Political Roundup by Dr Bryce Edwards.

Information is the lifeblood of democracy. Therefore policy changes by government agencies that will restrict access to OIA requests by charging for information, are leading to concerns about the likely reduction in accountability and transparency in public life.

In the lead up to the release next Wednesday of the annual Transparency International global Corruption Perception Index, there have been some concerning allegations of Official Information Act abuse by government agencies. These were sparked last week when Fairfax business journalist Richard Meadows (‏@MeadowsRichard) tweeted: “The @ReserveBankofNZ has squashed my OIA requests with a $651 fee. Sad to see our powerful, unelected technocrats discouraging transparency.”

Sam Sachdeva’s Official Information Act request charges for media in spotlight details the unfolding of events around the request, including Meadows’ subsequent discovery that the charge was due to a significant policy change quietly enacted by the Reserve Bank late last year.

This change appeared to have been carried out in tandem with a review and report by the outgoing Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem, which said “the Official Information Act’s charging provisions should apply to everyone who made a request.”

Media appalled by changes

The implications of the Reserve Bank’s new policy were not lost on an appalled media.

“Thanks again, Dame Beverley”, sneered The Dominion Post, already no fan of Wakem (see December’s editorial Chief Ombudsman shows how not to be an information watchdog). 

The newspaper delivered a stinging rebuke to the Reserve Bank, likening them to “a hide-bound banker who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”  The Reserve Bank had started a “very bad trend” by deciding to charge for OIA responses, and the closeted way they went about it was unacceptable: “This is not the right way to make or reveal such a momentous decision.” 

Crucially, the editorial pointed out that A tax on official information is a tax on democracy itself, arguing it contravenes the intention of the Act which seeks to make “information available as of right to the country’s citizens; it reverses the previous legal assumption that the government’s information is secret.”

The Dominion Post makes the point that while a fee of $600 would be a serious barrier for most individuals, the media submit challenging and time-consuming requests in their role as “the people’s watchdog over the government” meaning even large media organisations will struggle as the fees add up.

Rather than the media being treated differently to other requesters under the OIA, the newspaper says it “would prefer to urge that government-owned agencies, including large and powerful pillars of the state like the Reserve Bank, should treat the provision of information as a democratic duty. It should therefore regard the cost of giving that information as part of its core business. In other words, its default position should be to give the information free. Only in the most exceptional cases should this rule be breached.”

That’s also the view of Joanna Norris, editor of The Press and chairperson of the NZ Media Freedom Committee – quoted in Sam Sachdeva’s report. Like the Dominion Post, Norris feels charging for information is a “dangerous step”, contrary to the purpose of the act. She believes the attitude around releasing documents is wrong: “They need to stop looking at this as their information, it’s not – it’s the information held on behalf of all New Zealanders. It’s not their information, it’s ours.”

Gordon Campbell is similarly appalled, saying “There are so many wrong things about this policy that it’s hard to know where to start.” He argues that the Reserve Bank has made things difficult “at a time when quality journalism is under financial strain and spin merchants paid for by taxpayers outnumber journalists.” – see: On making the media pay for OIA requests.

The NBR’s political editor Rob Hosking has written about the issue today, saying that the Reserve Bank’s new OIA policy “appears to run counter to the purpose of the law”. He writes his column on the OIA reluctantly, “because I do believe that, generally, journalists problems are not of public interest. But this one is. The fuss over recent weeks about the Reserve Bank charging for official information is just the latest signal from – in this case a remarkably unaccountable body – that it is not going to be bothered with all this pesky accountability stuff.  Once you start charging for official information, you are in effect charging for accountability and for democracy.” -see: The ‘observer effect,’ public information and the media. 

Bloggers and politicians react

One blogger has fought back against the changes. No Right Turn characterises the changes like this: “The expectation is that charging is going to become a lot more common – or, to put it another way, public information is going to become a lot less available, and Ministers and public servants a lot less accountable. Good for them, but bad for our democracy” – see: An attack on our democracy. 

His response has been to file OIA requests with “every core government department seeking information for the last financial year on their total number of requests, the number of times they have demanded and been paid OIA charges, and the total amount collected. If they’re going to do something like this, then we at least deserve a statistical baseline so we can measure the impact. The responses are due on 15 February, and I’ll be tracking them here. Assuming, of course, that they don’t try and charge me for it…”

An economist who worked for decades at the Reserve Bank, including as the Head of Financial Markets, has penned a lengthy blog post criticising and examining the new policy – see Michael Reddell’s OIA: changes in RB practice and in law needed. In this he recalls: “I discovered the new policy when the Bank sought hundreds of dollars to provide me copies of some easily accessible, non-contentious, very old minutes of meetings of the Reserve Bank Board.” More recently, he says he was informed by the Bank that his request for information relating to the TPP would cost him $560. 

Reddell argues that his ex-employer has made a “serious misjudgement” with the new policy, but that the Bank has a “generally obstructive approach” to providing public information. This is a concern to him, as “The Reserve Bank is a very powerful organisation, with a great deal of discretionary policy choice left (formally) in the hands of one unelected person.”

Opposition politicians have been outspoken on the policy change. Labour’s Jacinda Ardern warns that if the Reserve Bank’s approach is adopted by other agencies then this would present “a real challenge to open, accountable, transparent government” – see Sam Sachdeva’s Official Information Act request charges for media in spotlight.

Similarly, the Greens’ James Shaw says “If you’re charging $600 or $1200 or whatever, that’s going to mean pretty much that all the requests are going to dry up” – see Sam Sachdeva’s Charges for official information ‘step in wrong direction’: James Shaw. Shaw suggests that officials should spend less time on “obfuscating the information”, and that “If you didn’t spend three-quarters of your time blacking out pages and all of that kind of stuff, it would cost you a lot less to give the information.”

Reserve Bank responds

Geoff Bascand, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, defended the policy change in a newspaper column on Tuesday – see: Reserve Bank: Charging for official information a ‘reasonable’ response. Bascand said the policy was “consistent with the Official Information Act” and was a “common, fair and reasonable response” to an increase in OIA requests of almost 300 per cent in the past five years.

He assured the public that “While the policy applies to all OIA requests, in practice we will seek charges when requests are large, complex, or frequent.” He also emphasised the Reserve Bank’s commitment to working with requesters to refine their requests in order to reduce or eliminate charges.

In the case of Richard Meadows’ $651 invoice, Bascand explained that “providing the information requested would take an estimated 8.5 hours of chargeable time (along with additional non-chargeable time).” He notes that Meadows was given several opportunities to refine his request but finally chose to withdraw it.

In the end Bascand reminds readers that while government agencies “and therefore taxpayers and ratepayers” bear the cost of providing responses to OIA requests, “like other public sector agencies, our budget is tightly constrained.”

A reasonable user-pays regime?

While on the face of it Bascand’s points appear reasonable, the current experiences of those making OIA requests make the changes problematic. A central issue is the huge amount of discretion it gives bureaucrats – discretion which some have demonstrated they are willing to use in politically motivated attempts to slow down and frustrate OIA requests.

Critics may be forgiven for thinking that, as the Manawatu Standard’s Matthew Dallas puts it, “the introduction of hefty charges to do so is just another brick in the stonewall” – see: Price-tag on information requests from media a troubling sign. He states that “The act aids The Fourth Estate in the execution of its duty and contributes to an informed public; without which, democracy withers.”

Abuses of the OIA at the hands of an increasingly politicised public service and failings of the OIA and Ombudsman’s office are topics I’ve covered in two recent Political Roundups. In October I wrote about New Zealand’s closed government and in December I looked at The struggle for integrity.

There has been much complaining from government agencies (as well as government ministers) about the cost of fulfilling OIA requests. Individual request costs are often cherry picked to paint requesters as wasteful of public funds. Apart from a few selective figures released there doesn’t seem to be much hard analysis of the total cost. 

As one example, in July last year it was reported that the Police were struggling with an increased OIA workload – see Samantha Olley’s Police: New OIA request every hour. But as No Right Turn pointed out, it is Not as much as it sounds.

Are requests to government agencies an unreasonable burden on the taxpayer or are they are an increasing unfunded cost for government departments on tight budgets? If we knew the total cost then perhaps taxpayers could themselves weigh up the value for money. Are freely available OIA requests less or more value than, say, a sheep farm in the middle of the Saudi Arabian desert?

A $600 OIA request could be frivolous or it could be the best $600 taxpayers ever spent. Exposing just one botched public project or dodgy “partnership” deal can lead to millions of dollars in savings, stopping good money being thrown after bad. Only a few requests will have that payback. But every OIA request that gets withdrawn because the submitter could not afford the government charge has the potential to expose vital information that we never get to see.

Timeliness in the modern news cycle is almost as important as getting the information in the first place. The Reserve Bank policy gives huge scope for delay as requests to refine, quotes for each refined request and decisions on whether to charge or not are pondered over. Everyone is aware of the increasing pressure on journalists’ time these days. What used to be a simple OIA request could be converted into protracted haggling over scope and cost. In the middle of an election campaign that sort of added delay could be crucial.

As with any user charge the impact will not be the same for all. When even large media organisations are concerned about affordability we can be sure that independent journalists, volunteer protest groups, academics and individual citizens are going to struggle even more. Corporate funded lobby groups on the other hand will gain yet another relative advantage on the non-profit sector.

There is a lack of transparency and consistency across the public sector. If OIA charges are now to be made then there should be clear rules on how much and under what circumstances they will be made. The temptation to “think of a number and double it” when faced with a complex and potentially embarrassing request will be greatly reduced.

Policing and reforming the OIA

Of course the former Chief of the Ombudsman’s Office, Beverley Wakem has now retired, and her replacement is promising a revitalised watchdog. Yet so far his statements on charges for OIA requests will lead many to conclude that he could be in a similar mould to his much-criticised predecessor. In today’s feature on Judge Peter Boshier by Marty Sharpe, the new Chief sides with the Reserve Bank over charging for access to information – see: New chief ombudsman promises to be a fearless operator. 

Boshier is quoted as saying: “I think the Reserve Bank’s response is actually very fair. When I looked at it I couldn’t fault it. As a statement of principle it was perfectly fair and it’s one to which I subscribe”. You can also listen to Lynn Freeman 25-minute interview with the new Chief on RNZ: New Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier. 

But perhaps the problem lies with the Act itself. This week law professor Andrew Geddis called for a review of the legislation: “It could well do with a doctor’s check-up, if you’re talking about health, because I do think it needs a pretty thorough review … a review with the aim of making changes” – see Eileen Goodwin’s OIA request charges worrying sign.

And of course it is not only the Official Information Act that is relevant, but also the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, which relates to local government authorities. In this regard, Chris Morris reports that “The Dunedin City Council has no plans to follow the Reserve Bank’s lead and start routinely charging media organisations for official information requests, a senior manager says” – see: Information policy for review.

Finally, inspired by the Reserve Bank’s apparent monetising zeal, The Spinoff have released their Official Information Rate Card 2016, v1.0 – see: Toby Manhire’s The Spinofficial Information Act. At one end of the charging scale, the Spinoff will charge a fee of “1 x packet Squiggle Top biscuits” for the acknowledgement of a pitch from a freelance contributor. The heftiest charges are reserved for “Responding to inquires from public relations practitioners who express an interest in “reaching out”’, topped only by $1200 per quarter hour for “Responding to inquiry from government body for clarification of request under the Official Information Act.”

Political Update by Dr Bryce Edwards.

The year in politics has seen plenty of colour and controversy, but very little substance. The verdicts and summaries of the political year suggest little of importance changed in 2015. 

“Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” could sum up the year in New Zealand politics. Many political commentators have noted what an unusually turbulent year it has been for the politicians. But few can point to much substance in political debate or change in the fortunes of the parties. 

Tracy Watkins’ end-of-year column has a very good overall summation of the year of the majors and minors in politics – see: Politicians in search of goodwill to end the year. Watkins says “2015 has been yet another turbulent political year – think ponytail-gate, resignations, pork barrel politics, the shock Northland by-election loss, another baby formula scare, secret trips to Iraq, yet more spying allegations, the “rapists” backlash, Saudi sheep deals, a polarising flag debate, the bizarre Colin Craig train wreck, leadership surprises and an economy buffeted by plunging dairy prices and a housing crisis.  So what’s the sum of all that?  Maybe that the more things change, the more they stay the same.” 

Watkins also emphasises the sound and fury in her column with Vernon Small, Political week – A year of it:  “2015 was the year no one saw coming. It was supposed to be a breather after a tumultuous election campaign and torrid couple of months. A period of consolidation. Time for National to square aware its legacy with a predictable third term agenda, and a solid majority in the House. A chance for Labour to lick its wounds after – yet another – humiliating election result and to rebuild under – yes, yet another – new leader.  So much for the script.”

See also Stacey Kirk’s Political lessons learnt should benefit us all, right? She says it’s been “a fairly major political year. And there were some bumpy moments – boy, was there some turbulence.”

The lack of change during 2015 is also picked up on by Rodney Hide, who concludes, “Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose” in his end-of-year column, Things will change…but stay the same. He says “Throughout the year, we were told it was all about to change for Key and National. I might have been guilty of saying that myself.  But it never did. The great ship of National steamed on, no matter the troubled water. Even losing the true-blue seat of Northland didn’t rattle the cutlery or spill the tea.”

Audrey Young says it’s been a low-key year in politics, and explains why: “The temperature of the political year was also a result of the Opposition not yet being in top gear.  Andrew Little has been settling in his first year as Labour leader, but has had such a stabilising effect on a previously fractured party that he has to be a contender for Politician of the Year.  The Greens were necessarily distracted for much of the year with their own leadership issues. It took the first six months to elect James Shaw as male co-leader for Metiria Turei and the second six months for them to reorganise the Greens’ office to their mutual liking.  Peters’ win in Northland has meant a period of adjustment by him back to the demands of a constituency MP and less focus on point-scoring in Parliament” – see: Politician of the Year: Top performers across the spectrum.

Blogger Danyl Mclauchlan draws attention to the fact that little of substance has occurred, but says this suits a new age of media-savviness amongst politicians. In his blog post, Kathryn Ryan sums up 2015 in NZ politics, he quotes the RNZ broadcaster’s overview of recent political shenanigans: “Politically there’s a complete policy vacuum. Some of the stuff we’re going to talk about today – pony-tail pulling, Colin Craig – frankly it’s just barely worthy of the public’s time. And yet what we’re seeing is a very effective management by the incumbent government of a new media environment”.

Mclauchlan elaborates on similar themes in his post Notes on politics in 2015. He says “It wasn’t a very inspiring year” and gives brickbats to both main party leaders: “Andrew Little appears to be (another) uninspiring Labour leader”; “John Key’s role as Prime Minister seems to be mostly ceremonial.”

But his bigger point is that the decline of the media, combined with the rise of politicians chasing soft news coverage, means we are going to have serious political wrongdoing undetected, while vacuous but polished performers rise to the top. As an example, he argues “The resignation of Murray McCully over the Saudi sheep deal should have been the biggest political story of the year.”

Stable political fortunes and problems

The Government’s buoyant popularity in 2015 was an important end-of-year observation for many, and this reality is in conflict with so many politicians and commentators pronouncing National’s decline and disconnect. This is brilliantly pointed out in Liam Hehir’s column, Polls show Government not as ‘out of touch’ as claimed. 

Why has National remained so powerful? Duncan Garner explains it by reference to Key’s strong pragmatism: “For now at least John Key clearly wants a fourth term. And he ends this year still firmly in control of the centre and with National still polling in the high 40s. As a National MP told me this week, when others in the caucus are agitating for Key to be tougher on welfare or Maori issues, he reminds them that some of these people voted for National and deserve loyalty in return for their vote.  Key continues to straddle the centre like no other prime minister in this country’s history” – see: Forget Crusher, Paula Bennett is National’s next leader. 

Similarly, Phil Quin argues to an Australian audience, “voters remain consistently happy with John Key as long as he presides over a resolutely moderate, do-little, basically Labour Party agenda.  They do not think the country is going to hell in a hand-basket, and no amount of Labour insisting otherwise will change that. Such doomsaying makes Labour, not National, look ‘out of touch’.” – see: Malcolm in the middle is a strategy for success. 

Looking at the state of Labour this year, Vernon Small emphasises a lack of change and dynamism: “Torpor. Stasis. Treading water.  It’s the story of New Zealand politics at the moment and it ought to be keeping Labour’s strategists awake at night.  How on earth do they inject some excitement, let alone disruption, into the political discourse?” – see: NZ politics 2015; wake me up when something changes. 

In fact Labour, along with the rest of New Zealand’s political parties, seems immune from the rising radicalism occurring in politics around the world this year, which is well expressed this month by Stephen Mills’ in his article, Fringe politics new world order. But he warns that not all New Zealanders have been satisfied with what’s on offer in parliamentary politics in New Zealand. His research shows that 68 per cent are “generally satisfied” with the political party options, while 25 per cent – especially younger New Zealanders – “would like to see a new party or some new parties emerge before the next election”.

On retiring from the parliamentary press gallery this year, the then political editor of RNZ, Brent Edwards, penned a farewell column, What’s wrong with the way politics in practised in NZ? He explained New Zealand politics is all about being hard on people, but soft on issues. Accordingly, “In the atmosphere which exists at 1 Bowen St the political game and how it is played becomes all important.  It is exemplified in how political leaders are judged. Most leaders are not judged on the substance of what they say but how they say it.”

Similarly, see James Ritchie’s Why have politics in NZ become so timid?and Rodney Hide’s It’s polls, not policies, that count in politics. Hide says that political decision-making is guided more than ever by pragmatism rather than principles, and this is “a recipe for the status quo and stagnation.”

Two politicians who seemed to epitomise New Zealand politics in 2015 – with all its variations of pragmatism, principle and media-savviness – were Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins. For an interesting dialogue between the two stars of 2015 see Simon Wilson’s Metro feature, Jacinda Ardern V Judith Collins. 

Issues of the year

For a recap of “most of the big political stories for 2015”, see Simon Wong’s 2015’s biggest political stories. These amount to: Hair pulling, the flag referendum, the Judith Collins comeback, the Serco shambles, the Christmas Island detainees, the TPP debate, and Russel Norman’s replacement by James Shaw as Greens co-leader. 

Similarly, watch Andrea Vance’s five minute TV One news item, Take a look back at the emotionally charged year in politics, which emphasises “a year of screaming u-turns”. See also Vance’s Government’s end of term report: Must do better. 

Patrick Gower provides his list of best and worst political moves in The Beehive’s best, worst and weirdest. This includes his award to the Government for best political move in sending training troops to Iraq – a “First-class foreign policy decision-making by the Prime Minister.” His worst political move award is shared by John Key with his “Rapists and Murderers” argument and the Labour Party with their “Chinese-sounding names” campaign: “Labour used an algorithm to launch a racist attack. This really needs no explaining. The principles were poor but the strategic execution even worse. Laughable if it wasn’t so sad.” Overall, Gower scores John Key’s year as 7.5/10 and Andrew Little’s as 7/10. 

Many commentators assert that housing was the biggest political issue of the year. This is well discussed in Sam Sachdeva’s Rising housing prices in 2015 put pressure on politicians. 

Politicians of the Year awards

The politician with the most awards for “politician of the year” is Winston Peters. Tracy Watkins and Vernon Small gave him the award, saying “No one is as invigorated as Peters by the prospect of utu. He took a political gamble and backed himself to win. And in the process, the by-election rejuvenated both Peters and NZ First, which has a new purpose as the voice for provincial New Zealand” – see: Political week – A year of it. 

And Patrick Gower says, “Winston Peters drove a bus into Northland and crashed it into John Key’s political reputation, doing some serious damage” – see: The Beehive’s best, worst and weirdest. 

Willie Jackson argues “Like wine, he’s getting better with age” – see: Why Winston Peters is MP of the year. See also Liam Hehir’s Winston Peters is the real Politician of the Year. 

But there are some reasons to doubt Peters’ total dominance of 2015. For example, Danyl Mclauchlan asks: “Can anyone name a single policy achievement of Peters this term? Or the last one? Something put into the mainstream that changed the debate or how things operate? I can’t. His team is an absolute failure, a collection of quiet losers, and he has demoted his strongest player (Martin) to the wilderness” – see his blog post, Kathryn Ryan sums up 2015 in NZ politics.

Similarly, Patrick Gower says “Marks off for Peters because he hasn’t actually done anything with the power he has achieved and probably won’t.”

Bill English was the politician with the second most nominations for politician of the year. Chris Trotter explained his decision: “the politician I have in mind is the one who labours away in the engine-room of Key’s Government. The one who keeps the wheels of the economy turning, and international investors smiling.  Solid achievements, both, but I am more disposed towards him because, unlike his boss, he has been giving long and arduous thought to the plight of the weak and unfortunate among us. More than this, he has been thinking about them in a new and intellectually challenging fashion.  His approach has been called actuarial, because his calculations are all about the risk and the cost – both individually and collectively – of not making the weak stronger and their misfortunes less determinative; of not organising the right sort of state intervention at the right time” – see: My surprise pick for politician of the year. 

Audrey Young was also very impressed by English and gives three reasons why he should be at the top of the list, concluding that “Bill English’s social investment project is his biggest achievement” – see: Politician of the Year: Top performers across the spectrum. 

Patrick Gower gives English his “Runner-up” award, saying he is “the Conrad Smith of the Government. Steady, stable, keeping formation and very rarely failing defensively” – see: The Beehive’s best, worst and weirdest. 

Kelvin Davis also received plaudits for his strong role in dealing with prison and detainee issues.

An interesting, and perhaps surprising, nominee is Act leader David Seymour. Many picked him for politician of the year, including Kiwiblog readers – see David Farrar’s 2015 Kiwiblog Awards Winners. 

But one commentator took issue with awarding Seymour this prize. According to Liam Hehir, “It’s hard to think of a better example of the disconnect that exists between New Zealand’s political commentators and the voters” – see: Winston Peters is the real Politician of the Year. 

Hehir’s argument is that while Seymour might have impressed pundits with his genuine achievements, “one thing David Seymour has singularly failed to achieve is improving the standing of his party with the people who really count – ordinary voters.”

There were plenty of poor performances to focus on in 2015. Patrick Gower gave his “Worst politician” award to Michael Woodhouse: “He tried to outlaw worm farming as a health and safety risk; he tried to outlaw mini putt too. This is laughing stock stuff, even the Prime Minister called it ‘worm-gate’.” His runner-up was Sam Lotu-Iiga – see: The Beehive’s best, worst and weirdest. 

Colin James gave his “Politician of the year” award to Labour’s Phil Twyford, saying, “My pick is an opposition MP who has had his main cabinet opponent on the back foot all year, who generates ideas and is open to ideas from others, including business, and who does his job with a firm thrust but also good humour, too often lacking in politics” – see: The year of a man with firm thrust and good humour. 

But this doesn’t wash with former Labour Party activist Phil Quin, who blogs about Why Phil Twyford’s Failed Racist Ploy Shouldn’t be Forgotten — or Forgiven. And many NBR readers seem to agree with him – Twyford was voted worst politician by 43% – see Chris Keall’s Your worst-performing politician of 2015. 

Other dishonourable mentions included David Carter, Sam Lotu-Iiga, Murray McCully, Gerry Brownlee, Colin Craig, Maggie Barry, Clayton Cosgrove and Nanaia Mahuta. See also Keall’s Your best-performing politician of 2015, won by Bill English.

Duncan Garner rated his best MPs like this: Kelvin Davis 9/10 (“He made a noise. Stood for something. Labour take note.”), David Seymour 8.5, Bill English 8, Winston Peters 8, and James Shaw 7 – see: Top 5 politicians of the year. See also Duncan Garner’s top 5 political losers of 2015. 

If such lists are too male-dominated, Stephanie Rodgers has a counter-list with only female politicians: Metiria Turei, Jacinda Ardern, Judith Collins, and all the women who stood up in Parliament to speak about their experiences of sexual abuse – see: My top 5 politicians of the year. 

Similarly, see Scott Yorke’s My Politician of the Year for 2015. 

Mihingarangi Forbes conveys the experts’ views on A year of mixed fortunes for Māori MPs. Plaudits are given to Kelvin Davis, followed by Marama Fox and Marama Davidson. Commentator Annabelle Lee is quoted as saying, “Marama Fox has completely outshone [Māori Party co-leader] Te Ururoa Flavell, who seems to be completely MIA since the election.” But no mention is made of Winston Peters or Paula Bennett.

See also Martyn Bradbury’s TDB top 5 best and worst politicians of 2015. The criteria for these, he says, is “based on what MPs have actually done for those with the least”: Chris Finlayson, Marama Davidson, Kelvin Davis, Metiria Turei, and Sue Moroney. His “Enemies of the People” are: Sam Lotu-liga, Tim Groser, Louise Upston, Anne Tolley and, of course, John Key (but not for “his policies or politics but his personal behaviour”). 

But do any of these rankings really mean much? There was a reasonable amount of publicity for the Trans-Tasman’s rankings for the year – see Tracy Watkins’s Trans-Tasman roll call – the best and worst of the 2015 political year. But this year those verdicts caused a lot of disagreement. For example David Farrar analysed the results and declared: “I have to say that the number of ratings they have given which I think are totally detached from reality is higher than normal” – see: The 2015 Trans-Tasman Ratings. And another blogger argued that “beltway trash lists like this do a disservice to the public” and he called on the media to pay less attention to them – see Joe Nunweek’s The Kill List. 

Rankings and ratings were crowd sourced in The Spinoff’s features, 2015 in Review – 24 Politics Watchers on Party Fortunes, Economy, Media & More and 2015 in Review – 23 Politics Watchers Name the Year’s Big Losers. 

Possibly the best single roundup of the year is Tim Watkin’s My year that was, in which he gives awards to Winston Peters, James Shaw and Tim Groser, amongst others. He draws attention to the dodgy Saudi Sheep deal, underfunding of the public service, housing problems, strong foreign policy moves, and general short-term thinking that seems to afflict all political parties at the moment.

Finally, for end-of-year satire, see Steve Braunias’ Secret Diary of 2015 and Secret Diary of Christmas, Toby Manhire’s Presents of mind for country’s A-listers and Top dog in annus hangoveris is … and Scott Yorke’s The 2015 Imperator Fish Awards. 

Political Roundup by Dr Bryce Edwards.

Putting John Key into a caged prison rape joke was one of the low points in the New Zealand media this year. But there were plenty of other low points for an industry that faced huge challenges and change during 2015.

Democracy is the poorer in 2015 due to a decline in the state of New Zealand’s mainstream media. Of course the media has been suffering all sorts of woes in recent years – ranging from falling audiences to newsroom redundancies – but 2015 seemed particularly severe, leading to talk of the death of the mainstream media.

Mediaworks kills off quality TV

The biggest political media story of the year was the demise of Campbell Live, a controversy I covered in columns in April and May, which raised bigger questions about the state of the media – see: The politics of axing Campbell Live, The Revolution will not be televised and Who killed Campbell Live? 

John Campbell finally talked about his axing in a Metro magazine interview with Simon Wilson, which is now online – see: After the fall. 

Later in the year, another casualty occurred at Mediaworks, with the killing off of the current affairs show 3D, previously known as 3rd Degree. This was examined by Colin Peacock in TV3 current affairs show facing the axe. Peacock quotes NZ on Air chief executive Jane Wrightson saying: “Investigative journalism is fundamental to a strong democracy and national debate. It is becoming increasingly scarce in New Zealand due to the commercial pressures faced by broadcasters and the news media generally in a small country”.

This month Rachel Smalley reflected on the axing of 3D, and was less pessimistic than some: “I don’t think we’re witnessing the death of current affairs – just the death of current affairs in its current broadcasting model, and at the moment we’re going through a bit of a messy divorce” – see: 3D’s axing not the death of current affairs TV. 

But others were concerned about the direction the company bosses were taking TV3, and Jane Bowron worried what they might do with the upcoming revamp of their 6pm news. She advises the company to slow down: “TV3 needs to calm down, take stock and stop trying to reach a destination without knowing the name of its goal, like a train pulling into a station so fast it hasn’t got a clue how it got there, where it’s going to next, or if it will ever ride again” – see: The grim fairytale of MediaWorks gains traction. 

Looking back on the year of Mediaworks changes, the Spinoff’s Duncan Greive assessed the MediaWorks’ strategy, spotting some positives in the company’s performance, but saying ultimately “hard news has been decimated” – see: Swapping news for reality – looking back on a bad year for TV3. He concludes “the company’s owners, Oaktree Capital, now possess a media company which is no longer anything like so valuable as it was.”

Some journalists pointed the blame at the company CEO, and a boycott of Mark Weldon’s wine company was urged – see John Edens’s MediaWorks staff urged to boycott CEO Mark Weldon’s Central Otago wine. 

More decline and disruption

Every other media organisation faced some sort of significant decline or disruption in 2015. Newspapers continued to suffer print readership decline, with Richard Harman reporting on the latest statistics showing that “The number of copies of New Zealand daily newspapers sold over the past five years has plunged by 23%” – see: The Declining state of New Zealand newspapers. 

Some of the newspaper audience was shifting online for news, as reported by Joshua Riddiford in Stuff and NZ Herald audiences continue to grow in Nielsen’s latest online rankings. 

The newspaper companies had to restructure to meet the changing media environment, with major changes at both Fairfax and the Herald. Major operational changes at the Herald and its allied companies were announced in October – see the Herald’s NZME harnesses the power of one newsroom. And at virtually the same time, Mediaworks announced its new “Newshub” to launch in 2016 – see TV3’s MediaWorks reveals new multi-platform news service. 

Radio New Zealand changed its name to just RNZ. And it undertook major cost-saving cuts of $1m – see Pattrick Smellie’s RNZ stalwart Hewitt Humphrey facing redundancy in broadcaster’s latest restructure. 

And at RadioLive, the last remaining business radio programme was cancelled – see Nick Grant’s NBR picks up cancelled RadioLive business show (paywalled), However the ten-year old show has shifted to NBR’s own digital audio platform.

And when it comes to the parliamentary press gallery, there was a major loss with the retirement of the person I regarded as the leading columnist – see my Tributes to John Armstrong. 

Introspection on the media

There was a huge amount of reflection and analysis of the changing media environment during the year. Perhaps the most pessimistic and critical was given last month by veteran current affairs producer Phil Wallington in his keynote speech to an audience of television workers – see: A TV Current Affairs Warhorse Describes The State Of It All. 

About halfway through Wallington provides two explanations for why the media is no longer able to hold the powerful to account: 1) Shrinking newsroom budgets, and 2) The increasing power of political spin-doctors. 

He also bemoans the career of journalists today who face a precarious existence on (mostly) low pay. 

He explains that the industry is now also very narrow in terms of the backgrounds of the journalists: “Gone are the days when young people of very diverse backgrounds and often humble circumstances could seek a meaningful career in journalism. Now, it is too often a half-way house to a better paid job in PR or communications. This is not good for this country’s democratic system. The main driver of a free society should be the ability for people to speak out. But now only a very few diverse and questioning voices are heard and the orthodox and heterodox views are shunned. They have been supplanted by a bland, mindless and consumer driven consensus.”

More strong opinions about the demise of the media were put in a one-hour discussion ostensibly about Dirty Politics – watch Martyn Bradbury’s 1 Yr on from Dirty Politics hosted by John Campbell with Nicky Hager, Fran O’Sullivan & Dita De Boni. 

A much more optimistic view was put forward by RNZ CEO Paul Thompson in June – see: Disruption to media becomes the story. He tells the story of the evolution of the media through four eras, based on technological disruption. He suspects “we may be now entering a fourth media age – one characterised by the atomisation of news and its re-distribution by global content ecosystems, such as Apple and Facebook.”

For Thompson “This is exciting as it potentially makes possible a new age of journalism in which the creators and curators of news and current affairs work collaboratively with the smartest and best-resourced companies in the world. The possibility of these new partnerships endorses the on-going vital importance and the appeal of journalism.” See also Duncan Greive’s “Think of Us as Yeast” – An Interview with Paul Thompson, Head of RNZ. 

A group of organisations established the Civics and Media Project this year, which lead to a number of forums discussing the future of information – see Radio NZ’s Will we have the information we need in 2030? As part of this, you can also watch John Campbell in conversation with five students from intermediate schools in Auckland about their expectations for civil society in 2030 – see: John Campbell with intermediate students.

Similarly, towards the end of the year, Radio New Zealand hosted a panel discussion with journalists and academics about the future of quality media – you can read about this and listen to the 52-minute discussion here: The Shape of the Media. 

But for the most comprehensive run down of developments in the media sector, especially around media company ownership, see Merja Myllylahti’s annual JMAD New Zealand Media Ownership Report 2015. According to this, New Zealand’s media companies are now concentrated in the hands of financial institutions.

The report is especially interesting in dealing with new corporate partnerships, alliances and new entries to market. For more on such partnerships, see Mediawatch’s Media companies in the shadow of internet giants. It seems that the idea of “cartels” might become a positive term in the media industry.

Media bias and power

Criticisms of the media’s performance and biases loomed large this year. These were reflected in earlier columns I wrote: Is the media turning on John Key?, Is the media biased? and White men in charge of the message? 

In terms of media criticisms and evaluations of politicians, David Farrar has published his 2nd biannual media opinion statistics. This exercise examines “the opinion of editorials and columnists at the two major media sites of Stuff and NZ Herald” and categorises to what extent they are favourable or unfavourable about the four biggest parties. 

Farrar’s figures suggest that the media may have turned against Labour in recent months. For example “Up until March, 74% of Herald columns and editorials on Labour were positive, but in the last six months only 25% have been.” 

In terms of the political media, Rodney Hide expressed his dissatisfaction, not with any bias, but that “Political reporting is now like a fixed wrestling match: ritualistic and predictable.  We already know the questions. Worse, we already know the answers” – see his September NBR column, Ask dumb questions, get dumb answers (paywalled).

Hide says “We yearn for something a little richer” about what is going on in politics, and he blames the market for not working rather than the media companies: “It’s the market at work. It’s what the average person wants that counts. And it isn’t politics, policy or economics.  We might yearn for something richer like Mozart but the country wants pop. It won’t be long now and politics will be morphed into pure entertainment, a cross between X-Factor and MasterChef.”

Political interviewing also came in for some criticism earlier this month, following on from a minister having a bad experience – see Sam Sachdeva’s Peter Dunne called ‘moron’ after fiery interview with radio host. 

This led Laura Walters to say: “It’s important to put the hard questions to those in positions of power but when does a hard-nosed interview cross the line?” – see: There’s a place for hard-nosed interviews but not aggression.

The use of “soft news” by politicians appears to be on the rise, or at least is being discussed more. Jacinda Ardern became renowned for using this vehicle. For example in November Ardern appeared in a multi-page spread in the Women’s Weekly – see Kelly Bertrand’s Jacinda’s island paradise. 

David Farrar reacted: “It is quite legitimate to do soft pieces as a way of connecting with voters on political issues. Many politicians do it. But if you read the article, there isn’t a single mention of a political issue. It is 100% about holidays in Niue (where her parents live and work). It could almost be a travel advertorial for Niue.  So yes it is legitimate to do interviews and profiles with soft magazines, to connect to voters on issues. But is it legitimate when there is nothing at all about politics in there?” – see: Jacinda in Women’s Weekly. 

Ardern also took over from Phil Goff as the Sunday Star Times’ Labour Party columnist. But the verdicts didn’t seem too positive. After her first effort, up against Collins, the NBR’s David Cohen panned it, saying “the competition will be stiff to see which of the two political contributors is the more hypnotically dull” – see: Duncan and the dame (paywalled). 

But Cohen also railed against the media publishing the propaganda of politicians: “I don’t mean to be obtuse or a spoilsport but why are politicians on the public payroll using tax dollars to regularly promote their own brand without any kind of editorial intercession? I forget. They need to be given news space to flog airbrushed versions of themselves because – why again?”

Maori TV and the Establishment

Maori TV used to be seen as the saviour of quality political and current affairs programming, but its stocks have fallen significantly this year. Much of this has related to the controversy that arose from the Native Affairs programme carrying out investigative research into the finances of the Kohanga Reo National Trust Board.

A clampdown on Native Affairs appeared to be the outcome and in June the host of the programme, Mihingarangi Forbes, announced her decision to leave Maori TV, subsequently going to RNZ. 

According to David Fisher: “The Native Affairs team’s investigation into management and spending at the Kohanga Reo trust was considered by Maoridom’s old guard as a disrespectful way to probe an establishment organisation led by matriarch Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi” – see: Star Maori TV broadcaster Mihingarangi Forbes quits. 

In September Forbes appeared along with her former producer Annabelle Lee at a Wintec Press Club, and explained her departure – which was covered in a blog post by Stephen Stratford – see: Wintec Press Club: Mihi Forbes and Annabelle Lee. 

Responding to this, Danyl Mclauchlan wrote: “What happened at Maori TV is one of the most clear-cut cases of establishment censorship imaginable. Journalists started asking uncomfortable questions; the establishment got angry and imposed a new leader on the organisation who shut everything down” – see: Maori TV and the mediapocalypse. 

For other very good items on the fracas, see Dave Armstrong’s It’s not Maori TV ‘s job to be respectful and John Drinnan’s Radio NZ seeks cure to ratings malaise. 

There were other controversies at Maori TV this year. In March, the channel initially decided not to broadcast a haka performance which criticised the broadcaster – see Rosemary Rangitauira and Andrew Mcrae’s Maori TV accused of censorship. For an interesting discussion of this, see Morgan Godfery’s On the role of criticism: Te Matatini. 

Alternative media

With the problems facing the mainstream media, are there alternatives that might arise and fill the growing gaps? Certainly the rise of The Spin-Off website (expanding beyond its initial focus on television, and appointing Toby Manhire as “political editor”), has been a highlight of the year. 

Spin-off editor Duncan Greive has published all sorts of interesting pieces about media figures. See, for example, An Exit Interview with Simon Wilson, Editor of Metro 2010-2015, and “Kind of a Dimwit” – An Interview with Steve Braunias. 

In the latter, Braunias gives both praise and condemnation to his former teacher Karl du Fresne, who responded with his blog post, Steve Braunias and the Auckland media priesthood. 

There are plenty of other online resources full of important material about New Zealand society and politics – such as the brilliant Te Ara Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. Dave Armstrong has written a tribute to this, but laments the news that no significant resources are being provided by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to keep the site updated – see: An online jewel that may become a relic.

The Scoop website has been through some big changes this year too, and in 2016 might be about to crystallise into something more important. According to Martyn Bradbury a new editor is about to take over – see: Max Rashbrooke tipped to take over Scoop. And the website ran one of the more interesting critiques of the mainstream media – see Alison McCulloch’s Stop The Press.

Finally, there are alternatives to be found out in the blogosphere, and Martyn Bradbury has, in his own inimitable style, given his verdicts on how they’ve fared this year – see: The Daily Blog NZ Blogger Alignment Awards 2015. 

Political Roundup by Dr Bryce Edwards.

Last year’s Dirty Politics bombshell keeps going off. The ruling by the High Court against the Police for raiding Nicky Hager’s home is an important judgement in yet another busy year for the various Dirty Politics characters. 

Yesterday’s landmark judicial ruling against the Police for raiding Nicky Hager’s house is just the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of Dirty Politics. For the best coverage of the ruling, see David Fisher’s Police house raid on investigative journalist Nicky Hager found to be unlawful. 

For an explanation of why the judgement is so important for democracy and the public, see Regan Schoultz’s Hager decision: Why you should care and Matt Nippert’s Nicky Hager police raid ruling a win for journalism. Both pieces make significant points about the need to have properly functioning mechanisms that hold the powerful to account, and say the police raid undermined that mechanism. 

But for the hardest-hitting criticism of the Police, see Gordon Campbell’s On the Police harassment of Nicky Hager. His short must-read column paints a picture of the Police acting as blatant stooges for the political Establishment, to take out a critic. And he warns that it will continue to happen. 

Hager spoke about his victory and the “strange” actions of the police in a five-minute interview with Alison Mau – see: Hager: Police raid ‘weird overkill’.

Attention is now turning to the question of how the Police could get this case so wrong. Various politicians and partisans are pointing the finger at the National Government’s role in the saga – see Greg Presland’s blog post, What was National’s role in the police raid on Nicky Hager? and Sam Sachdeva’s Nicky Hager case ‘raises questions’ about political pressure on police – MPs. 

To understand the case properly it’s worth going back and looking at some of the material from the court case in July. Alastair Thompson of the Scoop website used the Official Information Act to obtain the various court documents relating to the case – see: Inside The Hunt For Rawshark – Hager Raid Court File and Inside The Hunt For Rawshark – Hager Raid Court File Part 2. This includes my own affidavit, which you can read together with other Dirty Politics material.

The court case itself was also covered in depth by Jon Stephenson – see: Nicky Hager Case – Breaking News Reportage. See also Giovanni Tiso’s essays, The Life and death of the political author and The raid.

Of course, it’s also worth remembering the way the Police carried out their investigation, using controversial methods – see my October column, Libertarians against dirty politics. 

And for more on the police investigation of Rawshark, see Paul Buchanan’s latest blog post, The Impunity Files, Police Edition: Trolling for Rawshark, and Juha Saarinen’s Hager, Whale Oil, Dirty Politics, Rawshark, and what the police should have done. 

Cameron Slater’s ongoing Dirty Politics

You probably shouldn’t trust anything written in this column. At least that’s what Cameron Slater would have you believe. Slater has just launched his latest project with co-conspirator Simon Lusk, which includes an evaluation of political journalists and commentators. The first issue of their monthly Incite newsletter came out on Tuesday, and it labelled my work as “Not to be trusted” and gave me an evaluation of two out of ten. Other pundits and journalists fared worse – Richard Harman got 8/10, followed closely by Barry Soper on 7/10. At the other end of the scale, Rachel Smalley would have been very happy with her 1/10.

For an amusing review of the new publication, see Danyl Mclauchlan’s blog post, Why You Need Incite in Your Life – a Review of Cameron Slater’s $35 Monthly Newsletter. See also Pete George’s Incite review. For a more favourable spin, published on Slater’s Whaleoil blog, see Inside Incite (and why you should subscribe).

Pete George blogged that Slater’s Whaleoil blog could be in a perilous state – see: Conflict at Whale Oil. This blog post reports a testy exchange between Slater and the blog’s apparent co-owner, and in the comments section there are further revealing discussion from former Whaleoil volunteers. 

Part of Whaleoil’s decline is financial, and the latest advertiser to pull the plug is entrepreneur Rod Drury – see Matt Nippert’s Xero boss withdraws advertising from Whaleoil. According to this article, “Rodney Hide has confirmed he was probably behind a series of Whaleoil posts attacking Xero that led Rod Drury to suspend advertising on the controversial blog.”

Not all is going badly for Slater however. He has was the first case of complaint for the new Online Media Standards Authority, and he won – see David Farrar’s OMSA rules in favour of blogger. 

Slater also brought out a slim book this year about trade unions, titled “Dodgy Unions”, which got a very positive review on Amazon by a certain “B Edwards”, explained by blogger Pete George in his post Which B Edwards? This was followed by a more legitimate evaluation: Dodgy Unions – review. And it got the usual endorsement from Scott Yorke – see: Why you should get Cameron Slater’s book. 

Slater also got some heat from his National rival Michelle Boag, who made further Dirty Politics-style claims about his activities – listen to RadioLIve’s Are Kiwi bloggers taking payment to stay silent? Slater categorically denied the allegation – listen to: Cameron Slater denies Michelle Boag’s claim he takes payment for silence. 

The “Exoneration” of Judith Collins 

The reappointment to Cabinet of one of the main politicians in Dirty Politics has irked Nicky Hager, especially because of accompanying claims she had been exonerated – see Hager’s blog post, Spinning the return of Judith Collins. 

Collins herself explains why she feels “pretty damn vindicated, frankly” in Tracy Watkins’ article, Judith Collins – ‘exonerated, vindicated’ and on the comeback trail. Watkins also reports on the various objections that might be made about her claims of exoneration. 

For an examination of the official “Chisholm inquiry into Allegations concerning Judith Collins”, blogger Peter Aranyi has used the Official Information Act to obtain all of the witness transcripts, testimony and evidence for the inquiry – you can read all 60 of them here: Judith Collins Lester Chisholm Inquiry evidence. 

Aranyi has commented on these files at length in follow up blog posts such as Who was actually on trial? and ‘Taking one for the team’. In the latter he discusses the transcripts of the inquiry, as well as Slater’s lessened financial situation, and concludes: “Maybe he could get an honest job. Does Mrs Collins need a press secretary?” He also highlights an extract on how Slater’s wife felt about the Dirty Politics controversy.

Celebrating the return of Collins, Matthew Hooton declared “It’s good to again know with certainty there is at least one right-wing minister in John Key’s cabinet” – see his NBR column, Collins’ return a good signal to the right (paywalled). 

In this column he reflects on how Collins might yet become National Party leader: “Her moment comes if and when the public develops fatigue with Mr Key’s blancmange style of politics and perceives his government’s lack of a serious reform programme will only ever deliver slow relative economic decline”. Hooton argues that “the idea of a future Collins leadership is no longer as fanciful as it was 15 months ago, when the media mob so disgracefully drove her from office relying on the unsubstantiated testimony of a blogger.”

And for a faux-women’s magazine exclusive on Collins’ return, see Andrew Gunn’s Crusher Collins awakens the Force. Here’s John Key on why Collins had to be let back into Cabinet: “Judith’s always been really good at projecting the National-led government’s core philosophy. And I’d much rather she was inside the tent projecting out than outside the tent projecting in”.

Simon Lusk’s dirty politics

The most shadowy figure in Dirty Politics was self-declared political hit man Simon Lusk, who Duncan Garner profiled and interviewed last month on TV3’s Story – watch the nine-minute item: Shadowy political figure’s motto: ‘Dominate, intimidate and humiliate’. 

The story involved claims by Lusk that he paid “people, on behalf of clients, to get a certain voting outcome”, which Garner examined in a follow up item, Lusk goes public on ‘koha to vote’. 

There were also allegations of Lusk targeting and befriending Labour politicians. The supposed links to MP Stuart Nash were then examined in the six-minute item, Nash embarrassed by links to Simon Lusk. And a threatened campaign against another MP was explained by Isaac Davison in Phil Twyford won’t be intimidated by smear campaign. 

All of these issues were then examined by RNZ’s Mediawatch – see: Dirty Politics players back in the frame. 

Earlier in the year Lusk also published a book – see David Farrar’s Lusk: A Campaign Professional’s Guide to Winning New Zealand Campaigns. 

Rachel Glucina and Scout

The gossipmonger at the centre of Dirty Politics, Rachel Glucina, has made plenty of news herself this year. For a good backgrounder on Glucina and the controversies she caused, see: Rachel Glucina: the queen of gossip. 

Much of her notoriety in 2015 came out of her coverage of Ponytailgate for the Herald, which received criticism from the Press Council – see the Herald’s story, Press council rules against Herald on ‘Ponygate’ interview. 

The Prime Minister’s Office was also caught up in the controversy, especially after it “declined to make public conversations or messages with former New Zealand Herald writer Rachel Glucina over Auckland’s Cafe Rosie” – see Andrea Vance’s Ponytailgate correspondence with gossip columnist probed. 

Glucina left the Herald for a new job at Mediaworks. Upon this announcement there was a raft of humorous tweets and speculation on Glucina’s likely influence and future with the TV3 company – see my blog post, Top tweets about Rachel Glucina going to TV3. 

The new project for TV3’s Mediaworks was announced as Scout. Not surprisingly, the actual scouting movement was very quick to distance itself from the new TV3 product – see Brittany Mann’s ScoutsNZ distances itself from Rachel Glucina website, seeks legal advice. 

The site soon ran into all sorts of trouble, detailed in MediaWorks staff turn on Scout, Rachel Glucina’s new gossip site, and analysed on The Standard in the blog post, No Friends: The One about Rachel. 

But the must-read account is Duncan Greive’s Anatomy of a Corporate Disaster – Inside Weldon and Glucina’s Gossip Site Scout. See also his post, Cool Story #2 – Two Sides of the Gluc. 

The Other players

Carrick Graham became known as Cameron Slater’s paymaster, and in June North and South magazine published Peter Newport’s excellent feature about him and his PR activities, which is now available free to read online: Carrick Graham: Without Apologies. Similarly, see my column Dirty digital politics. 

Jordan Williams and David Farrar are still very actively running their lobby group, which David Fisher investigates in The Big Read: So what’s this Taxpayers’ Union, which purports to represent us all? Earlier in the year, the group was also in the spotlight for their focus on author Eleanor Catton – see the Herald’s Kiwis have been generous to Catton, says Taxpayers’ Union. 

But is the group partisan? Not exactly. And David Farrar has the figures to prove it – see his blog post, Taxpayers Union critical regardless of party. 

Ben Rachinger, another mysterious figure who was, for a time, close to Cameron Slater, also created some minor news about Dirty Politics this year which I covered my column, Dirty Politics “done dirt cheap”. 

For an update on him see Keith Ng’s illuminating and indepth investigation The Whaledump Saga: Scooby-Doo Edition. Or for the main points see Danyl Mclauchlan’s Shorter Ng/Rachinger/Slater/Key. 

There was another more high profile figure who related to Dirty Politics in some curious ways. In July, the then Conservative Party leader Colin Craig published his booklet Dirty Politics and Hidden Agendas, which was aimed at Cameron Slater, Jordan Williams, and others in his own party. 

Craig explained this in a guest post on the Daily Blog, drawing parallels with Hager’s 2014 book – see: Dirty Politics, why should we care? But last month, in a typically bizarre twist, TV3 reported Colin Craig unveiled as ‘Mr X’. 

Of course the character who has come out best from the Dirty Politics saga is Hager himself. Hager continued to publish vitally important research on New Zealand politics which I covered earlier in the year in three columns: Who cares about the #SnowdenNZ revelations?, Should John Key resign over ‘mass surveillance’? and The ramifications of the spying scandal. 

For more on Hager, see his essay about his investigative journalism, Loose lips, and his interview with Toby Manhire, “A Kick Back Against Government Intolerance” – an Interview with Nicky Hager. 

Finally, for one of the best reads about Dirty Politics and how it played out for a television journalist covering last year’s election campaign, read Nicola Kean’s academic chapter on #PeakCray – Making Current Affairs TV During NZ’s Strangest Election.