co have much to drop on the 17th. However if what they drop is big and is the truth why does it matter who drops it?
For example if the story is that John Key feeds on babies in poverty, the fact that Kim Dotcom was breaking news doesn’t change the fact that John Key is eating babies born into poverty. It wouldn't change that perhaps that is why John Key wants to keep families in poverty as maybe the babies flesh he devours from still whimpering poverty stricken babies is what gives him his powers of persuasions.
So are you saying it is ok for John Key to devour the flesh of babies born into families of poverty because Kim Dotcom was the person to bring it to our attention? Is a vote for National a vote to let John Key continue to devour the flesh of babies born into poverty (obviously it is figuratively but perhaps also literally? I guess we will wait with baited breath.)
Vote Greens a smarter greener economy and to my knowledge don't engage in the eating of babies born into poverty.
"So are you saying it is ok for John Key to devour the flesh of babies born into families of poverty because Kim Dotcom was the person to bring it to our attention? "
Now that is truely an epic strawman.
"Vote Greens a smarter greener economy and to my knowledge don't engage in the eating of babies born into poverty."
Strawman brought to life in one single leap.
I thought my comment was pretty obviously a piss take. (Although I was poking fun at the straw man argument I was replying to).
Back into political mode.
If John Key was found out to be eating the flesh of babies born into poverty and was asked about it by the media he would probably respond "I don't think most New Zealanders care about me tearing the tender flesh of babies born into poverty and devouring it to give me the power of retarded speech patterns. So yeah at the end of the day a baby was devoured and really if you look at it that is one less baby in poverty so you might say that um yeah, I'm sure most New Zilandors would agree that less babies in poverty is a good thing".
Yes , we do want limits BUT , I dont think non -resident foreign buyers are the real problem here .
I suspect we are seeing ghosts and illusions , where there are none .
Non resident foreigners are not the ones buying $400,000 houses in South Auckland or $600k houses out West.
The Asian folk at those auctions are almost all NZ resident with work or residence visa's.
Our problems are far more deep seated than that .
The real problem is with Auckland council being intransigent in allowing the city to grow and landowners sitting on their hands and watching their land values spiral upwards .
Couple this to cheap money with interest rates that are a joke , and then
50,000 new migrants, thats 140 arriving each day , 24/7 , and we have a real problem
Dont be daft Raegun , its inconceivable that we could allow foreigners to come and live here legitimately , and then tell them they cant buy a home for 5 years .
Firstly its blatant discrimination
Secondly , its exploitative to tell them they have to rent overpriced Kiwi owned houses and get jerked around by landlords
And lastly , such legislation will never pass first reading unless we have a Bar room Putcsh and end up with a German dictator to force it through
Boatman: some controls are needed
What's your definition of legitimate?
The following link in NZ Herald tells the story of a foreign national who arrived in NZ "legitimately" (cough, cough) in 2000, obtained permanent residence in 2002, then citizenship in 2004, set up in business in auckland and lived contentedly ever since
Now, 14 years later, in 2014 it transpires the foreign national arrived on false documentation, using a false name, and has been wanted by interpol those 14 years
The Dept of foreign affairs has notified the foreign national he MAY (just may) lose his NZ citizenship
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11314438
NB: Interpol did all the hard work - NZ was oblivious
Dame Anne Salmond on the issue of executive power in NZs constitutional governance as it relates to Dirty Tricks;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11…
Just as it was a Royal Commission on our electoral system that kicked off our discussion on MMP - it's a good suggestion that similarly a Royal Commission look at other constitutional mechanisms that could improve our system of checks and balances - thus reducing that issue we have in our democracy that "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Were we working under a US constitution, it is likely that impeachment proceedings would by now have been taken against our Prime Minister - whereas here such disciplinary action must be taken by the National caucus. Given the election with Key as the flagship has already been bedded in to all the advertising, there is of course no way a leadership challenge could/would be mounted, no matter what the ethical factions within National's caucus think.
I suspect if Nicky Hager's book had come out 6 months prior to the election campaign - Key and Collins would be gone.
It is curious why the National Party itself is still harbouring Jason Ede. I suspect given the Party organisation's previous denouncement of Simon Lusk, the only reason for sheltering Ede now must have to do with buying off his silence presently.
One person however who should be sought out for comment is Iain Rennie given:
The office of State Services Commissioner (the Commissioner) is central to New Zealand's politically neutral, professional and permanent Public Service.
And another is the Speaker of the House, as the person responsible for Parliamentary Service given;
Parliamentary Service also employ the staff that work as Executive Assistants, Researchers, Media and other forms of Advisors, for members of Parliament and for the political party leaders.
Both these individuals have very important parts to play in our constitutional arrangements. Yet neither are being held to account during what is clearly a constitutional crisis (associated with the abuse of executive power), in my opinion.
I'd like to hear from these people who are in charge of our most important democratic institutions.
If your point is that the way the Electoral Finance Act was driven through Parliament reflected an abuse of executive power - I wouldn't necessarily agree, as it did indeed go through the Select Committee process and the Crown Law opinion did suggest it did not breach NZBORA;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Finance_Act_2007
That is not to say it was a well drafted piece of legislation - in my opinion it was not. As it turned out National repealed it in 2009, but the principle clauses associated with its primary intention to address the transparency of political donations were retained and incoproated into the Electoral Act.
But your points overall support my point - we need more checks and balances as a means to curtail executive power within our constitutional governance.
At this stage, Bill English is the only one in the National caucus that has expressed reservation/disapproval of the type of attack politics outlined in Dirty Politics. But I am certain there are more in the caucus who also disapprove. And it is also reported in Hager's book that the party machine too had reservations as it tried to discourage its aspirant candidates not to attend Lusk/Slater candidate training seminars or use Lusk's consultancy services.
Point is, there are good people inside National, like Bill English, who do not ascribe to this model of attack politics.
I'd like to think in an internal battle associated with these type of tactics, those against attack politics would outnumber those supporting them. Key has clearly supported these attack politics and I doubt they'd have keep the leader (Key) of it, but got rid of one of the lieutenents (Collins).
History lesson
This is a reminder of the days of Robert D Muldoon
He played dirty. He played the man. No one stood in his way.
He got rid of anyone who got in his way.
Derek Quigley was one person in the party-room who was a threat to Muldoon
Muldoon knifed Quigley and he went, leaving behind a team of sycophants
When the peasants finally got sick of Muldoon and tipped him out, the National Party was lost in the wilderness for a long time without any leadership
The only difference now is
Key is a "dirty player" except he gets others to do his "dirty work"
Is there anyone prepared to step up to the plate and brace him?
Doesn't appear to be any, particularly Bill English
He is a sychophant, happy to take the spoils and kudos while they're going
Where is the succession plan? Who is the annointed successor?
Plenty of talent in the National cabinet cowboy. Come the time, there will be enough talented contenders.
For example try Parata. Only problem she has had is the teachers don't like her. Which doesn't prove anything. They have set out to derail every education minister for the last 50 years.
I would say everyone I know, either local to me or at work across the town, would not agree with you.
Closing schools so close to a disaster when there was no idea at all about where population was going and what was happening was just a convenient excuse for an experiment.
I don't know anyone that would welcome her in town.
On what basis do you make the comment about talent KH. From my angle I can't see any ability in you that would qualify you to know.
I have personally met most of the ministers and I can't, and don't, rate any of them. The only one with any real ability IMHO may surprise many, that is Craig Foss. With the right guidance he could be alright.
Thanx for the great contributions you make Kate.
Democracy is about peoples participation in the political system. However, for many years now, we have allowed them, and the Media, to convince us that
"If you have a vote, you have a democracy. That is all the participation you need"
If you do not like the goverment then just wait until the next election to un-elect them. That is what we all call democracy.
NZ's constitutional arangement is a rip off.
When a country becomes independant the people are supposed to have a referendum on a constitution. We have allways been denied that right.
NZ was stolen from the people
Our so called constitution is enshrined in our legislation. A living constitution, so they tell us.
Our constitution is in our laws made by our governments, whithout our co-operation.
Our goverment controls everything by way of our Statutes and Rules. Even our Human Rights are an act of parliament and can be abused by the government by way of an act of parliament That is they have ultimate control over us.
Democracy on its own is no good without our freedom, enshrined in a Human Rights document, out of the hands, and control, of government.
People say democracy is no good because the majority overide minorities. But if we have our freedom, as outlined above, then that cannot happen. As a majority cannot take away the freedom of a minority, as enshrined in that document.
You are so right, Mike B, the most basic of our democratic rights and freedoms are not entrenched in NZ Law - meaning a simple majority in the House can amend the NZ Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). The history is explained in the related Wiki entry;
In 1985 a White Paper entitled "A Bill of Rights for New Zealand", was tabled in Parliament by the then Minister of Justice, Hon Geoffrey Palmer. The paper proposed a number of controversial features, which sparked widespread debate:
- The Bill of Rights was to become entrenched law so that it could not be amended or repealed without a 75% majority vote in the House of Representatives or a simple majority in a public referendum;
- The Bill of Rights was to therefore have status as supreme law, thereby causing some erosion to the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty;
- The Treaty of Waitangi was to be wholly incorporated within the Bill of Rights thus elevating the Treaty's status to that of supreme law;
- The Judiciary would have the power to invalidate any Act of Parliament, common law rule or official action which was contrary to the Bill of Rights.
The Bill then went to the Justice and Law Reform Select Committee, which recommended that New Zealand was "not yet ready" for a Bill of Rights in the form proposed by the White Paper. The Committee recommended that the Bill of Rights be introduced as an ordinary statute, which would not have the status of superior or entrenched law.
Hence, when legislation that is found to be contrary to NZBORA goes to the House, Crown Law reports on its opinion as to whether the legislation is/is not compliant with our rights under NZBORA. Any number of Bills recently have been found by Crown Law to be contrary to our rights under NZBORA, but the government passed them anyway, using their simple majority.
I don't think a lot of NZers are aware of this. We really are skating on thin ice where democracy is concerned. The potential for authoritarianism is strong - and has to be reigned in given the complex (and often corrupt) world we live in these days.
My thumbs up is in amongst the mix for you Kate.
Ian Wishart did a very good piece on our constitution in Investigate some years back. Effectively we don't really have a democracy, which is why I don't bother to vote. Why believe in an illusion? To do is delusion.
Maori of course know all this as Parliament has been undermining their right to justice since the treaty. I have offered my help to Professor Margaret Mutu (a relative) on the current work towards a constitituion but unfortunately even she is too arrogant to accept.
Thanks scarfie :-)... but you should vote :-) although I'd be the first to oppose mandatory voting as per AUS.
I must look up the Wishart article - I assume it will have coincided with the government's most recent "conversation" on the constitution that recommended we should "keep on having a conversation" (in other words got absolutely nowhere).
I can imagine the frustration of folks like Prof Mutu - I see she was involved in a sort of parallel process to that one the government was running;
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/iwi.htm#med
Point is - a great deal of these offshoot type initiatives have good intentions but have no way of undertaking truly grassroots/wide consultation. In other words, they really are low-tech initiatives.
You'd likely be interested in the Internet Party's policy incubator online. They have two products - one open to the public (which is where ideas are hatched/proposed) and then when an idea gets enough backing in that public forum it goes to a member-only online policy forum. Great tools - still room for massive improvement, but its got the right idea to try and crowd-source (I think that's the 'tech' word for it?) public participation via the internet.
I don't know she would like her work being referred to at low tech :-P
The internet party does actually hold some promise, I posted the other day that a friend of mine connected them with Amnesty International. I have a neighbour working for Dotcome so have a little inside knowledge there as well. Personally I am not enamoured by the guy but he is clearly a hell of a lot smarter than any politician currently serving.
Despite what my personal feeling for him you have probably also seen my comments over the abuse of the judicial system in his search, arrest, and extradistion proceedings. The principles at stake are bigger than him or the case.
I have acutally been on the Internet Party's site in the last day or so but didn't feel compelled to jump in. I am too cynical for that. Lol.
I see the changes required as coming from the bottom up, not the top down. Greece is a place I would be interested in taking a closer look at. With their history of tax evasion they seem to be avoiding mass unrest despite severe unemployment. Could it be they are just getting on with life despite the politics? But I think you would have to be there on the ground to really know.
The principles at stake are bigger than him or the case.
Indeed. And the money/politics of the prosecution being taken against him in the US is also bigger than NZ. I think in many respects Snowden, Assange and Dotcom have a great deal in common in that regard.
I personally find him (well him as per what I've seen on Twitter and read via the media) likeable - an amazing intelligence alongside a quick wit and sense of humour - and without doubt an amazing entrepreneur.
Yes, this was the interview I found the most interesting;
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/video/zbtv-kim-dotcom-part-1-20jul…
It's in more than one part - this is the first part. And it's good because although on ZB radio - it was filmed which gives you that real feel of live and unscripted. No notes .. Dotcom just talking and answering the questions as they come.
Very insightful.
Impressive
What a change from his tear-a-way party-boy persona, arriving in new zealand, ripping up a golf course in his rolls-royce .. comes to this country .. gets smacked down .. and has an epiphany
Watching the full interview, parts 1 and 2, couldn't help but sense the similarity between KDC and a young David Lange
Yes, it certainly seems to be what happened - epiphany is a great word. There were also parts 3 and 4 - shorter but very worthwhile as well. The two Tims did a great job of interviewing him.
It is also very interesting to get an impression of what Laila, and in particular, Hone think of him and his motivation in all this - and the best place for that again off the cuff, unscripted explanation is the Herald's interview with them;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/video/news/video.cfm?c_id=1501138&gal_cid=150…
I am very interested in what this AKL Town Hall presentation is going to explain to us. I don't see KDC as the type who would waste our time.
Watched the first two parts of the Tim, Tim & Kim show :) May find the other parts later.
Thanks for another great link Kate - enjoyed that interview. I might even vote for them if Laila can be a little less patronising and if Sue Bradford is not involved anymore...
The national party are parting company from it's support base. " It found 65% of National voters also wanted stricter controls." I think they should be worried about that but they are not concerned.
Similarly Phil O'Reilly of 'Business NZ' was talking on the radio yesterday about the need to protect the interests of power companies. Clearly he is not concerned that the rort imposed by these companies hurts New Zealand businesses. I am one of those businesses, and I have four power bills, and Phil is not helping me.
I am certainly voting National this time but I have never been a confirmed voter for anybody. They need to wake up the groundswell of opinion.
As for Phil, well it irks me that he purports to speak for New Zealand business, when he clearly does not. I suspect actually I pay a very small amount of dollars of his salary. Probably via the employers association. So maybe this is my opportunity to cut some costs.
Neither Phil or the Nats are terrified of my opinion of course. But they need to think that I just might be one of an increasing number.
Key said National was still going through the PREFU to see what headroom it had for tax cuts.
I too have spent time looking through the PREFU (and the 2014 Budget Update) so could save National the effort. The following numbers are from the PREFU:
1. Core Crown Tax Revenue as a % of GDP rises from 26.6% ($61.5 B) in 2013/14 to 27.5% ($66.1 B) in 2014/15. From there it continues to rise to 28.4% of GDP in 2017/18 ($77.1B).
2. OBEGAL is forecast to be 0.1% of GDP in 2014/15 ($0.3 B).
It appears that the small forecast surplus in 2014/15 only results from the Crown taking an increasing percentage of GDP in taxation.
In my view changes in the economy between the 2014 Budget Update and the PREFU would normally have wiped out the 0.2% of GDP surplus in the former. The PREFU appears to make significant changes to asset revaluations from those forecast in the Budget Update.
Events since the PREFU was released now mean that it is unlikely there will be any surplus in 2014/15.
Seasonally adjusted exports fell 7.5 percent in July 2014 compared with June 2014. Seasonally adjusted imports fell 1.8 percent in July 2014.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/imports_and_…
Moronic..
I think you are being far too polite.
these numbers should have a few bells ringing
And so should the PREFU, the 2014 Budget Update and the inconsistencies between them.
Perhaps political parties prefer making simplistic promises to the much harder work of understanding reality.
Hmmm ...
Money laundering conviction for Natural Dairy duo
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/10425426/Money-laundering…
Wu Wing-Kit, 57, was found guilty in the District Court of laundering HK$68.95m, while Ye Fang, 43, was convicted of dealing with the proceeds of indictable offences totalling HK$230m.
Wu is Wang's solicitor and Ye is the wife of Jack Chen, Wang's business partner.
And then recall this:
China link to Nats' $200,000
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=106…
Her husband, Zhaowu Shen, was until recently listed as an adviser to the Chinese Business Roundtable, founded by Jack Chen - the self-described "driving force" behind Natural Dairy NZ, the Hong Kong listed company seeking to buy the Crafar farms.
Perhaps the National Party will be asked to return the donations under a proceeds of crimes act?
The decline by the OIO was only in relation to the Crafar Farms
Here is a list of NZ assets they already owned in their own names or related entities
Assets affected under the interim foreign restraining orders include:
- Two properties, worth close to $7 million combined, on Lammermoor Drive in Auckland’s St Heliers. (The properties were bought by Mr Chen’s wholly-owned Anfatex Global Investment Holdings for $8m in February 2010).
- A $5.5 million property at 11 Cliff Rd in St Heliers.
- A house on Bridgewater Rd in Parnell, Auckland, previously owned by former Hanover Finance boss Mark Hotchin.
- Two neighbouring properties on Sommerville Rd, Howick.
- The farm property (Ashurst) held in the name of UBNZ Assets Holdings on Napier Rd and Te Matai Rd in Manawatu-Wanganui.
- Bank accounts in the name of Mr Chen and Anfatex Global and Feng Ye.
- Shares, held by Mr Chen in Anfatex Global Financial Investment Holdings, King’s House NZ, Chinese Business Roundtable Council Investments.
- Shares, held by Ms Wang in Sun Rentals, Dairy Assets Holdings, UBNZ Trustee, Dynasty Corporate Trustee.
- A BMW X5 registered in the name of Chen Keen.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/st-heliers-properties-among-frozen-wangchen-assets-gb-140877
Enter a likely Jason Ede cut and paste for one of National's blogger mates on the subject?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/not_the_fault_of_chinese_buyers.html
it might have helped Iconoclast if you had more clearly pointed out the list of properties is actually the list of properties seized by the crown. That is what the underlying link says. It is not a list of properties they now have. I'm not at all sure what Kate is trying to imply, but her approach with that one is very reminiscent of the odious Whaleoil.
I take it you haven't read the book or any of the whaledumps, KH?
Oh, and what I'm saying is - this whole line of spin that National have been running like mad (both themselves and their 'friends') is that Chinese buyers really don't figure at all in relation to the inflation of agri land and Auckland residential house prices. Whereas the point everyone else has been making is that they likely do - and now we're finding that some of that money flooding in here might well be of dubious origin as well.
Hope that helps your comprehension.
What I comprehend Kate is that there is very little distinction between Whaleoil an Hager. Both engage in attack politics, using smear and innuendo on behalf of their feeders. What concerned me was that following some serious posts, you too, veered into the same territory, with a smeary inuendo about campaign contributions.
For the record, for your comprehension and there is a record on this site, I consistently advocate land ownership is for citizens only. In this post itself I suggest that National are not recognising the mood of their own supporters on the topic.
oh, I think there is a fairly big difference between Whaleoil and Hager. Back in the early days of this there was a piece by a former undercover police officer whose job had been to infiltrate various left wing New Zealand organisations and report on what they were doing. His cover had been blown by research from Hager, and as he put it (and this is someone whose life had been much more miserable when people knew he had been spying on them, so has no love for Hager) when Hager told him he had evidence he was a cop he knew his cover was completely destroyed because Hager has a ridiculous meticulous eye for detail and dogged desire to persue the truth, so there was no point in trying to bluff his way out.
I don't think anyone has held up Whaleoil as an example of accuracy in detail and truth.
No one criticised his accuracy in his involvement with last years investigation into money laundering and tax havens
Though some people in the latest book were most irate at the revelations in that investigation (though they don't seem to think he was wrong, just irate at the schemes becoming public).
For the record, for what I know about Hager personally I don't have any reason to believe I would like him nor would I want to spend time finding that out. But I will acknowledge his deserved international reputation as a tenacious accurate investigator.
That is rubbish. They are chalk and cheese, chasms apart. Hager's work seems to be based on documented facts, whaleoil's ramblings not, to the point of fantasy and look to see him in court. At the opposite end if Hager's work wasnt substantially truthful I'd suggest he'd be in court for libel with this and his previous works, hasnt happened.
regards
Explain to me why then that Hagers book is published two months before the election. You might say it accidental but you know it isn't. It's attack politics. Which puts Hagar into the same catagory as Whaleoil. Both have been learning off those weirdy USA right wing nutcases.
Both characters also have 'feeders' with an agenda. Hager says so himself. Don't be led by the KDC red herring.
Funny thing is that while it certainly derailed Nationals agenda for a week, it also completely destroyed Labours plan to focus on positive.
Hager definitely wanted the book out before the election. It is not accidental. But it is not actually "only attack politics" to reveal people undertaking actions that cross the line from distasteful into criminal. And that is certainly worth knowing before voting for people. The cynic in me suspects that if National wins, after the election Key will say "we were tried in the court of public opinion and have the publics support, so I don't need to do anything about the allegations raised against Collins (and others) in the book, as we have a mandate with the book in the public arena".
And Hager doesn't particular like Labour either, so it is not really a "funny thing" that it didn't help Labour. His book about Helen Clark's government is estimated to have knocked 2-3% off party support that election.
There is the argument that Hager and Slater cancell each out as both being up to no good -personally I think Slater is more odious than Hager but actually this is irrelevant.
There is still serious evidence of wrongdoing in the public domain. Something that our PM is refusing to remedy or even talk about now. Judith Collins (and Jason Eades) should be sacked not declaring herself innocent. John Key should be saying that it is awful that suffering kiwis were called feral or scum and that is not the sort of behaviour he will tolerate as the PM of NZ.
Key has not done this because he is weak and he is not the nice guy that he has carefully portrayed.
By all means lets focus on some policy but I for one haven't forgotten or forgiven National's part in the Hager story.
The other more tortuous deduction is this
(a) The assets referred to were acquired before they sought to buy Crafar Farms
(b) The OIO declined their Crafar Farms application
(c) The OIO found them to be "not fit and proper persons"
(d) ICAC (HK) found them to be money-launderers
(e) The frozen assets are tied up in that money-laundering
So what can be deduced from that is this
(a) It is possible for "not fit and proper" persons to acquire assets in NZ
(b) The pre-Crafar assets were acquired with laundered funds
(c) It is easy to acquire many NZ (smaller) properties with laundered money
(d) The NZ authorities are ineffectual at detecting these activities
My thoughts exactly, that as long as you fly under the radar with the sorts of things you buy you can indeed buy a lot with ill gotten gains, and I would venture to suggest that the purchase of these assets is actually a part of the laundering process, not the end result of it
John Key will keep smiling as he banks the cheques. They don't care about public opinion. I was talking to someone from just one Wairarapa business that has lost $30,000 in business per year from James Cameron buying farmland. People are starting to talk about it.
The leaks and smear campaigns must still be going on via the blogs, and directly into mainstream news as well.
If someone setup a quality, edited, filtered news media site seeking objective truth now they would almost have a monopoly in that market space!
Anyway, well done to interest.co.nz for allowing reasonable freedom of expression, running clear transparent articles even while being industry views, while keeping a civil blog.
And you haven't noticed how right wing TVNZ have got over the last few years, Paul Henry, Mike Hosking, both very close to the National party, both have had prime time spots to voice their opinions on, something Hosking does at every opportunity.
At least Henry is pretty funny, Hosking is just a prize dropkick who wants to be funny.
Main stream media has been in the pocket of big business the last few years.
National is run by whichever tax dodging big business pays them the most, never has there been such a blatently mercenary political party in NZ.
What Kiwis actually want is the last thing on their mind, luckily for National, some people actually think they care about what they want.
???? as opposed to Labours "i cant reveal my secret trust" Cunliff,Winston Peters/owen glenn saga(winston still owes the taxpayer $150k incidentally) and Mana "beads and blankets $4m from a convicted German fraudster..
careful you dont fall off that high horse Philthy..
Speaking as someone who knows how to analyse data, I would call whaleoil's traffic figures "an usual pattern for human visitors being the source of his remarkable visitor numbers"- the thing is anyone who wants to can track down the recent "where have people been visiting the site from" reports from the monitoring company and do their own analysis.
*/
Something Fishy in the Polling?
Something Fishy in the Polling?
Something Fishy in the Polling?
Something Fishy in the Polling?
-------------------------------------
NZ Herald DigiPoll mid August 2014
Farm Sales to Foreigners
13% no restrictions
33% ban
50%+ approve if it brings advantages such as jobs
http://curiablog.wordpress.com/
*/
NZ Herald Digipoll June 2014Immigration
-
Levels about right 50%
-
Too high 35%
Immigration
-
62% support tighter restrictions on immigration
-
35% oppose
House Prices
-
68% support register of foreign ownership of property, 22% against
-
57% support more immigration controls to reduce house prices, 33% against
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.