Same old dirty National

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, May 30th, 2019 - 179 comments
Categories: accountability, democracy under attack, Dirty Politics, Ethics, leadership, paula bennett, Politics, same old national, Simon Bridges, spin, uncategorized - Tags:

Somehow, and we may never know exactly how, some information landed in the hands the Leader of the Opposition. It may be that the infamous leaker in the National Caucus leaked in for a change and put it on the desk of his esteemed Leader, next to the untouched report of the top-secret internal review into the culture of the National Party – where is that report, by the way? It appears that this information was going to be released anyway a few days later by the Government. Today, in fact, on Budget Day. What to do? What should a man do?

Ever the opportunist pragmatist – he learned it from arch-pragmatist – he could not resist the temptation.

All his lawyer instincts told him to resist it, to not use it for political gain or personal advantage. He may even have obtained legal advice from other lawyers in his caucus. They too would have counselled against using the information. Although some may have encouraged him, saying it was ‘pretty legal’; the ghosts of the past never leave the Party. Yeah, nah. I don’t believe this for a second but it sounded too good to delete it 😉

Instead, it is more likely the Leader consulted with his Deputy-Leader. She is well versed in the handling of personal information for political advantage. After a few eye rolls and facial contortions the Deputy-Leader may have whispered her verdict like the Oracle of Delphi: “let’s do this, sweetie”.

And in yet another (!) blatant attempt to embarrass the Government, the Leader of the Opposition released and drip-fed handpicked snippets of information to the media that were ripped from their context to spin the most negative narrative for the Government possible. When questioned, he replied that it is his job as Leader of the Opposition to engage in a smear campaign hold the Government to account. Any attempts to muzzle him would be wholly undemocratic. Take that. I recognise a man with deep moral convictions when I see him.

This quickly deteriorated in the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Finance calling each other a “liar” and a “desperate man”, respectively. Another hit job, another gotcha moment. Mission accomplished pointless personal abuse diverting attention away from the Government’s Wellbeing Budget. I have seen this kind or puerile behaviour before, somewhere …

The Leader of the Opposition thinks he is onto a win, and he might well be, but the people of Aotearoa-New Zealand are the big losers here. We see arguably the most important day of the year for the Government and thus for the public being hijacked and overshadowed by slanderous accusation and wild speculation, a Government in apparent disarray, and overall chaos that turns off most people from showing any interest in politics whatsoever. What is worse, the turmoil most likely will cause people to distrust politicians even more than before.

A sad day for democracy in New Zealand and thank you again, National. No wonder they do not have friends in Parliament.

179 comments on “Same old dirty National”

  1. Sanctuary 1

    National cannot get over being in opposition. Like most entitled losers they think they are the victim, that they should be in power, that this government is illegitimate, and therefore they are released from any obligation to be her majesty's loyal opposition and are free to be a GOP style insurgency.

    • Robert Guyton 1.1

      Their strategy has succeeded. All that was sacrificed was another feather from National's already mangey Cloak of Ethics, but meh, what's a feather? In any case, the applause from those who bankroll the party will be drowning-out any niggly whispers from Jimmy Cricket, perched on the wooden shoulder of this latest stand-in Pinocchio.

    • cleangreen 1.2

      100% correct her national = dirty politics.

       

      As National are in full denial still today that they lost the last election.

      So they must keep fighting to kill the current government, no matter what damage to us that may cause.

      'national are corrosive, tixic idiots'.

    • SHG 1.3

      Orwell: " News is something somebody doesn't want printed; all else is advertising. "

      It's the duty of every politician not in government and of every journalist to seek and obtain information the government doesn't want them to have. Thanks to the technical incompetence of Treasury we now know that "Wellbeing" was advertising.

      Any journalist who criticises the Opposition for publishing this information is working in advertising for the government, not in journalism.

  2. Wayne 2

    It looks like a massive own goal by The Standard. In their breathless excitement of a gotcha moment, the editors vastly overreached.

    But I am pretty certain there will be no recognition by The Standard of that.

    • Robert Guyton 2.1

      There was plenty of speculation here, Wayne but you, like Bridges and his claims about Robertson's "accusations" have in fact misrepresented what was proposed here. The authors here have teased out the possibilities in a manner very different from what you describe.

      • Sanctuary 2.1.1

        Wayne, like most right whingers as evidenced by the behaviour of Simon Bridges, nurses a massive sense of entitled grievance.

    • Formerly Ross 2.2

      In their breathless excitement of a gotcha moment…

      That would be Simple Simon thinking he's the man when he's nothing more than a tryhard. Wayne, how much longer has Bridges got as National's leader before he's dumped?

    • Robert Guyton 2.3

      Wayne, if I may ask a simple question: do you condone Simon Bridges' behaviour in revealing some of the contents of the Budget before Budget Day?

      • peterh 2.3.1

        Wayne you can reply on ther reply link

        • alwyn 2.3.1.1

          And Robert could answer my very similar question @2.3.4 if he wanted to.

      • Gosman 2.3.2

        It is what I would expect any opposition to do given the same circumstances. There role is not to make things easy for the Government of the day. 

        • I feel love 2.3.2.1

          You keep repeating that, and I don't think it is, and I have seen plenty of other people disagree with you here. It's supposed to be the contest of ideas, unless the implication is the opposition has no ideas of its own to contest with?

          • Gosman 2.3.2.1.1

            The Labour party in opposition spent much of it's time sniping ineffectually at John Key's government. It was only in the last few weeks it managed to get it's act together under a new leader. It wasn't exactly focused on a contest of ideas during this time.

            • Incognito 2.3.2.1.1.1

              What a piss-poor excuse for an excuse! So, this elaborate campaign by the Leader of the Opposition to undermine trust in Treasury and the Government and derail Budget Day is equal to “sniping”?

            • Marcus Morris 2.3.2.1.1.2

              Gosman, where were you living from 2008 to 2017, or more importantly perhaps, what was your news source. To suggest that the Labour party was bereft of ideas and proposals during that time is ludicrous. But with Right Wing commentators dominating the conversations and sycophants like the abominable Mike Hosking it was always difficult to get their message across. Key survived on a perceived charisma. Jacinda has that in abundance as well as substance That is the difference.

        • Peter 2.3.2.2

          Their role is to bring the country down. Their role is to have the majority of the population unhappy and pissed off. Their role is to malign institutions and create distrust.

          Being in Opposition 101 Michelle Boag.

        • mauī 2.3.2.3

          Their role should be to hold a government to account, not breach confidential government info for their own ends.

        • cleangreen 2.3.2.4

          Gosman,

          I will keep that in our record file when you have inferred  "it is not an 'MP's (opposition) role to make it easy for the government"

          You should be reminded and made aware it is the role of any MP to act in the 'best interests for 'well-being' of the public' (who are their paymasters.and not indolge in petty self satisfying dirty politics.

        • Doogs 2.3.2.5

          You don't have to make things easy for a government if you are in opposition. That is never the way of things. However, there is a moral obligation to not abandon all morality and to stay within some sort of boundaries of decorum.

          I'm not the only one to be saying that Bridges should have warned the government that he had info re the upcoming budget, that he was not going to release it and that Treasury should do something about their lax security. He would have won more friends than enemies with this approach, and he could still lambast Robertson and Treasury for their slackness. In fact he could still partake in his particular brand of shrillness and name calling – without having published any detail of the budget.

          Just think, too, that this hole in the treasury's security processes has probably been there for a long time. Probably since the last government was in power. And did the then opposition attempt to exploit a weakness? 

          Which brings us to the real problem – the nub of all this hoo-hah. The question of whether Natz should have been even looking to find budget info before the day. To me that is a serious lack of essential judgment on the part of a group that likes to call themselves Her Majesty's Opposition Party. It is indeed quite scurrilous that a group of MPs, supposedly dedicated to the betterment of society, should use such an underhand way of playing politics. It does seem to be a tool of the Right however.

          This behaviour by National reminds me of the boarding school bullies who get into your locker, grab something personal and ridicule you about it in front of others, or snatch your letter from home and read out what your mother said to you in front of a bunch of pricks who laugh their heads off about it.

          Prime Minister in waiting? A government waiting to lead us into the future?

          I don't think so!!

        • Jimmy 2.3.2.6

          Totally agree. Labour would've done the same thing if in opposition. 

          • sam green 2.3.2.6.1

            I think you're wrong.  This is Nat style politics not Labours – evidenced in their hands off approach to the breakdown of Jamie Lee Ross.  National are frustrated and envious and will do anything to derail a different style of governance.  National are not working in the best interests of the country and it makes you wonder if they ever do.  Poor old Simon.

            • michelle 2.3.2.6.1.1

              yes sam green you are so right they are not working in the best interest of our country  

      • Bewildered 2.3.3

        He did not reveal it, it was already on a public website so already out there So no drama if it highlights the incompetence of this government, the greater good has been served and the opposition have done their job.But like anything it depends on where you sit on political spectrum, Many here have their knickers in a twist as their team that has been made to look like the fools they are and now have gone into defensive grief mode, acceptance will come 😊

        • cleangreen 2.3.3.1

          Bewildered;
          “the opposition have done their job”
          ” they are and now have gone into defensive grief mode, acceptance will come”

          Wrong wrong wrong,

          You may apply that logic to the opposition National Party who are still living in denial and are deranged, – and still acting toxic at the thought about how they lost the election.

        • mpledger 2.3.3.2

          It wasn't very readable on a public website – my understanding that to get the info that National has they had to do 2000 searches.  A substantial amount of work and effort.

      • alwyn 2.3.4

        And Robert, if I may ask a simple question: Do you condone the many examples of members of the Coalition including some of the Green Party who have been revealing some of the contents of the Budget before Budget Day?

        I haven't counted them myself but, if I remember correctly, Professor Geddis from Otago said this morning that there had been 17 such items revealed. Were the "leakers" all completely unethical?

        • Puckish Rogue 2.3.4.1

          'Were the "leakers" all completely unethical?'

          Only the National ones presumably 

    • Incognito 2.4

      I disagree but if you give a specific example of how I/we (?) “overreached” I’d be more than happy to comment. At the moment, it looks like a deliberate and targeted campaign by the Leader of the Opposition to cause maximal embarrassment to Treasury as well as to the Government. As a lawyer you must have your doubts too about legalities of it all, besides that abysmal ethical judgement. Feel free to elaborate, Wayne, or just ‘spray and walk away’.

      • Gosman 2.4.1

        If you think there is a big legal case to answer then why don't you organise a private prosecution?

        • Tuppence Shrewsbury 2.4.1.1

          You can't prosecute people for voyeurism when your fucking in a brightly lit room at night with floor to ceiling windows overlooking a busy pub.

        • Incognito 2.4.1.2

          A simple ‘value system’ that appears to be solely based on passing a crude test whether something is pretty legal or not? You have completely missed the point of the post and I assume this is wilful. Your comments are unlikely to be made in good faith. Feeling defensive or just trolling?

          • I feel love 2.4.1.2.1

            Those with a libertarian bent (ie:right wingers) as opposed to those with a socialist (ie:left wingers) need rules, laws and people explaining to them what is the right thing to do (in this case look up what "embargo" means). National Party are like toddlers wailing "you are not the boss of me!".

    • Macro 2.5

      So it was National who were riffling though mum's draws while she was asleep to find the golden coin! I guess that must be pretty legal then. Ethical though? How would National react if Labour had done the same to them? But it wasn't just the taking of the golden coin which wasn't theirs to take, It was the fact that they chose to spend it upon themselves; that is just as odious. 

    • Robert Guyton 2.6

      Seems Wayne's to busy to respond.

    • lprent 2.7

      Wayne: "the editors vastly overreached."

      Sadly for your preposition that was not the case. It is all part of holding a political party to account for its actions. That is part of the role of the media.

      The National party are presumably made up of adults and were perfectly capable of explaining how they obtained the material.

      Their vehement failure to do so provided a clear presumption of guilt. After all if the explanation was innocent, then where was the harm in identifying the security breach to Treasury IT?

      It would have been remiss of us to not point this out and the possible legal and moral implications.

      After all – what is the possible harm in pointing out the moral flaws in a political party.

      By coincidence,  you may note that Simon Bridges was using the same kind of logic when he was releasing sensitive budget information early. With that as our moral and legal guide – we could do no less.

      FFS: Wayne – grow up. And possibly try to read the post about why exactly the National party and its minions are so easy to be called to account in this manner. They have a history of ethical and legal bound skirting.

      • Gosman 2.7.1

        Are you going to follow up on this?

        "Of course, if the police do their usual half-arsed job, then I’ll happily help to get a competent private prosecution off the ground. That will include the required appeals off the ground to help the courts and police in their learning curve.  But I’ll be fighting to do it completely in public as being in the public interest – after all what political parties consider to be criminal behaviour is very much in the public interest. "

        • lprent 2.7.1.1

          Sure. I usually follow through on this kind of thing. It involves computers.

          I'll see what the police said as their rationale for not charging under 249 / 252. Based on past experience – that might require an OIA.

          Specifically I'm going to be interested in what they say about dishonest purpose and authorisation – ie the mens rea. Have a look at what the National Party finally gets around to disclosing and see if that has any substance beyond PR arse covering. 

          Then I'll have a look if I think that level of legal protection is sufficient to satisfy the kind of protection that computer systems need and what is possible under the relevant legislation.

          Then I'll decide what I want to do.

          The last time I had to look at something like this was after Cameron Slater was accused of trying to pay for a hack on my computer systems. While the immediate work of looking for evidence of a breach was quite focused, the decision to follow up legally took some time. The veracity of the accuser was odd (to say the least).

          That took about 6 months before I considered that there was sufficient information to take the next step. This is likely to be about the same period of time. Of course if I don't find sufficient clarity, then it becomes worth doing just to make sure that the issue is aired in public in greater depth and to shine light in to the obscuring shadows.

          I considered doing this after the Labour party site was 'hacked' by much the same technique that National seem to have claimed. It really doesn't surprise me that the National Party claims the same defence as Cameron Slater and his friends used. They do seem to reflect the private ethics of National quite well.

          Basically this is similar to what the legislation and law says about entering unlocked buildings. That it is unlocked doesn't give people a right to enter or steal from it.

           

          • RedLogix 2.7.1.1.1

            That it is unlocked doesn't give people a right to enter or steal from it.

            Which is why I find the Police decision baffling. It's crystal clear the public had no 'right of claim' to the documents … so on what basis has this determination been made? 

            • lprent 2.7.1.1.1.1

              The police seldom charge when they aren't sure if they can get a conviction. This area around access to computers is still pretty new in criminal law. There was a link to a NZ Supreme court decision in the end of my post the other day that is one of the first worldwide that could become a precedent across a large number of juristrictions..

            • New view 2.7.1.1.1.2

              RedLogix.  What!  A few boring documents that will be published to anyone in the world who is interested enough to read them in the following 24hours. Hardly security secrets. Please.  yawn. 

              • RedLogix

                Treasury is the owner of Budget documents and by long standing convention they are treated as confidential. It's not up to you to decide otherwise.

              • The country's companies and public-sector organisations are full of "a few boring documents" that are nevertheless confidential and supposed to be secured from public access. Finding mistakes in that security and exploiting them is called data theft, and is something that NZ political parties should condemn, not participate in.  If you're happy to support a party of thieves, that's up to you, but people with any ethical standards above weasel-level shouldn't.

        • higherstandard 2.7.1.2

          laughThe hubris is a thing to behold.

          • Incognito 2.7.1.2.1

            I’d call it experience but to the ignorant indeed it might look like hubris.

      • Wayne 2.7.2

        Iprent

        Police says no offence. You overreached by accusing National of a crime. That is way more than holding someone or an organisation to account.

        • Muttonbird 2.7.2.1

          The Police saying no offence doesn't mean there wasn't one.

        • Kat 2.7.2.2

          @Wayne

          The voters will ultimately do the holding to account. The next few round of polls will surely be an interesting gauge on where the political sentiment is truly at. The length of time National is prepared to be led by Simon Bridges should be telling as well.

        • lprent 2.7.2.3

          Police says no offence.

          The police will seldom say that – as you should be aware. They will say that they are not sure if something was illegal or that they aren't charging anyone.

          A link would be useful to what they did say. Nearest I found in a very fast search was something from the Treasury (at the end of Manhires piece) which says.

          Following Tuesday’s referral, the Police have advised the Treasury that, on the available information, an unknown person or persons appear to have exploited a feature in the website search tool but that this does not appear to be unlawful. They are therefore not planning further action.

          Ah yes… Not what you said at all. perhaps you should learn to not over-reach and to put words into the police ‘mouth’.

          The reason that they say that often isn't that they don't think that there may have been a crime. They often don't think that they have the evidence to secure a conviction or that the offence isn’t serious enough to take to the court to detirmine. After all they really are under-resourced.

          After all the police are not the people who determine if something is unlawful; that is the courts job.

          So why am I having to tell you this… It seems like it should be obvious to a lawyer.

    • mpledger 2.8

      First off – that's how they said they got the information – how can we trust them?  They said it came from a leak now they are saying something different.

      Second – there were always two issues – how the information was obtained and how the information was used.  The information was clearly confidential – any government member knows that, there is no journalistic priviledge, there was no whistle-blowing – it was purely politicking at the expense of the national interest. 

      National may not have gone as low as it looked like yesterday but they certainly sunk themselves a long way.

      • Bearded Git 2.8.1

        Agreed mpledger….and Robertson never accused National of illegal behaviour; that is a Bridges construct/lie.

        All a bit of a storm in a tea-cup.

        (Though it does confirm National is morally bankrupt, but we knew that already)

    • higherstandard 2.9

      'But I am pretty certain there will be no recognition by The Standard of that.'

      I don't think you would get anyone taking that bet as it's a slam dunk certainty.

      Certainly no surprise that the competence of the bureaucracy to keep information secure has been found wanting. If we had similar security surrounding electronic patient records people in the relevant IT functions would be rightly pilloried.

      As I said yesterday now pretty bored with this sideshow and more interested in the what's actually in the budget.

    • Kevin 2.10

      Unfortunately for Simon, Wayne, Joe Public still think he is a loser. Read the comments on Stuff for example (hardly a bastion of left wing thought and comment) and he is being roasted.

      Yet another own goal from National.

    • Wayne 2.11

      The Standard was way too enthusiastic to ascribe criminal intent to the National Party. That is a serious allegation. The Standard should have realised that major political parties simply don’t act that way. And that only compelling evidence should lead to such an allegation.

      it was pretty obvious to me from the getgo that The Standard had grossly overreached on this issue.

      • marty mars 2.11.1

        rubbish – you're not unbiased, your view is jaundiced – just more batting for your team yawn.

      • Formerly Ross 2.11.2

        Wayne, can you remind us how much your political party is required to pay for ripping off Eminem? So much for your silly claim that no major political party acts this way. By the way, have you heard if Todd Barclay has changed his mind and intends to assist police?

        • Wayne 2.11.2.1

          There is a distinction between criminal and civil liability. All sorts of people breach civil liability, doesn’t make them criminals.

          • Sam 2.11.2.1.1

            Yesterday it was "tanks vs teachers. Today it's "criminal and civil liability." National Party strategists must be working over time. No one better mention "Simon vs Crusher."

        • michelle 2.11.2.2

          don't forget we are waiting for sarah dowie to be charged for her texting behaviour others wont get away with this and she shouldn't either 

      • lprent 2.11.3

        Firstly “The Standard” doesn’t exist. It is not a person nor is it a entity. It is a URI.

        I know that I didn’t ascribe criminal intent to the National Party or Simon Bridges.

        What I said was that if they’d received property that was as a result of a crime (and I suggested s249 and s252 of the Crimes Act), then receiving stolen property was covered by s310 of the Crimes Act.

        Now I still haven’t heard from anyone why accessing temporarily and clearly unintended unprotected files and using them for political advantage wasn’t gaining a benefit from a dishonest purpose.

        Perhaps you’d give it a try?

      • Sam 2.11.4

        I still want to know if the job for Simons press secretary comes with that delicious restaurant quality sushi or, the cafe type, because my opinion of Simon hasn't changed. If Simon was allowed to push go on Nationals tax, education and health policies, all it will say is "Labour" and "did it." National can not defend its austerity budgets. That has consequences because each National MP can not take responsibility for the ministry if they were to be in charge of a ministry. That is the modus operandi of National MPs. To stick the knife into the budget and start cutting then blame Labour. That's why National has no mates.

    • ankerawshark 2.12

      Actually Wayne, the Treasury guy said it looked very much like the website had been hacked and he had called in the police.  

      I think the ones  showing the most breathless excitment of a gotcha moment was Mr Bridges.  Do you disagree?????

      I think it was appalling judgement that National leaked parts of the budget.  What do you think Wayne, given that there is a general understanding not to do that and on one of the other occasions it happened it NZ a lot of money.   Simon is only interested in scoring points.   

      Now lets sit back and see what the govt is spending our money on to retify and significant problems this country faces, many if not all of them, neglected under your teams watch.

    • Stuart Munro. 2.13

      The Gnats, caught red handed to the elbows yet again, can always rely on Wayne to defend them.

  3. Wayne: Indeed, it seems the theft of the data wasn't illegal.  It's true that someone (presumably a Nat staffer, given the Parliamentary IP address) probed the Treasury's web site for a security flaw, found one, then put plenty of time and effort into exploiting it to extract confidential information. However, NZ's legislation doesn't declare this particular type of hacking illegal, so Simon Bridges calls it National "acting entirely appropriately."

    It's as if the government had failed to make it illegal to go round trying the handles of parked cars until you find one unlocked and then ransack it.  Simon Bridges would presumably find that behaviour "entirely appropriate," as long as the ransacked car belonged to his opponent.

    To be fair, I'm not at all surprised to find that "it wasn't illegal" is the level of integrity we can expect from a National government – it's just usually less blatant.

    • Rapunzel 3.1

      Not "illegal" it seems but "unauthorised" for certain, I think that the majority of average NZers and plenty of those in business see very little difference and will be more interested in how any avenues for either can be shut down. A few motley bits of info that no one paid attention to other than "aren't I clever"/no, particularly in regard to Bridges reflects on how the desperate the current leadership of the National Party are to survive, the longer it is for Bridges the more it is going to hurt unfortunately for him.

      • Gosman 3.1.1

        The Police are not prosecuting and Treasury isn't pushing for it either. Perhaps someone from The Standard would like to take a private prosecution…

        • mpledger 3.1.1.1

          Can we crowd fund it?

          On Nat Rad, Simon's stand-up broke in during a report on a private prosecution of Boris Johnson's (alleged) lies about EC funding.  So, rather ironic.

      • Bearded Git 3.1.2

        Agreed Rapunzel.

        Ben Thomas and Bryce Edwards analysis of the Treasury leak this morning on RNZ's Morning Report (8.16 am) was pathetic. Talk about pro-National. 

        And Corinne Dann showed his true colour (blue) by the way he put leading questions to Thomas/Edwards. 

    • TootingPopularFront 3.2

      If it was a “staffer” (I don’t think “Nat staffer”s are given official IP addresses, but willing to be proved wrong), I wonder whether they were doing it while being paid by us taxpayers but benefiting the National Party?

      • Wensleydale 3.2.1

        Was the staffer emotional? And junior?

      • Muttonbird 3.2.2

        I wondered this.

        Hopefully that's what the SSC will look into it – public servants trawling the Treasury website snooping for budget secrets solely for the purpose of damaging the government.

        Not holding my breath though.

  4. vto 4

    Treasury boss: ""In my view, there were deliberate, exhaustive and sustained attempts to gain unauthorised access to embargoed data. Our systems were clearly susceptible to such unacceptable behaviour, in breach of the long-standing convention around Budget confidentiality, and we will undertake a review to make them more robust."

    Dirty National, just dirty, stinking the place up … 

    The picture that comes to mind is the dirty mug of John Key… so dirty.., so National

    • Gosman 4.1

      What is also comes to mind is that the Government and Treasury look like a bunch of muppets for not looking after the Budget information better..

      • Incognito 4.1.1

        So, making them look bad is a good thing how exactly? To show that the Opposition is a better alternative government-in-waiting? It is a race to the bottom and National is putting the pedal to the metal. Of course, this is entirely in line with their ideology of government is bad, private rule and enterprise is good.

        • Poission 4.1.1.1

          Actually it is in line with parliamentary democracies (and the scientific method of falsification) Huxley 1886.

          If we reflect that the following passage of the same essay was written nearly a century and a half ago, it would seem that whatever other changes may have taken place, political warfare remains in statu quo:—

          "Those who either attack or defend a minister in such a government as ours, where the utmost liberty is allowed, always carry matters to an extreme, and exaggerate his merit or demerit with regard to the public. His enemies are sure to charge him with the greatest enormities, both in domestic and foreign management; and there is no meanness or crime, of which, in their judgment, he is not capable. Unnecessary wars, scandalous treaties, profusion of public treasure, oppressive taxes, every kind of maladministration is ascribed to him. To aggravate the charge, his pernicious conduct, it is said, will extend its baneful influence even to posterity, by undermining the best constitution in the world, and disordering that wise system of laws, institutions, and customs, by which our ancestors, during so many centuries, have been so happily governed. He is not only a wicked minister in himself, but has removed every security provided against wicked ministers for the future.

          "On the other hand, the partisans of the minister make his panegyric rise as high as the accusation against him, and celebrate his wise, steady, and moderate conduct in every part of his administration. The honour and interest of the nation supported abroad, public credit maintained at home, persecution restrained, faction subdued: the merit of all these blessings is ascribed solely to the minister. At the same time, he crowns all his other merits by a religious care of the best government in the world, which he has preserved in all its parts, and has transmitted entire, to be the happiness and security of the latest posterity."—(III. 26.)

           

          • Incognito 4.1.1.1.1

            I think none of the recent events here would surprise Huxley the slightest.

    • higherstandard 4.2

      'Dirty National, just dirty, stinking the place up … …….The picture that comes to mind is the dirty mug of John Key… so dirty.., so National'

      Maybe from the more partisan political commenters who spend time on blogs and the like, I wonder what the person in the street thinks ? I’d suggest it’s more in line with Gosman’s comment.

      • mpledger 4.2.1

        I don't know.  Most people who I have heard venture a comment seem to think Simon was pretty low to put his own interests ahead of his country's.

      • Incognito 4.2.2

        Appealing to popular appeal? Perhaps we should change our Justice system to better reflect what ‘the person in the street’ thinks? Or treatment of prisoners? Or beneficiaries, the sick, the old …

        You don’t wiggle out of moral issues by asking ‘the person in the street’. What a cop out!

        • higherstandard 4.2.2.1

          'You don’t wiggle out of moral issues by asking ‘the person in the street’. What a cop out!'

          Except during referenda….etc….muppet.

          • Incognito 4.2.2.1.1

            So, when you have to tick the box on the ballot you ask “the person in the street”? Or you ask a whole lot of “persons in the street”, as in an election. Is this how you deal with moral issues? Morality is not decided by a majority vote, not even a conscience vote, contrary to popular belief in some political camps. For more information on this topic I’d suggest you talk to Brian, or Alfred.

            • Psycho Milt 4.2.2.1.1.1

              If one finds ethical considerations to be an annoying inconvenience, a useful heuristic is "how much does current popular thinking let me get away with?"  This is observable across the political right, to the extent that some of them consider it a virtue, as per the inappropriately-named Higher Standard's comment.

              • Sam

                An AI birthed to create the most beautiful military juggernaut in history. An AI that learns to love. An AI after our own heart.

    • Jimmy 4.3

      Treasury left the car keys on the drivers seat in plain view and didn't bother to even lock the car

      • Formerly Ross 4.3.1

        That’s so true, Jimmy. And no doubt you would have taken the rego number and the keys and informed police in order that the car’s owner could drive home. At least that’s what a statesman would have done. Simple Simon ain’t no statesman.

      • Gabby 4.3.2

        They figure it's natsy's car anyway jimby.

  5. Sacha 5

    Stuff editorial, written before this morning's update, focuses on the ethical aspects: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113086666/was-there-any-point-to-the-budget-leak

    • ianmac 5.1

      Thanks Sacha. A well balanced Editorial.

      It is also surprising that Bridges did not seek legal advice before releasing sensitive information. Time will tell if there have been further lapses in judgment. A picture has emerged of an Opposition leader who sometimes fails to consider the long-term consequences of short-term actions. We saw that in 2018 when he insisted on an investigation into the leak of his travel expenses, which led inexorably to the Jami-Lee Ross scandal. 

      • mpledger 5.1.1

        Perhaps he thought he could give himself legal advice but as the saying goes … " A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."

  6. OnceWasTim 6

    I find all this both funny as a fart, and sad.

    When is it that Ministerial members of this coalition will realise that a good many of it's 'officials' (with whom they have complete faith in), aren't really their friends?.

    It's all becoming a little masochistic

     

  7. Sanctuary 7

    Simon Bridges is now simply being hysterical on NatRad – I have no idea what his political strategy is, beyond sounding like a screeching parrot with no control of it's temper. 

    Bridges seems to have an appalling chip on his shoulder.

  8. Muttonbird 8

    I suggested yesterday the National Party had and endemic snooping culture. If this is what they do in opposition, imagine what they'd do in government!

    This culture had been introduced by John Key and the Bridges/Bishop crowd have run with it.

    You can imagine this kind of subterfuge and dishonourable action happening under Bill English or in any party our own Wayne Mapp was involved with.

    I mean, what is the point of an embargo if snoops break it?

  9. Observer Tokoroa 9

    The Bridges Way

    The National Party through Simon Bridges, has delivered to every New Zelander that they may grab any information or any material they want. At any time, anywhere.!  Without permission.

    No wonder New Zealanders see National as "Grab for greed"  and enforce Poverty on the citizenship.

     

     

     

     

  10. Grantoc 10

    Shouldn't the heading for this post be "Same Old Dirty Labour"

    Perhaps it could be "Same Old Lying Peters" as an alternative.

    • Sacha 10.1

      You may have this place confused with Kiwibog.

      • Grantoc 10.1.1

        Not at all Sacha.

        Simply seeking balance here, on this site.

        Given the budget shambles its pretty clear that its Labour who are involved in dirty politics. National was just doing its job – and legally it turns out.

        Peters is just a stupid old goat who should be put out to pasture before he does irreparable damage to the Labour led coalition.

      • Rosemary McDonald 10.1.2

        You may have this place confused with Kiwibog.

        Funny you should say that…

  11. Calltoaccount 11

    The police etc would have checked this out I guess, but…

    It’s common to set a website up with ‘locked’ pages, that are unreachable and unsearchable until they are unlocked. The point being that it lets the webmaster do the work in advance of when it’s needed.

    Could not a hacker have unlawfully unlocked the pages, stolen the information and left the page ‘open’?

    Which would leave anyone, including Bridges, to demo how easy it would then be to enter a previously unlocked door.

    Without proof of why I am wrong, it makes Bridges’ press conference pointless. 

    Speculation obviously, but all of Bridges’ posturing is just that, posturing. Be great to get back to the real news of the budget.

    • Sacha 11.1

      The information was not 'locked' in the first place.

      • Dukeofurl 11.1.1

        yes the information was locked.

        But it was indexed and the  search came up with  the index results and the phrase around it. Thats why they had to do  hundreds upon hundreds of searches.

        The complete documents were out of reach.

        • mpledger 11.1.1.1

          As I said yesterday (just so Wayne doesn;t accuse me of changing my position) – finding the documents accidently through a search engine and then not going further seems to be on the right side of the law (although the ethical position would have been to go further and tell Treasury of the issue straight away) – but doing 2000 searches to extract more information about a document they had to know they weren't entitled to doesn't sound legal – mens rea – there intent was to get hold of a document that they were not entitled too and in all other respects had been locked away.

          If you see a locked door but notice there is a flaw in the lock it doesn't give you a right to exploit the flaw and break in.

      • mpledger 11.1.2

        My interpretation is that the room was locked really, really tightly but that someone had taken photographs of what was inside and pasted them on the outside walls.  If you went and took copies of the photos and stitched them together then you could see a good deal of what was inside at the time the photos were taken.

        Another reason why Simon shouldn't have released the docs is that he didn't know if they were correct or not.  When he saw the documents the govt could have been thinking of upping the tax on cigs and alcohol and then changed their minds at the last minute.  Simon could have had the older copy and released the info and caused mayhem as people rushed to get cigs and alcohol before the price rise.  

    • Rosemary McDonald 11.2

      Be great to get back to the real news of the budget.

      Yes please.

  12. Tuppence Shrewsbury 12

    Lol, I was waiting for a dirty politics post to come out here accusing National of dirty tricks.

    Dirty politics was the accusation that politicians would run attacks on their opponents using a two track method. Keeping it high level in person from the attacker then running the more scurrilous attack lines via compliant and friendly blogs. Now whether or not this is dirty politics or effective communication tends to lie in the view of the reader and there position on the attacker. 

    Now that we know exactly how National and the rest of the nation got a look at a budget that has the exact amount of money teachers are asking for, but is being spent on additional defence instead, we can rule out never knowing how National got the information. Fishing for information is not a dirty practice. it's a form of knowing how to ask the right questions. 

    But, accusing national of having incredible hacking skills and/or receiving stolen goods on a blog while politicians with broadly the same alignment report that the issue has been taken to police in an attempt to gag the opposition, that's classic, total, dirty politics methodology. By the book even. 

    Maybe back down instead of throwing out stupid accusations and stop viewing the National party under bridges as so competent it could achieve a proper treasury hack. The evil inference fits the narrative run on National, but this is a time when facts should get in the way of a good story. 

    • Sacha 12.1

      "in an attempt to gag the opposition"

      Maybe stop throwing out stupid accusations.

      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 12.1.1

        So everything else in my comment is correct? i'll take it and retract that part

        • Muttonbird 12.1.1.1

          Snooping appears to be entrenched culture in the National Party.

          It's frightening.

          • Tuppence Shrewsbury 12.1.1.1.1

            "Snooping" 

            It's not snooping if it can be searched for. that's asking questions, which an opposition should do. 

            it's not Nationals fault the answers are perfectly honest and correct, just in advance of when they wanted to be made.

            • Muttonbird 12.1.1.1.1.1

              Accessing confidential information is snooping in most people’s view.

              Or are you claiming this information was not confidential?

              • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                I don't put confidential information in an easily accessible and searchable format on my website. 

                Also, no, I don't think the information on how the government is planning to spend our money is confidential. 

                Governments think so, but only so they can politik on it.

                • Muttonbird

                  Why then is it embargoed? Why have a budget at all?

                  • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                    hurr durr it's embargoed so that the finance minister can make a speech delivering goodies to people and his party can pat themselves on the back. 

                    Budgets are good and useful things, but making it some sort of political theater is rather tired and past it's use by date. 

                    Stick to your national is evil and labour are pure and not stupid in this matter line though. IDK

                  • Enough is Enough

                    Its a self imposed embargo on the government. It is not a legal embargo.

                    National is not subject to it and can do what it likes with the informration provided they obtained the information though legal means, which it appears they did.

                    • Muttonbird

                      But the information is confidential and then the media and opposition parties must enter a lock up prior to the budget announcement.

                      That doesn't actually sound self-imposed.

                    • Enough is Enough

                      If it is not self imposed – who imposed it?

                      The government keeps it to themselves until the lock-up where the opposition and media get to see it.

                      Unless of course they are so incompetent to leave it somewhere that it can be seen which is what happened. Once National or anyone else has it, they have no duties of confidence to the government.

                      The only issue is whether they obtained it legally. 

                    • Incognito []

                      The only issue is whether they obtained it legally.

                      No, there are, or were, two issues: 1) how was the information obtained by National and 2) how was the information used by National?

                      The post only addresses the second question. In my opinion, the Leader of the Opposition used it to inflict maximal damage to the public trust, respect, confidence, and support for Treasury and the Government of the day. It was clearly aimed at undermining the institutions that are fundamental to the political process and functioning of democratic governing of this country.

                      How anybody can approve of this or justify it is beyond me because the damage is much greater than egg on the faces of the Minister of Finance or the Secretary and Chief Executive of Treasury, for example.

            • Dukeofurl 12.1.1.1.1.2

              "it's not Nationals fault the answers are perfectly honest and correct, just in advance of when they wanted to be made."

               

              yes like Simon Bridges limo expenses, yet we had every excuse under the sun…Bridges was overcharged…labour released it… Tova Obrien is a traitor….and so on

            • mauī 12.1.1.1.1.3

              Then I guess downloading opposing party membership information and card details can't really be called "snooping" either if there's a way to do it… frown

          • Grantoc 12.1.1.1.2

            Get over yourself Muttonbird. You're acting like a snow flake

            Whats 'frightening' is the lying manipulative behaviour of Robertson, Ardern and Peters in attempting to smear National for their own political purposes.

            Try opening both eyes as you review the evidence – one eye distorts the picture.

            • Muttonbird 12.1.1.1.2.1

              I think most Kiwis will be uneasy about National Party culture. If they snoop on Treasury then what to stop them snooping on the public.

            • Gabby 12.1.1.1.2.2

              Advance info can be worth money gruntoc, Thus the embargo.

    • Puckish Rogue 12.2

      Indeed, part of the problem is the belief that lefties generally have is that the left is pure and good and the right is evil and underhanded

      The exception being everyone on this site of course 😉

      • bewildered 12.2.1

        Likewise left is often about feelings not facts, and identify to have a valid view, so pointless debating in most cases ( not here  of course 👍) 

      • xanthe 12.2.2

        sadly I agree with you for once Puck

        • Puckish Rogue 12.2.2.1

          Don't worry the first time is always the hardest but after that it gets easier 😉

      • AB 12.2.3

        This is bollocks of course.

        Any sensible lefties know that all individuals are a bit of a write-off ethically – to a greater or lesser extent. It has absolutely nothing to do with individuals. What lefties might claim is the ethical superiority of their ideology – due to its concern for the wellbeing (had to get that in) of everyone rather than just oneself. Whether they are right in thinking that is the basis of a whole swathe of political discourse between left and right.

        What you are running here is a crude propaganda line suggesting that lefties think they are better than everyone else and therefore want to tell everyone what to do. It's either a totally cynical attack line or dumb as f*ck to be honest. 

      • Stuart Munro. 12.2.4

        Not really – although it's manifestly true most righties are evil to their rotting cores.

        This is a market mechanism, designed to prevent the unscrupulous from whipping up hysteria about budgets, and speculating on the results. As a supposedly market focused party, the Gnats ought to know and respect the mechanism – but no – they cracked it and shouted the information from the rooftops.

        Had we a traditional monarch they'd hang for it.

        And the world would be better for it.

  13. Peter 13

    I know politics is a very fluid and complex business and there are some things about it I'll never get. Like today.

    I see a headline on Stuff, "Government acted 'deeply dishonestly' (sic) over Budget coverup Simon Bridges says."

    A couple of weeks back the same person had a couple of goes at explaining something that happened in Wellington.  It was about an on-line petition and a 'junior staffer' got mentioned.  Remember? Just one of several incidents involving honesty.

    Is acting dishonestly a moveable feast? Is acting 'deeply' dishonestly worse that just acting dishonestly?

    Why oh why can't we drag out the new Trump way of saying things and address things more directly?  Bringing our own Kiwi way to it of course.

    When Bridges began rabbiting on about honesty why didn't someone simply call him out: "Fuck off you jumped up little twerp, stop treating us like we're the kids in the room."

  14. CHCoff 14

    The leak clearly shows to the public, that there is machinery of the previous govt. era actively trying to undermine the currently elected govt.

    That is the improper politicization of the public service by the previous govt against the democratic process of NZ.

    • Muttonbird 14.1

      It's an interesting one. I read somewhere this morning Bridges' claim it was a National Party policy advisor who "stumbled" upon the information (oh, so innocent!)

      Parliamentary service employees are supposed to be neutral so that seems to be contradictory.

    • bewildered 14.2

      WARNING Conspiracy loon alert 

    • CHCoff 14.3

      http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/f5bc921a/bridges-says-budget-leak-response-the-most-contemptible-moment-in-nz-politics.html

      'At an early Budget day media conference, Bridges confirmed what had become apparent overnight: that the National Party itself had obtained the Budget information by typing search terms relevant to the 2019 Budget into the search engine on the Treasury’s website.

      As Makhlouf confirmed in a 5am statement this morning, this allowed access to a ‘cloned’ version of the site where the Treasury had been uploading Budget documents in what it believed to be a cyber-secure environment.'

       

  15. marty mars 15

    Whichever way you look at it it is a fuck up by bridges and the gnats.

    They both look small and petty.

    People are talking about how small and petty they are not about the great revelations from the budget leak a day before the release (funny there seems a pattern about getting a boner about reports due to be released eh simon – where is your original leaker simon?)

    Simon looks utterly insincere and idiotic feigning moral outrage – desperate little man.

    Labour get to deliver their budget AND mention the dirty rotter gnats – lol win, win, win.

    • Infused 15.1

      Lol no they are not

    • Enough is Enough 15.2

      I take it you haven't left home today or read anything outside of this thread.

      This is a fucking shambles caused by Treasury incompetence. That has been made worse by the silly allegations made by Peters yesterday. 

      The sooner he has gone the better. A Labour Green government next year just has to become a reality.

      • marty mars 15.2.1

        Yeah i've listened and read everything – sure treasury heads should roll but it's all a big bullshit beatup – it is a joke used by dipshit bridges to try to be a big man while he is pulling the sharp ends out his back. 

        • michelle 15.2.1.1

          Right on the button marty mars, his back (soimons) is full of swords his actions are those of a very desperate man about to get the chop, this is soimons last stand he had to go for it.  

  16. greywarshark 16

    National is dirty and so is Saintly Simon – unwilling to respect convention over the choice of Speaker of the House, which was disrespecting of a Parliamentary convention.   Now he is disrespecting the Budget Rules convention.  

    November 2017   – https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/yesterday-day-incompetence-government-simon-bridges-dramatic-move-in-parliament-just-vigorous-testing

    – Simon Bridges' dramatic move in Parliament just 'vigorous testing'

    "We'd offered the National Party the Deputy Speaker position in exchange for what we thought was an understanding they would support Trevor Mallard to be the Speaker, and then as the vote was beginning they indicated they weren't intending to proceed with that."

    Labour did have the numbers to vote in Trevor Mallard as Speaker, but only just, with MPs like Winston Peters and David Parker at APEC.

    "It wasn't a bluff, but I didn't know [the numbers] exactly," Mr Bridges said.

    "You can call it a bluff.. I'd call it vigorous testing."

    Mr Bridges is one of the entitled now;  the smart Head Boy, got double degrees, studied at the London School of Economics etc.    The trouble with a lot of education is that it gives vulnerable aspirational people a swelled head, a disease that develops into psychopathology where they are unable to consider anything or respect anyone beyond their own narrow-minded group.
    Edit

    He is following the route and behaviour of Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May that I reviewed and commented on recently, with the same dogged approach to behaviour reflecting a fixed and class-oriented policy of ignoring what is fair, right and good for a worthy democracy.

    • marty mars 16.1

      he's a modern man – lots of learning and thick as toast

      • greywarshark 16.1.1

        But gluten-free – in my opinion – with no taste, and not good at sticking together with NZrs, or rising to an important occasion requiring higher feelings and standards of behaviour.

  17. Fireblade 17

    Sideshow Simon

  18. Infused 18

    Right again. That was a shit show

  19. Sam - not to be confused with the other Sam 19

    Situation Vacant – advisor to the leader of the opposition (not to be confused with the current status of the leader himself)

    Must be able to connect to real Mum and Dad New Zealanders and help convey the real issues (some drawl translation required) and reduce the ever widening chasm between him and the public.

    Must steer him away from contrived hypocritical statements like those made about 'cover ups', accusations of lying etc… and remind him of the live issues in the National Party.

    Must have a sound grasp of horrendous clichés (preferably the applicant will have father aged over 60 years old to tap into when the 'well runs dry').

    Needed immediately.

    PS must appreciate awesome drum solos.

     

    [I’ve changed your user name because we already have a regular and rather prolific commenter here by the name of Sam. Perhaps you could think of another name to distinguish yourself – Incognito]

  20. mary_a 20

    At the beginning, Simon Bridges should have done the decent thing and told Grant Robertson or Jacinda Ardern Natz was able to gain access to the Budget 2019/20 details. However, instead he enthusiastically released details to media to make public, prior to the document's embargo being lifted!  

    It might not be a crime, but Bridges behaviour in all this has been quite unethical. 

    Can't remember if this is Dirty Politics II or is it Dirty Politics III? No doubt as the next election looms, Dirty Politics sequals will be coming thick and fast from Natz!

     

    • srylands 20.1

      I presume the "Natz" is a reference to the New Zealand National Party.  I could understand "Nats".  What is that about?

      You are being naive.  I would have alerted Treasury to their error.  But I am not a politician.  Of course the National Party ran riot.  That is what the Opposition does.  It is not "dirty" politics.  Merely politics.

      In Australia history is full of incidents of the Australian Labor Party using unlawfully obtained material for political advantage, resulting in raids by the police.  That will continue.

      https://www.arnnet.com.au/article/605639/communications-minister-slams-nbn-raid-claim-police-move/

      By comparison this is child's play.

      I know that The Standard needs to bat for the Government.  But please be realistic.

       

      • rozgonz 20.1.1

        "realistic" LOL

      • Incognito 20.1.2

        It is not "dirty" politics.  Merely politics.

        It is not bad behaviour. Merely behaviour. Nine years obviously was long enough to normalise dirty politics in the eyes of (too) many as merely politics. Hence the catchall “they did it too”.

      • mary_a 20.1.3

        @ srylands (20.1) … 

        "I presume the "Natz" is a reference to the New Zealand National Party.  I could understand "Nats".  What is that about?"

        I have always referred to National as Natz. Nothing new there and will continue to do so, until a moderator gives me a warning about using the word. 

        "You are being naive.  I would have alerted Treasury to their error.  But I am not a politician.  Of course the National Party ran riot.  That is what the Opposition does.  It is not "dirty" politics.  Merely politics."

        No it's not what the opposition does. A good opposition, wanting the best for the nation, holds the government of the day to account for its decisions and actions. And this week Simon Bridges was not holding the government to account at all. He was playing dirty, attempting a one upmanship game as a scurrilous attempt to score points.

        "In Australia history is full of incidents of the Australian Labor Party using unlawfully obtained material for political advantage, resulting in raids by the police.  That will continue."

        But we are not Australia. This is NZ. So not interested in their shenanigans really. Like the majority of Kiwis, I expect a higher and more ethical standard of politics, than that which has been demonstrated this week by Natz leader Simon Bridges (or Australia).

        "I know that The Standard needs to bat for the Government.  But please be realistic."

        OK then, so what do you consider realistic?

  21. mosa 21

    Sadly in a few months no one will remember the last few days as we get on with our lives.

  22. This whole saga is definitely Simons way of getting revenge for his spending being released 2 days early.

    That's exactly how his petty mind works.

    Typical schoolboy stuff to a tee.

  23. The most pertinent question I have not seen anyone raise is – 

     

    Why was someone searching with those specific descriptions days ahead of the budget release? 

    And… who was ? 

     

    Theres more to this than than has been yet told.

     

     

  24. rozgonz 24

    I occasionally read this blog to see how the left are "interpreting" the events of the day. Even though I know the left have little or no shame I'm amazed by your holier than thou response. If the boot was on the other foot you'd be all over this like a rash (as history has proven). Your old mate Soimin has scored a hit here, best you just acknowledge it and move on

    • mpledger 24.1

      Show us the history where Labour did the same thing.  It's just a really cheap argument to say "You would have done the same thing" – it's completely impossible to prove.  Even if it was what you truely felt, rather than a political line to trot out when your side is in the do-do, it would show your total lack of imagination to be able to see that people might act differently to you.

      • bewildered 24.1.1

        Mike Williams  was pretty good a scurrying off at Helen’s request to dig up dirt where he could, bs or not Likewise Cindy and co can bs and obfuscate with the best of political class, they are no better or worse, you pretending so as highlighted is holier than though and a sad fact of much of the left ( socialist Champaign set at  least, do as I say not as I do   )  Australia election case in point re holier than though attitude of elite left

    • Incognito 24.2

      Your old mate Soimin has scored a hit here, best you just acknowledge it and move on

      But where did the hit land?

      And where in the post did I make a/the holier than thou claim?

      The Left likes landing hits, that is true, but they are generally more careful in undermining (public) trust in the collective and democratic institutions that they genuinely believe in, unlike the Right.

  25. Anne 25

    Well I never: so the police acting in favour of the National Party yet again?  [See the former police harassment of Nicky Hager.]

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/113111605/nationals-budget-leaks-go-against-security-agencys-advice-and-treasury-breach-was-unlawful-lawyers-say

    After Budget day is over, should the government lay a further complaint to the Police?

  26. cleangreen 26

    Here's the real logic folks of how national toxic operation operates, as a sabatuer.
    It’s easy to know who was setting who up!!

    This was the method setup by ‘National insiders’ to ambush the treasury to show incompetence and Bridges was their “stool pidgeon”

    National insiders did this to RNZ.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/102664391/clare-curran-says-she-did-not-discuss-upcoming-board-meeting-or-rnz-leadership-at-hirschfeld-meeting?rm=m

    Dont you remember when Clare Curran was on the cusp of announcing a “free to air public affairs channel” in 2017 akin to Channel saven, when they leaked the “Carol Hirschfeld talk with Clare Curren” outside of operating rules debarkle. National wouldnot agree to Labour having their own media platform so the ‘Nats’ needed to kill that plan, and they spectacularly succeeded.

    So National are a “sabotage attack dog” to destroy any labour plans they dont want to see happen.

    Withn this budget being “the welll-being budget” National savegely attacked treasury to kill any discussion about any ” Public well-being”.

    • Bewildered 26.1

      baaaaaaaawhaaaa😪

       

      as the day can’t Handle&nbspba;the heat get out of the kitchen and let the adults  run the place  

  27. Ed1 27

    I found this analysis helpful.

    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=717, and 

    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=723
     

    It seems that it may have been a parliamentary staffer in an opposition office who "found" the material – I wonder how far a person that is employed as a public servant can diverge from the principles of propriety towards a partisan hack. It may however have been a National Party adviser, not paid by Parliamentary Services at all. Regardless of who it was, there may have been a civil offence – should there be any consequences? Then there is the action of the National MP who received the information, and Simon Bridges who released it. Bridges used an analogy on National Radio to try and excuse it – my view is that if information is found that is clearly confidential, it is unethical to publish it instead of just giving it back and drawing attention to the shortfall in security. 

  28. Southern Man 28

    Robertson should use this incident as an opportunity to purge the rogernomes, neo-liberals and remnants of the Key regime from the Treasury. I would not be surprised if the Opposition's release of snippets of Budget information was yet another example of National's Dirty Politics.

    Outside the bubble and blogosphere no-one cares about the release of the information – they will be focussed on the Budget details and the transformational shift in Government policy that underpins it.

  29. Observer Tokoroa 29

    Thieves in the National Party

    Simon Bridges, and Mrs Bennett, should be taken to Court for willful Theft of Government Documents that was Embargoed (and in the the process of  protection) prior to official Budget release 2019.

    The Documents that Briges and Bennett deliberately released to the World gave Financial access not only to the National Party, but to any persons intent on Budget Document theft. Bridges and Bennett committed Blatant, Brazen, Theft.

    The National Party does not just Thieve Documents, it Steals very expensive Music – and Personal information too.  It is high time National was taken to Court.

     

     

     

     

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Seventy-eight new Police constables
    Extra Police officers are being deployed from Northland to Southland with the graduation of a new wing of recruits from the Royal New Zealand Police College. “The graduation of 78 constables today means that 1524 new constables have been deployed since the government took office,” says Police Minister Stuart Nash. ...
    3 weeks ago