Open mike 29/11/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, November 29th, 2014 - 158 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

John Key must goOpen mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

158 comments on “Open mike 29/11/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    29 November 2014 at 7:23 am

    just a heads-up to all mana people..

    ..the agm is on today @ the marae @ auckland uni..

    ..10.00 am to 7 pm..

    ..c u there..

    • Te Reo Putake 1.1
      29 November 2014 at 8:23 am

      Looking forward to hearing how it goes, Phil. I’m interested to know how mana will approach the non-parliamentary future. It’s a major task to get over a blow like that (I think only Social Credit and NZF have returned to Parliament after losing all their seats). But the name is mana ‘movement’ not ‘party’, so that doesn’t necessarily spell the end.

      • weka 1.1.1
        29 November 2014 at 9:03 am

        “(I think only Social Credit and NZF have returned to Parliament after losing all their seats)”

        Compared to who who didn’t? Am curious what the ratio is.

        • Te Reo Putake 1.1.1.1
          29 November 2014 at 9:31 am

          Well, I’m struggling to remember, but there were two christian parties and the various bits of the alliance in recent times. Probably have to go back to the twenties and thirties for the others.

          • swordfish 1.1.1.1.1
            29 November 2014 at 3:06 pm

            You’d probably need to distinguish between:

            Elected Parties
            Parties elected to Parliament under their own steam and then subsequently losing their seat/s

            The only 2 that I can think of, off-hand, are:
            (1) The Alliance – which loses parliamentary representation in 2002 (although slight complexity because their former leader, Jim Anderton, (who was, no doubt, partially/largely responsible for the Alliance being in Parliament in the first place) is of course re-elected in 2002 under the Progressive banner).

            (2) The Country Party – elected to Parliament 1928, loses representation 1938. Stood entirely in Upper North Island rural seats, with its core support-base in the various Northland seats. Leader Captain Rushworth won Bay of Islands at the 1928 Election and held it until 38. Another CP candidate, Sexton, won the Franklin seat in 1935, before, like Rushworth, losing in 38. The Country Party emerged from the Auckland Farmers Union and was influenced by the Social Credit movement of the time (in those days called Douglas Credit) and became mildly aligned with the Labour Party, generally voting with it during the first term of the Savage Government. (And of course the Social Credit League later rises in those same areas in the 50s and 60s, with Vern Cracknell coming a close 2nd in the Northland seat of Hobson in 1960 and 63 before going on to win in 66).

            Manufactured Parties
            Major Party MP forms own Party while in Parliament (due to schism with major party or after being thrown out because of scandal or taking new opportunities to create niche party during early phase of MMP)

            (1) Brendon Horan – NZF List MP elected 2011 / expelled 2012, forms New Zealand Independent Coalition which is, of course, unsuccessful at 2014 Election.

            (2) Taito Phillip Field – Labour MP 1993-2007. Expelled from party due to corruption charges, forms New Zealand Pacific Party and loses seat to Labour 2008.

            (3) Tau Henare – NZF MP for Northern Maori / Te Tai Tokerau 1993-98. NZF pulls out of coalition with the Nats in 98, Henare and some other NZF MPs become independents supporting Shipley Government, then in late 98 forms Mauri Pacific Party with other former NZF MPs (including 2 of the “Tight Five’). Henare comes a poor 3rd in his seat at the party wins less than 0.1% of vote.

            (4) Graeme Lee – National MP for Hauraki / Coromandel / Matakana 1981-94. Forms the Christian Democrats in 94 while still MP for Coromandel, (then in 95 aligns his party with the supposedly more doctrinaire Christian Heritage Party to put up joint candidates as the Christian Coalition). Wins more than 4% of the Party-Vote but fails to cross the threshold – so Lee out. The Christian Democrats continued as a party and later merged with Dunne’s United Party to form United Future in 2000, which, in turn, wins 8 seats in 2002 (with a number of its MPs conservative/fundamentalist Christians). They’re now of course gone – but, in an extremely vague sort of way, you could say the party’s still in Parliament given the Toupee’s on-going support in Ohariu.

            (5) John A Lee – Labour MP for Auckland East / Grey Lynn 1922-40. Expelled from Party 1940 (my grandmother was a Labour Party activist at the time and was part of the sizeable minority that voted for him to stay). Forms the Left-Wing Democratic and Soldier Labour Party, the Party does quite well in one or two seats at the 1943 Election (with quite a significant vote from soldiers fighting overseas) but fails to win a seat. Lee narrowly loses in Grey Lynn, so out of Parliament.

            Former Major Party MPs stand as Independents

            (1) Mel Courtney – Labour MP for Nelson 1976-81. Wins 76 Nelson By-Election for Labour, very much a Right-leaning maverick within the Party, and strongly opposed to Rowling as leader, stands as an independent in Nelson in 81 (probably hoping to emulate Harry Atmore who had defied political trends by remaining an independent MP for Nelson throughout most of the first half of the 20C). Courtney loses in 81, albeit narrowly.

            (2) Gerry O’Brien – Labour MP for Island Bay 1969-78. Former Labour Wellington City Councillor, progressive/left-leaning. Victim of Muldoonist smear similar to Moyle, de-selected as Island Bay candidate by Labour, stands as independent, comes close to costing Labour one of its traditional strongholds, but doesn’t quite make it.

            (3) Probably others but can’t quite think of any off-hand.

            • weka 1.1.1.1.1.1
              29 November 2014 at 3:49 pm

              Thanks! I guess Mana kind of falls into both of the first two (MP from an existing party, but stands in a by-election to bring new party into parliament).

            • mikesh 1.1.1.1.1.2
              29 November 2014 at 6:32 pm

              Vern Cracknell won Hobson for Social Credit in 1966 and lost it the following election. Socred got back into parliament in the late seventies when Bruce Beatham, Gary Knapp and Niel Morrison won seats.

              • Murray Rawshark …
                29 November 2014 at 9:49 pm

                I always remember hearing whispers that Social Credit were some sort of fascists, but given what I remember of their policies, I really have no idea why. Didn’t they later join up with Values and the Alliance?

    • Chooky 1.2
      29 November 2014 at 8:55 am

      are they vegan or do some of them eat pork and puha?

      …if I was in Auckland I would be there…they may have lost their seats but they only lost getting seats and the Election by a few votes

      GO MANA ! ( and I hope the Internet Party is revived)

      • Chooky 1.2.1
        29 November 2014 at 12:54 pm

        Mana should be reinforcing its already strong links with the Greens

        …the Tangata whenua like the Greens have a strong cultural and spiritual identity with the New Zealand sparcely populated natural landscapes ( this aint New York …nor do we want it to be like New York)…Limits on immigration and rapid population increase are core issues of concern for both the Greens and Mana Tangata whenua!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangata_whenua

        Kim Hill this morning has done a great interview with Andre Apse…one of the best NZ natural photographers after Brian Brake….

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/galleries/andris-apse

        http://www.andrisapse.com/

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday

        Andre Apse has a spiritual identification with New Zealand’s landscapes.. He came to New Zealand as a boy and like photographer Ans Westra he immediately sensed what was inherently the unique essence of New Zealand and tried to capture it in his art. For Ans Westra it was portraits of Maori

        http://www.art-newzealand.com/Issue100/ans.htm

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ans_Westra

        (Andre Apse wont remember it but as a young teenager I once walked up a skifield mountainside with him…I was impressed with his openness, absolute humility and passion for what he saw around him ….his soul was large .. International photographer Brian Brake from Arthurs Pass, who used to as a boy follow the mountaineers around trying to get tips on photography …whom my Mother knew as a child….also had this simplicity, humility and passion which often comes from an identification with the natural world for something other than the human…in some cases it can be an escape from the self-created hell of self -centred -serving humans, their anthropocentric religions, politics and money making)

        …the artists and landscape photographers like lovers record the natural world …so that in the words of poet Dylan Thomas ( ‘Poetic Manifesto’ , 1961), ..”The best craftsmanship always leaves holes and gaps….so that something that is not in the poem [ art ] can creep, crawl, flash or thunder in.” ….we must protect these unspoiled unpeopled, unpolluted natural wild landscapes …for they are New Zealand’s soul and spirituality

        Go MANA and GO GREENS

      • TheContrarian 1.2.2
        29 November 2014 at 1:58 pm

        “GO MANA ! ( and I hope the Internet Party is revived)”

        My personal feeling is that the IP is better suited as an advocacy/interest group rather than a political party.

        • Chooky 1.2.2.1
          29 November 2014 at 3:16 pm

          …actually as the Internet takes up a lot of people’s lives these days , especially young people’s lives ….and INTERNET FREEDOM is a CRUCIAL ISSUE for DEMOCRACY! ( the USA corporates would like to take the Internet over) i would like to see the Internet Party revived and remain attached to Mana

          ….the only reason the Internet Party is languishing at the moment is because Dotcom is being attacked by the Hollywood corporates and John Key Nactional….and in the meantime Dotcom has run out of money…and this is the reason Laila Harre is not there i suspect …she has to earn a crust elsewhere. But this does not mean the Internet Party is not a good idea ….and should not remain associated with the Mana Party….i hope the Internet Party baton is picked up by others and continues to run

    • Penny Bright 1.3
      29 November 2014 at 2:50 pm

      Kim Dotcom will be back in the Auckland District Court (Albert Street) on Monday 1 December 2014.

      Not sure of the time – probably 9.30am?

      Details of the case are available here:

      http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/crown-wants-dotcom-jailed-bail-hearing-continues-vy-166068

      …………………………..

      What Dotcom argued
      Mr Dotcom’s new lawyer, Ron Mansfield, had argued there was no jurisdiction for the order the Crown had made and said it was “disingenuous” for the Crown to amend the application today.

      He pointed out there was no ability to arrest Mr Dotcom as the non-association condition was only in place for a matter of months and was not a current bail condition. She should have asked for a warrant to arrest Mr Dotcom, rathern than “ambushing” him last week.

      Mr Mansfield said that she had also not complied with the bail laws because the court needed to hear evidence on oath from the Crown.

      “This court no matter what has no jurisdiction to hear an application to revoke the respondent’s bail.”

      He said in any event, there was no clear evidence that there was a breach of current or former conditions.

      The lawyer argued the “edited commmunications” provided by the FBI that didn’t prove anything and criticised the Crown for not making the full transcripts available to him. He said most of the comments which Ms Gordon relied on in evidence have smiley faces next to them, which indicates they are jokes between people and cannot be taken seriously.

      “On every level, every legal level and every factual level, the applicant’s application to revoke bail fails. In my submission it should not have been brought.”

      The lawyer said that there was no evidence from the cross-examination of Mr Dotcom that backed the assertion that there was no association.

      Mr Mansfield also stressed Baboom had not gone live and Mr Dotcom’s involvement with Baboom did not involve association with Mr Bencko.

      He also addressed Crown contentions that Mr Dotcom spent too much time gaming and wasn’t focused on his case.

      “Gaming is a bit like another individual playing tennis and to suggest that someone plays tennis while they are on bail on proceedings on which they have spent $10 million on lacks credibility.”

      Mr Mansfield will continue his argument on Monday.
      ______________________________________________________________________________

      You might like to pass this information on to Mana Party / ‘Movement’ members?

      Cheers!

      Penny Bright

      • Chooky 1.3.1
        29 November 2014 at 8:25 pm

        +100 thanks Penny…and it is a trumped up case by John key and Nact working at the behest of Hollywood corporates

        ‘Who is Afraid of Dotcom?’ by Robert Amsterdam ( Dotcom’s international lawyer)

        http://robertamsterdam.com/2013/01/whos-afraid-of-kim-dotcom/

        ….”I enthusiastically became involved in this case because I believe in the core values that we are seeking to defend. The world is currently witnessing a renewed attempt by governments, sometimes at the behest of private economic interests, to limit the capabilities and functions of a free Internet. States such as Russia and China seek to exert heavy-handed control over the Internet for political censorship, while the U.S. aims to subsidize Hollywood studios and entertainment conglomerates through copyright extremism – and by doing so pose an existential risk to your privacy.

        Having just spent a week in New Zealand with the brain trust behind Mega, I can tell you that these are extremely talented and innovative young entrepreneurs who are offering important advancements to users. The encryption cloud storage service that Mega offers may assist many budding democracy activists in difficult countries to communicate more securely away from the prying eyes of authoritarian censors.

        What has happened in the Kim Dotcom case goes far beyond right vs. left, pro- or anti-American sentiment, though I acknowledge that there is a lot of noise from the fringes on these issues. This is fundamentally about rights and protecting privacy; values that many conservative elements are coming around to despite the sometimes awkward overlap with progressives and net freedom activists. The U.S. prosecutor who brought this case has used “weaponized justice,” overreaching with civil law in an attempt to manufacture a transnational crime. Anyone who cares about human rights should be deeply alarmed, including those sitting on both sides of the aisle”….

      • Murray Rawshark 1.3.2
        29 November 2014 at 9:56 pm

        Why should affidavits from FBI agents who do not appear and cannot be cross examined be acceptable in our courts? I hope it gets thrown out. It’s a travesty of justice that he was ever arrested on these trumped up charges. They have set out to ruin a man who has done very little wrong, especially by comparison with finance figures like Huljich and Key.

  2. Pete George 2
    29 November 2014 at 7:43 am

    I don’t think John Banks handled the signing of his failed mayoral electoral campaign in 2010 well, but that seems minor compared to the campaign it instigated that was used successfully to end Bank’s return to Parliament and was also used to try and disrupt and destroy the last term Government.

    Banks claims the associated pressures also contributed to the ending of his marriage, although as much to clear her own name as Banks his wife Amanda was instrumental in overturning the conviction.

    The Court of Appeal’s Justices Ellen France, John Wild and Forrest Miller said that if the new evidence had been accepted in the High Court trial “it likely would have changed the outcome”. (NZ Herald)

    That would not have changed the political outcome as Banks had already resigned from Parliament but that turned out to be too late in the term to seriously disrupt the operation of Government but there was clear intent to use Banks to impact on the operation of Government.

    Politics can be a dirty business.

    Kim Dotcom, who’s word (and his wife’s) was judged more credible than the Banks in the trial, went on to finance and drive a political party also designed to defeat John Key and the National government. His credibility lost in the trial by election.

    Banks has some credibility restored while Dotcom’s legal positionn is precarious and his political credibility is in tatters.

    • mickysavage 2.1
      29 November 2014 at 8:03 am

      I dont want to defend Dotcom but your comment is totally wrong. The Court has ordered a retrial and was very careful not to comment on credibility issues.

      • Pete George 2.1.1
        29 November 2014 at 8:53 am

        Stuff:

        Evidence at the trial in a large part rested on a lunch at Dotcom’s mansion in June 2010 where, the Crown said, the donations were discussed. Banks and his wife Amanda said they were not.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63631562/john-banks-conviction-quashed.html

        NZ Herald in Wife clears Banks’ name:

        The Court of Appeal’s Justices Ellen France, John Wild and Forrest Miller said that if the new evidence had been accepted in the High Court trial “it likely would have changed the outcome”.

        Dotcom’s (Kim and Mona) word was accepted by the trial judge as more credible than Banks’ (John and Amanda).

        Two sworn affidavits supporting the Banks has resulted in the quashing of the conviction, it would “likely would have changed the outcome”, which must shift credibility significantly.

        Or has it been reported inaccurately?

        • felix 2.1.1.1
          29 November 2014 at 12:11 pm

          Wow.

          So if your reasoning is correct, the first quote says John and Amanda Banks are more credible than The Crown.

        • aerobubble 2.1.1.2
          29 November 2014 at 12:28 pm

          It is always the contention of litigants that they are innocent, given Banks never showed any remorse it was unlikely he would say the appeal did not exonerate him.

          Appeals merely ask the question was there a fair trial, would new evidance have possibly led to a different decision, not that the evidence prove innocence. That sure ha not yet been tested.

          I am NO lawyer, Banks is still to answer for himself, and given his lack of remorse, should he fail again, he should get significantly greater punishment.

          • James 2.1.1.2.1
            29 November 2014 at 2:12 pm

            And on the same basis – If found innocent – Dotcoms should be charged with perjury.

            • Tracey 2.1.1.2.1.1
              29 November 2014 at 5:01 pm

              adotcom and his wife and anyone else who so statef…nd in every case where someone is found less credible than another they must all be charged with perjury… by your logic. that will be very expensive.

    • ianmac 2.2
      29 November 2014 at 8:36 am

      Kim Dotcom said last night that the two Americans were at a meeting alright but it was on a different day. Mmmm.

      • karol 2.2.1
        29 November 2014 at 8:45 am

        It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in court. Then there’s this in the Stuff article on it:

        He [KDC] said that the meeting in which donations were discussed was not the meeting the American businessmen were at.

        “I think the best evidence of that is that in his own interrogation with police, Mr Banks referred to our discussions about donations . . . Clearly there were discussions about donations and now he says there were none at all.”

        The Court of Appeal said that although Banks’ defence could have tracked the businessmen down before the trial, it was satisfied that if their evidence had been known at the trial the outcome might have been different.

        So why didn’t Banks defence team mention these guys before/during the last trial and try to find them? Surely he and his team would have been keen to do anything possible to “clear his name”?

        • dv 2.2.1.1
          29 November 2014 at 9:02 am

          OK
          New trial.
          Will Banks be allowed to present affidavits from the two americans, or will they have to appear?

          It seems to me they would need to appear so they could be examined.

        • ianmac 2.2.1.2
          29 November 2014 at 9:27 am

          Weird karol that that apparent difference of dates was not raised at the Appeal Court. Plot thickens.

        • kenny 2.2.1.3
          29 November 2014 at 11:44 am

          Who to believe? Who to believe……..? /sarc

          Surely the Court of Appeal would have checked which meeting the 2 Americans attended, if any? So which meeting was Banks referring to when he admitted donations were mentioned?

      • Pete George 2.2.2
        29 November 2014 at 9:59 am

        The meeting dates are mentioned in the Court of Appeal judgement:

        “[10] The Crown ran into difficulty at trial when the defence established
        incontrovertibly that the lunch was indeed held on 5 June. The date mattered
        because the cheques were drawn on 9 June and Mr Dotcom was adamant that he had given Mr Banks a firm commitment at the lunch and evidenced it by having the
        cheques prepared and signed immediately afterward. Proof that the lunch was held
        on 5 June did not emerge until the defence disclosed its hand at the close of the
        Crown case, leaving something of an evidential vacuum about the intervening
        period.

      • veutoviper 2.2.3
        29 November 2014 at 12:25 pm

        IIRC, way back when this first went to trial, there were disputes as to the actual date of the lunch in June 2010 at which the donations were discussed – with KDC saying one date and Banks another date a few days apart. From memory one date was a Thursday and the other the following Saturday. A record of Mrs Banks taking leave from her job on one or other of the days was also involved.

        So, the actual date of the ‘donations’ lunch has already been in question. If I also recall correctly, there was also some disagreement/confusion as to whether or not someone else (a Lawyer or accountant who drew up the cheques?) was at the mansion (but not at the actual lunch) on the day of the donations discussion. This person was also a Crown witness at the High Court trial.

        I don’t have time today to find links, references etc – but will try to find time in the next few days to find these as this will bug me until I find them!

        But if my memory is correct, then the possibility that Banks was at two lunches within a short time period is not as incredible as it would seem if the earlier discussions and disagreements on dates had not arisen.

      • Tracey 2.2.4
        29 November 2014 at 5:04 pm

        he will have security footage surely of the comings and goings so dotcom just produces that showing the guys on a different day… and appointment logs…

        could mr and mrs banks really imagine up the exact guys who were there on a different day?

        • Murray Rawshark 2.2.4.1
          29 November 2014 at 10:18 pm

          Security footage: may be among the stuff ngati poaka handed over unlawfully to the seppos.
          Imagining the visitors: They don’t have to be imagined. There just have to be two lunches with the Banks couple, with the Americans being at one and the donations at the other.
          I’m also not convinced that businessmen would not tell porkies. Our businessmen in parliament do all the time.

    • just saying 2.3
      29 November 2014 at 8:37 am

      Wouldn’t normally reply to this kind of shite but I do want to make one comment.
      Seeing as Banks’ wife is his only witness and lifeline, it’s kind of convenient that when this goes to trial again she may no longer presented as his devoted and loyal wife of many years, who has a huge interest in the outcome of the trial. (whether she actually is or not….)

      • just saying 2.3.1
        29 November 2014 at 8:48 am

        Damn,
        Hadn’t caught the news of his conviction being overturned.
        It will be interesting to see if they reconcile.

      • James 2.3.2
        29 November 2014 at 2:14 pm

        You need to keep up with the news – there are affidavits from others who side with Banks as well.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.4
      29 November 2014 at 10:47 am

      Ah, PG turns up to defend the RWNJs abuse of our democracy – again.

      • Pete George 2.4.1
        29 November 2014 at 12:35 pm

        This is about a court case that involves the legal system being used to try and overturn democratic election of MPs.

        I think Banks wasn’t entirely innocent (and I’ve never been a fan or supporter of him and thought it was a bad idea for him to stand for Act in Epsom) – on about the same level of abuse of democracy as David Cunliffe using a secret trust for his Labour leadership bid.

        If we start to overturn the democratic formation of Governments through trivial court cases that the police have thought didn’t warrant a prosecution our democracy will be much the poorer for it.

        And remember that if one lot do it and succeed then the other lot are just as likely to be the next ones to have a go.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1.1
          29 November 2014 at 1:13 pm

          If we start to overturn the democratic formation of Governments through trivial court cases that the police have thought didn’t warrant a prosecution our democracy will be much the poorer for it.

          Three points:

          1. Breaking the law isn’t trivial
          2. The police don’t get to decide if the law’s been broken or not
          3. Allowing Banks and others to continue to flout the law and abuse our democracy is what’s destroying our democracy

          And remember that if one lot do it and succeed then the other lot are just as likely to be the next ones to have a go.

          So, what you’re saying there is that we should put up with the corruption just in case the people engaging in that corruption increase the amount of corruption that they engage in?

        • Lanthanide 2.4.1.2
          29 November 2014 at 1:57 pm

          “If we start to overturn the democratic formation of Governments through trivial court cases that the police have thought didn’t warrant a prosecution our democracy will be much the poorer for it.”

          The police claimed there wasn’t enough evidence, not that it didn’t warrant prosecution.

          No one is trying to overturn the democratic election of an MP. What is being done is John Banks is being tried for the “convenient” accounting he undertook while running for Mayor of Auckland.

          I think Graham McCreedy’s private prosecution would have gone ahead regardless of whether Banks was an MP or not (you only need to look at McCreedy’s other crazy private prosecution attempts / media statements to get a feeling for where he is coming from – against both Labour and National).

          But it’s pretty typical of you to misconstrue things and join dots in particular ways to reinforce whatever weird idea you have about politics.

        • Tracey 2.4.1.3
          29 November 2014 at 5:13 pm

          did you miss the law about breaching the electoral act which goes to the heart of democracy. this is not the first time banks has turned a wilful blind eye in return for money… hujlich

      • Paul 2.4.2
        29 November 2014 at 12:38 pm

        Yes pg always has so much time to discuss the glaring issues facing NZ like poverty, inequality, housing ….

    • Penny Bright 2.5
      29 November 2014 at 2:41 pm

      Is John Banks going to give evidence himself – so that he can be cross-examined under oath?

      He hasn’t so far at any of the other legal proceedings.

      On the face of it – don’t you think it would be a bit odd to be discussing political donations at a meeting that included two American businessmen, that you hadn’t met before and had nothing to do with this matter?

      Looking forward to the retrial!

      Penny Bright

    • Murray Rawshark 2.6
      29 November 2014 at 10:00 pm

      Pull the other one. Banks has had absolutely no credibility ever. Why are you so keen to defend a racist, dishonest POS?

  3. Paul 3
    29 November 2014 at 7:59 am

    John Armstrong.

    “This past week has surely been the most difficult and ultimately demeaning one in the otherwise stellar political career of one John Phillip Key.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11366095

    • LynWiper 3.1
      29 November 2014 at 8:17 am

      Fran O’Sullivan.

      “John Key’s cavalier response to the Dirty Politics inquiries risks him losing the confidence of one of his vital constituencies – the senior business community.

      ‘Key’s failure to realise he would be likely to be filleted when it was inevitably leaked defies credibility.

      But trying to mask the obvious backtracking was a step too far.’

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11366082

      • Paul 3.1.1
        29 November 2014 at 8:22 am

        The whole article sounds like a threat to Key.

        ‘He needs to reflect whether his real support lies in the blogosphere or among New Zealand at large, including the business elite.’

        Does O’Sullivan write the words big business want her to write?
        Is this a public warning?

        • kenny 3.1.1.1
          29 November 2014 at 12:03 pm

          Agree. Also the comment that ‘His ears should be burning’ about remarks from the business leaders at the DeLoitte awards is telling.

    • weka 3.2
      29 November 2014 at 9:24 am

      “otherwise stellar political career”

      Yeah, because Key just started lying this week.

    • Clemgeopin 3.3
      29 November 2014 at 11:06 am

      I think most people have lost their trust in Key and consider him a blatant liar.

      It would be very interesting to see the result of a poll which asks such questions.

      Hopefully some poll companies will survey this.

      I also think that both the recent inquiries, the IG and the Collins ones were badly done with very narrow convenient terms and a bit of a whitewash where it really matters, considering that electronic trails were not investigated and important people involved were not even interviewed, people such as Key, Ede and Odgers! That is bit of a sham, isn’t it!

  4. Paul 4
    29 November 2014 at 8:04 am

    Another sycophantic load of drivel from Fanboy John Roughan in the Herald.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11366055

    • ianmac 4.1
      29 November 2014 at 9:09 am

      Crikey. John Roughan must be employed as the Spinner for Key!
      Does Cheryl Gwyn ” thinks the division of roles will help the secret agencies avoid political controversies…” I thought that she said the devolution had caused the problems.
      And I thought that Key had split the roles now to avoid having to answer questions.

      Key had two years in that role before coming to power and he obviously decided the routine intelligence was not worth a Prime Minister’s time. Now he has delegated direct charge of the SIS and the GCSB to the Attorney General, Chris Finlayson, which seems much more functionally logical and politically healthy.
      Key has made himself an overseeing Minister for National Security and Intelligence in which role he is about to rush legislation through Parliament to provide greater powers of surveillance and seizure of passports. He has been given intelligence suggesting we have 30 or 40 citizens, possibly more, who might try to join jihadists in Iraq and Syria.
      The Inspector General, Cheryl Gwyn, thinks the division of roles will help the secret agencies avoid political controversies such as the one in 2011 over whether Phil Goff had been briefed on a group of Israelis in Christchurch at the time of the February earthquake.

    • kenny 4.2
      29 November 2014 at 12:24 pm

      Agree Paul – what a load of rubbish from Roughan!

  5. Paul 5
    29 November 2014 at 8:10 am

    The lack of ethics of landlords.

    “As a society, how did we allow residential property to become just another investment asset class? And how did we come to admire people who have become wealthy through investing in multiple residential property ownership?

    I hear residential property investors claiming, “We’re only saving for our retirement”. Correction – you are using people who are poorer than yourself to save for your retirement. And you are doing it by depriving a family of home ownership for every house you buy, gaining advantage from tax breaks that are not available to home buyers who just wish to live in a property.

    That is not an admirable thing to do. In fact, to take advantage of others less fortunate than yourself is a despicable thing to do. Mary, with respect, you need to grasp this ethical issue “nettle” and comment on it.”

    Mary Holm from the Herald then does not grasp the nettle.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=11366091

    • Paul 5.1
      29 November 2014 at 8:16 am

      While this article from the Herald proves that it is poor suburbs where landlords are making the most profit.

      ‘Landlords with three-bedroom houses in Otara, rented for a median $450/week, got a 21.8 per cent return (yield and capital gain) followed by Mangere (21.7 per cent) and Glen Innes and Mangere Bridge (21.3 per cent).’

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11366144

      • Te Reo Putake 5.1.1
        29 November 2014 at 8:30 am

        I was reading recently about house affordability in the regions. Ironically, Whanganui has the cheapest houses to buy in urban NZ, but the rents charged are about average for the provinces. So, the savings are definitely not trickling down to the renters.

    • karol 5.2
      29 November 2014 at 8:59 am

      Holm says this, which is pretty weak:

      The disruption to tenants who have to move is far more than any other withdrawal of a service I can think of. I suppose that’s why we have the Tenancy Tribunal, which I understand gives a fair bit of protection to tenants. But still, tenants are sometimes treated shabbily.

      It’s not just there are some unscrupulous landlords, while most are reasonably fair. The laws and regulations currently favour landlords and put tenants in a relatively weak position e.g. – lack of tenure, the very common fixed term leases that are rolled over each year (dependent on the landlord’s decision).

      And I am getting to be a bit weary of DIY amateur landlords – poor workmenship leading to on-going faults, drafty flats in the winter, etc. And letting things go if they are not crucial faults but just don’t look good.

      Cutting corners so as to ensure they benefit financially from the rental income. I don’t want to be frequently going to my landlord about yet another thing – even if they are quite reasonable and fair in many ways.

    • tc 5.3
      29 November 2014 at 9:37 am

      And raglan maori warden reports tenants are being booted for higher summer rents illegally with the aid of authorities…….oh the brighter future just marvellous.

    • tc 5.4
      29 November 2014 at 9:44 am

      Holm is another Nat shill and I find her writing pretty low brow given the juicy material that exists in our cowboy pension/super arena……if its actually her own.

      Read hide in latest NBR also what an emotive waste of space, the lack of intellectual rigour stands out like dogs bollocks right across the MSM which is a central plank of the DP strategy.

      • Paul 5.4.1
        29 November 2014 at 9:56 am

        Her own contribution to the article was miserable.
        It was good she published the views of a reader with a far more ethical view of the rental property market.

        ‘In fact, to take advantage of others less fortunate than yourself is a despicable thing to do. Mary, with respect, you need to grasp this ethical issue “nettle” and comment on it.’

        Mary fails to grasp the nettle and makes a very weak case for wealthy property investors instead. They are her ‘market’ …greedy folk who want more. Holm doesn’t care about renters.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.5
      29 November 2014 at 10:55 am

      Rentier Capitalism. Basically, a few people become the biggest possible bludgers and then they blame others for the damage that they do to our society.

      National and Act work for these bludgers.

    • Murray Rawshark 5.6
      29 November 2014 at 10:28 pm

      +1
      The ability to rent out speculative properties is one of the things holding back the whole economy. It sucks all the money out of things because it’s so much easier than investing in something productive. Then with what’s left, we develop a dairy monoculture 🙁

  6. felix 6
    29 November 2014 at 9:34 am

    The Standard finally gets that mainstream media recognition that has been so eagerly sought for at least 24 hours now, with a brief mention in the latest episode of The Egonomist: http://theegonomist.co.nz/?p=2786

    • TheContrarian 6.1
      29 November 2014 at 10:12 am

      Been good friends with that Dan chap for some 15 years now, we have many a good political discussion. He’s an awfully nice guy, very astute.

    • Anne 6.2
      29 November 2014 at 10:33 am

      Scott Campbell (former journalist turned PR consultant) claimed on The Nation this morning that the Helen Clark government used to feed certain ‘The Standard’ authors with information to include in their blogs in the same way as this government has given Slater (and Farrar of course) stories to use on his blogs. It was a blatant piece of “they did it too” politics and it’s false! I hope Lynn Prentice responds to the claim. Its getting too much. If this lie is allowed to be repeated often enough then it will be believed by the muppet voters.

      I always believed Helen Clark made a mistake by not responding to the lies told about her and her government – especially during the third term. By ignoring them as she did.. it reinforced the meme that the claims were true and it contributed to their loss.

      Campbell also inferred there was a legitimate comparison between “Clark’s motorcade” claiming she must have known it was travelling at 170 km (so inferring she lied) and the text message between Slater and Key.

      • karol 6.2.1
        29 November 2014 at 10:37 am

        Was Campbell specific? Can he point to any stories broken on The standard that made it to the MSM – and that is the equivalent to the kind of smear stories on WO?

        Ultimately, there will be publicly available evidence of such smear stories on the blogs.

        • Anne 6.2.1.1
          29 November 2014 at 10:51 am

          No karol he wasn’t specific. Just threw it out there as a defence of Key tool. If I recall correctly he did say something about “not mentioning names.” And he didn’t cite any evidence.

          I was paraphrasing what he said but there was no ambiguity to his words. No one responded – probably because it takes a few seconds to assimilate… by which time it’s too late to respond. So they get away with it.

          • karol 6.2.1.1.1
            29 November 2014 at 10:55 am

            Thanks. I’ve raised questions on this to The Nation via Twitter.

          • mickysavage 6.2.1.1.2
            29 November 2014 at 1:10 pm

            I have had a look through the past posts. Campbell said that he knew because he claimed Clark staffers wrote posts about him.

            I just had a look through the records. He is mentioned only intermittently and the first time in a post was in 2010 well after Helen’s time. The first time he was mentioned in a comment was in 2009 by Gobsmacked who I am pretty sure has never been an author.

            • felix 6.2.1.1.2.1
              29 November 2014 at 2:34 pm

              The only mentions I can see are pretty factual references to what he does for a job.

              Why is he so touchy about that?

            • Anne 6.2.1.1.2.2
              29 November 2014 at 3:08 pm

              @ mickysavage
              It’s pretty obvious to me Campbell received instructions on what to say and what not to say on The Nation. After all, this is the worst week ever since the start of the Key Admin., so it was important he be well briefed in advance.

              I remember Campbell from his TV reporter days and he wasn’t the brightest bulb in the journo ranks. His comments this morning were not off the cuff. He was told to get in the story about beehive staffers writing posts on TS during the Clark years and it was obvious the line about the supposed offensive treatment of him on TS was an attempt to brand TS as… a left version of Whaleoil.

              I sincerely hope you, lprent and the other authors don’t take this lying down because it’s obviously a tactic to divert and distort the picture to the point where TS/Hager/Labour and the Greens all eventually end up tarred with the Dirty Politics brush. It’ll be ‘mission accomplished’ if there isn’t a counter attack.

      • Tracey 6.2.2
        29 November 2014 at 10:43 am

        i cant believe clark didnt know the car was speeding… now key and slater is about how the country is run

        • tc 6.2.2.1
          29 November 2014 at 10:59 am

          Yup and when Helen gets mentioned you know the desperation meter is rising.

        • Murray Rawshark 6.2.2.2
          29 November 2014 at 11:21 pm

          I’d say it’s possible but highly unlikely. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.

      • tc 6.2.3
        29 November 2014 at 10:48 am

        Scott was going to be running as a nat candidate in ryalls seat, so hardly unbiased and just more smearing from the new paradigm of ‘contesting’ CT have had shonkey roll out.

        same tactics offered by some new players in the spin cycle.

      • Tracey 6.2.4
        29 November 2014 at 10:49 am

        lynn has previously mentioned the h bomb.

        has anyone from thestandard aided an apparent hit on someone? slater and hoots giving hagers street address to odgers… beached suppression orders… got preferential treatment on oias… been used to besmirch keys reputation either as pm or loo… gloated over the death of a west coaster… posted something as their own but actually written snd paid for by someone other than the author… used prostitutes to dig dirt….

        TIA

      • greywarshark 6.2.5
        29 November 2014 at 10:55 am

        I didn’t know that the motorcade was travelling at 170 kmh! I doubt that – who observed and recounted this information? And for how long were such high speeds maintained? A statement like this implies that it was a constant speed for some considerable time. 170kmh might have been reached on a downhill portion of open road but this would hardly have been maintained for reasons of safety, and a satisfactory ride for the Prime Minister.

        • Anne 6.2.5.1
          29 November 2014 at 11:00 am

          My response too. I have a vague recollection some witness claimed at the time it was speeding at 170km but it was subsequently disproved. But hey… who cares what the experts might say. Lets believe some partisan bystander.

          • Jenny Kirk 6.2.5.1.1
            29 November 2014 at 11:38 am

            Anne – I came on here just now to see if anyone else had picked up on Scott Campbell’s comments and to query it too. I’ll back you up – he was quite specific – beehive staffers wrote on The Standard during Helen Clark’s time. Pity viewers weren’t told Campbell is standing in a Nat seat next time.

            I thought the speed Helen’s car was doing was 130 km, or was that the Gov-Gen getting ticketed ?

            • Anne 6.2.5.1.1.1
              29 November 2014 at 12:09 pm

              Thanks Jenny. That was the correct expression “beehive staffers” . Did you hear him make reference to not mentioning any names or was that a figment of my imagination? Whatever… it was a blatant piece of lying and political tr@**ing on TV.

              He needs to be publicly rebuked by lprent – and other authors – to put the crap to rest once and for all.

              The irony is: this blog didn’t get up and running until around a year before the 2008 election, and blogging was so much in it’s infancy in those days I doubt the so-called beehive staffers even knew of it existence.

              • Jenny Kirk …
                29 November 2014 at 12:19 pm

                Yes – he did say something about “not mentioning any names” . And I thought this blog was fairly new which was why I came on to query Campbell’s comments. Maybe Lprent or others could do a twitter onto Lisa Owen’s twitter in reponse.

              • ankerawshark …
                29 November 2014 at 2:59 pm

                Is there a possibility that Scott could be sent a lawyers letter with lots of publicity around it threatening him with defamation?

                I have very little knowledge of the law, but if someone goes on National tv and claims something that is untrue, this needs to be dealt to severely.

            • Anne 6.2.5.1.1.2
              29 November 2014 at 12:21 pm

              Yes, 130 km was my recollection too.

              • Murray Rawshark …
                29 November 2014 at 11:28 pm

                128.5 km/h was the average speed over the whole journey. Given that the fastest stretch was done at an average speed of 152 km/h, 170 km/h would have been reached at some stage. They probably made the mistake of driving past some guy who got a free irrigation set up installed in 2009.

          • felix 6.2.5.1.2
            29 November 2014 at 11:54 am

            Was it a witness with a microwave speed detector? Or just a balding divorced middle-aged small business owner with radar vision?

            On whaleoil and kiwiblog the motorcade speed got up to 200k.

            • Te Reo Putake 6.2.5.1.2.1
              29 November 2014 at 12:04 pm

              I believe that’s technically known as warp speed.

              • greywarshark …
                29 November 2014 at 2:20 pm

                @TRP
                😆
                “I thought Dr Brown said ’88 Miles Per Hour!’ in Back to the Future as being the breakthrough to the netherworld. Perhaps Helen achieved that and has been travelling in a parallel universe ever since. Perhaps that is why everything is sooooooooo strange these days. Perhaps…… that is why twerps can go on TV and make up things on the spot and be treated as if they are people of worth and importance.
                (By the way Jenny I used one of the icons I put up the other day. Good in this case don’t you think.)

            • Anne 6.2.5.1.2.2
              29 November 2014 at 12:15 pm

              Helen must have been rocking around in the back seat like a drunken sailor. Couldn’t have got much paper work done…

              • Chooky …
                29 November 2014 at 5:28 pm

                lol…i thought she didnt have much to do with the speed …she had her head in her paper work as per usual and would have ignored the rough ride ….and let the drivers do their job

                ….however being men of course they would have thought they would have had to have broken the sound barrier in order to get their boss to the rugby match on time….they were just doing what they thought was a good job…lol…and she was just catching up on her paper work

              • Murray Rawshark …
                29 November 2014 at 11:39 pm

                You don’t rock around on straight roads. There are a lot of them down there.

            • Murray Rawshark 6.2.5.1.2.3
              29 November 2014 at 11:38 pm

              Quite possible. Those guys are trained to drive at that sort of speed. I was riding along up north once at 180 km/h and a car full of AOS members passed me like I was going backwards. I also had the strange experience of a race through the desert road with a traffic cop who was taking a Holden modified for pursuit up to Auckland. It was his idea. I hit 200 in a few places, but on the straights he was going much faster. I caught him through the twisty bits though. It was all very surreal and at Turangi he thanked me.

              Whoever reported Helen’s motorcade was a bloody idiot Tory who should have minded their own business. Unless it was Pete George, who has probably never exceed 50 km/h, they would have probably done the same thing themselves.

              • Chooky …
                30 November 2014 at 8:47 am

                lol…i agree….on a straight long emptyish road it is easy to speed and hardly notice the acceleration

      • David H 6.2.6
        29 November 2014 at 11:13 am

        I thought that’s what he said.

      • Tracey 6.2.7
        29 November 2014 at 11:32 am

        did they say he was a former nat candidate

        • Jenny Kirk 6.2.7.1
          29 November 2014 at 12:20 pm

          Nope. I thought he was a “genuine” objective panellist. More fool me !

          • Tracey 6.2.7.1.1
            29 November 2014 at 4:53 pm

            worth a broadcasting complaint?

          • karol 6.2.7.1.2
            29 November 2014 at 6:27 pm

            Dear gods. I asked question of The Nation about it, and got harassed by a rightie with the why are the left bothering continuing with Dirty Politics attacks- didn’t work in the election – voters didn’t go for it .

            I answered in several tweets.

            Went out, came back…. my twitter stream is full of that guy and another – claiming the left smear and wear dirt – plus “how did Labour know to ask question about Slater txting Key?” kind of lines.

            • Anne 6.2.7.1.2.1
              29 November 2014 at 7:01 pm

              Here is the panel discussion: Scott’s claims are at 6 minutes in.

              http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/panel-nicky-hager-toby-manhire–scott-campbell-2014112909

              He starts with the words: I’m not going to name anyone… then he starts on TS and Helen Clark.

              • Anne …
                29 November 2014 at 7:13 pm

                Damm can’t edit: He starts with the words: I won’t drop anyone’s name in it (course he won’t because it didn’t happen) then goes on to talk about Beehive staffers under Helen Clark writing posts for TS. It’s in response to Nicky Hager talking about Key’s staff ( Jason Ede and co.) wrote attack posts and sent them to Slater to publish under his name.

                If he’s referring to Mike Smith, he wrote under his own name and was open and transparent about his background. Plus, I don’t think he was ever a Beehive staffer. He worked at Labour HQ.

  7. joe90 7
    29 November 2014 at 10:54 am

    Oh dear.

    Nigel Farage’s local Ukip branch has rebuked the BBC for its ingrained liberal bias in holding a straw poll on the party leader in front of a London mosque. The mosque in question was Westminster Cathedral.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/-sp-ukip-mistakes-westminster-cathedral-for-mosque

    #ThingsThatAreNotMosques

  8. Michael 8
    29 November 2014 at 10:58 am

    Interesting article in the NY Times about Dirty Politics, Nats, spying, civil liberty suppression in NZ & Aus.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/opinion/civil-liberties-in-peril-down-under.html?_r=1

    • Sans Cle 8.1
      29 November 2014 at 12:33 pm

      Thanks for link. Seeing as National is withstanding pressure from within NZ, perhaps more international spotlights on their actions could change their modus operandi. I would love to see Russell Brand’s perspective on NZ politics. He would have a field day.

  9. Sirenia 9
    29 November 2014 at 11:43 am

    On those straight south Canterbury roads in a powerful car it would be easy to speed to 130km (which I think it was). If Helen had been working in the back seat she would have likely not noticed.
    BTW Scott Campbell was on Banks mayoral campaign team – so from the right.

    • Paul 9.1
      29 November 2014 at 11:45 am

      Predictable that the media use right wingers to get viewpoints.
      Biased as ever.

    • aerobubble 9.2
      29 November 2014 at 12:50 pm

      Police have a duty to protect the PM, speed kills. So the problem was one of speaking truth to power. Nobody wanted to tell the PM she would miss the Rugby. The idea that the people around the PM conspired to expose the PM to harm is un:-) conciousable. Just as its stupid for Key to expose himself to Slater. Wiser heads would tell politicians what they dont want to hear.

    • kenny 9.3
      29 November 2014 at 1:25 pm

      Especially in a top-notch BMW.

  10. Clemgeopin 10
    29 November 2014 at 1:40 pm

    Mars One News:

    Lights, camera…action! These are very exciting times for the candidates due to the fact that the Mars One round 2 candidate interviews are just around the corner. From the original 202,586 applicants, only 663 remaining candidates will be interviewed. This interview is the next step in narrowing down the list of possible candidates flying to Mars!

    The Interview Process:

    http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=24d8ce153d9cbd2546aca36de&id=f18e2308e3&e=d2915e610c

  11. Penny Bright 11
    29 November 2014 at 2:04 pm

    FYI folks ……………………

    Is this why the former Leader of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, was effectively stitched up – then hung out to dry – to help stop him asking HARD questions in the House about these and related matters?

    http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/report-israeli-killed-in-new-zealand-earthquake-was-mossad-agent-1.374109

    Report: Israeli killed in New Zealand earthquake was Mossad agent

    Local media reports Ofer Mizrahi, killed in the Christchurch earthquake in February, was part of a team trying to infiltrate sensitive computer systems.

    By Sefi Krupsky

    Published 23:27 19.07.11

    New Zealand security officials suspect Israeli Mossad agents were trying to obtain sensitive information from the state’s databases, reported the local Southland Times newspaper on Tuesday. Authorities suspect that one of the agents was Ofer Mizrahi, one of three Israelis killed in the earthquake in the city of Christchurch last February.

    Authorities have launched an investigation into what a senior security official called “suspicious activities of several groups of Israelis during and immediately after the earthquake.”

    There was extensive local media coverage of the search teams that were sent from Israel after the earthquake. The two private search parties were sent without prior coordination with officials in Jerusalem, and were met with difficulties after the local authorities prevented them from searching in the area.

    The report claims Israel’s reaction to the casualties and missing Israeli citizens was unprecedented. For example, Prime Minister John Key, who is Jewish, spoke with his counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu four times the day of the earthquake. The report also claims that Israeli ambassador Shemi Tzur , who is posted in the capital Wellington, immediately ordered plane tickets to Christchurch. Furthermore, Home Front Defense Minister Matan Vilnai also left immediately for the disaster-struck city.

    The three Israelis who survived the car crash that killed Mizrai fled the scene and left him behind, the report continues, saying Mizrahi had five passports. New Zealand security services suspected he was a Mossad agent after the Israeli search party took interest in his many passports and after his three friends’ quick departure back to Israel. Security services also took note that a Facebook page set up in remembrance of Mizrahi has only five “likes.”

    Shemi Tzur, the Israeli ambassador in Wellington, denied the allegations and dismissed them as “science fiction.”

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5314120/Identity-theft-may-have-been-Israelis-goal-analyst

    Identity theft may have been Israelis’ goal – analyst
    MICHELLE COOKE

    New Zealand passports are “extremely valuable” and it is most likely four Israelis in Christchurch at the time of the February 22 quake were on an identity-theft mission, a political risk consultant says.

    Israeli national Ofer Mizrahi was killed in the quake and the three friends he was with fled the country 12 hours later.

    Prime Minister John Key has confirmed Mizrahi was carrying five passports but refused to go into further detail.

    Paul Buchanan, who has worked at the Pentagon and trained intelligence officers in the United States, said it was suspicious that one of the Israelis was carrying multiple passports and that his friends left New Zealand so shortly after he was killed.

    He believed the four Israelis were probably on a “trolling mission” searching for identities they could steal.

    “Because of New Zealand’s international reputation the passports are extremely valuable for intelligence services. New Zealand has this reputation for independence and autonomy… people trust New Zealand,” he said.

    “The passports would have been used for very covert activities – nothing light.”

    He said those activities could include assassinations.

    Buchanan said it was unlikely they were Mossad agents because they were too young and Mossad agents would be involved in more high-level operations.

    “However they may be recruits for the service and this might have been one of the tasks they needed to do, operating as sayanins, which is the Hebrew word for helper,” he said.

    “That is likely what these people were and the question then comes – why were they specifically in Christchurch?

    “It could well be in the aftermath of the first September quake that the decision was made to go into the damaged city and see if they could access public records or identity banks that would allow them to use the name of a living New Zealander who does not travel, or a dead one that could be falsified and put on to passports.”

    The police national computer had been under scrutiny since a Security Intelligence Service officer described the suspicious activities of several groups of Israelis during, and immediately after, the earthquake.

    Three Israelis, including Mizrahi, were among the 181 people who died in the earthquake.

    Israel showed immediate interest in the quake, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling Key four times on the day.

    An unaccredited Israeli search and rescue squad was later confronted by armed New Zealand police and removed from the sealed-off “red zone” of the central city.

    Another Israeli group, a forensic analysis team sent by the Israeli government, was welcomed in Christchurch and worked on victim identification in the morgue.

    When it was realised the forensic analysts could have accessed the national police computer database, an urgent security audit was ordered.

    Two Israelis were arrested in 2004 for stealing the identity of an Aucklander with cerebral palsy to fraudulently obtain a passport.

    Tony Resnick, a former paramedic with St John Ambulance, was also believed to have been involved. He spent some time working in Israel and was a “person of interest” to police. He resigned from his job and left the country without warning in March 2004.

    Buchanan said Resnick had access to official records and it was likely that if the Israelis in Christchurch were trying to obtain New Zealand passports they would also have had a relationship with someone who had access to government records.

    “It would have had to have been such a person known as a handler in Christchurch because the sayanins wouldn’t have had the local knowledge,” he said.

    “They had to have had a handler and I have no doubt the SIS will be looking for that person who will more than likely be Jewish.”

    He said it would have only taken “minutes” for the handler to copy information on to an external hard drive.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10743239

    John Roughan: Would Key expose Israeli spies

    5:30 AM Saturday Aug 6, 2011

    ………………………………………………………….

    If agents of any foreign power are found to be in this country for a clandestine purpose unknown to the New Zealand Government, it seems to me to be in the national interest that they are exposed.

    The present Government, I suspect, takes a different view, and one that accords with advice it receives from its diplomatic and intelligence services.

    In this view, the national interest is better served by adhering to the expectations of the Western alliance – or at least its English-speaking members who share intelligence with us.

    Led by the United States, the Anglophone club remains fairly sympathetic to Israel and never looks kindly on its smallest, flakiest member breaking ranks.

    When two Israelis were jailed in New Zealand in 2004 for attempting to obtain our passports fraudulently, the US ambassador to Wellington sent the State Department an extraordinary cable, which emerged in the WikiLeaks disclosures last year.

    Then ambassador Charles Swindells said: “The Clark Government’s overly strong reaction suggests [it] sees this flap as an opportunity to bolster its credibility with the Arab community.”

    We don’t get astute US representation here.

    According to a security commentator in an Israeli newspaper that year, Mossad had approached the SIS to try to get the incident handled quietly but Helen Clark would not play along.

    “She refused to let the debris be cleared out of sight and insisted the two suspects be prosecuted on relatively stiff charges,” wrote Ze’ev Schiff in Haaretz.

    What, I wonder, would Key have done? His party watched that incident from Opposition and said nothing.

    Doubtless it issued a token statement or two but nothing memorable, nothing really angry or disgusted.

    So forgive my lingering suspicion. It is always hard to believe secret agents could find anything to do in this country, but then I’d never have believed a French unit would come all this way to sabotage a Greenpeace protest. Secrecy gives free rein to some oddballs.

    Israel’s agents and authorised killers obviously find English-speaking identities useful. Three of the squad that assassinated a Hamas commander in a Dubai hotel last year were using Australian passports. Others had British and Irish passports.

    Another said to be involved had been an accomplice of the pair arrested in New Zealand.

    I’d like to visit Arab countries one day. I’d like to trust this Government to protect the integrity of my passport. But I don’t.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

  12. Penny Bright 12
    29 November 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Have YOU read THIS section of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn’s report??!!

    Whose ‘national interests’ were John Key, as Prime Minister responsible for the SIS, and Leader of the National Party responsible for the Office of the Prime Minister; blogger Cameron Slater, the (then) Director of the SIS Warren Tucker. and the National politically partisan Deputy Chief of Staff of the Office of the Prime Minister, Phil de Joux – effectively serving?

    The ‘national interests’ of New Zealand – or the ‘national interests’ of Israel?

    “Dr Tucker went on to comment specifically that Mr Goff would have problems “in terms of wider credibility”, that he would now be unable to pursue the Israeli point in the House and that he would need to “call off” and “rein in” Ms Street and the Hon Annette King MP.”
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    These are the findings of the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence, Cheryl Gywn:

    Report into the release of information by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service in July and August 2011

    http://www.igis.govt.nz/assets/FINAL-REPORT-INTO-THE-RELEASE-OF-INFORMATION-BY-NZSIS-IN-JULY-AND-AUGUST-2.pdf

    Discussions with the Leader of the Opposition arising from Mr Slater’s OIA request, 27 July

    186. On 27 July, as discussed above at paragraphs 92-99, the Director called the Leader of the Opposition to inform him of the OIA request by Mr Slater and the response by NZSIS.

    The issue of political neutrality arises in respect of four aspects of that discussion.

    187. First, the discussions proceeded on the assumption by the Director that he need only inform the Leader of the Opposition of the request and response. Further, the Director does not appear to have considered there to be any material question under s 4AA.

    188. Second, as detailed at paragraphs 92-99 above, the Director engaged with the Leader of the Opposition in a functionally inadequate way.

    189. Third, the Director indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that he understood Mr Slater to be a “private individual” and, while Mr Goff explained that Mr Slater was a prolific and politically active blogger who was pursuing the issue for a political purpose, the Director did not act on that information. If he had done so:

     it would have indicated that Mr Slater was either part of or closely engaged with the news media, and that would have been a further cause to question the differential treatment of media inquiries and Mr Slater’s request;

     the knowledge that Mr Slater was likely to be pursuing political purposes would have provided a further cause to question whether he and/or the NZSIS might need to take steps to maintain the political neutrality of the NZSIS.

    190. The Director ought then to have recognised that it would not be consistent with political neutrality to give Mr Slater what was in effect an exclusive story while denying a large number of parallel news media requests.

    191. The Director ought also to have responded to the Leader of the Opposition’s concern that the information to be released would be misinterpreted. The Director said that he thought at the time that Mr Goff’s concern was “fanciful”. That was not a sound conclusion when the information is considered objectively. Dr Tucker did not check the point after the conversation or ask any of his staff to do so. No advice or further inquiry

    – such as reading the blog posts that Mr Slater had already made in respect of Mr Goff –was made.

    192. Finally, the Leader of the Opposition raised the concern that the disclosure of details ofa meeting between himself and the Director would be without precedent and, given thedifferences in their recollections of that meeting, would be damaging both specifically and to the overall practice of such meetings. This was not considered further in any way by the Director, despite the obvious gravity of the issue.

    Further discussion with PMO

    193. Following his conversation with the Leader of the Opposition, the Director advised Mrde Joux of the delay in the OIA release to Mr Slater and went on to discuss the wider context of that release. I was able to obtain a transcript of that conversation:

    TUCKER: [Mr Goff] said ‘Can I have a few days, please, to think about it?’ I said, ‘Well, I could give you a couple of days’ …

    DE JOUX: Look, Warren, I think we should give him some space.

    TUCKER: Well, what I said was … ‘I wouldn’t want to leave it much beyond about close of play Monday, but let’s do that. I’ll hold it until then.’ So, I’ve agreed to do that, I wanted to inform you about that.

    DE JOUX: Ok.

    TUCKER: … He’s going to consult with his own team. I think what it does mean, though, is that he is clearly very nervous about where this puts him.

    DE JOUX: Well, he shouldn’t have lied.

    TUCKER: No, no, I know, but now he’s in a hole. Anyway, but what it does mean is he will call off the Annette Kings and Marian Streets … (sic)

    DE JOUX: He’s going to have to.

    TUCKER: And he won’t be using it politically in the House, either – parliamentary questions – so, I think, part of his you know, can I have a few days please, gives him order to, sort of, reign (sic) in his own …

    DE JOUX: Absolutely but he will have wider problems.

    TUCKER: Yeah, he will in terms of overall credibility. … But anyway, I have agreed to hold it till Monday, and if he still needs another day or two, I will do that, but I don’t want to leave it … Are you happy with that?

    DE JOUX: Yeah, I am happy with that.

    TUCKER: Very good. Thanks, Phil.

    194. I have discussed the specific point of the delay above at paragraphs 95-99. Two further significant points arise from the standpoint of political neutrality:

     Again, the Director did not mention the apparent resolution at the 25 July meeting with Mr Goff or that Mr Goff’s public remarks were consistent with the outcome of that meeting. He also did not contradict Mr de Joux’s description of Mr Goff as having “lied”. The published comments by Maryan Street MP, to which Dr Tucker refers, were also consistent with the outcome of the 25 July P a g e | 59 meeting, including comments that she too did not question Dr Tucker’s word that
    the Israeli issue had been raised at the 14 March meeting.

     Dr Tucker went on to comment specifically that Mr Goff would have problems “in terms of wider credibility”, that he would now be unable to pursue the Israeli point in the House and that he would need to “call off” and “rein in” Ms Street and the Hon Annette King MP.

    195. I address the appropriateness of these remarks at paragraph 247.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption whistle-blower / Public Watchdog’

    • Chooky 12.1
      29 November 2014 at 6:08 pm

      +100 thanks Penny….quite shocking seen altogether…..seems there is a lot that has been going on under cover in New Zealand under John Key’s watch….and a lot more that needs investigation and exposure

      Labour Party needs to be hammering this!…Royal Commission of Inquiry?

    • Weepus beard 12.2
      29 November 2014 at 6:35 pm

      Jesus, that is bad.

      Tucker to de Joux: Are you happy with that?

      Jesus.

      • Anne 12.2.1
        29 November 2014 at 7:41 pm

        If I was Phil Goff, I would be considering legal action. He had both his professional and personal reputation severely tarnished by the affair. I might have considered the formal apology from Ms Kitteridge sufficient had she not also “apologised” to John Key. If I was Goff, I would regard that as an insult. HE was the victim not Key.

        Since Goff and Labour only needed 10,000 more votes to win that election they payed a huge price for the cheating and dishonesty of John Key and his staff (of course Key was in on it – plus I bet Slater has the proof) and the connivance of the former SIS Director.

        • Paul 12.2.1.1
          29 November 2014 at 7:44 pm

          It’s close to Bush winning Florida in 2000.
          Corrupt.
          Getting close to a coup d’état

        • Chooky 12.2.1.2
          30 November 2014 at 8:52 am

          +100 Anne…they did Phil Goff over and Labour’s chances of Election 2011…it is really corruption by both government under John Key and SIS …..Labour should seriously be thinking about NOT letting this go…otherwise other political parties on the Left and New Zealanders will be the victims of more of the same!

  13. Paul 13
    29 November 2014 at 6:17 pm

    ‘How is John Key going to spin this one?

    Apart from the obvious question of why Key is in communication with Slater at all, why does he feel the need to be courteous to a man whose brand is so toxic and vile, he finds nothing wrong in publicly calling a passenger who died in a car crash, a “feral” who did the “world a favour”?

    Slater may have served a purpose for the National Party once, but no good can come of his association now.’

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/63639163/How-is-John-Key-going-to-spin-this-one

  14. Weepus beard 14
    29 November 2014 at 7:06 pm

    BFM’s Chloe Swarbrick interviewing the goat shooter on Thursday. Listen, if you dare…

    http://www.95bfm.com/assets/sm/218987/3/cameronslater.mp3

  15. Weepus beard 15
    29 November 2014 at 8:01 pm

    My question in parliament if I was a member of parliament:

    Are Andrew Little’s communications currently being surveilled , or are they likely to be surveilled under the new SIS legislation passed under urgency this week?

    After all, Andrew Little clearly has a chip on his shoulder according to Chris Finlayson.

    It’s a question with two parts so best to not ask John Key who seems to be able to answer just one question at a time.

  16. weka 16
    29 November 2014 at 9:12 pm

    Trotter on Little’s start at reframing economics in NZ (UBI, Robertson)

    To the Greens he is saying: “You might want to taihoa on that shift to the centre you lot are so obviously contemplating because, unlike David Cunliffe’s, my radicalism tends towards the practical and specific.


    In other words: how does Labour make sure that a rising tide of economic growth lifts more than just the luxury yachts?

    Little has strongly hinted that the answer to that question does not lie in the introduction of a Capital Gains Tax, or raising the age of eligibility for superannuation from 65 to 67. New policies, based on the electorate’s most urgent needs, is what Little has asked for, and his promise to review the Shadow Cabinet’s performance in 12 months’ time strongly suggests that he means to get them. Little’s colleagues would be wise to assume that his threshold for failure is set a lot lower than his predecessors’.

    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/little-expecting-lot.html

    • Weepus beard 16.1
      29 November 2014 at 9:20 pm

      Trotter is all over the place. Loves to paint a picture, but it is not a picture that is consistent with a real person’s experience day in day out.

      The last thing I liked about Trotter’s work was the one about Bill English looking out of his warm, fire-lit house at the have-nots.

      Since then it has been all about balance, like John Armstrong.

      Trotter needs to ask himself this: If my words are being posted by Slater in order to help his hate-filled cause, am I doing the right thing?

    • Cave Johnson 16.2
      29 November 2014 at 9:58 pm

      The most urgent needs are an increase in the minimum wage and an end to zero hours contracts, and why not throw in compulsory time-and-a-half penalty rates >40 hours while I’m at it.

  17. Cave Johnson 17
    29 November 2014 at 9:55 pm

    I’m still curious who will be the likely contenders for Labour party president. Any ideas? I see there’s nothing on ipredict.