National says a series of attack ads targeting its leader Christopher Luxon funded by the Council of Trade Unions in the Aotearoa Election 2023 campaign is “disgraceful”.

The NZCTU launched its campaign targeting Luxon today, with billboards going up around the country and social media.

A full front-page wrap-around ad on The New Zealand Herald newspaper declared “Christopher Luxon: Out of touch. Too much risk” under the paper’s masthead, with the word “advertisement” in smaller font at the top of the ad.

The NZCTU’s logo and a link to a CTU-run website outoftouch.nz was at the bottom.

A second full-page ad ran overleaf on page 2, saying Luxon was “out of touch and focused on the wealthiest few”, and highlighting policies like tax cuts, scrapping fair pay agreements and fully funded prescriptions, and concluded with a bullet point saying Luxon “isn’t the right leader in a cost-of-living crisis”.

The National Party’s campaign chair Chris Bishop said the CTU, which has 27 unions affiliated, should be ashamed.

“The union movement is able to spend vast sums of money attacking the National Party and Christopher Luxon,” he said.

‘American-style hatchet job’
“They’re running audio-visual slots, televisual slots, they’ve got billboards in many major cities around New Zealand, this is a highly orchestrated, highly political, highly choreographed American-style hatchet job on Christopher Luxon.

“It’s disgraceful, they should be ashamed of themselves and it’s not what New Zealanders want in this election campaign.”

“Sadly with six weeks to go it’s become very clear that thanks to the Labour Party this is going to become the most negative election campaign in New Zealand history. Jacinda Ardern’s ‘be kind’ has become ‘be nasty’ under Chris Hipkins.”

Bishop would not commit to not attacking Labour, but said it would target differences of policy approach and targeting Labour’s record.

“Of course we are going to attack the Labour Party’s record, we’re going to make no bones about that . . . but the point of pointing those things out is to draw a contrast with National’s different approach and our positive plan for the future.

“We are going to run a strong and vigorous campaign but we are not going to engage in the kind of nasty, personal, petty, vindictive politics that the union movement and the Labour Party are going to engage in.”

‘Play the ball’
Labour’s campaign chair Megan Woods made a similar commitment last week, saying the party would “play the ball, not the person — but we should be holding National and ACT to account for the ideas that they’re putting out there”.

Asked how Luxon was holding up under what Bishop described as “very personal” attacks, he laughed and said Luxon was “completely fine”.

“Look, he’s big enough and ugly enough to handle it, I just think it’s pretty pathetic and I think the New Zealand public deserve better than that.”

He said the CTU was “intimately” connected to the Labour Party.

“It’s in the name, it’s the Labour Party because they’re part of the Labour movement . . .  Craig Renney was Grant Robertson’s adviser and he’s now at the CTU, so they know exactly what they’re doing.”

‘Not nasty at all’ – CTU
Council of Trade Unions president Richard Wagstaff told RNZ the campaign was focused on National’s policies.

“He’s [Luxon] promising to take down fair pay agreements, put people on [90-day] trials, make savage cuts to public services, and all in all we see it as a very serious choice ahead of New Zealanders at this election — perhaps the most serious choice in over a generation,” Wagstaff said.

He denied that focusing on Luxon was unfair.

“It’s not nasty at all, it’s simply saying that Christopher Luxon is out of touch and he can’t be trusted.

“National is focused heavily on Christopher Luxon, launching him as the leader, the buck stops with him and he’s leading these policies so we need to draw attention to Christopher and what he’s saying.

“His instinct in the cost of living crisis is to take over $2 billion out of the climate fund and give an over $2 billion gift to landlords. That, to us, is an out-of-touch policy.”

He said Labour had not been involved in the ad campaign at all, and it was a completely independent intiative.

“This is the National Party’s paranoia, Labour are not even mentioned in the ads, they’re not part of this campaign … we’re not asking people to vote for Labour we’re simply saying that Christopher Luxon and his policies would present a major danger to working New Zealanders.”

He said National was just trying to divert attention “away from the fact that their leader intends to smash industry bargaining, put people on trial periods and generally undermine the interests of working people”.

“We’re just putting that out there . . . it’s important that people look behind the rhetoric and really look at their policies.”

He said the $400,000 National had suggested for total ad campaign cost was an incorrect figure.

“It’s wrong, as far as I know it’s incorrect — I actually don’t know the figure but we don’t have that kind of money to spend on campaigns.”

Union members were happy to have their funds spent on the campaign, he said.

“Absolutely, union members expect the CTU to advance their interests as working people. This is an incredibly important election for the interests of working people.

“We’re not going to sit on our hands while National takes an axe to basic entitlements of the New Zealand working people.”

In an earlier statement, Wagstaff said the ad campaign would be “evidence-based”.

“Christopher Luxon and National will take New Zealand backwards and working people will be the first to feel the pain,” the statement said.

‘Democracy in action’ – Hipkins
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the CTU had run campaign ads in every election he had been involved in, and he had been aware they would be doing so but had not seen the ads until they were published.

He said for National to be offended was “incredibly thin-skinned” given the Taxpayers Union lobbying group, which has typically advocated for right-leaning policies.

“I think the CTU are raising some legitimate concerns around the effects of the National Party’s policies,” Hipkins said.

He said National was “desperately trying to distract attention away from the fact that they’be been caught out with their numbers and their policies just not stacking up. They’re trying to create a diversion here.

“The National Party and their surrogates, including the Taxpayer’s Union, Groundswell, Hobson’s Pledge and so on, have been running attack ads against me and the Labour government since the day I took on the job.

“I haven’t called a press conference or issued a media statement every time they have done that.”

Hipkins presented some “random examples” of the attack ads to reporters.

‘Russian horses’
“This one here, I was particularly touched by this one, actually. This is myself and David Parker on what would appear to be some Russian horses. I actually think I look quite good on a horse, to be frank.

“We have a pretty nasty, despicable personal attack on Nanaia Mahuta, that was, I believe, The Taxpayer’s Union did that one.”

Another ad — published by the National Party — had a photoshopped image of Hipkins’ face on the side of a sticking plaster box.

Hipkins said he did not believe Labour’s own campaign was negative.

“I don’t believe that we are running a negative campaign. We are out there campaigning positively on the things that we’re putting before the electorate, but we are also checking the promises the National Party are making because they simply don’t stack up.

“If they want to be the government, they’re going to be subject to this sort of scrutiny day in and day out — we have been for the last six years.”

“I don’t think critiquing the potential effects of the National Party’s policy is something they should shy away from. That is democracy in action.”

Chris Bishop said National would condemn any third-party ads attacking Chris Hipkins.

‘Completely separate from editorial’ – NZ Herald
In a statement, a spokesperson from The New Zealand Herald said “expression of opinion through advocacy advertising is an essential and desirable part of a democratic society”.

“All advocacy ads must comply with the ASA Codes and Advocacy Principles, as well as our own Advertising Acceptability Policy. Publishing an advertisement does not indicate NZME’s endorsement of that product or message.

“It’s also important to note that advertising stands completely separately from editorial.”

Bishop said he did not have a problem with the Herald running the ad.

“I mean, newspapers have got to sell advertising, I’ve got no issue with the Herald running that ad and I’ve got no issue with other outlets taking advertising money.

“I’ve got an issue with the CTU running it and I think they should be reflecting on it. I think it will backfire, ultimately, on them, and I think New Zealanders will see through it.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Police will not give details about finances and their investigation into the New Zealand protest against covid-19 public health measures which occupied Parliament’s grounds and surrounding streets.

Large sums of money traded hands during and leading up to the 23-day occupation, but it is unclear how it has been spent and who has benefitted.

FACT Aotearoa spokesperson Lee Gingold said groups like Voices For Freedom had been flexing their financial muscle.

“I think it’s a mistake to think they’re unsuccessful in their search for funding or that it’s too ramshackle because Voices For Freedom have splashed a lot of money around,” he said.

“They funded the court case which led to the exemption for the police, which I believe was $90,000 and in Wellington … there are a number of billboards from Voices For Freedom up around town.”

Voices For Freedom is the trading name of TJB 2021 Limited, which Voices For Freedom founders Claire Deeks, Libby Jonson, and Alia Bland served as its sole directors and shareholders.

The anti-vax group admitted they had been behind the distribution of two million flyers, thousands of large rally signs seen at the Parliament protest and other protests around the country, as well as billboards in Wellington, Auckland and Christchurch.

The billboard sites were managed by Jolly Billboards.

Its director, Jonathon Drumm, told RNZ he did not want to comment other than to say the company complied with all the rules of the Advertising Standards Authority.

Drumm said Voices For Freedom were “probably not” one of the company’s larger clients, but he would not comment on whether the group received any kind of discount compared to other customers.

Financial transparency of Voices For Freedom
On their website, Voices For Freedom claim they intend to be transparent about their finances.

“VFF is funded through individual donations from thousands of concerned Kiwis. Funding is put towards the various projects we facilitate and the general running costs and overheads of the organisation,” the website said.

“Like any well run organisation receiving funding we intend to provide basic information on finances such as to provide accountability and transparency at appropriate junctures and at least annually.”

However, no financial statements for the group were available online.

RNZ tried contacting Deeks — who was third on the list for Billy Te Kahika and Jami-Lee Ross’ failed Advance New Zealand Party — but was unsuccessful.

Voices For Freedom did not respond to a set of questions sent to them regarding their finances and promises of transparency.

During a 2020 podcast which guested Deeks, host Pete Evans pushed people to sign up as distributors of dōTERRA, a multi-level marketing company selling essential oils, of which Deeks was apparently a platinum “Wellness Advocate” for.

Early in the pandemic, dōTERRA International was warned by the US Federal Trade Commission for social media posts made by reps claiming essential oils could prevent or treat covid-19.

Gingold said the various groups involved in the protest and the movements surrounding it had a variety of motivations.

“I think an awful lot of it is a grift. I think of Billy TK quite early on in the pandemic asking for money in every single post. You have to question whether or not some of these people actually believe what they’re pushing or whether it’s just another thing for them to push,” he told RNZ.

“It’s pretty hard to know their motivation, but you do start to get a bit of a vibe for it. If someone is just asking for a lot of money and they’re prepared to flip-flop their views pretty easily then it feels like a grift to me.”

A protester from Whangārei told RNZ he had heard there were “big donations” for the occupation.

“But I don’t really know what’s going on … I honestly don’t know where the money is going.”

On the other hand, the protester said he instead had concerns about government spending and transparency of that.

Detailed documents of the budget are published every year.

‘No financial links” to Freedoms and Rights Coalition, says Destiny Church

The Freedoms and Rights Coalition, which was also involved in protests during the pandemic, did not respond to RNZ inquiries about their finances and donations.

Ashleigh Marshall, who is listed as the sole director and shareholder of The Freedoms and Rights Coalition Limited, worked as an administrator for Destiny Church.

Church spokesperson Anne Williamson said there was no relationship between the two.

“Freedoms and Rights had a presence down at Parliament virtually from day one, but there was no financial involvement that I know of. I can check this all up for you.

“And there certainly is no financial or other tie up with Freedoms and Rights and the church.”

She said any further questions should be emailed to the church. But there was no response to further inquiries.

Self-proclaimed Apostle Brian Tamaki had spoken at several events organised by the group and shared many of their posts on his personal social media in the past.

‘They robbed those Māori whānau’ – National Māori Authority chair
National Māori Authority chairperson Matthew Tukaki said such groups were taking advantage of disaffected and vulnerable New Zealanders, particularly Māori.

Protesters link arms in front of police outside Parliament, February 2022. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver

“They were targeting vulnerable Māori. Māori that are more predisposed because of our history, because of colonisation — some of our people are already down that bloody hole,” he said.

“What that group did, those leaders in that coalition, they robbed those Māori whānau not only of what little money they probably had, but also their mana.”

Tukaki said considering the precursor activities to the Parliament protest, there was probably “about tens of thousands of dollars that had already been raised for that first stage”.

He said he suspected there was probably even more involved once the occupation began, with all sorts of supplies being provided on a daily basis.

“Even individual donations by February 22 had hit about $30,000 and so it might’ve been $10 from mum here, $20 from old mate down the road, whatever the case, but to sustain the enterprise for those couple of weeks down in Wellington it would have required hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“For example, we know Wellington City Council was handing out parking fines for vehicles that were illegally parked. We know at its height the police estimated there were roughly 800 vehicles down there. If you do the maths … you’re getting up to a huge amount of money per day.

“What was happening is people were going into one of the tents, they were presenting people in that tent with those parking fines and those parking fines were being paid. So that tells me for just the tens of thousands of dollars per week for just parking fines, there was money ready to go.”

‘Where did the money come from?’
Some businesses had fronted up on their financial involvement, but Tukaki said he believed there was more to it than individual donations.

“We also know those attending were less likely to have oodles of savings and money in their pocket to sustain themselves for a long protest,” Tukaki said.

“That $30,000 raised by February 22 from individual donations, that was probably the sum total of how much you could expect from individuals.

“So that comes down to where did the money come from? Well because we’ve got pretty lax laws in understanding money flow of overseas donations or overseas funds for these sorts of protests we are never going to actually know the true extent of what came in from overseas, but I would argue that a significant amount of money was being raised offshore.”

Social media posts among protesters speculated that some donations, potentially tens of thousands of dollars, had gone missing.

RNZ asked one of its organisers, who fronted up on social media to the issues surrounding the movement, if she would comment on the situation.

She declined, but in a post to Facebook said: “The original [bank] account was someone’s who turned out couldn’t be trusted and him and another organiser for the north took that money”.

She understood it was being investigated.

RNZ asked police whether any theft, fraud or financial crimes formed part of their investigation into the protest.

In a statement, a spokesperson said police were not in a position to comment on specific aspects of their investigation.

“The investigation phase into the criminal activity during the operation is underway,” the spokesperson said.

“Police are appealing for the public’s help to identify anyone involved in criminal activity during the operation and anyone with information is urged to report it to police.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz