0 Cash for policy? (Part one)

3News political reporter Tova O'Brien posted this yesterday on Twitter:

The relationship between Labour and its affiliates, the collective name for a number of trade unions is long established. But the importance of the relationship was increased significantly two years ago when Labour essentially gave the unions the casting vote in party leadership elections.

Coincidentally, Rodney Hide's column in the Herald on Sunday yesterday was about union donations to Labour. His entire column is worth a read, but here's how he began:

The true donations scandal in New Zealand politics was reported this week without comment. It's the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union's $60,000 donation to Labour.
The EPMU is one of the six unions affiliated to Labour. The affiliated unions pay fees and fund the Party through donations. The donations and fees total hundreds of thousands of dollars.
More significantly, union staff campaign for Labour and the unions run parallel campaigns. For example, Labour is campaigning for the "living wage". In a parallel campaign the Services and Food Workers Union spent more than half a million dollars last year promoting that exact policy.
The union funding of Labour totals in the millions. And what does Labour provide in return? In effect the entire party. The unions get to determine the party's leader. Their say counts for 20 per cent of the vote. That's the difference between winning and losing by a wide margin.
Affiliation also buys a seat at the table. The affiliated unions have a guaranteed vice-president position on Labour's all-powerful New Zealand Council.

They also get their people as MPs. The Labour Party enables the unions to parachute members into Parliament. Labour list MP Andrew Little headed the EPMU for 11 years before entering Parliament.
Being a union boss come Labour's list selection time isn't as good as being a Maori lesbian but it's a close second.
And the unions get policy, lots of policy. In 1999 the EPMU gave $100,000 to Labour. The following year the Labour Government passed the Employment Relations Act. This act gives the unions incredible power over Kiwi workplaces as well as easy access to workers' pay packets.
The Employment Relations Act nicely closes the loop. The act was provided by the Labour Party. It gave the unions access to workers' pockets, and that's the money the unions now tip into Labour's coffers.
Indeed, in the state sector it's policy for Government to give union members a bonus to cover their union fees. You and I pay their union fees.
Unions and Labour are guilty of "cash for policy", "cash to sit at the table", "cash to decide the leader" and "cash to parachute members into Parliament".

Rodney Hide is absolutely right. As much as Labour and the Greens accuse John Key's Rich Mates of trying to buy influence, they ignore the obvious going on right under their own nose. Labour and the unions are so confident of not being called out, that they don't even try to be subtle about it.

Over the course of the next few days we are going to take a closer look at Labour's relationship with its affiliates, and just what the union influence is trying to achieve. Early indications are that businesses in New Zealand are in for a rough ride if Labour leads a coalition government after the General Election on 20th September.

Stay tuned...

0 Hide on Labour's risky strategy

Rodney Hide reckons that Labour is walking a tightrope with the Donghua Liu donations saga. In his Herald on Sunday piece, and under the headline Risky response to donor row Hide opines:

Deny, deny, deny. Attack, attack, attack. That's been Labour's response to businessman Donghua Liu claiming he donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Party.
Labour's strategy is risky. It is challenging Liu's honesty and integrity. He's no doubt feeling aggrieved. The danger for Labour is that Liu produces documents, witnesses and photographs confirming his substantial donations.
That's what did it for Winston Peters in 2008. Sir Owen Glenn was able to prove the donations that Peters denied.
Labour also risks drying up its donations. Attacking a donor is hardly encouraging to others. I doubt there will too many Chinese charity auctions for Labour this election.
It's a risky response but Labour's entire attack strategy has been risky. Attacking John Banks for declaring Dotcom's donations as anonymous ran the risk that its own house wasn't in order. Likewise in attacking Maurice Williamson for ringing the police on Liu's behalf.

Cunliffe's letter 11 years ago for Liu wouldn't have mattered except for the hellfire and brimstone he visited on National for similar advocacy. It's true Cunliffe wasn't ringing the police. It's true Liu wasn't facing charges. But such difference matters constitutionally. It doesn't matter politically.
As far as headlines and soundbites go, Cunliffe has been caught doing exactly what he railed against.

Hide is dead right; perception is everything in politics,and the perception is that David Cunliffe has been a hypocrite. He and his MP's attacked National with relish, and made all sorts of accusations towards National MP's.

Had they restricted themselves to simply attacking National MP's, this may have passed without comment. But the likes of Trevor Mallard, aided and abetted by Winston Peters who relishes any opportunity to attack Chinese, made a series of allegation against National's apparent mate. One of those accusations was that he was downright corrupt, offering cash for changes to immigration policy. Like most of the accusations Mr Mallard makes, always under the cover of parliamentary privilege, he has yet to substantiate it.

But Labour took things one step too far, impugning Donghua Liu's reputation. That's when he started talking about his links to the Labour Party, at a time when David Cunliffe was a senior Minister. The rest, as they say, is (or will be) history.

Hide continues:

So where are we now? Confused. Liu said he gave substantial money to the Labour Party. The Labour Party says it has no record of it, and hasn't reported any donations from Liu.
But it's quite possible that everyone is telling the truth. The money could have been stolen. That would mean Liu gave the money but Labour never received it. Charity auctions and the like are often chaotic and it is too easy to have no one properly in charge of recording and receipting all payments and donations. This is especially so in political events. Volunteers are enthusiastic but not necessarily experienced and politicians are anxious to stay well away from money changing hands.
Indeed, a big part of Cunliffe's problem - and Banks' and Williamson's - is that politicians shy away from fundraising details precisely to avoid the perception that cash influences decision-making.

It is indeed possible that no one in Labour actually saw any of the money donated by Liu; possible, but highly improbable, we would say. We base that on information that we have heard in the last week; information which may or may not have got as far as Jared Savage from the NZ Herald. If even some of it is correct, Labour had better hope that no one has broken ranks. 

And Donghua Liu lawyering up, and giving documents to Paul Davidson QC whilst seeking financial records from his homeland ought to be worrying to Labour. What is in the financial records that Mr Liu is so anxious to share with his lawyer?

Hide closes, with a message that might send shivers up David Cunliffe's spine:

The safer course of action for the Labour Party would be to say it was treating the matter seriously. That would mean thanking Liu for coming forward with his information and inviting the police to investigate. The police could try to trace the money, letting Cunliffe off the hook. He would have done everything by the book. He would be open and upfront. It would also kill the story. He couldn't comment while police were investigating.
But Labour didn't do that. It denied and attacked.
There's a reason politicians do the things they do. Cunliffe couldn't be sure what the police would find. Calling in the police runs the risk of finding out more than Cunliffe wants to know.

David Cunliffe ought to remember that a "deny, deny, deny; attack, attack, attack" strategy is akin to poking a stick into a wasp's nest. As leader of the party, David Cunliffe is the one most likely to be stung if the wasps decide to fight back, and he is forced to defend, defend, defend.

There's an old saying in politics; never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. That would appear to be a strategic mistake on the part of Mr Cunliffe, and those who advise him, or who blog on Labour's behalf. It is going to be fascinating to see where this story goes, but a tweet yesterday from Herald editor Tim Murphy provides a clue:

We'd say the Donghua Liu saga still has some surprise twists and turns, and the exhortations to "move on" from the likes of Greg Presland towards the end of the week just gone may have been more in hope than anything else.  

0 Hide on MegaMana

Our favourite commenter Rex made this observation earlier this morning:

Next job, cut and paste Rodney Hide's rant!

At that point, we hadn't made it as far as the Herald on Sunday's website yet; we were still working through e-mails sent to us overnight bringing things to our attention. And the frequency of that has increased in recent weeks.

But naturally, we went straight off in search of Hide's latest opinion-piece. And we found that he does indeed rip in to all those involved in MegaMana; under the headline Hilarious Dotcom drama is riveting Hide opines:

I used to think politics was all about achieving good government. That proved invariably disappointing. These days, politics is no longer my responsibility. I'm happy if it just proves interesting.
That's why I am for the Internet-Mana Party. They're the best entertainment in years. If they were a parody they would be too improbable to be believed.
Maori nationalist Hone Harawira calls Pakeha the rudest of names and the wrong colour to date his daughter. But he's jumped into bed with whiter-than-white Kim Dotcom.
Harawira trumpets Mana and His People but that's not stopping him using his electorate to coat-tail Dotcom's party into Parliament. His price? $3 million.
It's easy to accuse Harawira of hypocrisy but he has a ready reply: it's a lot of money. At $3m his double standard is good and high.
Laila Harre wasn't elected leader of the Internet Party. She was hired. She's been selected and paid for by Dotcom. The former coffee picker for the Sandinistas is New Zealand's first corporate-hire political leader.
A mate rang after Harre's appointment splitting his sides, "All they need now is Pam Corkery". Corkery was appointed press secretary that day.
Willie Jackson considered standing but wanted $250,000. That's his price for standing up for his principles.

We're grateful to Judge Holden, Edward the Confessor, Rex or whatever else he calls himself for pointing us in the direction of Hide's column, although we would have found it at some point in any event. And we make no apologies for copying and pasting a story that tells the truth of the MegaMana rort in the manner that Hide does.

That's because the rort would be funny, almost beyond belief in fact, if it wasn't such an affront to democracy. 

Hide continues, making a mockery of the notion that MegaMana is going to be some kind of new, visionary force:

The recycled 1990s Alliance Party is promising a digital future. But they're technophobes and Luddites. Harre declares herself well-qualified because her children are the internet generation and her husband uses a computer at work.
She also believes Dotcom is funding her to help the poor and downtrodden with 1970s socialism. It's nothing to do with his extradition to face criminal charges. The left don't talk about truth. Rather, it's the narrative. Harre is the only person buying her narrative.
Next up, Annette Sykes. Her driving force? The Treaty and economic equality. Nothing about Dotcom's over-the-top lifestyle and opulence suggests Treaty concerns or a share-the-wealth mentality.
Someone isn't being upfront about their political aims and aspirations. The gulf between Dotcom and his politicians is altogether too yawning.
Then we have veteran campaigner John Minto. His promise? That Mana is coming after the rich. Capital gains taxes, financial transaction taxes, inheritance taxes and a more progressive tax system are all part of his campaign.
He's targeting the "parasites" and their "unearned income". In the meantime, he's more than happy taking the fat cat's money. That's the money the FBI are accusing Dotcom of not earning.

The Occupy movement in 2011 protested about the "1%"; the parasites and fat cats referred to by Hide. If his repeated boasts about his personal wealth are to be believed, Dotcom is not only part of the 1%, but quite likely in the top 0.25%. 

He is the very kind of person that the likes of Laila Harre, Annette Sykes, Hone Harawira and John Minto have spent their lives condemning, yet when the cheque book comes out, they gladly take his money, and climb into bed with him. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Rodney Hide isn't done yet; he has one final go at Dotcom:

 

Dotcom set out to destroy Banks for not rushing to rescue him from Mt Eden Prison. He expected a minister to jump for a $50,000 political donation. That's his character. Imagine what he expects for $3m.
And imagine how he will perform when he doesn't get it. Pure entertainment.

The day is fast approaching when the REAL Kim Dotcom is going to be unmasked. When that happens, watch for those who have taken his filthy lucre to be unmasked with him for selling their principles for the promise of big bucks.

Hide's final two words are right on the money; it will indeed be "pure entertainment". There are going to be some extremely red faces on the left-hand side of the political divide and we can't wait to see the squirming!

0 Hide on the "Cunliffe experiement"

Rodney Hide could have got away with just one sentence in his Herald on Sunday column this morning; the very first one. Under the headline Lonely Cunliffe must soldier on Hide opines:

The David Cunliffe experiment has failed. Eight months into his leadership Labour is polling below what it was under Phil Goff and David Shearer.
The election is less than four months away.
The danger for Labour is that its poor polling will collapse its vote, as happened to National in 2002. Its low polling became a self-fulfilling and accelerating prophecy. Polls matter.
Labour's unimpressive showing may well cause even more votes to drain across to the Greens and New Zealand First.
That prospect will now be occupying the minds of Labour MPs and activists.
Cunliffe will soldier on. He has no choice. I know what it's like.
You can't give up.

Every day you have to find your smiley, positive face. It's tough. Lonely. Hard.

Hide is right; he knows what it's like. He's even been in the same position as David Cunliffe, as he describes:

Cunliffe has an added burden. His caucus didn't want him. He was thrust on it by party members and the unions. That wouldn't matter if he were succeeding. But he isn't. There will be a lot of "I told you so" going on. The lack of caucus support makes a lonely job even lonelier.

It was always going to be tough going for David Cunliffe when barely a third of the Labour caucus voted for him after the Labour's Got Talent tour last year. For every Labour MP who supported him, there were two who did not. The cards were stacked against him.

Labour is stuck with Mr Cunliffe now, even though he is, as Hide notes, polling worse than his two predecessors. With the election just three months and 20 days away, it's too late to change horses.

And that's not going to make the post-election wrangling any easier, should Labour be in a position to form a coalition. Hide reminds us of the options:

 

And yet it remains a tight race. Labour could poll badly but still put a government together, with considerable concessions.
The Green's Metiria Turei and Russel Norman would be deputy prime ministers and would dominate policy-making.
Winston Peters would be kingmaker and would demand his pound of flesh.
Hone Harawira would be Minister of Maori Affairs. The Internet Party would be in government being dictated to by Kim Dotcom.
It's not a pretty prospect. And that's Labour's other problem. Its polling puts other parties into the box seat, a prospect that turns off middle voters.
And then there's policy. Cunliffe will be asked about every nutty policy put up by the Greens, New Zealand First, Mana and the Internet Party. Does he support it?
Cunliffe can't dodge the policy bullet. That would add to the uncertainty of voting Labour. If he accepts the policy, he's not in charge. If he dismisses it, he risks a spat with a potential partner.
John Key escapes these problems. National is polling high. Plus he has incumbency. People know what they are getting with National. They can't be so sure with Labour.
It comes back to the polls. They put Cunliffe on the back foot and Key on the front. Cunliffe is now desperate. He needs a lift.
"I just need to push the polls up a bit. I need to change the story ... hmmm. Immigration. That always works for Winston. I'll give that a shot. I will dress it up as housing policy. The party's woolly woofters will be upset. But what the hell? I've got nothing to lose." It's called dog-whistle politics. Sadly for Cunliffe, the only ones who heard it were Labour activists.

Actually, it's good that Rodney Hide wrote his whole piece, and not just the opening sentence. That last paragraph should serve as a huge warning to the Labour Party.

Traditionally the friends of immigrants, Cunliffe's Labour Party risks alienating those who have chosen to make New Zealand home. However you can guarantee that if he has to, David Cunliffe will snuggle up warmly to an immigrant who is wanted by the FBI for alleged copyright offending, racketeering and money-laundering on a Mega scale.

 David and the GIMPs; can you imagine what a recipe for disaster that would be? But sadly, thanks to MMP, that's what we could wake up to on September 21st. That's a scary thought, and we thank Rodney Hide for the reminder.


 

0 Quote of the Day - 12 May 2014

Rodney Hides summarises the current political distractions, and mentions the elephant in the war room:

John Key, Bill English and Steven Joyce must now steady the ship. That they will do. Governments are good at it. And it's Budget time. That provides a platform for them to step up a gear and talk about the the things that matter to Kiwis.
Meanwhile, if you think you may ever need some help from your local MP, don't donate to the National Party. Nothing is now more likely to see that door slammed shut than your name appearing on the donor list.
But Labour, too, has its problems. In chasing down Collins it has failed to confront the elephant in its caucus. We know who donated to National. We can spot the possible conflict. We can't say the same about Labour. That's because its leader resolutely refuses to name the donors to his leadership campaign. He has kept his donors secret.
What has Cunliffe got to hide? What favours has he promised? Labour keeps insisting that money taints politics. Well, who has tainted Cunliffe? Will he ever tell us?

Transparency over donations is a wonderful thing. But it must apply equally across the board, to every party inside and outside Parliament. 

Every time that David Cunliffe or one of his MP's shrieks about "cash for access", the question must be asked of Mr Cunliffe; who are the anonymous donors to the secret trust, and what access did THEY get?

0 Hide on an unlikely "bromance"

Rodney Hide is scathing towards the bromance between new besties Hone Harawira and Kim Dotcom. Under the headline Bromance of convenience Hide opines:

The intricate Hone Harawira and Kim Dotcom dance is proving every bit as exciting as the royal tour. What makes the Hone-Dotcom tie-up exciting is its incongruity. It's the sheer implausibility of the marriage that commands attention.
The Mana Party represents Northland's poor and dispossessed. And here's Dotcom arriving at their conference with a cavalcade of late model European SUVs.
Dotcom drove up more like an African potentate than a suitor for the hearts and minds of Te Tai Tokerau.
Harawira believes "white motherf****** have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries". Dotcom is as white as white. The party that shouts the loudest about indigenous rights and Maori sovereignty is hooking up with a party led by a German self-styled "visionary". Dotcom is not even a New Zealand European but a European European.
Harawira says he would be uncomfortable if one of his seven children dated a Pakeha. But here he is hopping into bed with one.

Historical injustice hangs heavy over Harawira. He knows through political activism the power of potent symbols. Yet he dismisses Dotcom's signed copy of Mein Kampf as equivalent to owning a book signed by President George Bush. Even by Hone logic that's a stretch.

"Hone logic"; now there's an interesting concept. It actually explains much of what Harawira is about; if he can justify something to himself, regardless of how bizarre or perverse it may seem to others, then it's all ka pai. That's the only realistic explanation for the enormous disconnect between the Mana Party and Dotcom.

Hide then traces Dotcom's never-ending journey across the political landscape:

Dotcom has traversed the political spectrum. He started with John Banks. He famously donated to Banks' mayoral campaign. And when Banks became a minister Dotcom attempted to lavish gifts upon him. Former Dotcom staffer Alex Mardikian has spoken of Banks resolutely rebuffing them.
Mardikian says he now believes Dotcom was attempting to stitch Banks up. "No one rides for free with Kim."
Banks refused the gifts. When Dotcom was banged up in jail, Banks simply had his electorate staff check on him. That's what would be done for any constituent who rang. The donations and proffered gifts bought no special favours, which is exactly as it should be.
Because he received no special treatment, I believe Dotcom set out to destroy Banks.
Since being disappointed by Banks, Dotcom has played pied piper, persuading a who's who of political luminaries to make pilgrimages to his Coatesville mansion, often multiple times.
He has travelled across the political spectrum to settle upon the most unlikely of them all.

We have no doubt at all that there is a strong desire for payback from Dotcom in the John Banks donation case. The manner in which the allegations against Banks found their way into the media two years ago suggest a deliberate campaign to punish Banks for refusing to accept Dotcom's largesse once he had been returned to Parliament, and for refusing to intervene when Dotcom was remanded in custody.

Since the of course, there has been an unceasing procession of politicians through the gates of Dotcom's rental property at Coatesville. Winston Peters, Russel Norman, Clare Curran; they've all stopped by for a cup of tea with far more sinister overtones than the infamous Dilmah English Breakfast shared by Banks and John Key just before the 2011 General Election. And Hide is dead right; who would have ever suspected that Harawira would fall into the Large German Gentleman's arms?

Hide closes, declaring this an impending marriage of convenience:

Hone and Dotcom are dating and look set to tie the knot. It is a marriage of convenience. Harawira is desperate for political oomph and momentum.
Dotcom is desperate to have a Minister of Justice block his extradition to the United States.
There's no political principle at work. There's only naked self-interest. And Mana must take care. The Banks' experience shows "no one rides for free with Kim".
Unlike the royal tour, this bit of excitement is only just beginning.

We can't help but wonder what the bottom lines being discussed are. And if Hone Harawira has any sense at all he'll sign a pre-nuptial agreement, because this marriage of convenience is guaranteed to end in tears.