It is the final day of election campaigning in Solomon Islands and there is a palpable sense of anticipation in the country, which is holding national and provincial elections simultaneously for the first time this year.

There is also significant international interest this year in the outcome of the National Election, as it is the first to be held since 2019 when Taiwan cut its decades-long diplomatic ties with the country — leaving Honiara in the lurch as it moved to formally establish diplomatic relations with Beijing.

The elections this week were officially scheduled to take place last year but were postponed, somewhat controversially, so that the country could host the Pacific Games.

Most of the voters RNZ Pacific has spoken to in Honiara so far seem both excited and determined to exercise their democratic right.

In and around the capital, stages are being erected for final campaign rallies and all manner of vehicles are being decked out for colourful and noisy float parades.

Overnight, down at the main Point Cruz wharf, hundreds of voters were still boarding ferries paid for by election candidates trying to shore up their numbers.

Many of the ships are not actually designed for passengers — they are converted fishing or cargo vessels purchased through Special Shipping Grants given to MPs to help meet transportation needs for their constituents.

Voter ferries
One such vessel is the MV Avaikimaine run by Renbel Shipping for the Rennell and Bellona constituency.

The man in charge of boarding last night, Derek Pongi, said voters for all election candidates were allowed to travel on the vessel.

Pongi said some people had their fares paid for by the candidates they support, while others meet their own travel costs.

He said the vessel had completed four trips carrying 400 or more passengers each time.

“It’s important because people from Rennell and Bellona can go back and participate in these elections and exercise their right to vote for their member of Parliament and the members of the Provincial Assembly,” Pongi said.

But not all vessels have such an open policy — some of the wealthier candidates in larger constituencies either charter or call in favours to get potential voters to the polls.

A couple of jetties over from the Avaikimaine was the bright neon green-coloured Uta Princess II.

Her logistics officer, Tony Laugwaro, explained the vessel was heading to the Baegu Asifola constituency and that most of the people on board were supporters of the incumbent MP John Maneniaru.

Three trips
He said they had made three trips already, but had to be wary of remaining within the campaign expenses’ maximum expenditure limit.

“It’s only around SBD$500,000 (US$58,999) for each candidate to do logistics, so we have to work within that amount for transporting and accommodating voters,” Tony Laugwaro said.

According to Solomon Islands electoral laws, candidates are also only allowed to accept donations of up to SBD$50,000 (US$5900) for campaigning.

As each ship pulls away from the jetty and disappears into the night, another appears like a white ghost out of the darkness and begins the process of loading more passengers.

The official campaign period ends at midnight today, followed immediately by a 24-hour campaign blackout.

Polls open on Wednesday at 7am and close at 4pm. Counting is expected to continue through until the weekend.

Depending on the official results, which will be announced by the Governor-General, lobbying to form the national and provincial governments could last anywhere from a few days to several weeks.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Opposition National list MP Dr Jian Yang has announced his retirement from New Zealand politics and says he will not stand in the 2020 general election after three terms in the party caucus.

He said politics was “demanding” and he wanted to spend more time with his family.

“Accordingly, I have informed the party president that I should not be considered by the regional list ranking committee of the Northern Region in its meeting tomorrow, hence my announcement today.

READ MORE: Who is National MP Juan Yang – Checkpoint

“I truly believe that New Zealand is a great country.”

Of the 21 years he has been in New Zealand, he has spent 12 years in academia and nine in politics.

“I have been proud to be a part of what I think is a caucus that is truly representative of the ethnic diversity that is modern New Zealand, and to have played my part as a Chinese New Zealander in the governance of our amazing country.”

He said he was honoured to represent the Chinese community in Parliament.

Support for Chinese community
“I am proud that I have been able to assist numerous Chinese constituents and enabled the Chinese community to better understand and participate in New Zealand’s open and democratic politics. And I will continue to support New Zealand’s hard-working Chinese community outside of caucus.

In 2017, Yang confirmed he had taught ‘spies’ in China, but denied that he was a spy himself. A story on the Newsroom website raised questions about his involvement with Chinese military and intelligence.

He was a member of the Communist Party while he was in China but had not been since he left the country, he had said.

He said he enjoyed being part of governments led by Sir John Key and Sir Bill English and to have chaired two select committees.

“My trips to China with Prime Minister John Key, ministers and colleagues are some highlights of my political career. I have witnessed the rapid growth of New Zealand’s trade with China and I am pleased to have played a role in it.

“I wish Todd and the team all the best to win the election. New Zealand needs a National government.”

Last month National MP and ousted deputy leader Paula Bennett had also announced she would not be standing at the upcoming election.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New National Party leader Todd Muller has presented his party’s vision for New Zealand as it grapples with the economic cost of the Covid-19 pandemic. But Muller’s vision was unsurprisingly National while surprisingly short on economic detail. And, after a week where sordid privacy breaches plagued the party – leaving Muller exposed and scrambling to convince voters that National is credible, stable, honourable and ready to govern – Muller’s campaign vision was supposed to be a circuit-breaker. Instead, it left more questions than answers.

Last week private details of recently returned New Zealanders were leaked to a select grouping of media. The privacy breach was seen as the latest bungle by those charged with protecting New Zealanders against the Covid-19 virus.

National’s leader Muller was quick to apply election year politics to the breach and claim it as another example why voters should oust the Labour-led Government and vote for his National Party at the September elections.

But by Tuesday we learnt things were not as they seemed. After the Government had ordered a judicial inquiry into the matter, stating that the breach could potentially be deemed a criminal issue, a lone National MP put his hand up and admitted to have been the person who sent the private information to the media.

But how did the information come to be in MP Hamish Walker’s possession – information that named Kiwis who were in quarantine, detailed their health status, and indicated the location of their place of isolation?

At that point, National’s Machiavellian politics turned a shade dirty.

It was revealed, Walker was sent the private information from former National Party president Michelle Boag (who was also heading the deputy leader’s re-election campaign team). Boag had apparently received the information as acting manager of a prominent rescue helicopter entity, but, according to Boag, it was received via her personal email account.

By Wednesday, Boag had resigned her acting manager’s role and stood down from the deputy leader’s election campaign team.

Muller insists he knew nothing of Walker and Boag’s tactics and moved to stand his MP down stripping him of his portfolios and hinting that he should be jettisoned from the party referring the matter to the National Party’s board (the board however decided only to remove Walker as a candidate at the next election).

UPDATE: By Friday (July 10, 2020), It was revealed Boag had also provided National MP and health spokesperson, Michael Woodhouse, with private health details of patients. Woodhouse insists that ‘he deleted the information and did not pass any information on to others. He confirmed the information given to him by Boag was not the source of allegations regarding [what was reported as] lax security measures at the New Zealand border‘. (Stuff.co.nz, July 10, 2020)

Stuff reported: ‘Boag said she had sent “several” emails to Woodhouse in June. She described the emails as “comprising notification of a small number of then new Covid19 cases”‘.

Michelle Boag has now resigned her National Party membership.

Woodhouse said Friday he would cooperate fully with the judicial inquiry into the privacy breaches, led by Michael Heron QC.

But Woodhouse is not without blemish either. Earlier this week he told media the leak of patients’ health details was “another serious failing” of the Labour-led Government.

Woodhouse said: “Reports coming in this morning of personal details being leaked which reveals the identity of New Zealand’s current active cases, is yet another serious failing from this incompetent Government.“

“This is unconscionable and unacceptable that those suffering from the incredibly dangerous virus now have to suffer further with their private details being leaked.“

Woodhouse went on to say: “… it’s unfathomable that it couldn’t handle a simple task like this.“

It is ‘unfathomable’ why Woodhouse did not come clean with the knowledge that he himself had received private information of patients’ health details from Michelle Boag.

Woodhouse’s reputation now risks being in tatters. He needs to explain himself further.

What is potentially more damaging are New Zealand Herald revelations that leader Todd Muller knew Woodhouse had received patients’ private health information from Michaelle Boag. This, the Herald reported, Muller knew on Tuesday evening (July 7, 2020).

NZ Herald: A party spokeswoman said today Woodhouse told Muller this on Tuesday night.

‘Muller was specifically asked by reporters “have you checked with Woodhouse, specifically, whether he received that same information from Boag”. “No,” replied Muller and a reporter asked “why not?”

“It’s very clear from our perspective there’s a conversation that’s occurred between Michelle Boag and Hamish Walker. We are confident from what we can see that the issue here relates to Michelle Boag and Hamish Walker.”‘

‘Asked again if he had spoken to Woodhouse and if Boag was a Woodhouse source, Muller said: “No, I don’t really understand where you’re going with this.‘

‘The spokeswoman said Muller didn’t say something yesterday because “we had to look at what that information was and the nature”.

“We needed to assess the information.”‘

The whole deceitful saga leaves one with a sense that National remains bereft of a moral compass, indifferent to legal rights to privacy, manipulative of the public discourse, and prepared to manufacture scandal so as to advance its ambition to retake the Treasury Benches in 2020.

This week’s revelations expose National to a reality that Machiavellianism remains, that factions within National are prepared to operate from the shadows, that the end game justifies the means – to win at all costs.

It is reasonable to realise that Todd Muller was, at best, not respected, at worst, considered irrelevant.

But if Only It Was An Isolated Incident

With Todd Muller becoming leader, standing alongside his Deputy Nikki Kaye, many political observers considered National was sincere in removing dirty politics tactics from its 2020 election toolkit.

But since Todd Muller became leader of the National Party we have seen:

• National’s new leadership team signal its MPs to go for it… that National has a moral obligation to win.
• a culture of ‘politics placed before the public’s interest’ … gotcha politics designed to erode a public’s confidence in National’s opponents, placed ahead of serving the public interest.

Let’s look at a brief recap of previous happenings:

• Around July 17, For at least 20 hours, National held on to information that two women who were Covid positive had travelled from Auckland to Wellington
• National chose to wait so they could use that knowledge in Parliament and deliver a political hit rather than alert health officials, the Government, and the media
• The public’s right to know that information was denied them, for a time.

Clearly, the public deserved to know immediately so those who may have been in contact with the contagious women could self isolate and await to be tested.

But there’s more.

Also we have seen leaks from inside the National Party revealing how its private polling found it had been sinking in popularity after experiencing a short rise since Muller took the leadership. Its leader Todd Muller was disappointed in the leak having occurred. The leak indicates a lack of discipline inside National.

Is this an indisciplined party that is lacking in leadership, out of step with the New Zealand public’s expectations and interests? This whole saga raises the question: Is National fit to govern in 2020?

A Circuit-Breaker – A Vision – But Where’s The Plan?

After the revelations, and after National’s board failed to remove Hamish Walker from the party, Todd Muller needed a circuit-breaker to restore an impression of leadership. National’s Plan to get New Zealand working ought to have provided Muller with exactly that.

At the Christchurch Chamber of Commerce, on Thursday, Todd Muller indicated his Plan had five key pillars:

• Responsible Economic Management
• Delivering Infrastructure
• Reskilling and Retraining our Workforce
• A Greener, Smarter Future
• Building Stronger Communities.

But beyond that, Muller gave little else away. He promised that “over the coming months, and into August, I will be releasing the lion’s share of our Plan in a series of major speeches and engagements.”

He added: “Our vision, our Plan and our direction for New Zealand will place jobs at the centre and deliver the results Kiwis need. We have a track-record that shows we do as we say and get the job done.”

He continued: “Over the next 72 days my team and I will be working hard to share our Plan with you.”

He said: “National believes in: An open and competitive economy;
A broad-based, low-rate tax system; An independent central bank with the primary goal of price stability; The Fiscal Responsibility Act, now part of the Public Finance Act; and A flexible labour market, underpinned since 2000 by good faith.”

Then came a glimpse of the real plan. Muller said: “Under Helen Clark, John Key, Bill English and Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand has spent, in 2020 dollars, $505 billion on social welfare, $302 billion on health, $260 billion on education, and $27 billion on corrections. That is well over a trillion dollars on those four areas alone just since the year 2000, or well over $200,000 for every single person living in New Zealand today.

“When we see more than one in eight New Zealand children still living in material hardship; more than 310,000 Kiwis on a benefit even before Covid-19 (and now up to more than 350,000); more than a million food grants needed last year; and the state house waiting list having more than tripled since Labour was elected, then I don’t think anyone can believe we have achieved the best possible return on that trillion-dollar-plus investment.”

So what is Todd Muller suggesting here? Are we to believe that under his leadership National would embark on an austerity plan that would abandon community-led social investment, education, tertiary and trades-training investment (a raw point of failed social investment of former prime minister John Key’s so called ‘rock star economy’ that was publicly criticised by the OECD)?

Is Todd Muller suggesting a return to small government ideology akin to last century? If so, is that out of step with globalised and developed western economies that have embarked on fiscal stimulus plans more aligned with Keynesian economics than that of Milton Friedman and George Stigler’s Chicago school of economics theories that New Zealand zealously embraced from 1987 through to 2017?

Surely in the post-Covid recovery period economies will require governments to intervene, to commit to broad-based and bold fiscal stimulus, plans that lead toward a rebalancing between export-led recovery and domestic self sufficiency and societal progress?

Is there a role for business to work with government? Yes, certainly, it is a necessity. But in the immediate post-Covid recovery period the business sector will not be ready to pick up the shovel and rebuild to scale on behalf of a government that does not have the willpower to lead the effort.

Muller said on Thursday: “Let me tell you what that means in practice. In 2020/21 and 2021/22, my Government will not be scared of investing more in retraining, if we are confident it will genuinely improve productivity, lower unemployment, increase the tax take, reduce the cost of welfare and improve wellbeing over the following decade.”

Does this mean we would see an overhaul within a period of crisis where Government would constrain stimulus through targeted ‘investment’ to the private sector, relying on the latter to deliver once-government services and social programmes?

Will Todd Muller’s National Party outsource to the private sector its responsibility to deliver social welfare, health, education, corrections services?

Is this what Todd Muller’s key appointment, Matthew Hooton, has been working on since his appointment last month? Hooton’s political commentary is known to many and has contributed greatly to political discourse in New Zealand. Matthew Hooton is known as a proponent of small government, an advocate for the ideologies of right neo-liberal economics who earned his National Party stripes when the ideas of former minister of finance Ruth Richardson was all the rage. Hooton often criticised John Key and former finance minister Bill English for being too moderate and failing to deliver, while popular, reform that would further liberalise New Zealand economic environment.

If Todd Muller is to be regarded as a prime minister in waiting, then eliminating dirty politics from his party is only part of a necessary plan. Convincing a voting public that user-pays and the privatisation of essential social services – welfare, health, education, and corrections – may be truly testing.

But then, a real leader would demonstrate courage alongside convictions. And time, as they say, is not on his side.

ANALYSIS: By Richard Shaw of Massey University

New Zealand’s general election is currently set for September 19. Under ordinary circumstances, campaigning for the election and two referenda that will take place alongside would be heating up by now, but the country is three quarters of the way through a comprehensive level 4 four-week lockdown.

The first question is whether the election should take place at all. Misgivings are beginning to emerge, including within the coalition government, but at the moment the answer is still a qualified yes.

Regardless of the precise date, New Zealand will be one of the first liberal parliamentary democracies to go to the polls since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic – and it will be the most consequential election any of us have participated in.

READ MORE: Three reasons why Jacinda Ardern’s coronavirus response has been a masterclass in crisis leadership

Potential for a reverse snap election
Attempting to look five months out is a fool’s game at the best of times (which these are not), but elections are how we hold elected representatives to account.

Unless the numbers of ill, hospitalised or dead New Zealanders take a sharp turn for the worse, the election is likely to go ahead.

If the numbers do worsen and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern opts to delay the election, there are several ways in which the date can be pushed back, but it would still likely have to be held this year.

New Zealand’s three-year parliamentary term is entrenched in the Electoral Act, under which the last possible election date is on December 5, unless 75 percent or more of all MPs vote to extend the term of the 52nd Parliament.

Whatever happens, it does not take much to imagine the logistical challenges that Covid-19 is posing for electoral agencies. Contingency planning for various scenarios is already underway, focused on identifying ways in which people can vote if they cannot get to a booth.

Postal voting is one option, but online voting on any significant scale is probably not, because of privacy risks and technical challenges.

Trust in government to make the right call
Ardern’s calm, measured and reassuring leadership during the Covid-19 crisis has attracted plaudits at home and away – as it did a year ago following the Christchurch mosque attacks.

Unlike other Western countries, New Zealand has a goal to eliminate Covid-19, rather than containing it, and after almost three weeks in lockdown, the number of people who have recovered from the illness now exceeds the number of new cases each day.

According to a recent Colmar Brunton poll, 88 percent of New Zealanders trust their government to make the right decisions about Covid-19 (well above the G7 average of 59 percent), and 83 percent trust it to deal successfully with national problems.

Ardern has fronted the mainstream media more or less daily, her Facebook Live appearance in a hoodie on a sofa received more views than New Zealand has people, and her communication has been crisp, clear and consistent: Go hard and go early. Stay home and save lives. Be kind.

But this is now. Come September, when people’s memories of this phase of the crisis have dulled and they are looking for a path through the social and economic damage Covid-19 is wreaking, a different political calculus will apply.

The role of the state
Few may hold Ardern directly responsible for the wreckage, but she will be held to account for her administration’s response to the challenges that lie ahead.

At that point the contest becomes one of ideas. The pandemic has dragged some venerable old political issues to the surface, chief among them the relationship between state and economy.

In New Zealand, there is broad support for the speed, decisiveness and competence with which the government and its officials have acted. The language of “government failure” has largely vanished and the importance of public institutions has become clear to everyone.

So has the extent to which markets rely upon the state. Except for the truest of believers in market forces, the argument that governments should get out of the way and give the private sector free reign has become untenable. For the time being.

There is burgeoning hope that once the crisis passes we will do a lot of things differently, but a new political and economic order is not a done deal.

New political order
It may seem unlikely that swathes of voters will embrace a return to unfettered markets but it is equally improbable that many will be clamouring for a permanent highly centralised state.

Trust in government is back in fashion for the moment in New Zealand, but we simply cannot tell how widespread support for a more active state will be once the Covid-19 health crisis has waned and the country faces the economic impacts.

New Zealanders talk a good fight about egalitarianism but we are remarkably tolerant of income and wealth inequality, health disparities and homelessness. Those things and more are waiting for us on the other side of Covid-19, and while we may yet come out of this crucible with a new social contract, it will need to be fought for.

That is why the 2020 election in New Zealand matters so much. Constitutionally, New Zealanders will be choosing a House of Representatives.

Really, though, we will be choosing a future, because the next government will get to chart a course not just for the next parliamentary term but for a generation.

Dr Richard Shaw is professor of politics at Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Koroi Hawkins of RNZ Pacific

Independent and returning MPs dominate the line-up for Solomon Islands new Parliament with all the results in from last week’s election.

Nearly three-quarters of MPs have retained their seats, including the Prime Minister of the last two years, Rick Hou.

The 50-seat Parliament has 14 new MPs and two women.

The Solomon Islands Parliament chamber in Honiara. Image: Koroi Hawkins/RNZ Pacific

Lanelle Tanangada and Freda Soriacomua are among the 36 MPs who retained their seats.

LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC DATELINE

Twenty-one MPs standing as independents have been elected, making up nearly half the Parliament, while the two largest of the eight parties voted in have just eight seats each.

-Partners-

Most constituencies recorded voter turnouts of more than 80 percent.

The Electoral Commission and international observer groups have commended the country for a peaceful election.

Observers also noted some discrepancies such as voters having difficulty finding their names on polling day.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ Pacific

The Commonwealth observer group has commended the commitment of the people of Solomon Islands to participating peacefully in last Wednesday’s national election.

In a preliminary statement released over the weekend, its chairperson, former Vanuatu prime minister Sato Kilman, said the group acknowledged the efforts of the Solomon Islands Electoral Commission to conduct the election under the country’s new Electoral Act which was brought in just the year before.

Kilman said his group observed some positive aspects of the process and also identified areas that could be improved to enhance the country’s democratic process.

One example of this was the group noted the out-of-constituency voter registration arrangements saw complaints raised about the lack of clarity around the definition of an “ordinary resident” and where citizens can register to vote.

Complaints were also received about the lack of out-of-constituency voting arrangements for those working in essential services areas such as hospitals and those who have had to travel outside of their constituency for work purposes.

The group praised the security operation for the election and acknowledged the logistical support from Australia and New Zealand both to police and electoral authorities.
Solomon Islands election result board

-Partners-

It, however, noted on polling day that several voters were unable to find their names on the lists at polling stations.

Ballot box inconsistencies
They also noted inconsistencies in the way ballot boxes were sealed and labelled and some voting screens needed to be more carefully positioned.

Accessibility to polling stations was also quite difficult in some locations although the group noted where this was the case polling agents did their best to assist the elderly and people with disabilities.

Counting was still underway when the Commonwealth observer group releases their statement but they said there were several areas that could be worked on to improve the efficiency of the count.

Other areas which the group said it would cover in more depth in its final report were concerns about incumbent MPs using Constituency Development Funds in their campaigning, supporting more aspiring women politicians to contest as only 26 out of the 333 candidates were women.

It also made some observations on the limit on campaign funding set out under the country’s new Electoral Act.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Rosalie Nongebatu

As Solomon Islanders headed to the polls on Wednesday to vote for leaders whom they trust will lead them in the next four years, some were not so lucky to have this choice.

Despite that fact that more than 359,000 people were registered to vote in the 2019 Solomon Islands general election with provisional results expected today, not everyone on the final voter list participated in the national exercise.

Solomon Islanders living abroad were not able to vote as there were no provisions under existing electoral laws to allow citizens to vote from outside the country.

READ MORE: Incumbents dominate early election results in Solomon Islands

More than 2000 Solomon Islanders in Fiji were among those who were not able to vote, including students at the University of the South Pacific’s Laucala campus in Suva.

RNZ Pacific reports that incumbent MPs are dominating early election results with seven of the 10 seats declared overnight being returned to their former occupants.

-Partners-

USP Solomon Islands Students Association president Adrian Neve said the rights of students to vote was being denied by the authorities and this needed to change.

“Solomon Islands is a democratic country and while we appreciate the reforms implemented by the Solomon Islands Electoral Commission, a good number of us living overseas are affected as we are not given the opportunity to vote for the leader of our choice,” he said.

‘Disappointing’ exclusion
“There is a large number of Solomon Islands students at USP and other institutions in Fiji, and it is disappointing that we were not able to exercise our democratic right to carry out our civic duty as citizens in a democracy to cast our ballot paper.

“Electoral laws must be amended so that citizens abroad are included in this important process of choosing our leaders. I hope leaders who are voted into power today treat this as priority and work towards changing existing laws to ensure that elections are actually democratic and fair.”

The late passing of the Electoral Reform Act towards the end of 2017 had complicated the Electoral Commission’s preparation to ensure the 2019 election was credible.

The Act provides scope to amend procedures, but there was not enough time to implement these changes. As such, some of the proposed changes in the Act, such as allowing Honiara residents registered in rural areas to cast their votes in Honiara, were not implemented in this election.

Chaotic scenes at Honiara’s main wharf where passengers have tried to climb on departing ferries. Image: Evan Wasuka/ABC/Wansolwara

It is understood there was a mass exodus of voters from Honiara early this week heading out to provinces, among them doctors and medical practitioners, causing a crisis at the National Referral Hospital. This had also led to chaotic scenes with people scrambling to board overloaded ferries to travel home before polling day.

One of the notable changes applied in this election was the successful introduction of pre-polling voting under the Electoral Act 2018, trialed with police officers and electoral officials who worked on elections day.

The pre-poll voting was held on March 21, nearly two weeks before the National General Election.

Pre-polling minimal
A statement from the Electoral Commission said the current group of approved pre-poll applicants was minimal to start with, and from lessons learnt, pre-poll voting would be improved while the other class of electors prescribed by regulation would be given the equal opportunity in future elections.

Another notable change in this election was the newly-introduced campaign ban. For the first time in the political history of the country, media reports featuring campaign materials and political advertising were banned 24 hours before polling day.

With nine provinces and polling stations scattered across the country, counting was expected to be held in the provincial capital of each province with results to be announced as soon as counting of ballot papers for a particular constituency is complete.

Counting for all constituencies is in progress with results expected to be released today.

Police have banned victory float parades by winning contestants after the results have been announced – a common sight during past elections.

Rosalie Nongebatu of the Solomon Islands is a final-year journalism student at USP’s Laucala campus. She is also the editor of Wansolwara, the USP Journalism Programme’s student training print and online publications.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Is the National Party’s latest online advert deliberately designed to provoke a backlash from liberal opponents? And is National trying to feed the fire of a growing culture war in New Zealand? It’s seems so, and the party’s desired result is being achieved.

The taxpayer-funded 30-second video was launched on social media on Wednesday. You can see the ad about KiwiBuild here on Twitter: They’re all sizzle, no sausage. So far, it’s had 48,800 views on this single tweet.

The piece of advertising propaganda was immediately attacked by opponents as being sexist, particularly because it incorporated some backward gender stereotypes, with a young woman being lectured to about the failures of KiwiBuild by a young man being condescending. Some labelled it “man-splaining”.

Most prominently, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern correctly pointed out that the ads looked like they came from the 1970s, referring to their backward nature. But she was careful not to take too much of the bait, saying “I think if people see the ad they can make their own judgement on it”.

Others have been readier to express condemnation and even outrage. For example, the Minister of Women’s Affairs, Julie-Anne Genter attacked it as a portrayal of a gullible woman being mansplained to by two patronising males.

Plenty of other commentators have condemned the ad – today the Herald’s Damien Venuto wrote about how the woman in the ad was “the literal embodiment of every dated blonde joke ever told” – see: The mistake National keeps making in its terrible ads. He warns the party that they are stepping “into a giant advertising turd by belittling a large portion of the voting public: namely women.”

Venuto predicts that the ads will backfire, giving Labour an electoral advantage: “These ads reinforce the notion that National is the old, rich party, looking to maintain the power dynamics that have long existed in New Zealand society. If anything, it gives Labour further impetus to reinvigorate the smart unifying message delivered in its previous election campaign.”

There has been widespread criticism. Linda Clark tweeted sarcastically, “Policy is complicated. I needed a man to help me understand it”. Another posted: “I am actually in furious tears over how sexist that National ad is. Blatantly, explicitly, intentionally sexist. How are we meant to move away from a culture of violence towards women when our political rhetoric expressly permits this?” – see: National Party’s KiwiBuild attack ad comes under fire as sexist and incorrect.

But was all this negative reaction actually exactly what the National Party was seeking? Commentator Danyl Mclauchlan admits that it might be a “grand conspiracy theory”, but that this is “exactly what they wanted to happen”. He wrote an article yesterday arguing “Progressives are actually the primary target for this ad and it is designed to offend them. Offense and controversy makes things newsworthy and earns you coverage in the mainstream media, thus potentially reaching a far greater number of viewers” – see: Notes towards a grand unified theory of the terrible National Party sausage ad.

Quite clearly the strategy has worked, with National’s ad gaining huge amounts of media coverage. In this regard, Mclauchlan argues that it’s a clever attack advertising strategy, which has some parallels with the operating style of the US President: “This is Trump’s great innovation in political marketing: you don’t need to pay for advertising you just repeatedly outrage progressives, especially those who work in the media, and they’ll give you all the free coverage you could hope for.”

Mclauchlan concludes: “Presumably there will be more: maybe the next shocking thing will be the next National Party ad, giving online progressives the chance to spend the whole year furiously amplifying National’s talking points.”

Could National’s strategy actually therefore be primarily designed – not just to get more attention, as Mclaughlan argues – but also to push the party’s liberal opponents into furthering their reputation as being obsessed by being “politically correct” or “woke”?

This is what I argued this morning on Newstalk ZB, saying “Most supporters of National will just see this ad and think ‘oh National is criticising KiwiBuild’, whereas National’s opponents read much more into it, they’ve seen it and been provoked by it and fallen into the trap” – see: People outraged over ‘sexist’ National attack ad have ‘fallen into trap’.

Essentially National’s strategy is a highly cynical attempt at a type of “reverse dog whistle politics” – because their own base and the voters they are trying to win over don’t pick up on any underlying offensiveness of the advertisement, but opponents do and they react accordingly. As I explain on Newstalk ZB, “Many others fell into the trap, gave it publicity and called it out and for a lot of New Zealanders they would have seen the ad and thought it just seems like a silly ad and thought the complaints about it… were a bit over the top.”

Therefore, a “cringe-worthy and clumsy” ad manages to feed into, and thrive off, the growing culture wars in New Zealand. Because the context in which National has launched this ad is one of 1) heightened sensitivity towards social justice, sexism, and gender politics, and 2) a reaction against such “woke” politics, with a lot of frustration and abhorrence at social justice progressives and their outrage.

Hence, National Party deputy leader, Paula Bennett has been able to come out and defend the ads, strongly positioning her party as in opposition to “outrage culture”. She has been reported as saying that “it’s easy to find offence if you’re looking for it”, and people need to “lighten up”.

On RNZ, Bennett “was asked if she thought young, blonde women need government policy explained to them by men” and she responded: “Oh, no more than fat brown ones or any other male that I might know or anyone else. It’s got nothing to do with gender it’s got nothing to do with hair colour it’s got nothing to do with any of that sort of thing” – see: Paula Bennett defends ‘no sausage’ mansplaining ad on KiwiBuild.

This article also points out that National’s male MPs were being put under pressure in Parliament and by the media, essentially being quizzed as to whether they are sexist and whether they “mansplained”. National was probably quite happy about this narrative of their MPs being under attack.

And if they were any doubt that this “woke-provoking” strategy was being used, then it’s worth noting that National’s pollster David Farrar blogged to say: “National will be delighted that woke activists on Twitter are so stupid they managed to get all this free publicity for the advertisement” – see: Woke activists fall into trap.

Newstalk ZB’s political editor Barry Soper has also viewed National’s ad as being designed to provoke a strong reaction from opponents: “Today it’s the talk of the town, mainly because these days everyone’s so politically sensitive, careful about what they say for fear of causing offence and National knows it. Which is why the ad’s had the impact it has” – see: National’s Kiwibuild ad the talk of the town. On National’s strategy, Soper says “It’s brilliant and it’s had the desired effect: getting everyone fired up and the public talking.”

Also at Newstalk ZB, Heather du Plessis-Allan has come out strongly against the ad, saying “it’s a clever ad. But it’s disappointing” – see: Make no mistake, National’s BBQ attack ad is sexist.

Not only does du Plessis-Allan draw attention to the backward gender stereotypes in the ad and the “mansplaining”, but also to the apparent use of sausages in the ad as a putdown of the Labour Party and Jacinda Ardern: “The sausage is a phallic symbol FYI. If that sounds too conspiratorial to you, you’re being naive. This is an effective political ad and effective political ads almost always contain some sort of subtle dog-whistle. And very little in such an ad is an accident. The sausage is deliberate.”

Nonetheless, the impact seems to be working – with a backlash building against the advert complainants. The Herald reports the following readers’ comments with examples of people cheering on the ads: “PC gone mad”, “Bloody brilliant” and “People need to get over themselves” – see: ‘People need to get over themselves’: Swell of support for National’s ‘sexist’ BBQ ad.

Finally, National’s attack conjures up memories of other attack ads run by the party in the past, and the classic to watch is their 1975 Dancing Cossacks video.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

This week’s Colmar Brunton poll was one of the most bittersweet polls a political party and its leader have ever received. On the one hand, the party was up to 46 per cent but, on the other, leader Simon Bridges was only on 7 per cent as preferred PM. This meant that only 15 per cent of National supporters also appear to support Simon Bridges. 

Has a poll ever had such a cruel ratio of support for a major party leader in New Zealand? No, according to Colmar Brunton: “The largest discrepancy we could find was in the November 2006 poll, Don Brash’s last as leader of the National Party. Brash registered 11% in Preferred PM whilst National polled at 51% party support.”

Brash therefore had the support of 22 per cent of National voters – and he was rolled the next month. So, could the same thing be about to happen to Bridges? For most of the year, especially during the Jami-Lee Ross scandal, his party has appeared united behind Bridges, but has that all changed?

Bridges being undermined again

There appear to be strong signs that moves are underway within the National Party caucus to undermine Bridges. It hasn’t been widely reported, but a National MP – or at least someone claiming to be one – has been leaking internal party information to the media this week.

The first leak was of an “internal poll” that National Party had commissioned from David Farrar’s polling company Curia. This was passed onto journalists at the same time that the Colmar Brunton poll came out, and it was much less favourable to National. Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper reported it on Monday, saying: “Their overall rating had slipped to 41 per cent, teetering dangerously close to the red zone of the 30s, and behind Labour on 44” – see: Christmas break can’t come soon enough for Simon Bridges.

Soper gave further details of the demographic breakdown of this poll: “National had dropped in just about every polling group, except for women whose support was up slightly. Men bombed, with the over 60s, where the party usually fares well, crashing. Most age groups were heading towards the bloody carpet.”

The leaker reportedly clams the National caucus weren’t given the details for Bridges’ own public support: “they weren’t told how Bridges was faring in the preferred Prime Minister stakes and that had some of them seething. Polling on the leader has always been on the table for dissection.”

The leaker conveyed to Soper that “The Nats’ caucus was not a happy one”. And Soper concluded that Bridges’ leadership is therefore in trouble: “as they sharpen their knives for the Christmas turkey at least they’ll know their blades will be ready for use when they see their next internal poll at their first meeting next year.”

Soper then followed up this column with an extraordinary report saying that there appears to be a new leaker from within National: “An MP, either acting alone or with the knowledge of others, is undermining Bridges by using a burner phone, not taking any chances with the internal phone records of MPs inspected during the Jami-Lee Ross probe. The number can’t be traced and since the texting started the number’s changed. But the internal poll figures have checked out and so too have other claims made – which could only have come from a caucus member” – see: Burning Simon Bridges – Doomed to repeat National Party history.

According to Soper, the leaker gave further information, which is worth quoting at length: “The MP feeding the information’s going to a lot of trouble, texting with a third burner number, giving an insight into what went on in this week’s caucus. How Maggie Barry, who’s being besieged with bullying accusations, stood up and thanked her colleagues for their support, greeted by a stunned silence. Her colleagues remember her outburst in October, castigating Jami-Lee Ross for his behaviour towards his staff. The texter said they were bracing for more accusations against Barry, and they came. It’s unlikely this texter’s acting alone. It’s clearly a campaign to undermine National’s leadership team and the strain is beginning to show.

Three other media outlets have reported receiving the leaks from the anonymous texter. RNZ’s Chris Bramwell explains their own dealings with the story: “After RNZ ran the story with Mr Bridges’ comments, it received another text from the same anonymous person saying Mr Bridges was foolish for thinking the polling leak did not come from a National MP. The texter offered details of what happened in yesterday’s caucus meeting as proof they were an MP. RNZ has been unable to verify the texter’s identity” – see: Leaker claiming to be National MP sends another text.

The NBR’s Brent Edwards has commented on the leaks today: “Certainly what’s been going on have been attempts to discredit him as leader. There’s no doubt about it. So, someone, or some people, are clearly trying to undermine his leadership. Which in a way seems extraordinary…. The National Party is sitting very comfortably in the 40s… It’s astonishing to think that people would be thinking of pushing out the leader” – see: The people working to destabilise the National Party (paywalled).

Continued speculation about Bridges’ departure

In the above NBR item, Edwards concludes that Bridges “has got to be worried about it. It’s debilitating to his leadership.” Meanwhile Peter Dunne suggests that, although a change of leadership might be best to occur later next yet, “the difficulty that Simon Bridges has got is that it’s increasingly speculative as to whether he can last that long.”

Dunne also explains what he thinks is going on in the party at the moment: “There’s a group of people associate with the National Party – not necessarily in Parliament – who don’t like its current face. They don’t like that John Key didn’t spend enough political capital by being more rightwing. They feel that the current National Party is a little bit too ‘Labour-lite’.”

He says that there’s not necessarily a plan for a particular candidate to take over: “I don’t necessarily think that they have a candidate in mind. But these people are working to destabilise the National Party – a bit like what you’re seeing happen in Australia actually, with the Liberals – to the point where it starts to look like it’s imploding. And someone can then come through and say ‘It’s time to grab the ideological mettle – we’ve got to reshape this party as a genuine rightwing party, because that is what people want’.”

The timing for replacing Bridges was also canvassed by Duncan Garner in an interview yesterday with political commentators Chris Trotter and Trish Sherson – see: Should National pull a Jacinda Ardern and leave it to the last minute to roll Simon Bridges?

In this, Trotter suggests that Bridges is safe for the moment: “If you’re going to change your leader, the historical precedent now has been set with Jacinda – that is you spring it on people.” Furthermore, he says “If your party vote is on 46 percent, you’d have to be a turkey voting for an early Christmas if you moved at that point.”

Another leftwing political commentator, Gordon Campbell, also seems to believe that Bridges is safe for the time being. Writing about an earlier poll result, Campbell said that, like Theresa May in Britain, Bridges is “safe in his job only to the extent that no-one else on the National front bench seems ragingly keen on taking over the task of leading National to a likely defeat in 2020” – see: On what the polls say about National’s leadership.

Campbell looks at some of the pros and cons of a leadership change: “Ironically, Jami-Lee Ross has probably bought Bridges a bit of time. Such are the levels of anger at the Botany MP, his former colleagues will be wanting to deny Ross the satisfaction of seeing Bridges bite the dust anytime soon. Inevitably though, there will be a stock-taking when Parliament re-convenes in February, and if a leadership change is to happen it will occur around May-June next year. Even then, a leadership change will happen only if an erosion in poll support is putting many of the National caucus at risk in 2020, such that new leadership might staunch the likely scale of the losses.”

But Bridges is also getting flack this week from his own side of the political divide. Mike Hosking has criticised him for seeking public input into National’s policy development: “although it sounds all touchy-feely and inclusive, is it makes you look like you can’t think of anything. It makes you look like you’re not really sure of what you stand for. And if something that basic isn’t obvious, no one is supporting a bloke who is a bit ‘go where the wind takes him’. Great leaders don’t have to tell you what they believe because you already know. Bridges already suffers from a touch of the old wishy washy” – see: Wishy washy Simon Bridges needs to figure out what he stands for.

Long-time political journalist John Armstrong was recently even more critical, suggesting that Bridges is unlikely to make it to 2020 as leader: “every factor relevant to the likelihood of Bridges’ making it that far now screams to the negative” and “The stark reality is that he has never been in such a position of weakness as is the case now” – see: The sad truth for Simon Bridges is that the vast proportion of the public simply don’t like him.

It’s the poor personal polling that will do in Bridges, according to Armstrong: “Having slumped to just seven per cent, Bridges has sunk into the same dark, deep hole that swallowed up the likes of Andrew Little, David Cunliffe, David Shearer and Phil Goff when Labour was in Opposition. The more you try to dig yourself out, the deeper you dig yourself in. Everything you do is deemed to be wrong. The voting public stops listening to you because they think you are now unelectable. Once so tagged, you are unelectable.”

Finally, for a completely different take on Bridges’ chances and his leadership abilities, it’s well worth reading Ele Ludemann’s defence of the National leader and critique of the pundits who are “interviewing their own keyboards to write opinion pieces forecasting the end of the leader’s tenure” – see: Drip, drip, drip. The farmer, writer and long-time National Party activist concludes: “yesterday convinced me that like good farmers after bad lambings, Bridges has got up and is getting on, in spite of the drip,drip, drip that’s trying to take him down.”

by Dr Bryce Edwards.

Yesterday marked 125 years to the day since women first voted in a New Zealand General Election. However, celebrations received a reality check when an inconvenient truth resurfaced in a new campaign – the fact that not all New Zealand women have suffrage, because prisoners are still denied the right to participate in elections. 

The campaign to give the vote to prisoners has been launched by the justice reform campaign group, JustSpeak, which has started a new petition: Right to Vote for All. The petition, which includes an open letter to Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, currently has around 200 signatories.

Here’s the key message: “We believe that in a fair and democratic society all members should have the right to vote, and people living in prisons are part of our society. They are valued members of communities and families. To take away their right to vote is an unfair disenfranchisement.”

In conjunction with this new campaign, two very compelling videos have been released that deal with suffrage issues and voting. Yesterday, the first video about women in prison not being able to vote was launched: Can’t: the NZ women still unable to vote, 125 years after suffrage.

And today, the second in the series “examines some of the many and complex reasons why, after 125 years of women’s suffrage, so many women don’t vote” – see: Don’t: the NZ women still not voting, 125 years after suffrage.

To accompany these videos, the Spinoff website is also running a series of articles on prisoners’ suffrage. The most important one for explaining the arguments in favour of prisoners being able to enrol and vote is by JustSpeak’s Tania Sawicki Mead and Ashelsha Sawant – see: To call ourselves a truly representative democracy, this voting law must change.

Looking at the current law that bans prisoners from voting, they say: “It’s the worst kind of anti-democratic law – harsh, disproportionate and fundamentally at odds with the idea that human rights belong to all of us.” And they also point out that New Zealand is an outlier in this regard: “Most democracies around the world either allow prisoners to vote or have recently reinstated their right to do so. New Zealand lags behind in comparison as one of the handful of countries who still have a blanket ban.”

For a poignant argument in favour of prisoner voting, it’s worth reading a very personal account from Awatea Mita, who has spent time in prison – see: A society that denies the incarcerated a vote is a society stamping on human rights. She argues: “Rehabilitation as a safe, responsible, and productive member of an egalitarian society must include the most basic right of the democratic process — the right to participate in choosing who governs, the right to vote. There is research that shows an association between civic engagement, such as being able to vote, and the reduction of offending.”

The role of the Supreme court in suffrage rights

The campaign for reform has been given a massive boost by the landmark New Zealand Supreme Court declaration earlier this month that the ban on prisoners voting – passed in 2010 as the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act – is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. This is best covered by Sam Hurley in his news report, Supreme Court upholds decision saying ban on prisoner voting inconsistent with Bill of Rights.

This report quotes Justice Paul Heath, who made the decision in order to “draw to the attention of the New Zealand public that Parliament has enacted legislation inconsistent with a fundamental right”.

The article provides some history of the ban on prisoner voting in New Zealand. It also, interestingly, cites Jacinda Ardern’s strong opposition to the current voting ban, quoting her statements from when she was Labour’s spokesperson on Justice. For example, Ardern said, “This was an arbitrary law and one that is full of contradictions and inconsistencies” and “Parliament has a responsibility to respect fundamental rights for all. The Government now has a responsibility to assure all New Zealanders it understands that”.

For more on the process of the case being brought to the Supreme Court by current prisoner Arthur Taylor, see Alex Baird’s Kiwi prisoners’ right to vote upheld Supreme Court rules. Taylor appeared in the Supreme Court case via audio-video link from prison, and when he won the case, he says there was celebration from his fellow inmates. Taylor says: “Some of them have made me a cake out of biscuits and things they can buy on their purchases, so that was quite nice, the thought’s there anyway”.

Will the Government extend suffrage to prisoners?

The above article also quotes Justice Minister Andrew Little explaining that although the courts had ruled against the ban, he didn’t see it as a priority to correct the error. Instead, he explained that his priority was to fix the judicial-legislative constitution problems caused by the landmark ruling: “The priority is to get in place a process that requires parliament to respond to any declaration made by the courts on inconsistency with the Bill of Rights.”

Elsewhere, Andrew Little has said that, although he personally opposed the ban on prisoner voting rights, he didn’t see it as a “priority” for the current government, and he’s been reported as believing that “Ministers were unlikely to consider the issue for at least a year” – see RNZ’s Youth advocacy group disappointed in govt’s stance on prisoner votes.

This article also reports JustSpeak’s Tania Sawicki Mead’s response that Little’s stance “was hypocritical because in opposition Labour MPs opposed the law change banning voting”. Mead is quoted: “I think it’s a question of how much this basic issue of access to democracy and your fundamental right to participate is a priority to this government or not… I hope that they seriously consider making it a part of their legislative agenda next year.”

Leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury has reacted with incredulity that the Labour-led Government would essentially oppose returning votes to prisoners, and argues that this decision is based on political pragmatism trumping principles: “Little’s kicked for touch so as to not infuriate NZs easily angered sensible sentencing lynch mob” – see: In just 7 words did Andrew Little demolish real prison reform?

Bradbury explains how the complete ban on prisoner voting came out of the National Party opportunistically playing to a conservative audience, but Labour is now doing the same: “So smart politics to play to the angriest and most easily upset elements off society, but to also shrug off the crucial point that prisoners do have human rights regardless of imprisonment actually cuts to the very heart of the issues Little is attempting to force change on.”

Another blogger, No Right Turn, is also outraged that Labour have decided not to advance a remedy for the problem with urgency: “This is simply not acceptable. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling like this, it should automatically become a priority for Parliament, and should be formally drawn to its attention for a response. The government has already signalled that that is what it wants to do in future, so why won’t it do it in this case? And there’s a pressing need: we’re having an election in 2020, and it would simply be unacceptable given the ruling for prisoners to be unable to vote in it” – see: “Not a priority”.

Furthermore, see his update from yesterday: “in Parliament today the government said that they hadn’t even considered the issue and that it wasn’t a priority for them. Which tells us everything we need to know. This government is not committed to fundamental human rights, and is quite willing to violate them for political profit” – see: Still not their priority.

For the best analysis on the Government’s reluctance to enact universal suffrage, see Gordon Campbell’s On prisoner voting. He points to New Zealand First as the primary barrier to reform.

Here’s Campbell’s main explanation: “Not for the first time, prisoners are being treated as political footballs. Just as the Key government played to the redneck vote back in 2010, Little seems OK about Labour becoming captive to the hardline ‘lock ’em up’ faction that exists within New Zealand First. Earlier this year, Little had been blindsided by NZF leader Winston Peters when Labour tried to scrap the “Three Strikes” legislation. Rather than risk losing a similar fight, Little now seems gun-shy about fighting at all on this issue.”

On the question of whether fixing the problem should be a priority, Campbell says this should be obvious: “Centre-left governments used to think that the rights of prisoners shouldn’t be sacrificed to indulge the desire for societal revenge. I’d also have thought that – when you’re the Justice Minister – defending section 12 of our Bill of Rights should be a priority.”

There is now a chance that the Government might be pressured to give the vote back to prisoners, with the Green Party launching their own campaign yesterday – see Henry Cooke’s Green Party makes call for law change to allow prisoners the right to vote.

According to this, the Green Party’s Justice spokeswoman Golriz Ghahraman “is asking Justice Minister Andrew Little to prioritise the change, but legislation would be needed, so NZ First would need to get onboard. The party has not ruled out attempting the change as a members’ bill.”

Finally, when we think about extending the electoral franchise, perhaps we need to think about lowering the qualifying age as well. Today, Azaria Howell has made the case for it being two years lower – see: Make it 16: a teenager on why we should lower the voting age.

Accusations have surfaced alleging the current National Party leadership conspired to politically destroy Jami-Lee Ross – this after details of his affair with a fellow party MP became known to them. The allegations raise serious questions. Those questions include: what did National’s leader and deputy leader know and when did they find out?

A sworn-to timeline of events is now essential so that the public interest can be satisfied. This must be a crucial element that is cemented in to the methodology of Simon Bridges’ inquiry into the culture of the National Party. Above all, it must be independent and publicly accessible.

The inquiry must examine the National leadership team’s actions and culture, test whether they acted in a proper and timely manner, and assess whether their actions considered a concern for the welfare and mental health of an MP they had previously supported, promoted, and embedded within their leadership team.

It follows that allegations suggesting a “hit job” was orchestrated from inside the National Party leadership must also be independently explored.

If the inquiry finds that either the leader, or deputy leader, was part of a destructive and inhumane attack on Jami-Lee Ross – while it was known that he was at high risk of being pushed over the edge, was ill, and verging on suicide – and that they acted without reasonable regard for his welfare, then it must be accepted by the National Party caucus, its membership and the public, that this National leadership team is at the very least morally bankrupt.

This inquiry ought to be conducted amidst a background whereby Ross declared his role in the destructive side of politics; following the orders of Sir John Key, Bill English, Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges. Ross was afterall a ‘numbers man’ for Bridges, and benefitted from the patronage that the Bridges-Bennett leadership team offered.

There are a number of ‘ifs’ in this analysis, but the public interest demands that they be considered.

The allegations have surfaced on the blog-site Whaleoil which is owned and edited by controversial writer Cameron Slater.

Some may dismiss the allegations on the basis of tribalism, or ignore the allegations because Slater was centrally involved in National’s so called Dirty Politics as revealed in 2014. But the nature of the allegations are as serious as they get in politics, and, if accurate played a part in the sudden deterioration of Jami-Lee Ross’ mental health, the sectioning of Ross for his own protection, and the erasion of credibility of a potential political opponent who was determined to continue as a critical member of New Zealand’s Parliament.

This analysis’ argument suggests any such bias, on behalf by Cameron Slater’s opponents, ought to be ethically and morally put aside until such a time as the truth and facts are tested. Such an inquiry, preferably judicial but essentially independent, must be robust and critical in its analysis.

To reiterate; numerous elements of this saga elevate the issues to a matter of serious public interest.

And it must be noted at this juncture, that the party’s leader Simon Bridges insists he has acted appropriately and denies taking part in any political “hit job”.

Let’s examine what Evening Report has learned from contacts close to events.

Alleged details of events between Saturday-Sunday October 20-21

There is a txt-chain of events that investigators can forensically examine that are central to understanding who was involved in the sectioning of Jami-Lee Ross.

If the txts are examined they will determine if it is fact that the National Party MP, with whom Jami-Lee Ross had a three-year affair, rang the Police and that as a consequence of that call the Police used mental health laws to take Jami-Lee Ross into custody and contain him within the mental health unit at Counties Manukau Health.

Txts will also show whether it is fact that the female MP then called Simon Bridges’ chief of staff at 9:15pm on Saturday October 20 informing him of the events. If so Bridges’ office was aware of an alleged suicide attempt. Investigators would then be able to assess whether a txt message from Jami-Lee Ross’ psychologist, who Evening Report understands messaged Jami-Lee Ross at 9:28pm on Saturday October 20, asking if he was ok, and that the psychologist had minutes prior received a txt message from Jamie Gray, Simon Bridges’ chief of staff.

It is a matter of public record that Simon Bridges appeared on NewsHub’s AM Show on Tuesday October 23, denying all knowledge of events on the Saturday night – that is until a wider grouping within the National Party became privy to what had happened to Jami-Lee Ross.

It appears reasonable to form an opinion that Bridges’ chief of staff would have informed the leader of such an event. If he didn’t, why didn’t he inform Bridges?

The sectioning of Jami-Lee Ross ended a week where many National Party MPs, and a wider network of those loyal to the party, appeared to be actively orchestrating a coordinated campaign to destroy the so-called rogue MP’s political chances and to discredit his claims of corruption within the National Party leadership. Had Jami-Lee Ross abused his position as the senior whip within the party? It certainly appears so. Did he abuse the power he was afforded? Media reports would suggest this was so. Did he have an affair with at least two women? Yes. But it appears that the public attacks began, not at the time when senior members of the party were informed of Ross’ actions, but, once Ross began to attack the leadership. This is significant.

An Opposition’s Role As The Public’s Advocate

As senior representatives of New Zealand’s Legislature, leader Simon Bridges and deputy leader Paula Bennett can arguably be regarded as the public’s advocates within Parliament. Their job is to keep the Executive Government on its toes, challenge its policy and rationale, to be Parliament’s keepers of the public’s interest.

As such, the public deserves to know if the leaders, as a team or individually, conspired to destroy the political chances of an MP and former colleague, who they considered to have gone rogue, and who they knew was suffering a crisis of mental health so serious that it could have ended in death.

It is in consideration of the public interest, that this editorial is written.

We now know as fact, Jami-Lee Ross had a three year affair with a South Island-based National MP.[name withheld]. Like him, she has two children and was married.

While the affair was going ‘well’, contacts inside the National Party have told Evening Report that Jami-Lee encouraged Bridges to promote his lover above her standing and reputation in caucus, well above some high profile MPs like National’s Chris Bishop who are respected among colleagues and media and seen to have been doing their job well. The promotion was seen to give leverage, to sure up the numbers to stabilise Bridges’ and Bennett’s leadership team at a time when they sensed support was delicate.

Meanwhile, Jami-Lee Ross continued to pull in big donations from wealthy Chinese residents in his Botany electorate. As a reward, Bridges embedded him into his inner core, the top three. Politically, this is really an unsound move by a political leader. With Ross being senior whip, he is supposed to be directed by the leader to pull MPs into line, to do the leader’s bidding, and to do this without necessarily knowing the deep and dark details underlying the leader’s moves.

In effect, with Jami-Lee Ross becoming a central figure, knowing all the details, the dirt, the strategy and tactics, it centralised too much power into the whip position and elevated a real danger of a whip using the position for his own gain. To reiterate, this appears a seriously stupid move of Bridges and Bennett to pull a whip in on their machinations. And, in a significant contact’s view, it appears they risked this because Jami-Lee was pulling in the donor money.

Jami-Lee Ross had been on the rise for a time. Former Prime Minister John Key promoted him to the whips office. Then PM Bill English secured Ross’s rise by maintaining and elevating his whip role. Bridges and Bennett further empowered Jami-Lee Ross by cementing him into the whip position, a move that suggested National’s power-politicians were well satisfied with his service.

It’s hard to tell how far back it was when Jami-Lee Ross began to record Bridges. And, at this juncture, it’s difficult to know if he recorded Bennett as well. The public is left to fathom whether it was when his affair with the National MP went sour and perhaps Ross sensed Bennett having become close to her.

In any event, when Jami-Lee Ross fell out with his colleague and lover, sources say Bennett played a crucial role in the analysis of his conduct, in particular women who had allegedly been burned by Ross. Two women, contacts inside National state, were staff of the National Party leader. The MP (whom Ross had a three-year affair with) and the two staff members are said by National Party contacts to be the subject of NewsRoom.co.nz’s investigation into Ross’ activities, an investigation that is believed to have spanned up to one year in duration. Evening Report raises this aspect as the public interest demands to consider whether it is reasonable to believe that two staffers in the leader’s office never told nor informed Bridges, or the chief of staff, that they were cooperating in a media investigation into the leader’s chief and senior whip?

Contacts state that Bennett gained the women’s confidence, received information so it could be prepared as part of a disciplinary process. Did Bennett choose to engage media with this information? If so, once media received the information, what involvement did the deputy leader have or continue to have, or engage with, the complainants and media?

Sources inside National state Bennett then seeded info about Jami-Lee Ross having had an affair. They point to her having hinted at behaviour unbecoming of a married member of Parliament during an interview before TV, radio and print journalists. Did she do this without Bridges knowing or being forewarned.

If true, in effect, this would have driven the narrative ahead of the leader. If so, it is reasonable to fathom that a senior politician would know Bridges would be forced to defend the character-attack campaign that appeared orchestrated and designed to destroy Ross. Amidst the firestorm, National MP Maggie Barry spoke out against Ross with significant indignation. This will have been digested by the public that National had expelled a human predator from its midst. It also gave the impression National’s female caucus members were unified. However, respected MP Nikki Kaye kept out of it. Why?

Next, Bridges was forced to field political journalists’ questions about breaking the old convention that you keep affairs and family issues under the covers.

Bridges was then compelled to inform media that he had “told off” his deputy leader for giving credence that an affair had been ongoing between Ross and a Nat MP. This made Bridges look even weaker.

The future of National’s leadership

National Party contacts suggest Bridges is positioned where he will be forced to absorb the political fallout for what is seen by some as a character assassination campaign gone wrong. One contact states that once Bridges is rendered useless, and the issue dies down, Bennett herself will be well positioned to remove Bridges as leader in 2019.

It is reasonable to form an opinion that senior National MP Judith Collins will also be available if the leadership were to fall vacant. Her popularity is again on the rise.

At this juncture, for Bridges and Bennett, it appears wise for them to expect more National Party dirt to emerge before the end of the year. Evening Report’s sources say: “ample dirt lingers just below the surface.”

For a party that once stated it had no factions, it certainly seems its personality factions are now in all-out political warfare.

Judith Collins’ star has been rising since she returned to the front-bench in opposition. And it has been bolstered by a favourable Colmar Brunton Poll. It’s fair to suggest she has laid heavy hits on Labour’s Housing Minister Phil Twyford. As a consequence, her standing within the caucus has improved. On investigation, it is clear she has not had the loyalty of Jami-Lee Ross since he was promoted by John Key. He, along with Mark Mitchell, then supported Bill English for the leadership. Bennett and Mitchell are politically close. It does appear that moves by some media to connect Jami-Lee Ross’ revelations with a Judith Collins plan as not based on fact.

While there’s an expectation among interested public that Collins will be the next leader, she will need the support of what’s left of National’s social conservatives and those loyal to Nikki Kaye.

For Collins to succeed, she will have to be seen to inoculate the party from damaging information that may be in the possession of Jami-Lee Ross. All the while, she, like Bennett, needs Bridges to continue to fail as a leader.

It is fair to accept, the recordings and damaging information are now with Cam Slater and Simon Lusk. It is also reasonable to suggest that Bridges is a disappointment to some who once supported his bid for leadership. Cam Slater is clearly appalled at what he refers to as a “hit job”.

Slater is adamant that he is not motivated by an agenda, nor by a pitch by a fiscal conservative faction to gain leadership of the National party. Rather he said, he is motivated to help an old friend who the current leadership moved to destroy. He added on his blog-site, if the current leadership continues “to lie” he will continue to reveal the truth.

Meanwhile, Jami-Lee Ross is being reassured and cared for by a mutual friend of his and Slater’s who is a pastor with the Seventh Day Adventists.

Contacts say, with regard to Jami-Lee Ross and his National Party former lover and colleague, the three year affair was a relationship that in the end didn’t deliver what either banked on – despite promotions and connections and having benefitted politically from their association.

It’s fair to say, Jami-Lee Ross was out of his experiential depth and in part abusive from the point of view of how to handle political power, networks and consensual relationships.

Two other women who laid complaints about Ross, worked in the leader’s office.

Bridges is adamant he didn’t know about the abuse of power nor the complaints. Did Bennett know? At what point was she privy to the information?

One National Party contact said: “It defies reasonable belief that Bridges didn’t know.”

It is right that Bridges has initiated an inquiry into National’s culture. But that in itself falls short or what the public interest demands. Why? Because the inquiry reports back to Bridges, who as leader may well be one of the protagonists. Also, the report will not be released to the public which leaves it as a golden prize, the holy grail, for any journalist and, irrespective of who it damns or exonerates, will become a currency for any MP with leadership ambitions.

As it now stands, Bridges’ worst nightmare must be not knowing what Jami-Lee Ross recorded and at what point did he begin taping the National Party leader’s conversations.

If those recordings contain further embarrassing or damaging content and references, then he will be finished as leader. Bridges, as leader, even if he has a clear conscience, must be wracking his memory as to past conversations and comments while knowing the conversations may be in the hands of people with whom he has lost their trust.

And the question remains unanswered: Was Paula Bennett recorded as well?

If her actions are found by inquirers to have led an orchestrated political response to Jami-Lee Ross’ revelations, whether that be at the behest or otherwise of the current leader, then this will destroy any higher ambitions that she may have ever contemplated.

It follows, that if the report concludes that the rot inside National extends to its current leadership, then it may well be that Judith Collins will become the leader of the National Party, unopposed.

Whatever the future holds for the National Party, it is in everyone’s interests that an independent judicial investigation into this National affair be conducted in a spirit of openness and propriety.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Evening Report invites any individual connected to this analysis to have a right of reply. Footnote: Interview between the author and Jami-Lee Ross on his role as a new National Party MP (August 13 2012):

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

Fiji’s Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa has called on the government of Fiji to “stop its betrayal” of the people of West Papua.

She said the government should strongly support the inclusion of the territory in the United Nation’s Decolonisation List at next year’s UN General Assembly.

“Vanuatu has taken a courageous decision to seek freedom for the West Papuans through the UN,” Ro Teimumu added in a media statement.

Vanuatu is pushing for support from the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) which is meeting in Nauru next week.

Fiji’s official stance over the region has been to regard the future of the twin Melanesian provinces of Papua and West Papua as an internal matter for the Indonesian government.

Indonesia invaded the former Dutch colony in 1962 and established rule by a controversial UN-sanctioned “Act of Free Choice” in 1969 that has been widely criticised as a flawed process and achieved by coercion.

-Partners-

West Papuans have continued to struggle for self-determination since then.

“I call on Fiji and other regional governments to demonstrate solidarity with this cause. It is time to stand up and be counted, ” Ro Teimumu said.

‘True Melanesian brother’
“I thank and salute Prime Minister Charlot Salwai of Vanuatu for showing real leadership, and for being a true Melanesian brother to the West Papuan people. The SODELPA opposition in Fiji is behind him in his mission.

“A SODELPA-led government will put its weight behind West Papua.”

Fiji is due to have an election this year but the date has not yet been called.

Ro Teimumu said Fiji’s government and its Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama were outspoken advocates for Melanesian unity.

“Despite this they have stabbed the indigenous Melanesian people of West Papua in the back by refusing to support their quest to be released from the colonial control of their homeland by Indonesia,” she said.

“Their behaviour towards the oppressed West Papuans is shameful.

“How dare the Prime Minister speak so glowingly of Melanesian brotherhood when he and his government have completely sold out their West Papuan kin to Indonesia?

‘Afraid to challenge’
“The truth is that they are afraid to challenge Indonesia’s sham claim to sovereignty over West Papua. They should have the courage to follow Vanuatu’s example.

“The West Papuan struggle is known here at home, throughout the region and around the globe – our silence and that of our neighbours is deafening.

“For more than 50 years, the indigenous people of West Papua have struggled for self-determination.

“It is immoral for the region and international community to look the other way and deny the people of West Papua the liberty to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed.

“There is little that we can do to reverse our past failure to support the people of West Papua; however we can do something now and in the future to make amends for our past failures.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz