National: Funded by racists

The National party is currently running a(nother) racist campaign, whipping up fears of "Māori separatism" (again) over basic measures for equality. So who did they get to fund it? Racist crank Don Brash:

National leader Judith Collins asked Don Brash to raise $300,000 for a billboard campaign attacking the Government on race issues, according to a leaked email from Brash obtained by Stuff.

[...]

The email headlined “strictly confidential” was sent in May by Brash to an unknown group of wealthy potential donors.

In it, Brash says Collins has asked him to raise $300,000 for a billboard campaign on “Treaty of Waitangi issues”.

He says he has done this as she believes the public has limited knowledge of the issues – such as a new history curriculum, the entrenchment of Māori wards, and the new Māori Health Authority – and the mainstream media was not shining enough of a light on them.

This speaks volumes about the current direction of National under Collins, and the popularity of that direction with its usual backers. Though it seems that not even Brash and his racist mates want their names associated with this - he was careful to donate less than the declaration threshold, and advised potential donors to do the same. It seems that even the racists realise there's something shameful about their position, and are afraid of the social consequences of exposure. Which highlights even more strongly the need to lower that declaration threshold: so those with these shameful views have nowhere to hide.

An open and shut case

When Massey University Vice-Chancellor Professor Jan Thomas vetoed a speech by Don Brash on the Massey campus, she claimed it was due to "security". Now, an OIA request from David Farrar has revealed that she lied:

Thomas started discussing Brash's speech with colleagues on July 9 where she asked about options to not allow Brash to speak on campus and mentioned the "racist behaviour of Brash. She ended the email with, "would be good if we can cut off at the pass some how".

On July 10, Thomas sent another email saying the subject was on her mind.

"I would like to know what are our options re [regarding] not allowing politics clubs to hold event on campus - free to hold any event but not with any inference of support by university.

"Will hit the fan in the media if we go this way. However, racist behaviour of Brash - given te reo is a official language of NZ and we are a tiriti led university - can't be ignored."

On July 11, a Massey University staff member said there weren't grounds to say no to Brash speaking on campus and noted to Thomas that declining him "would present a very real risk of us being accused restricting free speech etc."

The vice-chancellor then replied, saying she was still "deeply concerned" about the matter asking if there was any mechanism the university could use to stop the event.

Which looks like an open and shut case that the cancellation wasn't really about security, but about Thomas simply not liking Brash's views. Those views are disgusting - Brash is a dirty old racist crank, a relic of the nineteenth century - but as a government institution, Massey is bound by the Bill of Rights Act and its affirmation of freedom of speech. It simply can not behave like this. As for what to do about it, Massey academic staff may wish to consider whether someone with such views is really appropriate to head an institution supposedly dedicated to free academic debate. And the politics club should be using this evidence to seek damages for the infringement of their right to receive information. And on the basis that bureaucrats don't learn unless you beat them, they should be seeking those damages from Thomas personally.

Racist of the year

Apparently the "New Zealander of the year" award has been turned into "racist of the year" with the nomination of Don Brash:

Former National Party leader and Reserve Bank governor Don Brash has been nominated for New Zealander of the Year.

Dr Brash spoke at a University of Auckland debate last week on free speech. Massey University had previously cancelled his speaking event because of Facebook threats.

He has been nominated, along with fashion designer Annah Stretton, Team New Zealand's Peter Burling, former Green MP Sue Kedgley and mental health advocate Mike King.

Who next? Bob Jones? Kyle Chapman? Maybe people could nominate some sex offenders and bigots as well?

There have to be better people out there than Brash, and better reasons to nominate than being a tired old racist crank. Who's done great things for human rights, the environment, women's' rights or worker's rights in the last year? Nominate them instead.

A paranoid's veto

Don Brash was supposed to speak at Massey tomorrow as part of a series of talks organised by a student club. But given his views on te reo and Maori representation, and his support for visiting foreign Nazis, people were naturally planning to protest his presence. There's no suggestion that the protest would have involved anything other than some signs and shouting - the usual push and shove of democracy. But Massey has used it as an excuse to cancel the talk, citing "security" concerns:

Massey University has cancelled a booking made by a students’ politics club at which former politician and Hobson’s Pledge founder Dr Don Brash was invited to speak at the University’s Manawatū campus on Wednesday.

Club members had signed a venue and space use agreement form in which they agreed to manage the venue in accordance with the University’s Strategy, including recognising the values of a Te Tiriti o Waitangi-led organisation and ensuring its use would not adversely affect University operations, security, reputation or public safety.

The members later approached University management concerned about their ability to meet the agreement’s terms around security after becoming aware of social media posts suggesting the event could lead to violence.

The Univesity considered providing additional security for the event, but decided the risk of harm to students, staff and members of the public was too great, particularly at time of heightened tension over the issues around free speech and hate speech. Dr Brash was also a supporter of right-wing Canadian speakers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, who were due to address a public meeting in Auckland.

So, according to Massey, a bit of shouting and sign-waving is "harm". This isn't a heckler's veto on speech - its a paranoid's veto, of assuming that any protest means a riot and public slaughter. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so dangerous to our democracy. Because if any speech which attracts protest is banned, then we simply can't publicly discuss controversial (or, given trolls, even uncontroversial) topics. Or basicly anything at all.

I don't like Don Brash, but our democracy deserves better than this, especially from our universities. Brash should be allowed to speak, and those who don't like him should be allowed to express their views. Absent a specific, credible threat of serious violence, there's no justification to do anything else.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons

A "free speech coalition" is planning a judicial review of Auckland mayor Phil Goff's decision to ban a pair of visiting Nazis from speaking in a council venue. A judicial review is welcome: I think Goff has behaved illegally, and should be forced to obey the law. At the least, it will clarify the law on freedom of speech in New Zealand in a useful way. At the same time, this "free speech coalition" looks a little odd:

It was being supported by former Labour Party minister Dr Michael Bassett, former National Party and ACT leader Dr Don Brash and business leader and Property Institute chief executive Ashley Church.

Also in favour was Auckland University senior lecturer Dr David Cumin, Canterbury University academic Melissa Derby, lawyer Stephen Franks, AUT professor Paul Moon, broadcaster Lindsay Perigo, writer Rachel Poulain, political commentator Chris Trotter and Taxpayers' Union executive director Jordan Williams.

If you were wanting to run a principled free speech campaign, then simply as a matter of PR, it might be a good idea not to have so many outright racists in it. Or people who have been outright hostile to free speech in the past. And be led by someone who hasn't called for critics of the government to have their arts funding cut. And OTOH, at least this time they're doing the right thing, if almost certainly for the wrong reasons.

Is Key doing a Brash?

John Key's threat to ignore the Waitangi Tribunal over privatisation and water rights now looks to be putting his coalition in danger, with the Maori Party refusing to confirm its support for the government. Meanwhile, Stuff's Tracy Watkins suggests that rather than being a mistake, Key's threats were cynical and deliberate:

In the same way that former prime minister Helen Clark's labelling of foreshore and seabed activists as "haters and wreckers" was deliberate, Mr Key deliberately inflamed the dispute over water rights because the alternative - allowing the perception that water is a Treaty right - risks a backlash from heartland National voters equal to the fury over the foreshore and seabed.

If true, this means we have a Prime Minister willing to deliberately inflame racial tensions for political gain (and to transfer even more wealth to his rich mates). The difference between this and Don Brash's odious racism during his tenure in office? Absolutely none.

National was supposed to have changed. They were supposed to be better than that now. Clearly, they're not.

For cannabis decriminalisation

So, over the weekend, ACT leader Don Brash came out in support of cannabis decriminalisation, saying that chasing cannabis users was a waste of police time (and taxpayer's money). This has of course led to angry denunciations from the rest of his party (whose idea of "freedom" starts and ends with the freedom of the rich not to pay taxes) and the Prime Minister, as well as the usual tepid, non-committal response from Phil Goff. But Brash is right: it is a waste of time and money. Quite apart from the fact that the only people cannabis users are harming are themselves, something which is no-one's business but their own, there's the fact that the police seem to spend more on enforcing these drug laws than the actual harm such enforcement averts. And for what? It doesn't actually reduce drug use; all it does is make money for gangs and distract the police from investigating real crimes.

The Law Commission recognises these facts, which is why they recommended a shift in policy away from jailing drug users and towards warning them and pointing them towards addiction services. That would be a start. But we need to go further. From a liberal perspective, the state has no interest in policing what people stick in their bodies for fun. If it causes public health problems, like alcohol and tobacco, then you treat it as a public health issue, like alcohol and tobacco. But you don't go around banning things just because old farts disapprove.

Portugal switched to this approach a decade ago, and it has been successful. Drug harm - addiction, problematic drug use, and associated diseases like HIV - has declined. The police get to spend their time fighting real crime. We could do a lot worse than follow their example.

Sadly, the chances of that happening are probably zilch. Drug-policy in New Zealand is a fact-free zone, dominated by people like Peter Dunne who are not interested in evidence. He's made up his mind, and he's going to inflict his views on us regardless of the harm they cause. And so we'll continue to waste a hundred million dollars a year and ruin countless lives, until he and his generation retire from Parliament.

Why Brash took over ACT

Why did Don Brash mount a corporate-raider style hostile takeover of ACT rather than found his own party and compete for votes in free-market style? Over on Public Address, Graeme Edgeler has an interesting theory: he did it for the broadcasting funding:

Each election year, the Electoral Commission starts a process by which it divides up a pot of public time (on TVNZ and National Radio) and money ($2.855m ex. GST) that registered political parties contesting the party vote get to spend on TV an radio advertising. It is the only money parties can spend on TV and radio advertising.

[...]

This provides a pretty big incentive for Brash to want to lead ACT rather than to have gone it alone in a new vehicle. Even if he brings in lots of money in donations, unless he's behind the Coalition of New Zealanders, the New Zealand Sovereignty Party, the Pirate Party of New Zealand, or the World Peace Party (the four unregistered parties which did apply), that new party couldn't have advertised on TV or radio. Another bonus, of course, be the level of funding. The Electoral Commission is hearing submissions from the parties today and tomorrow on the proper [sic. Allocation? - I/S] Based on past numbers, I estimate a new party will get $10k, and ACT will be up for $200k-$250k of public money to spend on broadcast advertising.

The irony here ought to be obvious: a paragon of the free market taking over a political party in order to receive a higher state subsidy. But I guess he'd just blame the perverse incentives created by the unfair allocation regime, which seems aimed at protecting and reinforcing the status quo. And he'd be right.

Gone by lunchtime

So, its done - Don Brash has rolled Rodney Hide as ACT leader. The good news is that we'll be rid of Rodney; he'll be gone at the election. The bad news is that we may have to put up with Don Brash instead if he manages to revive ACT's fortunes. The silver lining in that bad news is that the prospect is as discomforting to National as it is to us, not just because he's a toxic threat to their attempts to moderate their brand, but also because his coalition management is likely to be as publicly hamfisted as his two messy coup attempts, with public threats of toy-throwing if he doesn't get his own way, now, on everything. At the least, we can take some pleasure in the discomfort that will cause John Key.

Another decaying corpse

What is it with ACT and the political undead? Last election, they pulled the stake out of Roger Douglas, allowing a whole new generation of New Zealanders to learn what a demented old fool he is. And now, they've attracted the unwelcome attention of former National Party leader (and Hollow Man) Don Brash, who is demanding to be made leader even though he is not even a member of the party. And in typical Brash style, his campaign is based on threats: threats to funding (echoing his 2002 "no Brash, no cash" campaign), and to start a new ultra-right vehicle to contest ACT's tiny share of the vote. To an outsider, it doesn't exactly seem like a way to win friends and influence people. But maybe ACT people like being threatened and parasitized in this manner.

Its also a potential discomfort for National. The prospect of coalition with an even more radical racist Brash-led ACT is unlikely to appeal to the moderate voters National is relying upon for support. And Brash's platform of pushing harder for those policies means (in practice) instability and regular coalition tantrums. While John Key says he is relaxed about working with Brash, I doubt he'll be so relaxed when Brash is threatening to withdraw confidence and supply to extort unpopular policy concessions.

But its not just a short-term problem. ACT is now looking like a party in its death throes, with various loonies fighting over the corpse. The Maori Party is being seriously threatened by Hone Harawira. They've ruled out working with Winston. Which means their list of potential post-election coalition partners is looking very thin indeed. They're betting on majority government, which means not having to worry about any of that, but even on current polling, that's a big gamble. Voters balked at the idea of an unconstrained government in 2002, and I expect a similar reaction this time round. And even if their gamble is successful this time, they'll still be facing that problem in the long term. If ACT goes under, who will National work with in 2014? 2017? The future? Peter Dunne isn't going to be around forever...

"Choice" on retirement

Don Brash has reared his ugly head again, this time suggesting that workers should be given a "choice" over their retirement age, with financial incentives to encourage people to keep working. Brash is quick to say that this isn't an attempt to screw people out of money - the incentive would be "actuarially equivalent to drawing the pension at the age of eligibility". So what's the benefit?

Brash seems here to be labouring under a preconception that being paid superannuation means that people stop working. That's not a legal requirement and while it was once the norm, that is changing. Older people who are still fit seem quite happy to collect their universal pension and work as well. This is effectively what Brash wants them to do, so why offer "choice"?

The only reason is to soften us up for an increase in the retirement age - an increase which would be unfair to Maori and unfair to the poor, who are more likely to die before retirement age. We know Brash doesn't care about those groups - his willingness to use racially divisive politics and his advocacy for the abolition of the minimum wage shows that clearly enough - but the rest of us should. A retirement benefit that is paid only to the rich and lucky is no benefit at all.

How not to catch Australia

The 2025 taskforce has released its first report, and as expected, its the usual NeoLiberal "solution": tax-cuts for the rich, service cuts for the poor, sell off anything that isn't nailed down and use the money to buy a claw-hammer, plus labour-market "flexibility" for lower wages. Apparently these policies - none of which were implemented in Australia - will help us "catch Australia". Hardly. These are the very policies which opened the gap in the first place, and implementing them will make the vast majority of kiwis actively worse off (just as it did in the 90's). But the uber-rich will do very well out of them, and screw everyone else.

To John Key's credit, he has ruled out implementing this insanity. But then he knows that these ideas are pretty much toxic waste as far as the public (particularly those who survived them last time) are concerned. Which means that if he wants to cling to this idea of "catching Australia" within a decade, he's going to have to find some other way to do it.

Don Brash versus the laws of evidence

Poor Don Brash - still whining after all these years about his "stolen" (leaked) emails. And still utterly failing to understand that, unless the leaker comes forward, there is nothing the police can do about it. Why not? Because - contra 24, the police can't just beat answers out of people. Nor can they just kick in doors and search for stolen documents. In order to that, they need a search warrant, and that in turn requires showing a judge they have reasonable grounds to believe that said documents will be in a particular place. Absent something like a witness saying they saw them printing Brash's emails, or emails released to police showing that they had been corresponding with Nicky Hager about dropping off the latest "package", that's just not enough.

What about Hager himself? Brash contrasts the police's handling of Hager with its pursuit of a search warrant against TV3's John Campbell over his interview with the Waiouru medal thief. But while journalists can be ordered to reveal their sources, the threshold is very high, requiring a High Court Judge to balance the public interest in forcible disclosure against the public interest in both the communication of facts by the media and the ability of the media to access sources. That balance isn't clear in the case of Campbell, but it is clear in the case of Hager: I cannot imagine a judge forcing disclosure in a highly political leak case in which there was a high public interest in exposure and the alleged crime is so minor. And neither, I expect, can the police.

This isn't a "conspiracy", it isn't "political bias" - it's the simple laws of evidence. But Brash it seems would rather retreat into paranoia and conspiracy theories than accept that he was betrayed by someone in his own party and that they are (quite sensibly) keeping silent about it.

Learned nothing, forgotten nothing

Former National Party leader Don Brash wishes he'd been more radical and autocratic during his time in Parliament. Which really says all that needs to be said about the man.

The quid pro quo

This morning's Independent Financial Review reports that Don Brash was offered a significant diplomatic post in exchange for going quietly. "Significant" in this case means London or Washington, and Brash reportedly prefers the latter. So if National is elected, we can have Don making more promises to the Americans about how we'll get rid of our anti-nuclear policy. Quite a quid pro quo, neh?

The interesting question here is "who talked"? Did John Key use the same back channels he used to sink Brash to publicise the deal, allowing him to wiggle out of it and avoid the public odium of a transparently political appointment? Or did Brash's habit of bumbling strike again? Either way, now that it's been made public, it should be sunk. Jim Bolger had the foreign policy experience of being Prime Minister to back him up. Jonathan Hunt can at least hold a good party. But Brash was always a lightweight on foreign policy, and all he ever did was stick his foot in his mouth. That's not something we can afford in the case of a top diplomat.

Regrets, he's had a few

Don Brash gave his valedictory speech today, and in it he admitted to a few regrets about his time in Parliament. Sadly, crawling into bed with the Exclusive Brethren or systematically lying to the new Zealand public were not among them. Instead, he's sad that

"I never made it into government. I didn't change a single law."

Brash may regret that, but I for one don't. And I'm very glad to see the back of him. Hopefully with his departure National will finally admit that the New Zealand public do not want to restart the Revolution, and move on from the 90's.

In memorium

In memorium of Don Brash's departure, here's a reminder of what he stood for, from KeepLeft.

No, I won't be missing him at all.

Gone after lunchtime

Radio New Zealand just reported that Don Brash is resigning from Parliament. I guess he realised he was pure political poison in the wake of the publication of Nicky Hager's book, and that the best thing he could do would be go back to the orchard and tend his kiwifruit.

Saying that I am "pleased" would be an understatement. Brash was a corrosive and cancerous influence on New Zealand politics who knowingly and willingly practicised the politics of division, scapegoating New Zealand's most vulnerable in an effort to gain political power. And he was not averse to pandering to the bigot vote (in spite of his supposed liberal principles), or simply making shit up to advance his ambition. His departure will hopefully end some of the viciousness around Parliament, and in the National Party.

As a list MP, Brash will be replaced by Katrina Shanks.

"A tissue of lies"

That's how former National Party leader Don Brash (oh, how I enjoy saying that) describes Nicky Hager's book The Hollow Men. But it seems it better describes Brash's excuses - and specifically his claim that he did not read that email from the Brethren. Quite apart from the obvious unbelievability of this claim - Brash is famous for reading and responding to his emails - there's the inconvenient facts that a) it was forwarded to him by Bryan Sinclair; and b) he responded to Sinclair discussing its contents. But I guess he didn't know what he was talking about, right?

So much for "Honest Don". National, and the country, is well rid of him.

Why we need transparency

News from The Hollow Men continues to trickle out, with the Dominion-Post have a good series on some of the key allegations yesterday, and the Herald publishing a short summary today (Public Address also has a guest column, from Danyl Mclauchlan, who occasionally comments here, assessing the book). Meanwhile, I'd like to focus on one of the more interesting aspects: the role of money in politics.

Chapters 14 and 15 take a long hard look at the way National's 2005 election campaign was funded, uncovering the donors behind National's money laundering trusts, and demonstrating that both Don Brash and party president Judy Kirk lied to the public repeatedly with their claims that they "have no idea where the money comes from". Some parts of this, notably National's skirting of election funding laws and the offer of the Talley brothers to provide $1 million through an anonymous front company to support Brash's election - arrangements that "stink", according to electoral law expert Andrew Geddis - have already received solid coverage. But one aspect has been all but ignored by the media: the practice of people and companies "investing" in a political party so as to profit directly from its policies.

For example, Hager notes that pharmaceutical company Pfizer sponsored a table at a fundraising dinner held by National in June 2005 - in the process giving about $5000 to the party. While this is below the $10,000 declaration limit, and so did not need to be declared to the public, Pfizer was very visible and made damn sure that the senior National Party people at the dinner - including Don Brash, John Key, and Judy Kirk - knew exactly who they were and where the money was coming from. Coincidentally, National had promised a bottom-up review of Pharmac - from which Pfizer stood to profit significantly if it weakened or ended Pharmac's single-buyer power (used to squeeze better deals out of the pharmaceutical industry for the benefit of sick New Zealanders). Equally coincidentally, it has also subsequently opposed measures to limit direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Another table was sponsored by Diane Foreman, on behalf of the Private Hospitals Association, an organisation with the goal of "grow[ing] the private [health] sector to relieve the public sector" - in other words, shuffling patients into private hospitals rather than public ones. Coincidentally again, this is National Party policy, and equally coincidentally, Foreman and her associates would make hundreds of millions of dollars from such a shift.

The most egregious example however is that of the Insurance Council, who reportedly promised National a million dollars because it would privatise ACC - resulting again in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to its members. They then colluded with the party to ensure that the "details" (such as the core idea) of the policy were kept from the public - a textbook example of Brash's "moral obligation to lie" in action. When the policy was leaked, they then worked hand-in-glove with National on the media response.

All of this was of course kept secret from the New Zealand public - and you can see why. It looks pretty suspicious, doesn't it? In fact, if it happened in a poor third-world country, we wouldn't hesitate to call it by its true name: corruption. One hand is clearly washing the other.

As Hager notes,

When National MPs oppose measures to control smoking or gambling, or to allow greater subsidies for or advertising of pharmaceuticals, the public has every right to know whether those interests have been giving the party money.

Unfortunately, thanks to National's laundering of its donations, the public doesn't know, and so cannot judge whether such arrangements are acceptable. Which is precisely the point - National knows that what it is doing is dodgy, and so they hide it.

This is why we need electoral transparency and an end to money laundering and anonymous donations: so the voters can decide for themselves, and hold parties to account at the ballot box. And that fear of accountability is precisely why National opposes such moves.