This week, on October 27 to 28 Julian Assange appeared before a United Kingdom court defending himself against an appeal that, if successful, would see him extradited to the United States of America to face a raft of indictments that ultimately could see him spend the rest of his life in prison.

The United States lawyers argued largely that human rights reasons that caused the United Kingdom courts to reject extradition to the US could be mitigated. That Julian Assange’s case could be heard in Australia and if found guilty serve out jail time in his home country rather than the United States.

Assange’s defence lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC argued: “In short there is a large and cogent body of extraordinary and unprecedented evidence… that the CIA has declared Mr Assange as a ‘hostile’ ‘enemy’ of the USA, one which poses ‘very real threats to our country’, and seeks to ‘revenge’ him with significant harm.” The lawyers said the United States assurances were “meaningless”.

“It is perfectly reasonable to find it oppressive to extradite a mentally disordered person because his extradition is likely to result in his death.” Fitzgerald QC added that a court must have the power to “protect people from extradition to a foreign state where we have no control over what will be done to them”.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde, said: “You’ve given us much to think about and we will take our time to make our decision.”

The judges then reserved their decision. It is expected Assange’s fate will be revealed within weeks.

In this SPECIAL REPORT, we examine why the United States wants this man. And we detail the space between whistleblowers, journalists and publishers who risk it all to help the world’s people to become more informed. Julian Assange finds himself crushed between these two counterbalances: the asserted right of powerful nations to operate in secret, and the right of the press to reveal what goes on in the public’s name.

Should Julian Assange be extradited from the UK to face indictments in the United States? Or should he be set free and offered a safe haven in a country such as Russia or even New Zealand?

It was always going to come down to this: Is Julian Assange captured by the assumptions people have of him, or a blurred line between a public’s right and a state’s wrong.

***

The United States effort to capture or kill Assange goes back to 2010. But his inclusion in what’s called the “Manhunt Timeline” soon lost its sting when, under United States of America’s President Barack Obama, it was believed if charges against Assange were brought before the US courts for his publishing activity, then he would be found not guilty due to the US’s First Amendment ‘freedom of the press’ constitutional protections.

But everything changed with a new president, and a massive leak to Wikileaks of CIA secret information on March 7 2017. 

That leak of what was called Vault 7 information “detailed hacking tools the US government employs to break into users’ computers, mobile phones and even smart TVs.” 

CBS News reported at the time: “The documents describe clandestine methods for bypassing or defeating encryption, antivirus tools and other protective security features intended to keep the private information of citizens and corporations safe from prying eyes.” (Ref. CBS News)

The Vault 7 leak (and earlier leaks going back to 2010) also revealed information that the US security apparatus argued compromised the safety of its personnel around the world. This aspect is vital to the United States Justice Department’s case against Julian Assange. 

Among a complex web of indictments and superseding indictments the US alleges Wikileaks and Assange conspired with whistleblowers (significant among them Chelsea Manning) in what it argues was a conspiracy against the United States’ interest. It also argues that Wikileaks and Julian Assange failed to satisfactorily redact leaked documents before dissemination or publication of the same – including details that put US personnel and agents at risk.

Prominent investigative journalist Nicky Hager had knowledge of Wikileaks’ processes, and, going back to 2010, spent time working with Wikileaks on redacting documents.

Hager testified at The Old Bailey in London in September 2020 before a hearing of the Assange case and according to The Australian said: “My main memory was people working hour after hour in total silence, very concentrated on their work and I was very impressed with efforts that they were taking (to redact names).” Hager added that he himself had redacted “a few hundred” Australian and New Zealand names.

On cross examination, The Australian reported: ‘Hager referred in his testimony to the global impact of the publication of the collateral murder video, which shows civilians being gunned down in Iraq from an Apache helicopter, which led to changes in US military policies. He claimed it had a “similar galvanising impact as the video of the death of George Floyd”.’ (Ref. The Australian)

But it was the Vault 7 leak that triggered the then Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Mike Pompeo to act. After that leak, Pompeo set out to destroy Wikileaks and its publisher Julian Assange.

POMPEO V ASSANGE

Mike Pompeo was appointed as CIA director in January 2017. The Vault 7 leak occurred on his watch. It was personal, and in April 2017 he defined Wikileaks as a ’non-state hostile intelligence service’.

That definition triggered a shift of approach. The United States’ intelligence apparatus and its Justice Department counterpart then re-asserted that Wikileaks and its publisher and editor in chief Julian Assange, were enemies of the United States.

Pompeo’s definition paved the way for a more targeted operation against Assange. But, for the time being, the United States’ public modus operandi was to ensure extradition proceedings, through numerous hearings and appeals, were dragged out while stacking an increasing number of complex indictments on the charge-sheet.

The definitions ensured the United Kingdom’s corrections system regarded Assange as a high risk and dangerous prisoner hostile to the UK’s special-relationship partner, the USA.

The tactic is well used by governments and states around the world. But in this case it appears beyond cold and calculated. As the United States applied a figurative legal-ligature around the neck of Julian Assange it knew his circumstances; that he was imprisoned, isolated, in solitary confinement, on a suicide watch, handled by prison guards under a repetitive high security risk protocol. It knew the psychological impact was compounding, causing legal observers, his lawyers, his supporters – even the judge overseeing the extradition proceedings – to fear that the wall before Assange of ongoing litigation, compounded with the potential for extradition and possible life imprisonment, would overwhelm him.

Let’s detail reality here. In real terms, being on suicide-watch as a high security risk prisoner, meant every time Assange left his cell for any reason (including when meeting his lawyers), on return he would be stripped, cavity searched (which includes being forced to squat while his rectum is digitally searched, and a mouth and throat search). This was a similar security search protocol that was used against Ahmed Zaoui while he was held at New Zealand’s Paremoremo maximum security prison. At that time Zaoui was regarded as a security risk to New Zealand. He was of course later found to be a man of peace and given his liberty. Sometimes things are not what they initially seem.

In the UK, for Assange the monotonous grind of total solitude and indignity ticked on. In the USA in March 2018, Mike Pompeo was set to be promoted. He received the then US President Donald Trump’s nomination to replace Rex Tillerson as US Secretary of State. The US Senate confirmed Pompeo’s nomination and he was sworn in on April 26, 2018.

Pompeo quickly became one of Trump’s most trusted and powerful Whitehouse insiders. As Secretary of State, Pompeo toured the globe’s foreign affairs circuit asserting the Trump Administration’s position on governments throughout the world. As such, Pompeo was regarded as one of the world’s most powerful men.

Looking back, Pompeo wasn’t the first high ranking US official to regard Assange as an enemy of the state. The Edward Snowden leaks of 2014 revealed that the US Government had in 2010 added Assange to its “Manhunting Timeline” – which is an annual list of individuals with a “capture or kill” designation.

This designation came during the early stages of the Obama Administration years. However, US investigations into Wikileaks then suggested Assange had not acted in a way that excluded him from being defined as a journalist and therefore it was likely Assange, if tried under United States law, would be provided protections under the US First Amendment (freedom of the press) constitutional clauses.

But when Pompeo advanced toward prominence, Obama was gone. And under Donald Trump, the United States appeared to ignore such constitutional rocks in the road. Trump had his own beef with the US’ fourth estate, and the conditions for respecting First Amendment privilege had deteriorated.

DID TRUMP STOP THE CIA KIDNAP OR KILL PLAN?

Perhaps we understand the Trump Administration’s mindset more now in the wake of the January 6, 2021 insurrection where supporters of Trump stormed the US House of Representatives seeking to overturn the election result and reinstate Trump as the president. Throughout much of that destructive day, Trump reportedly remained at the Whitehouse while the mob erected a gallows and sought out Vice President Mike Pence. The mob’s reason? Because Pence had begun the process of certifying electoral college writs, an essential step toward swearing in as President the newly elected Joe Biden.

It may reasonably be argued that Trump and some members of his Administration displayed a disregard for elements of the US Constitution. But, it must also be said, that Trump had at times displayed an empathy for Julian Assange’s situation.

This week The Hill reported on Trump’s view of Assange through an interview with the former president’s national security advisor, Keith Kellogg (who is also a retired US Army Lieutenant General.

Kellogg told The Hill: “He (Trump) looked at him (Assange) as someone who had been treated unfairly. And he kind of related him to himself… He said there’s an unfairness there and I want to address that.”

Kellogg added that Trump saw similarities between Assange and himself in that Trump would not back down in the face of media attacks: “I think he kind of saw that with Julian in the same way, like ‘ok, this guy’s not backing down’.” (Ref. The Hill.)

Kellogg’s account seems incongruous to what we now know. On September 26 2021, a Yahoo News media investigation delivered a bombshell. It revealed how the CIA had planned to kidnap or kill Assange.

But more on the detail of that below. First, let’s look at a confusing picture of how former President Trump’s words do not meet his Administration’s actions.

We know that ‘someone’ in the Trump Administration put a halt to the CIA’s kill or capture plan. We just do not know whether Trump commanded its cessation, or whether Pompeo or Trump’s attorney general/s operated outside the former president’s orbit. But we do know the US Justice Department pursued Assange through an intensifying relentless application of indictments of increasing severity and complexity. If it is an M.O. then its reasonable to suggest the legal wall of indictments and the CIA’s plan to kill or capture were potentially one of the same.

Which segues back to the details of the US case against Assange.

THE US JUSTICE DEPT V ASSANGE

In March 2019, the Washington Post reported that US Whistleblower Chelsea Manning had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in the investigation of Julian Assange. The Post correctly suggested that the US Justice Department appeared interested in pursuing Wikileaks before a statute of limitations ran out.

Washington Post reported: “Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said the Justice Department likely indicted Assange last year to stay within the 10-year statute of limitations on unlawful possession or publication of national defense information, and is now working to add charges.” (Ref. Washington Post)

Then, On April 11 2019, after high-level bilateral meetings between the US and Ecuador, the Ecuadorian Government revoked Assange’s asylum. The UK’s Metropolitan Police were invited into Ecuador’s London embassy and Assange was arrested. 

Once Assange was in custody (pending the outcome of a court ruling of what eventually became a 50 week sentence for breaching bail) the United States made its move. On April 11, 2019 (the same day Ecuador evicted him) United States prosecutors unsealed an indictment against Assange referring back to information that Wikileaks had released in stages from February 18, 2010 onwards. (Ref. US Justice Department)

This video, known as the collateral murder video, was among the Wikileaks release. The video is of US military personnel killing what they initially thought were Iraqi insurgents. It also displays an apparent indifference by US personnel when, shortly after, it was revealed by ground troops that there were civilians killed including women and children (and also what were later found to be journalists). The leaked video exposed the United States to potential allegations of war crimes. The video, and the accompanying dossier of US classified documents, shocked the world and revealed what had been covered up by US secrecy. The information that was leaked by then US Military intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, and published by Wikileaks and provided to a select group of the world’s most prominent media, was arguably a tipping point for public sentiment regarding the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was, in the <2010 decade, on par with revelations of abuses of detainees by US personnel at Abu Ghraib prison.

In a release to United States press, the Justice Department’s office of international affairs stated: “According to court documents unsealed today, the charge relates to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.”

It connected to how Wikileaks had acquired documents from US whistleblower Chelsea Manning. The leak contained 750,000 documents defined as ‘classified, or unclassified but sensitive’ military and diplomatic documents. The documents included video. The sum of the leaks detailed what were regarded generally as atrocities committed by American armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The leaked material was also published by The New York Times, Der Spiegel and The Guardian. In May 2010, Manning was identified then charged with espionage and sentenced to 35 years in a US military prison. Later, in January 2017, just three days before leaving office, US President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence.

On May 23, 2019, the US Justice Department issued a statement confirming Assange had been further charged in an 18-count superseding indictment that alleged violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. It specifically alleged (among other charges) that Assange conspired with Chelsea Manning in late 2009 and that: “… Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of “Most Wanted Leaks” that sought, among other things, classified documents. Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables.” (ref. US Justice Department)

The superseding indictment added: “Many of these documents were classified at the Secret level.”

It’s also important to note, a superseding indictment, in this context carries heavy weight. It isn’t merely a charge lodged by an investigative wing of government, but issued by a US grand jury.

The May 2019 superseding indictments ignited a stern rebuttal from powerful media institutions.

The Washington Post and The New York Times, as well as press freedom organisations, criticised the government’s decision to charge Assange under the Espionage Act, characterising it as an attack on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. On 4 January 2021, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled against the United States’ request to extradite him and stated that doing so would be “oppressive” given his mental health. On 6 January 2021, Assange was denied bail, pending an appeal by the United States. (Ref. Wikipedia.org)

In normal times an assault on the US First Amendment through a clever legal move would destroy a presidency. But these were not normal times.

Ultimately, the powerful US fourth estate fraternity failed to ward off the Trump Administration’s men. Trump himself was by this time already hurling attacks on the credibility and purpose of United States media. And, he tapped in to a constituency that distrusted what it heard from journalists.

Then on June 24, 2020, the US Justice Department delivered more charges against Assange, this time with an additional superseding indictment that included allegations he conspired with “Anonymous” affiliated hackers: “In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack.” (Ref. US Justice Department)

As the Trump presidency ran out of steam, and arguably created its own attacks on the United States national interest, Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden won the election and became the 46th President of the United States.

WHY ASSANGE WAS IMPRISONED IN THE UK

Julian Assange was tried before the United Kingdom courts and convicted for breaching the Bail Act. He was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison. He was expected to have been released after five to six months, but due to the United States extradition proceedings and appeal he was held indefinitely.

The initial bail conditions (of which Assange was found to have breached) were set resulting from an alleged sexual violence allegation made in Sweden in 2010. Assange had denied the allegations, and feared the case was designed to relocate him to Sweden and then onto the US via a legal extradition manoeuvre – hence why he sought asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange was never actually charged by Swedish authorities nor their UK counterparts, but rather the initial bail breach related to a move to extradite him to Sweden.

Also, as a side-note; in November 2019 Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into allegations of sexual violence crime. The BBC reported that Swedish authorities dropped the case as it had: “weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question.” (Ref. BBC)

Meanwhile, Assange was imprisoned at London’s Belmarsh maximum-security prison where he was incarcerated indefinitely pending the outcome of US extradition proceedings.

There’s an irony that in January 2021, the week Assange was denied bail pending the outcome of the US-lodged appeal, back in the USA a mob loyal to Trump attempted a coup d’etat against the US constitution.

OUT WITH TRUMP IN WITH BIDEN + REVELATIONS OF THE CIA KILL OR CAPTURE PLAN

On January 20, 2021 Joe Biden was sworn in as president. Around the world a palpable mood of change was anticipated. It’s fair to say those involved or observing the Assange case were hopeful the United States under Joe Biden’s presidency would withdraw the initial charges and superseding indictments.

But, that was not to be.

Then on September 26 2021, a Yahoo News media investigation delivered a bombshell. It revealed how the CIA had planned to kidnap or kill Assange.

The investigation’s timeline revealed a plan was developed in 2017 during Pompeo’s tenure at the CIA and considered numerous scenarios where Assange could be liquidated while he resided at the Ecuadorian embassy. The investigation was backed by ‘more than 30 US official sources’. (Ref. Yahoo News)

The media investigation stated: “… the CIA was enraged by WikiLeaks’ publication in 2017 of thousands of documents detailing the agency’s hacking and covert surveillance techniques, known as the Vault 7 leak.” 

It added that Pompeo: “was determined to take revenge on Assange after the (Vault 7) leak.”

Apparently, the CIA believed Russian agents were planning to remove Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy and “smuggle” him to Russia: “Among the possible scenarios to prevent a getaway were engaging in a gun battle with Russian agents on the streets of London and ramming the car that Assange would be smuggled in.”

It appears a wise-head in the Trump Administration ordered a halt to the CIA plan due to legal concerns. Officials cited in the investigation suggested there were: “concerns that a kidnapping would derail US attempts to prosecute Assange.”

It would also be reasonable to suggest that a prosecution would be difficult should Assange be dead.

As the US extradition appeal loomed, Julian Assange’s US-based lawyer Barry Pollack reportedly said: “My hope and expectation is that the U.K. courts will consider this information (the CIA plot) and it will further bolster its decision not to extradite to the U.S..”

Assange’s partner Stella Morris, on the eve of the US’ extradition appeal proceedings also said reports of the CIA’s plan “was a game-changer” in his fight against extradition from Britain to the United States. (Ref. Reuters)

Greg Barnes, special council and Australian human rights lawyer and advocate spoke this week to a New Zealand panel (A4A via the internet): “Now we know that the CIA intended effectively to murder Assange. For an Australian citizen to be put in that position by Australia’s number one ally is intolerable. And I think in the minds of most Australians the view is that the Australian Government ought to intervene in this particular case and ensure the safety of one of its citizens.”

Barnes added that the Assange case is now a human rights case: “I can tell you that the rigours of the Anglo-American prison complex which we have here in Australia and in which Julian is facing at Belmarsh (prison in London) are such that very few people survive that system without having severe mental and physical pain and suffering for the rest of their lives.

“This should not be happening to an Australian citizen, whose only crime, and I put quotes around the word crime, has been to reveal the war crimes of the United States and its allies.” (Ref. A4A Youtube)

The respected journalist advocacy organisation, Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières or RSF), this week called for the US case against Assange to be closed and for Assange to be “immediately released”. (Ref. Reporters Without Borders)

RSF added: “During the two-day hearing, the US government will argue against the 4 January decision issued by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, ruling against Assange’s extradition to the US on mental health grounds. The US will be permitted to argue on five specific grounds, following the High Court’s decision to widen the scope of the appeal during the 11 August preliminary hearing. An immediate decision is not expected at the conclusion of the 27-28 October hearing, but will likely follow in writing several weeks later.”

RSF concluded: “If Assange is extradited to the US, he could face up to 175 years in prison on the 18 counts outlined in the superseding indictment… (If convicted) Assange would be the first publisher pursued under the US Espionage Act, which lacks a public interest defence.”

RSF recently joined a coalition of 25 press freedom, civil liberties and international human rights organisations in calling again on the US Department of Justice to drop the charges against Assange.

BEYOND BELMARSH PRISON – HUMAN RIGHTS AND ASYLUM OPTIONS

There remains a logical and considered question as to what will become of Julian Assange should his legal team successfully defend moves of extradition to the United States.

Whistleblower Edward Snowden has found relative safety living inside the Russian Federation. But beyond Russia there are few safe-haven options available to Julian Assange.

This week a group called A4A (Aotearoa for Assange) coordinated an online panel of human rights advocates and whistleblowers to consider whether New Zealand should become involved.

It was a serious move. The panel included the United States’ highly respected Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. (Ref. Pentagon Papers, Wikipedia)

Daniel Ellsberg told the panel: A trial under (the Espionage Act) cannot be a fair trial as there is “no appeal to motives, impact or purposes”.

“A trial under the Espionage Act could not permit that person to tell the jury why they did what they did,” Daniel Ellsberg said. “It is shameful that President Biden has gone in the footsteps of President Trump. It is shameful for President Biden to have continued that appeal.

“To allow this to go ahead is to put a target on the back of every journalist in the world who might consider doing real investigative journalism of what we call the National Defence or National Security…”

It’s a valid point for those that work within the sphere of fourth estate public interest journalism. While in New Zealand, there are rudimentary whistleblower protections, they fail to protect or ensure anonymity. For journalists, if a judge orders a journalist to reveal her or his source/s, then the journalist must consider breaching the code of ethics required from the profession, or acting in contempt of court. In the latter case, a judge can, in New Zealand, order the journalist be held in custody for contempt, and it should be pointed out there is no time limit of incarceration. Defamation law is equally as draconian. In New Zealand (unlike the United States) a journalist accused of defamation shoulders the burden of proof – to prove a defamation was not committed. 

The chill factor (a reference to pressures that cause journalists to abandon deep and meaningful reportage) is real. 

Daniel Ellsberg knows what this means. And he fears, that if the US wins its appeal against Assange, it will erode the fourth estate from reporting on what goes on behind the scenes with governments: “… there will be more Vietnams, more Iraqs, more acts of aggression… A great deal rides (on this case) on the possibility of freedom.”

His comments connect remarkably with those of former New Zealand prime minister, and former administrator of the United Nations Development Program, Helen Clark.

In a previous online discussion, Helen Clark was asked what she thought of Julian Assange’s case. In a considered reply she said: “You do wonder when the hatchet can be buried with Assange, and not buried in his head by the way.

“I do think that information that’s been disclosed by whistleblowers down the ages has been very important in broader publics getting to know what is really going on behind the scenes.

“And, should people pay this kind of price for that? I don’t think so. I felt that Chelsea Manning for example was really unduly repressed.

“The real issue is; the activities they were exposing and not the actions of their exposure,” Helen Clark said.

The US appeals case this week is not litigating the merits of its indictments. But rather it has attempted to mitigate the reasons Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied extradition in January 2021. The US legal team has suggested to the UK court that Assange’s human rights issues could be minimised should he face trial in his native Australia, that if found guilty that he could serve out his sentence there. It gave however no assurances that this would occur.

On the eve of the appeal, and appearing before the A4A online panel was Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver. 

Dr Driver is an academic with the University of Reading (UK) and a legal observer very familiar with the Assange case. The degree of human rights abuses against Assange disturb her.

Dr Driver detailed what she had observed: “Julian Assange was served the second superseding indictment on the first day of trial. When he took his papers with him, back to the prison, his privileged papers were taken from him. He was handcuffed, cavity searched, stripped naked on a daily basis. (This is) a highly intelligent human being who we already know is on the Autism Spectrum. To be put through the indignities and arbitrariness of the process which is consistently working in a way that doesn’t stand with normal process… For somebody who has gone through all of this for a number of years, it has its psychological impact. But it is not just psychological, the physical effects of torture are pretty severe including the internal damage that he has.”

She added: “We expect the high court will recognise the kind of serious gross breaches of Julian’s basic rights and the inability for him to have a fair trial in the UK or in the US and that this case will be dismissed immediately.”

On the merits of whistleblowers, Dr Driver said: “You can see through the Vault 7 leaks how much the State knows about what is going on in your daily lives… As an observer in court I see how he (Julian Assange) is being tortured on a day to day basis. His privileged conversations with his lawyers were spied on.”

Dr Driver said the Swedish allegations were never backed up with charges. In fact the allegations were dropped due to time and insufficient evidence.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, concluded after his investigation of the Swedish allegations that Assange was never given the opportunity to put his side of the case.

Dr Driver said: “In any situation where there is violence against women, and I say this as a survivor myself, people are meant to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And, this new trend which is accusation-equal-to-guilt is a bad trend because it undermines the cause of women, and it prevents women from getting justice – just as it happened in Sweden because indeed nobody will ever know what happened between Julian and those women other than the two parties there.”

A CRIME LEFT UNDEFENDED OR A CASE OF WEAPONISING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN?

Dr Deepa Driver said: “If cases like this are not brought to court, then neither the women nor those accused like Julian get justice. And it is Lisa Longstaff at Women Against Rape who has said time and again; ‘this is the state weaponising women in order to achieve its own ends and hide its own warcrimes’. And this is what Britain and America have done in weaponising the case in Sweden, because Sweden was always about extraditing Julian (Assange) to America.”

She suggested Assange’s situation is a human rights case where he is the victim. The view has validity. 

The United Nations’ special rapporteur Nils Melzer issued a statement on January 5 2021 welcoming the UK judge’s ruling that blocked his extradition to the United States (a ruling that this week was under appeal).

Melzer went on: “This ruling confirms my own assessment that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to conditions of detention, which are widely recognized to amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Melzer said the judgement set an “alarming precedent effectively denying investigative journalists the protection of press freedom and paving the way for their prosecution under charges of espionage”.

“I am gravely concerned that the judgement confirms the entire, very dangerous rationale underlying the US indictment, which effectively amounts to criminalizing national security journalism,” Melzer said.

In summary Melzer said: “The judgement fails to recognize that Mr. Assange’s deplorable state of health is the direct consequence of a decade of deliberate and systematic violation of his most fundamental human rights by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ecuador.”

He added: “The failure of the judgment to denounce and redress the persecution and torture of Mr. Assange, leaves fully intact the intended intimidating effect on journalists and whistleblowers worldwide who may be tempted to publish secret evidence for war crimes, corruption and other government misconduct”. (Ref. UNCHR)

A CALL FOR NEW ZEALAND TO PROVIDE ASYLUM

This week, US whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg applauded New Zealand’s independent global identity. And, he called for New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to provide an asylum solution should Julian Assange be released.

Dr Ellsberg’s call was supported by Matt Robson, a former cabinet minister in Helen Clark’s Labour-Alliance Government and whom currently practices immigration law in Auckland.

Matt Robson said: “We can support this brave publisher and journalist who has committed the same crime, in inverted commas, as Daniel Ellsberg – to tell the truth as a good honest journalist should do. Our letter to our (New Zealand) Government is a plea to do the right thing. To say directly on the line that is available, to (US) President Biden, to free Julian Assange.”

Australian-based lawyer Greg Barnes said: “New Zealand plays a prominent and important role in the Asia-Pacific region and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the New Zealand Government could offer Julian Assange what Australia appears incapable of doing, and that is safety for himself and his family.”

So why New Zealand?

Daniel Ellsberg said: “There are many countries that would have been supportive of Assange, none of whom wanted to get into trouble with the United States of America. Of all the countries in the world I think you can pick out New Zealand that has dared to do that in the past. I remember the issue over whether they would allow American warships into New Zealand harbours.

“Julian Assange should not be on trial,” Daniel Ellsberg said. “And given he is indicted, he should not be extradited. It is extremely important, especially to journalists.

“To allow this to go ahead is to put a target, a bull’s eye, on the back of every journalist in the world who might consider doing real investigative journalism of what we call national security. It’s to assure every journalist that he or she as well as your sources can be put in prison, kidnapped if necessary to the US. That is going to chill (journalists) to a degree that there will be more Vietnams, more Iraqs, more acts of aggression such as we have just seen. The world cannot afford that. A great deal rides on the policy matters on the possibility of freedom,” so said Daniel Ellsberg – the US whistleblower who blew the lid off atrocities that were committed in Vietnam.

CONCLUSION:

Of course there are always complications, such as executive government leaders involving themselves in judicial matters. But sometimes a leader does the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do – as Helen Clark did early on in her prime ministership when she extended an olive branch to people fleeing tyranny onboard a ship called the Tampa, which was under-threat of sinking off the coast of Australia. Helen Clark brought the Tampa refugees home to a new place called Aotearoa New Zealand, and we have been better off as a nation because of it.

At the end of another tumultuous week for National, two former senior staffers for Judith Collins have spoken out in savage terms about the state of the party. First Matthew Hooton argued that the party could be in mortal decline: “National has been in intensive care. It’s now moving to the hospice.” And today, former chief press secretary Janet Wilson has written a column complaining the party isn’t learning any lessons from its defeat last year, saying “there is a real possibility the National Party faces irrelevance – becoming just another minor opposition party under MMP.”

This all suggests that the party’s difficult scandals of this week aren’t simply random or minor irritations but are instead an indication that the party needs more than just some minor reforms and tinkering if it is to eventually make an electoral comeback.

Yesterday’s column by Matthew Hooton argues that National should be flourishing at the moment, given all the mistakes that the Labour Government is currently making, but is instead facing an “existential risk” because of their incompetence, incoherence and disunity – see: National goes from sickly to looking terminal (paywalled).

He explains that under MMP, the other parties on the right, Act and NZ First, are well positioned to compete for the votes that National is losing hold of: “Winston Peters and NZ First are currently speaking to conservative National voters far more clearly and coherently than anyone in Judith Collins’ mob, while David Seymour and Act are doing the same to liberal National voters.”

A big part of National’s problem, according to Hooton, is the breakdown of the traditional ideological alliance within the party: “National has always been a coalition of liberals and conservatives. It only succeeds when the two factions are in balance and treat one another with professional respect.”

Judith Collins’ former chief press secretary Janet Wilson has argued something similar in a column today: “The party that was once the famous broad church of urban liberals and rural conservatives has lost the former and become the party clinging to old power structures”, and “It had also better find that urban-liberal wing that has fled to Labour. That wing holds the key to the centrists and the supporters which swung across to John Key in 2008” – see: National rejects change, faces irrelevance.

Wilson argues that the party seems resistant to having the major overhaul that it desperate needs, because National is “saddled with endless entitleditis, confidently expecting that the big bus of representation will come around again next election.” So organisationally, the party is refusing to implement various recommendations from their own internal review, which “is proof (if you needed any) that zero, zilch, nada has been learnt from last year’s election drubbing. The change that’s sorely needed if the party is to be successful at the ballot box isn’t arriving any time soon.”

She is also savage about Collins’ leadership this week, saying that not only does the leader appear to have despatched Nick Smith in order to bring Harete Hipango, “her bestie”, into Parliament, she has now got rid of former leader Todd Muller. This, Wilson says, is about continuing “her Muldoonist strategy of getting rid of MPs deemed not loyal to her” which is driven not just by “her need for utter loyalty” but also by “paranoia”. This behaviour – together with Collins’ strong defence this week of Hipango over her alleged misuse of taxpayer funds – is labelled “madness”.

In terms of that scandal, see Ethan Griffiths’ article: National MP who faced allegations of inappropriate spending revealed as Harete Hipango. Here’s the key part: “Sources inside the National Party have told the Chronicle that a staff member of the MP flagged a concern in the last term of Parliament, alleging items of furniture were bought out of the MP’s taxpayer funds but did not appear in the office. The allegations surround a purchase of some furniture, including a new television, which allegedly were delivered and kept in Hipango’s own home. It is also understood the cost of a sofa the MP bought for the office at Parliament was also questioned, and the MP was told to return it.”

Todd Muller’s forced retirement

The biggest story of the week was the unusual announcement by Todd Muller that he was not going to stand again for election in 2023, with him citing a need to prioritise his health and family. It turned out that Muller had been pushed out by Collins, after he admitted to having badmouthed incoming new MP Hipango in a feature about her.

You can read the offending piece by Jo Moir, here: National Party all out of love for returning MP. According to this, “Several National MPs said she wasn’t particularly well-liked in the caucus and didn’t have a lot of friends” and she is seen by some as a “liability and not a team player”.

The article also details how Collins is said to be closest to Hipango, and how together they backed Muller’s leadership coup over Simon Bridges last year “to help clear a leadership path for Collins in the future.”

There’s also some interesting discussion about Hipango’s complaint about the lack of ethnic diversity in the caucus and leadership, but with the suggestion that her own actions actually made this much worse. Further details and speculation about the mysterious departure of Nick Smith are also put forward.

The article obviously caused Collins great displeasure, because on Tuesday she is said to have confronted Muller about whether he had spoken to the journalist, after another National MP Barbara Kuriger dobbed him in. Muller apparently admitted being one of the sources, which led Collins to ask him to resign, threatening that she would otherwise have him suspending from the caucus. This is all covered by Claire Trevett in her article: National MP Todd Muller retires: Who narked and the ‘brutal’ meeting with Judith Collins (paywalled).

Collins then called an emergency caucus meeting for 10pm that night to deal with the matter. This meeting, according to Trevett’s report, “had all the drama of a documentary on wild animals battling at the savannah water hole. Muller tried to hold his ground and stare down Collins – only to be taken down as the pack turned on him. There were allegations, betrayals, acts of revenge and cowards covering their own butts.”

In the meeting Muller’s former ally convinced him to go, apparently arguing that it was “for the good of the party” that he announced his departure “to avoid the added scandal and drama of kicking an MP out of the party, a drama the party did not need.” And Trevett reports that some in the party were worried that Muller would turn rogue, turning on the party.

Trevett suggests that Collins has subsequently had “a triumphal air” about Muller’s forced departure. On radio she explained that “Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make the omelette”. In response to this, Trevett warns: “The trouble with making omelettes is that they can easily turn into scrambled eggs.”

National disunity and consequences

There are certainly some divisions in caucus over Muller’s forced departure. Following the announcement of his retirement over his speaking to the media, Simon Bridges posted a photo on social media of him talking to journalists, with the line: “Speaking with the press is a normal but important part of being in politics. For me it’s an opportunity to speak not only to journalists, but to all New Zealanders.”

In her article above, Trevett outlines the significance of Bridges’ post: “On any day, it would have been an innocuous post but given the timing some have interpreted it as either a small sign of solidarity with Muller’s plight – or a message that a leader can only go so far in gagging MPs.”

She has also commented that Muller’s crime is hardly that extreme, for which he has paid a very high price: “It seemed a very tough penalty for what amounts to a low-grade offence. It is not unknown for MPs to brief media, or pass an opinion on someone or something on the quiet. But that falls short of a genuine leak. This was not a leak of information, or of confidential caucus discussions, or even comments critical of the leader.” But she explains: “Many of the MPs will be well aware that Muller is simply the fall guy: the one man taking the fall for something a fair few of themselves have done over recent years. Leaks had plagued National for years, and Collins wanted to make an example of someone.”

Trevett has also written about the Muller debacle again today. She argues that Collins has simply front footed the need to finally deal with all the disunity and ill-discipline in her caucus that continues to plague National, especially the leaking: “So when Collins was handed evidence of one, she went for the crackdown – turning her policy of crushing the cars of boy racers into a policy of crushing her own MPs who whisper to media. In terms of making that message clear and being seen to flex leadership muscle, Collins will not be totally unhappy that the real reason for Muller’s resignation has made it into the public eye” – see: National Party leader Judith Collins’ ousting of Todd Muller will have a cost (paywalled).

The problem, according to Trevett, is that although this crackdown might be successful in silencing MPs who are talking out of turn, it might also undermine trust without fixing the actual problems in the party. What’s more, it might be seen by others as somewhat hypocritical: “she was widely regarded by the other MPs as having leaked, briefed media, and undermined leaders. There was already suspicion among many MPs that Collins effectively pushed Nick Smith out by telling him a media outlet was about to broadcast a story about an investigation into a ‘verbal altercation’ Smith had with a staffer. No media outlet had that story at the time.”

Now there is “a climate of fear and disquiet within caucus” and Trevett argues that “There is only so long a caucus can limp along in that state.” Other MPs will also be worried: “There is already speculation doing the rounds about who might be next on Collins’ hit list – Collins does not disguise her views of enemies well.”

Also writing on the issue today, press gallery journalist Henry Cooke is amazed that an MP talking about their party has been so strongly censured: “The thing is, it is normal. Talking to the media is a huge portion of contemporary politics. MPs, particularly ones in Opposition, talk to journalists constantly, trying to get them to write certain stories or convince them to see the world the way they do. Occasionally those conversations will involve frank views about colleagues, especially when the party is in a bit of trouble” – see: The only thing worse than a leak is talking about a leak.

Cooke says that the article “wasn’t exactly earth-shattering” and so it’s telling that “Collins decided to go thermo-nuclear”. He argues that it is actually futile and counterproductive for politicians to deal with “leaks” as strongly as Collins has: “It’s like trying to put out a small bushfire with kerosene: it just gets larger and more dramatic.”

Instead, Cooke advocates the approach that the Labour Government takes with the many leaks that it endures: it simply ignores them, which denies the story further “oxygen”. And, given that further stories have now come out about the disciplining of Muller for talking to the media, he asks of Collins: “Is she now going to hunt down whichever MPs shared the news of the caucus meeting?”

Newsroom’s Jo Moir has the same reaction: “If that is the new bar for resigning, then presumably National is on a witch hunt today for whichever MPs promptly fed the details of the late-night meeting to media. The imagery of National MPs, who happily and regularly talk out of turn to journalists, sat in that meeting with their pitchforks crying ‘Shame, Shame, Shame” at Muller is irony at its absolute best. Not to mention those who left the meeting and immediately hit ‘press gallery’ on their speed dial” – see: National’s two-year ticking time bomb.

Moir says that Muller is possibly now a bigger problem for National than before: “Muller now finds himself in a caucus that has 100 percent turned on him. He may well find a new gig and leave before the 2023 election, prompting a by-election in his seat. Until then, Collins has on the one hand shown her strength as a leader in getting the caucus to unite behind her, but on the other she’s lit a bomb that could potentially go off at any point.”

According to Moir, the latest episode merely shows how divided the National caucus is: “There’s clearly a group of MPs within the caucus who are still feeling very raw about the rolling of former leader Simon Bridges. No party, not even Labour with its majority, could function with one group still so angry with another so long after the fact.” She therefore wonders if the current National caucus is just too terminal: “With so many MPs holding individual agendas in that caucus, it might just take a mass exodus to wipe the slate clean and start again.”

This is also the orientation of broadcaster Peter Williams, who asks: “how can you take these guys seriously? Is it best that they just fade away and let the political right be filled by some more sensible people?” – see: National Party in disarray.

Finally, although the problems of the National Party in recent years have seemed to be all about leadership, perhaps it’s bigger than this, with the need for its leaders to have better cabals around them – that’s the argument recently made by Danyl Mclauchlan – see: What if National’s problem isn’t the leadership, but the cabal?.

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.

Does money buy policy in New Zealand politics and government? Based on the ongoing political finance scandal involving New Zealand First, which comes hot on the heels of the Serious Fraud Office charging four people in relation to donations to the National Party, New Zealanders have every reason to doubt the integrity of the electoral process. It’s no wonder there are growing calls for reform of a broken political finance system.

The ongoing leaks about the donations received by NZ First, and what look like attempts to at least circumvent political finance laws, saw the Electoral Commission refer the matter to the Police, who have now passed the scandal onto the Serious Fraud Office for investigation. At question is the role of the NZ First Foundation, which Winston Peters argues is separate from the party, but which appears to have been used to collect the donations in a highly questionable way.

This has the potential to damage to the reputation of not just NZ First , but the Government as a whole, and could have a significant influence on the election year.

Serious questions are now being asked about the influence that hitherto secret donations have had on various Government policies and decisions. The latest details about the donations were published yesterday by RNZ’s Guyon Espiner and Kate Newton – see: NZ First Foundation received tens of thousands of dollars from donors in horse racing industry.

This article details some of the many donations made by those in the racing industry that were given to the party in a way that meant they weren’t made publicly available. And although the article stresses that the law may not have been broken by these donations, it links them to policy decisions by this government.

Here’s the key part: “In this government’s first Budget in May 2018, Peters announced $4.8 million would be spent over four years for tax deductions to be claimed for the costs of acquiring ‘high quality’ breeding horses. Then in the 2019 Budget the government repealed the betting levy. That meant that a 4 percent levy on betting profits – which previously netted the Crown about $14 million a year – would not be paid to the government, but would be redirected to the racing and sports sectors. Peters signed off on the move despite the opposition of Treasury”.

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that racing industry donors bought these policy decisions. But the lack of transparency, and the apparent attempts made to hide the donations, are enough to raise suspicions about the democratic process. The article quotes Otago University’s Andrew Geddis about the importance of the public knowing who funds parties: “Unless we’re able to see who was putting money into the system, and then see who’s getting benefits out of the system – you simply aren’t able to draw those connections and ask, you know, is there a problem?”

Geddis is also quoted in another article by RNZ’s Espiner and Newton, saying information about donations is “very important for the public to know” in a democracy “where we’re entrusting political parties and their representatives with a great deal of public power” – see: Wealthy and powerful NZ First Foundation donors revealed.

This article also provides further details of how the mysterious NZ First Foundation raised more than $300,000 in the 2017-19 period in the form of donations of around $15,000 or just under. The $15,000 figure is the threshold for when donations have to be made public. Espiner and Newton point out that “in some cases, multiple such donations were made by related entities or individuals during a year”. The possibility exists that larger donations might have been broken into smaller donations to evade the law.

Winston Peters hit back, doing a Facebook Live Q+A on Wednesday night in which he argued that “donors to the New Zealand First Foundation are entitled to keep identities secret” if the sums involved are under the threshold – see Derek Cheng’s Winston Peters says donors are entitled to anonymity. Peters added that such donations are necessary “if we don’t have such a system of public fundraising, taxpayers would have to pay and we’re diametrically opposed to that”.

In terms of the Government’s racing industry reforms, Peters said: “no one is buying any policy here” because as Minister of Racing he had simply implemented an independent racing policy. And he’s been backed up by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who says accusations on this are “not fair”. She has said: “Racing policy, decisions, bills, as with any decision we make, as a Government, goes through considerable scrutiny – no one policy is ever decided by one party, they go through all of us.”

National’s finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith has called for some reassurance that money isn’t buying policy: “We have New Zealand First ministers making large decisions about large spending and all New Zealanders want to be assured about the integrity of the decision-making” – see Jo Moir’s Winston Peters on Foundation donations: ‘I did not receive any money’.

In this article, Shane Jones is reported as arguing that the controversy is just a witch hunt against the party, and denies racing or fisheries policy is for sale: “No, I think that’s really petty to talk to like that… I’ve been a recipient of Sealord’s and the Dalmatian leadership in terms of fisheries, and I resent any suggestion that decisions or statements I make about fisheries are driven because of donations.”

Some defence of the arrangements are also found in Barry Soper’s column yesterday – see: Winston Peters’ Trumpian moment. He relays Peters’ point about why he’s helping the racing industry: “he’s fought for the survival of the industry for the last 30 years, he told us. Significant changes to it last year came from a review of it by an overseas, independent advisor who said it needed urgent reform and would be irreparably damaged if it wasn’t carried out.”

Soper points out that other political parties also take donations from sectors that expect policy wins – for example, “the significant support of the trade union movement for Labour. And they don’t do that for nothing, neither does the racing industry for Winston Peters or big business for the National Party which gets the lion’s share of donations.” He concludes that party donations “should be seen for what they really are, paying for the sympathetic ear of a lawmaker.”

Jacinda Ardern has also defended NZ First’s connection to the racing industry on the basis that is “no secret to anyone in New Zealand that Winston Peters has a strong knowledge, understanding and long-standing connection to the racing industry”.

In response to this, National-aligned blogger David Farrar says: “Yes she is defending NZ First having massive secret donations from the racing industry and in return delivering huge financial windfalls to the racing industry with taxpayer money” – see: Has Jacinda read her own coalition agreement?

Farrar also makes the point that NZ First cared so strongly about their racing policies that they demanded them be installed as part of the coalition agreement: “Jacinda needs to read the Labour and NZ First Coalition agreement. It requires Labour to ‘Support New Zealand First’s Racing policy’. There is no other portfolio which has the agreement requiring the Government to support one party’s entire policy. This shows how massively important it was that NZ First could guarantee to its funders their policies would be implemented.”

Newsroom editor Bernard Hickey says the public should take these racing industry financial connections seriously: “Winston Peters is Racing Minister and has pushed through reforms to the NZ Racing Board and the industry that are expected to see the TAB sold off to Australian betting companies in a way that breeders and trainers want. He has also cut levies paid by the industry” – see: Winston Peters should stand down as Racing Minister.

He argues therefore that “Winston Peters should stand down as Racing Minister, at the very least, while those donations are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.” Furthermore, “the Government should put its Racing Industry Bill, which is in the select committee stage after its first reading in Parliament last month, on hold.”

Hickey is also interviewed on the whole connection between money and politics in another article, in which he says the lack of transparency that appears to exist in the current arrangements in political finance law means that “the scrum is screwed, if you like, by people who are wealthier than the rest of us and can ask for special favours, and have influence over a project larger than they would have if they were just another citizen who was voting in an election. One of the ways to protect yourself is to make sure everyone knows who’s donated what to whom” – see Alexia Russell’s New Zealand First in party donations furore.

Finally, for the best dissection of the NZ First leader’s eight-minute appearance on Facebook in which he promised to tell the “truth about the NZ First Foundation”, see Ben Thomas’ So many questions as Winston Peters goes live on Facebook.

The National Party heads into its annual conference in Christchurch this weekend amidst continued speculation about its leadership, whether the party can win in 2020, and questions about the ideological direction of the party. 

This week’s leaked opinion polling results won’t help the mood, and it won’t help Bridges’ hold on the leadership. Last month the Newshub Reid-Research poll put National on only 37 per cent. Such a low number would normally have ratcheted up talk of Bridges’ demise, except for the fact that TVNZ’s Colmar Brunton poll came out the same night, showing National was incredibly buoyant, and in fact had overtaken Labour, on 44 per cent.

That’s why this week’s leak of UMR’s polling was significant. This also put National on 38 per cent, suggesting that terrible Newshub poll was probably the correct one. You can see details of the poll here in Tova O’Brien’s report: Labour’s secret internal polling reveals National below 40 percent. She explains why her media outlet is reporting on the leak of an internal poll: “The data was not leaked by the Government. Newshub would not normally run an outside poll, but three years of data like this hasn’t been leaked to us before.”

And this morning Newshub have published further information from the UMR polling, showing that 60 per cent of those surveyed have either an unfavourable or very unfavourable opinion of Simon Bridges, compared to 26 per cent who are favourable – see: Labour Party poll leak: Simon Bridges’ favourability drops again.

Other journalists also reported on the rumoured polling numbers, with Barry Soper saying the Labour-commissioned UMR poll put Labour on 42 per cent, the Greens on 9 per cent, and “New Zealand First has also increased slightly” – see: Can Simon Bridges survive another unfavourable poll?

According to Soper the leaked poll was likely to give Bridges another push: “it’s National that’s bleeding and it looks set to haemorrhage, with growing whispers within the party that it’ll be Simon Bridges’ blood being spilled before too long. The party has dropped beneath the psychological barrier of 40 per cent, now sitting on 38. It’s the focus groups that’ll concern National, with Bridges having about as much traction as a bald tyre.”

Bridges’ leadership debated

Despite the poor polling there are a number of commentators suggesting that Bridges’ leadership is actually safe. The Herald’s Claire Trevett recently argued that the lack of an obvious replacement is helping Bridges: “the lack of a clear successor guaranteed to lift that polling further, and a wariness of instability. The question of when National should move comes second to the question of whether National should move. Then there is the who. It needs to be somebody MPs can be sure will fare better than Bridges. That may seem like a low bar, but Bridges cannot stand accused of not throwing his all into the job” – see: One poll to bury Simon Bridges, another buys him more time (paywalled).

She wonders if there really is the will in the National caucus to make the necessary leadership change, and says MPs will be highly aware that a successful changeover needs to be clean and quick: “leadership changes should be dealt with like a sticking plaster and ripped off quickly to shorten the pain. They cannot afford to have a drawn out, multi-challenger contest such as they had last time.”

National insider Matthew Hooton appears to agree, suggesting that the MPs are unlikely to change their leader because they simply can’t agree on a replacement, and the most obvious successor, Judith Collins, is just too strongly opposed by some colleagues – see his column, Meet the National Party leadership contenders (paywalled). He says that “the prospect of a Collins leadership is opposed adamantly by inhouse detractors such as Maggie Barry, David Carter, Nikki Kaye, Anne Tolley and Michael Woodhouse.”

Hooton says that National MPs worry that, although Collins might well be a much more successful leader than Bridges, she might also be worse. He likens this to the fear that British Conservative MPs had about Boris Johnson, which “kept Theresa May in office for the past year”.

Similarly, he points to the type of conversation that he says Labour MPs were having in 2013: “Sure, David Shearer is a disaster, but do you have any idea how bad it could get with David Cunliffe?” And he concludes: “Right now, it seems National MPs prefer to sleepwalk to certain defeat in 2020 the way Phil Goff’s Labour did in 2011, instead of taking the risks Labour did in 2014 and 2017 with two very different candidates, Cunliffe and Ardern respectively.”

Other leadership options are discussed by Hooton (Todd Muller, Nikki Kaye, Mark Mitchell), with the suggestion that their ambitions are also blocking the rise of Collins to the leadership at the moment: “Until a ticket emerges with one willing to serve as deputy to another, Bridges is safe.”

In a more recent column, Hooton also examines the one big issue that might determine whether National has any chance of returning to government next year – how National orientates to New Zealand First – see: Simon Bridges’ big call on Winston Peters (paywalled).

Hooton suggests that National has two broad options. Do they try to kill them off and declare boldly that National would not do a coalition deal with Peters? Or do they announce New Zealand First to be their preferred party for coalition. The latter option, Hooton says, would make National look like a more viable option for getting into government, since Peters is likely to once again be the deciding factor, and it might also start fostering divisions in the current government.

Bridges’ hold on the leadership is also thought to have been enhanced by his recent caucus reshuffle, along with the departure of Amy Adams. According to veteran political journalist Richard Harman, the National leader “used his caucus spokesperson reshuffle to shore up his own position while he left his potential rivals unrewarded” – pointing to the poor outcomes for rivals Judith Collins and Todd Muller – see: Bridges shores up his position.

Harman explains: “Most notably, National’s highest rating ‘preferred Prime Minister’, Judith Collins has lost her Infrastructure portfolio though she retains housing… Further down the caucus, Climate Change spokesperson, Todd Muller, was not promoted. That was despite his high profiler work on developing a bipartisan consensus on climate change with the Minister, James Shaw. Muller has spoken on this at every one of the party’s regional conferences this year, and it appeared that the party more or less regarded him as a frontbencher. And he is perceived by many, particularly in the rural and provincial wing of the party as a potential future leader. Bridges has him at Ranking 31 though he has gained the forestry portfolio.”

He reports that some “party insiders saw it as ‘petty’ and part of a deliberate strategy to confine Muller to the back benches.” Harman also reports: “There was some talk within the caucus of running a Collins/Muller ticket against Bridges, but it would seem unlikely that Muller would have been comfortable with that.

The announced departure of Amy Adams the same week might have also been a welcome relief to Bridges, but while a leadership rival was removed it was also widely seen as a vote of “no confidence” in the chances of National returning to power anytime soon. Mike Hosking, for example, wrote that “the only conclusion you can draw is she sees defeat” – see: National’s exodus shows the party lacks belief.

It’s all part of a bigger problem, Hosking suggests: “This all adds to National’s ongoing problems. Their leader, their numbers, and now their retention of talent. They simply don’t look like they’re on a roll or anywhere close to it. They don’t look like the home of the winners.”

National’s harder line on climate change

Some commentators believe the issue of climate change has become the frontline issue for National – not just in terms of its election agenda, but also as a proxy for the internal leadership rivalries.

Claire Trevett has written about how Bridges’ current plan to get ahead of Labour is to emulate the successful Australian Liberal Party election campaign under leader Scott Morrison: “ScoMo’s campaign was an inspiration for Bridges and he has made it clear he expects to emulate it. Morrison’s campaign was more like an Opposition campaign. It focused on attacking his rival’s policies more than promoting his own. And it worked a treat. The past two weeks have been something of a test run for Bridges to try the same as he embarks on his bid to galvanise the ‘quiet New Zealanders.’ It helps that one of Morrison’s social media whizzes was one of Bridges’ staffers and she has now returned to Bridges” – see: Simon Bridges’ plan to topple Jacinda Ardern – ScoMo (paywalled).

She points out that National has converted the Liberal’s tagline against Bill Shorten of “The Bill Australia can’t afford” to “New Zealanders can’t afford this Government” in campaigns focusing on “fuel tax increases, cost of living increases such as rent, and the car tax.”

Trevett says “Bridges needs the election to be fought on hip pocket issues rather than personality or leadership.” He’s now targeting National’s messages to tradies, farmers, families, and those reliant on cars.

This might even work according to long-time Bridges critic, journalist Graham Adams, who notes that a harder line on environmental issues might actually yield votes for National – see: Simon Bridges searches for a miracle.

Adams points to one aspect of Morrison’s win in Australia, which might have been of interest to Bridges: “Scott Morrison’s win was aided by a significant swing against the Labor Party in Queensland sparked by the giant Adani coal-mine project, which the Coalition government supported but Labor had long been ambivalent about as it weighed its implications for jobs against its contribution to carbon emissions.”

Adams elaborates: “Bridges is bound to have noticed – and perhaps Scott Morrison reminded him – that when jobs are at stake, people will often vote for their immediate financial survival rather than the planet’s putative long-term prospects. On the campaign trail, Bridges will be able to point to many aspects of the government’s policies around sustainability and climate change that will harm employment.”

And in this regard, Adams points to the Government’s ban on new permits for offshore oil and gas exploration, as well as the more recent decision by “Greens minister Eugenie Sage to stop Oceana Gold buying 178 hectares near its mine in Waihi for a tailings reservoir that would have extended the life of its mine for as much as 12 years (and supported 350 lucrative jobs).”

There are definite signs that National is now taking a less liberal line on climate change issues. This view is well canvassed by Simon Wilson in his scathing opinion piece, Why National is our biggest climate change threat (paywalled).

Here’s his main point: “As long as National holds to this position, to me it demonstrates it is unfit to govern. National says it knows we have to combat climate change but undermines every effort to address the issue. Sneers at plans to promote rail. Refuses to endorse the Zero Carbon Bill. Claims it will reintroduce new rights to fossil fuel exploration. These past two weeks, it’s done its best to destroy the Government’s proposals for vehicle and agricultural emissions. Both those emissions sources should be beyond politics by now.”

It appears that there’s an internal strategic element to National MPs now taking harder lines on climate issues – because it’s become a proxy for who should lead the party into the 2020 election.

Newsroom’s Bernard Hickey explains: “It has become a proxy for an internal National caucus fight over the leadership, with both Paula Bennett and Judith Collins competing to take a harder line than Todd Muller, and forcing a weakened Bridges to back away from his previous support of measures to address climate change. Muller even contradicted Bridges in a weekend interview.” In order to appeal to traditional supporters, “National’s leadership contenders are now competing to see who can talk loudest about climate change measures being a ‘tax’ on poorer drivers and farmers.”

Finally, with National’s apparent loss of direction and ideological coherence, there are some big questions about where the party should go next, with some suggesting that emulating some of the strengths of Donald Trump and other successful conservatives and rightwingers might be what’s needed – see Martin van Beynen’s What a populist National Party would look like.

For the best overall guide to what has happened in the Budget leak/hack scandal, see the just-published article by Henry Cooke: What we know and don’t know about the Budget ‘hack’. Amongst his rundown on the background to the scandal and the theories offered so far, Cooke points out that, rather than being hacked, the Treasury website might simply have been scanned by Google, allowing a cache of pages to become available to someone who has handed them on to the National Party.

Another leading explanation for how the Treasury’s Budget information was released early to National comes down to a simple but obvious idea that parliamentary staffers looked for and found the information on the Treasury website. This would also explain how National leader Simon Bridges could be so categorical in his insistence that his scoops weren’t based on hacking or illegality.

According to this theory, National had one of its Parliamentary staffers monitoring the Treasury website in the days leading up to Budget Day, constantly using the frontpage search bar on the site to look for “Budget 2019”. The hope being that at some stage some Budget documents would be loaded onto the site momentarily, in anticipation of Thursday’s publication, before they were then locked away for safety.

The story goes that by searching every five minutes or so, the National staffer eventually hit the jackpot when documents or pages turned up with the goods. It might have taken hundreds or even thousands of searches over a couple of days.

In fact, National Party pollster and blogger David Farrar has outlined a similar scenario based on his previous experience as a parliamentary staffer: “when I worked for the Opposition in 2000 or 2001, I recall waiting for the Government to release the Police crime stats. They always put a positive spin on it. I went to the Police website and looked at last year’s stats. I also looked at the previous year. They had the same URL format. I changed the year to the current one, and hey presto I had the official crime states four hours before the Government was due to release them” – see: My guess as to what happened.

Farrar argues that something similar may have happened, and it therefore wouldn’t constitute hacking: “So my guess is something similar has happened. That possibly the material was put up on a website of some sort and someone found it. Treasury are calling it hacking because they didn’t think it was open to the public. But there is a difference between hacking a secure computer system, and locating information that is on the Internet (even if hidden). Was there any cracking of passwords for example?”

But do such explanations fit with what Treasury are saying when they claim that their site has been “deliberately and systematically hacked”? It’s arguable either way. Certainly, some tech-specialists seem to think that something much more sophisticated must have happened – especially based on the fact that Treasury has called in the Police. For one of the most in-depth discussions of the potential hacking, see John Anthony’s Budget 2019: ‘They’ll remember it as the budget that got hacked’.

Despite some tech specialists believing that a sophisticated hack has occurred, one expert believes a software application might have simply found the material on the Treasury website: “Kiwi cyber security consultancy Darkscope technical director Joerg Buss said a likely scenario was that someone used a ‘spider or crawler’ program to find hidden content in the Treasury website. Such software may have uncovered Budget 2019 files which had not been protected properly, he said.”

It could also be as simple as using Google to search for the material, which is covered by Juha Saarinen in his article, Conspiracy or cock-up? Strong evidence Treasury published Budget accidentally – rather than a hack. He says that “screenshots of the results from a Google search for ‘estimates of appropriation 2019/2020’ are circulating on Twitter suggest that the data was published accidentally.”

Of course, the fact that Treasury has called in the Police would suggest that the government department believes that something much more sinister or malevolent has occurred. However, care needs to be taken in reading too much into this – especially since the Police haven’t even confirmed that they have agreed to investigate, except to say that they are assessing Treasury’s request.

Furthermore, whenever governments and officials call in the police or make claims that criminal actions have occurred in the political sphere, we should always be very sceptical. It’s the oldest trick in the bureaucratic book – to divert attention or to impugn an opponent with charges that they are mixed up in criminal activity. That’s not necessarily the case over the controversial budget leaks – it’s still far too early to tell what has happened.

This is certainly the argument made today by leftwing blogger No Right Turn, who suggests that government officials have a tendency, when they’ve made mistakes, to try to point the finger elsewhere, often using rather draconian measures to do so – see: Treasury, “hacking”, and incentives.

Here’s his main point about how politicians and officials are inclined to bring the police into politics: “Unfortunately the natural instincts of power in New Zealand are to double down rather than admit a mistake, and to call in the police when embarrassed – just look at the tea tape, or Dirty Politics. With those, we saw police raiding newsrooms and journalist’s homes. I’m wondering if we’re going to see police raiding the opposition this time. Which would be highly damaging to our democracy.”

The blogger says that “the bureaucratic incentive towards arse-covering and blame-avoidance pushes that to be reclassified as nefarious ‘hacking’, and that incentive gets stronger the higher up the chain (and the further away from IT knowledge) you get.”

Here’s his own explanation for the release of the information: “The most likely scenario is that Treasury f**ked up and left them lying around on their web-server for anyone to read, and National or one of its proxies noticed this and exploited it. Accessing unprotected data on a public web-server isn’t ‘hacking’ in any sense of the word – it’s just browsing.”

The onus is therefore on the Treasury to be much more transparent about what has happened writes Danyl Mclauchlan, saying a “brief technical explanation about what the ‘hack’ amounted to would be a lot more useful than all the bluster and nebulous waffle we’ve heard so far” – see: Budget hacking scandal: About time Treasury told us what actually happened.

Mclauchlan says that if it turns out that the leak has simply come from information on the Treasury website, “then we’ll be talking about the resignation of the Treasury Secretary, rather than National Party leader.”

The No Right Turn blogger doesn’t see the Government delivering such transparency any time soon: “neither Treasury nor their Minister has any interest in that (Ministers are rarely interested in incompetence in their own agencies, because it makes them look bad for allowing it). As for us, the public, we’re the loser, stuck with an incompetent, arse-covering public agency which has just failed on one of its most important tasks” – see: Treasury owes us answers.

He argues that the decision to go to the Police means that Treasury can now sidestep such accountability: “conveniently, by referring the matter to the police Treasury has ensured that they can never do that. It might prejudice the police investigation, you see. OIA requests can be refused to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law, and anyone who actually tells anyone anything can be prosecuted. Accountability of course goes out the window”.

That doesn’t get National off the hook, however, if the party has done something illegal in the way they have procured or used the Budget information. One lawyer who knows a lot about hacks is Steven Price, and he argues that the release by National of the information was not in “the public interest”, and that it appears to have “broken the law relating to Breach of Confidence” – see: Budget leak: Nats’ behaviour “entirely appropriate”?

Price says that he is “irritated at the sanctimoniousness of Simon Bridges’ denial that the Nats had done ‘anything approaching’ illegality.” He does admit however, that if National have obtained the Budget information “through some area of Treasury’s (or some other government) website that was technically publicly accessible, then that would at least raise arguments that it wasn’t confidential in the first place, because it was in the public domain.”

Herald political editor Audrey Young is also less than impressed with how Bridges has dealt with the matter today, saying: “Simon Bridges needed to do two things today when he fronted the news media about allegations of hacking Treasury and he did neither. He needed to say, at least in general terms, how he received the leak of Budget of documents. And he needed to say he had contacted the police to offer them any assistance they needed in their investigation” – see: Simon Bridges needed to do two things today and he did neither.

But for another view on the politics of it all, and an explanation of why Bridges’ manoeuvres have been smart, see Brigitte Morten’s National plays strong hand over politics jackpot. She argues that it’s in the public interest for National to be able to dispute the Government’s narrative over Budget spending, and to be able to point out the “lower than expected spending” in areas such as health “that the government doesn’t want you to reflect on.”

Finally, for a recent minor – but extremely colourful – Treasury controversy, involving the use of a transformative wellbeing experiment for staff, see Danyl Mclauchlan’s must-read investigation: Peace, Rest and the Monkey Emoji Moon: playing Heartwork cards at Treasury.