Corruption and scandal in New Zealand politics

The pro-National  Party media has one view: social media quite another:

The RECORDING PROVES IT

There is no doubt Soyman knew about a $100,000 donation.

Soyman refused to answer a yes or no question about this for the past 24 hours.

There is also no doubt he knew it had been split up into smaller payments with names supplied that disguised the real donor.

The money was in the Botany Bank account - and was going to be used for advertising according to Soyman.

There is no way the National party would not have been able to find these bank records.

There are other recordings to come.

---Gerard Otto, via Facebook

'He has defamed me and he is a liar' - Simon Bridges

Radio NZ,

17 October, 2018

Simon Bridges has hit back after Jami-Lee Ross released a recording a phone call in which Mr Bridges called MP Maureen Pugh 'f***ing useless'.

Mr Bridges told media he listened to the recording, and began by sending his heartfelt apologies to Maureen Pugh.

Mr Bridges told media he listened to the recording, and began by sending his heartfelt apologies to Maureen Pugh.

"I'm mortified, there's no excuse."

In the recording, the pair speak about potential Chinese candidates that had been mentioned at their dinner with businessman Zhang Yikun.

He said assuming the two candidates mentioned at the dinner did get through candidate's college, they can make some decisions further down the track with what they want to do.

"It's like all these things, it's bloody hard, you've only got so much space, it depends where we're polling, you know, all that sort of thing," said Mr Bridges on the recording.

"Two Chinese would be nice, but you then know would it be one Chinese and one Filipino, or you know, what do we do."

Mr Ross replied, "Two Chinese would be more valuable than two Indians, I'd have to say."

"Yeah, which is what we've got at the moment, right?" replied Mr Bridges.

He said this would cause problems with the list MPs.

"It's a pretty mercenary cull," he said.

Mr Bridges said they could end up getting rid of some list MPs to bring in the new ones.

"I reckon there's two or three of our Mps, who not picking up obvious ones, like Finlayson or Carter, but actually we just want them to go."

He went on to say, "Maureen Pugh's f***ing useless."

Mr Ross replied "yeah, I know" and then said "Carter, Finlayson, Nicky Wagner, they don't really need to hang around."

"Yeah, but we don't want them to go this year though... we probably wouldn't want them all to go though, we want to do it well and we just want to think it all through," said Mr Bridges.

Speaking to media, Mr Bridges said this has been a "big and hard lesson" for him and that he values his MPs.

He said National needs to reflect the mutlicultural society New Zealand is.

For National to be representative of that, there is a strong argument for opening it up to more Chinese members of Parliament, he said.

"We want to make sure we're getting the right mix of candidates of quality, whether they're Indian or Chinese, or Filipino, to represent the mix of New Zealand. That's the right thing to do."

He said it was a blunt, private conversation.

And Mr Ross deliberately tried to set him up and attempted to criminally blackmail him.

"I don't stand for that sort of nonsense, as leader of the National Party and 55 MPs agreed with my assessment, that's why he's gone."

He said he's glad Mr Ross is no longer part of his caucus.

On whether he would take Mr Ross to court for defamation, he said it's hardly worth the effort.

Mr Ross, who resigned from the party yesterday as the caucus was expelling him, handed his recording over to the police earlier this afternoon.

On the call Ross mentions the $100,000 donation being "in" which Simon says is "fantastic".

"I promised them that we'd have dinner at my place, you should come, might as well make a bit of fun of it," Mr Bridges said.

"We should make good on that because otherwise I've lied to them because I've said it a couple times now."

Mr Bridges told media he thinks Mr Ross made it clear on the tape that the donations were from different people within the organisation.

"I'll tell you why I didn't explain it yesterday, because I'm a lawyer, I'm a cautious person who takes things seriously..."

He said he takes these things "bloody seriously".

Mr Bridges said Mr Ross has been recording him for months, which is a "monumental breach of trust".

"That's on top of the many other things that he has done."

He said the tape doesn't back Mr Ross' "lies" over the past 24 hours.

"The reality is, on 14th May, I had a dinner with Mr Zhang and that was because 

Jami-Lee Ross knew him very well and was incredibly keen that I do that.

"On the 21st of May I attended a fundraiser for Paul Goldsmith and there Mr Zhang was present, he told me that he and his supporters wanted to donate a large sum of money, I think around $100,000 and I thanked him and I made clear, that's something that Jami-Lee Ross should deal with.

"I then, that evening, let Jami-Lee Ross know that because of his friendship with Mr Zhang the fact that he knew him very well and also because of his deep experience, I would argue, expertise in relation to electoral matters, in relation to collecting and organising a lot of money, fundraising for himself and for the National Party over the years."

Mr Bridges has consistently and strongly denied any wrongdoing.

Releasing the audio on Facebook, Mr Ross said it proved too difficult to release the audio on Twitter.

He wrote: "This audio confirms Simon Bridges and I discussing a $100k donation on 25 June. Simon Bridges says I'm lying - this is part of the evidence I gave to Police today."

The police have confirmed they have received Mr Ross' complaint regarding the disclosure of political donations under the Electoral Act.

In a statement they say the information will be assessed by a Detective Senior Sergeant at Police National Headquarters to determine what further steps may be required.

It will be progressed as quickly as possible, saying the police take any complaint regarding alleged Electoral Act offences seriously, they say.

Chinese businessman Yikun Zhang's donations go beyond Simon Bridges

Jeremy Corbyn more popular than ever in Party

Not what you’ll hear from the Guardian or anywhere else in British media

Jeremy Corbyn would win a second Labour leadership contest with even more support, poll finds

The leader's critics have made no impact on his popularity

the Independent,

28 June, 2016

Labour members would overwhelmingly reject any attempt by the party’s MPs to replace Jeremy Corbyn as leader, a new poll suggests.

The YouGov survey for The Times newspaper found that a significant 64 per cent of members would vote for Mr Corbyn in a leadership ballot triggered by an attempted coup.

Just a third, 33 per cent, say they would not vote for him.

The findings mean it would be effectively impossible to topple the Labour leader under current circumstances were he to make it on the ballot paper.

The findings represent an increase in support for Mr Corbyn among full party members compared to when he was elected in September 2015 on 49.5 per cent of first preference votes.

The increase may be down to a significant increase in membership since he was elected leader.

At that time he was elected by Labour’s wider measure of membership including affiliates and supporters with 59.5 per cent of first preference votes.

Support for Mr Corbyn among the party has grown and solidified since he came to office. A survey in February found that he was approved of by 72 per cent of Labour members with just 17 per cent disapproving.

SPUTNIK: Orbiting the world with George Galloway - Referendum Special

What a difference a day makes… in just 24 hours Britain voted to leave the EU, the prime minister announced his resignation, the Scottish government declared it wanted out of Britain and Ireland's largest party said now was time for Northern Ireland to exit the UK. It's panic stations amongst the ruling elites.

In this special edition of Sputnik we look at how the battle lines are now drawn, from two very different political perspectives: from Selina Scott, doyen of British broadcasting, has been wooed by Tory grandees with offers of safe seats, and Alex Graham, former president of the RMT Union. At the other end of the political spectrum, Graham believes trade unions have lost confidence in their ability to defend members’ rights and an exit from the EU could bring back control. Either way, both our guests agree the Brexit vote was in part a rejection by the working class of the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy and they came to the studio to explain why.

Palantir and New Zealand spying

Networks of influence: Key, Peter Thiel & the GCSB

the Standard,

13 June, 2013

So, there is now further exposure of the networks of influence that connect John Key and his government with crony capitalists and spy networks.

It’s not enough that Key intervened in the appointment of the GCSB that resulted in the recruitment of his long time Ian Fletcher, a man with a strong background in intellectual property.  It’s not enough that the Kim Dotcom saga keeps giving information on the links between Hollywood corporates and pressure on the government with respect to copyright legislation.  It’s not enough to learn about the US metadata spy programmes like Thin Thread and Prism.  It’s not enough that we learn that the developers and managers of Prism, Palantir are operating in NZ and working with Key’s government.  Many claim Palantir designed the Prism system used by the US NSA spying agency and the FBI. Palantir deny it, but others claim it is too much of a coincidence, given the systems Planatir have claimed to have developed.

Now it is becoming clear that Palantir’s co-founder, Peter Thiel has had extensive involvement in NZ since at least 2009, the first year of Key’s government.

Yesterday Russel Norman asked questions in the House about Palantir and Key’s relationship with Peter Thiel.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would describe my relationship as cordial. I have met Mr Thiel on a few occasions—I would have to go to check exactly, as I said, if the member wants to ask me. I have never had a discussion with Mr Thiel about Palantir or about intelligence matters. He is someone who happens to live a certain period of time in New Zealand. He was extremely generous after the Christchurch earthquake, as is a matter of record, and just because “Noddy” over there does not seem to—

Same old attack and divert line from Key at the end there.

In this morning’s NZ Herald, Adam Bennett shows some of Thiel’s involvement in NZ:

Mr Thiel, a billionaire Silicon Valley entrepreneur and former PayPal chief executive, was “extremely generous after the Christchurch earthquake”, Mr Key said. …

Mr Thiel’s Valar Ventures and Matrix Capital Management hold 7 per cent of Mr Drury’s Xero software company. Mr Drury did not respond to the Herald’s calls yesterday.

It’s not necessary to research very far or deep online in order to find out quite a bit about Peter Thiel:

Business Insider Australia has a 2011 article on Peter Thiel and his involvement in NZ, entitled, “Billionnaire Facebook Investor, Petere Thiel Pours Money Into His “Utopia” New Zealand“.

Peter Thiel, famous for making billions off Facebook, tells us he’s finally found “utopia” – New Zealand.Thiel has been investing heavily in the country.

He’s already made two noteworthy venture investments there in the space of a few months. In October 2010, he invested $3 million in online accounting firm Xero, which is based (and publicly traded) in New Zealand. Then he invested $4 million in Pacific fibre, an ambitious company that is building a fibre-optic cable from Australia to New Zealand to the US and is raising $300-400 million more to do so.

These investments aren’t just one-offs. Thiel has set up a local venture firm called Valar Ventures. Valar Ventures LP was registered in New Zealand in July 2009, more than a year before Thiel’s first known New Zealand investment, and is managed by Valar Capital Management LLC, based in San Francisco, according to official records. Valar Ventures LP’s offices are at prominent New Zealand law firm Bell Gully, which suggests it doesn’t have full time staff yet. Peter Thiel founded two other companies in New Zealand: Second Star Limited, where he is sole shareholder, and Silverarc Advisors.

The people associated with these New Zealand companies, all of them close associates of Thiel at his hedge fund Clarium Capital, show how serious Thiel is about New Zealand. Valar Capital Management is managed by Nathan Linn, VP of Finance at Clarium. On the boards of Thiel’s New Zealand companies are Matt Danzeisen, Principal at Clarium, James Fitzgerald, COO and General Counsel at Clarium, and Andrew McCormack, VP Corporate Development at Clarium and previously Thiel’s assistant at PayPal.

The article also reports on the libertarian philosophy that underpins his business operations. It seems that he can’t set up the libertarian state he wants in the US, so has looked to NZ with it’s open door, “free-market” legislation.

Thiel is very libertarian, and New Zealand already has some of the most free-market policies in the world. Thiel is also a donor to the Seasteading Institute, a foundation that wants to create libertarian self-sustaining colonies out at sea. A popular libertarian cause is the “Free State Project” to get tens of thousands of libertarians to emigrate to New Hampshire and take over the government democratically to reshape the state according to libertarian ideals.

Thiel also has given promising young people financial incentives to drop out of college, in the form of Thiel Foundation Fellowships, as reported in the Huffington Post‘.

Thiel and Palantir (whose software customers include “many branches of the US government, especially in the intelligence community, and recently JP Morgan“) were also in the spotlight for having contributed to a plan to oppose Wikileaks back in 2011.  Thiel rebutted the claims that he was involved in developing cyber attack systems:

[Palantir CEO] Karp also personally apologizes to Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com journalist who is a noted supporter of Wikileaks and who is specifically named by the document as a potential target.

Palantir cyber-technologies have also been used by the US military in places like Afghanistan.

It didn’t take me long to find this stuff online.

What more is there to learn about the person, who John Key praises for his philanthropy, and who, as with pre-GCSB Ian Fletcher, John Key has met once or twice, but can’t remember exactly when and where?

How much more are we yet to learn about Key and his government’s interwoven US-focused, cyber-spying, intellectual property and wealthy “neoliberal” corporate networks of influence?

Europe - correcting political "mistakes"

Farage Demolishes Europe's "Troll Patrol"

Zero Hedge,

8 February, 2013

Whether it is Euro-Skeptic MEPs, tin-foil-hat-wearing bloggers, anarchic facebook-friends, or 'V-for-Vendetta'-atavar'd twitterati, the European Union is now engaging in a social media blast to "correct their misconceptions". 

In what appears to be a coordinated troll-patrol, Nigel Farage notes the "very very scared" leaders of the European Union are spending taxpayers money to counter growing skepticism at the unelected leaders dragging citizens into a United States of Europe. 

The outspoken British MEP makes it very clear he thinks this social media smear campaign is leading towards a 'Mugabe-like' banana republic, as Europe's leaders, who he believes are the "most dangerous people in Europe in 70 years," are terrified at the citizenry's realization that none of this removal of sovereignty was ever voted for. Banana Republic indeed...

Global warming - a NZ view

The CO2 Safety Margin - 
Susan Krumdieck

the Jackal,

2 February, 2013

Here is an analysis of the changes of energy consumption past present and future along with CO₂ atmospheric level and global climate change risk from the latest models. However, let’s make it more interesting by also looking at 7 generations of my family.

I wanted to look at the atmospheric CO₂ loading safety margin in relation to the atmospheric CO₂ level that the models say will cause a 2° C temperature rise, and that will guarantee the end of our prosperous civilization by melting global ice and raising the sea level enough to destroy 80-90% of the investment that humanity has made to date. It will also mean a mass extinction and complete climate chaos, so safety margin is a good name for it. If we get to a safety margin of zero, then the worst will happen.

Right now the safety margin is 565 Gt of CO₂. If we put that much more CO₂ in the air, the safety margin will be zero. This year our emissions are about 31 Gt per year. If we did not increase our emissions any further, then we would have 16 years until we have lost our safety margin. The amount of proven reserves (Oil, gas, coal) that the energy companies plan to extract and bring to the market is 2795 Gt.

Here is my Family: Great Grandmother Agnes, Grandmother Ruth, Mother Sue, Me, Daughter Kierra, Granddaughter and Great Grand-daughter.

When Agnes was born, there was a global warming safety margin of CO₂ atmospheric loading of 1362 Gt, and the world emissions were about 0.3 Gt/yr. So, my Great Grandmother Agnes would have not been worried about the way that her society's energy use might affect her great grand daughter (me). She would have been much more worried about if I would be able to vote, have legal protection, survive wars and depression and even famine.

When I was born, the CO₂ emission rate was up to 4.6 Gt/yr, and the safety margin was still 1257 Gt. When I was born, climate scientists had already been measuring the atmospheric CO₂ level at Mono Loa and could see it rising exponentially.  If the fossil fuel production rate had been frozen at 1963 levels back then, due to alarm over exponential growth of emissions, then the safety margin would not have been exceeded for another 273 years, in 2236!  No wonder not many people were worrying about climate change when I was a baby.

When Kierra was born in 1989, CO₂ emissions were up to 13.2 Gt per year and the safety margin had shrunk to 1042 Gt. This is the era where the Kyoto Protocol was established. It was understood that continued growth of CO₂ emissions was presenting a risk. The idea was to get the emissions into this 1990 range of 13.2 Gt from 2012 onward. In 1990 the safety margin would run out in 80 years at this rate of emissions. That's still just one lifetime, but it was thought that within that time some new technologies could be developed to reduce the emissions further. Needless to say, this didn’t happen.

Today, when Kierra is 24 years old and starting to think about a family.... The emissions level is 31 Gt per year. If the nations of the world woke up and agreed to limit fossil fuel extraction and use to the rate it is today, then when my granddaughter is 16 years old, the safety margin will be gone.

By my calculations - even if all the people of the world agreed on radical reductions of 15% in fossil fuel production per year for the next 10 years, so that the emission levels are a bit less than 20% of current emissions, or energy use equal to the level in the 1960's... Then the safety margin doesn't run out until my great grand-daughter is 44 years old.

At my age now, I can face the impossible prospect of the world reducing fossil fuel production and use drastically. I can think about how difficult that would be, how much hardship people would have using only 20% as much fuel. Without that sacrifice, when my great-grand daughter is my age, she will have to face the impossible prospect of abandoning costal cities, mass extinction of species, unbelievably severe droughts, floods, temperatures and storms. In light of this frightening reality, sacrificing some of my conveniences seems minor in comparison.

Question 8: Dr Russel Norman to the Prime Minister

Why didn't he mention climate change yesterday when he outlined his Government's priorities for the year in his statement to Parliament?

John Key has ANOTHER attack of amnesia

PM confirms spies met in Wellington

A number of foreign spies held a meeting in Wellington last week, Prime Minister John Key has confirmed.

TVNZ,

4 December, 2012

Key has been coy about the identity of a mysterious senior American official who flew into the capital. "I just don't know," he told reporters this morning.

But he has confirmed "a number" of US intelligence officials were here for a meeting.

"There was a routine meeting held in New Zealand last week...with a number of other countries," he said.

However, he has denied it was a meeting of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, made up of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Key - who has responsibility for the intelligence agencies - says he was not involved in the meeting and does not know what was discussed.

"I don't track every official that comes to New Zealand. People come all the time. Some come on planes, some don't...I don't bother going to ask who's on those particular planes."

He agreed it must have been a senior figure in US President Barack Obama's administration.

"There'd be lots of senior and important people that come to New Zealand," said Key.

Pressed by reporters for the second day running on the passenger, he has agreed to find out more.

"If someone parks a US plane at Wellington airport, in my opinion, that doesn't count as a secret.

"If someone was secretly trying to get into New Zealand you presumably won't park a marked plane at Wellington airport," he said.

Five Eyes meets regularly across the globe. They are believed to have met in New Zealand in September.

Days after that meeting, Key ordered an investigation into illegal spying by the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) on internet piracy accused Kim Dotcom

See PM confirms spies met in Wellington

Kim Dotcom ‏@KimDotcom

Senior US spy flies in on a 60 million dollar private jet. Meets GCSB because US Govt used them "illegally" to spy on a NZ resident?

Expand Reply Retweet Favorite

US presidential campaign - "democracy" in action

Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards

John Cook

Gawker,

15 October, 2012

Time's Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing,a copy of the 21-page memorandum of understanding that the Obama and Romney campaigns negotiated with the Commission on Presidential Debates establishing the rules governing this month's presidential and vice presidential face-offs. The upshot: Both campaigns are terrified at anything even remotely spontaneous happening.

They aren't permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a "predesignated area." And for the town-hall-style debate tomorrow night, the audience members posing questions aren't allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley.

Most bizarrely, given the way the debates have played out, the rules actually appear to forbid television coverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates: "To the best of the Commission's abilities, there will be no TV cut-aways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question or to a candidate who is not giving a closing statement while another candidate is doing so." The "best of the Commission's abilities" must be rather feeble, seeing as how almost every moment of the two debates so far was televised in split-screen, clearly showing shots of a "candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question."

Which means some of the rules below that both campaigns stipulated to in a desperate attempt to wring any serendipity out of the events may be honored in the breach:

• "The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates."
• "The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges."
• "At no time during the October 3 First Presidential debate shall either candidate move from his designated area behing the respective podium."
• For the October 16 town-hall-style debate, "the moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate...."
• "The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member's microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions."
• "[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any...audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review."
• "No candidate may reference or cite any specific individual sitting in a debate audience (other than family members) at any time during a debate."
• For the town-hall debate: "Each candidate may move about in a pre-designated area, as proposed by the Commission and approved by each campaign, and may not leave that area while the debate is underway."Here's the full document:

The 2012 Debates - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns

Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala removed from Hofstra Debate

Members of the Green Party are removed from the premises