Health – Lone Wolf Films

November 16, 2018

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: The Media’s fraught role in the Jami-Lee Ross scandal

The media has played a central role in this year’s huge scandal involving MP Jami-Lee Ross. Journalists, broadcasters, and political commentators have reported on the scandal – including choosing to withhold some information – and interpreted it all. Inevitably questions have been asked about how well the media have performed, and the decisions they have made.

I raised some of these issues in my column yesterday, Lifting the bedsheets on MPs’ private lives. Further questions include how much the media have influenced the scandal themselves, in terms of what they’ve decided to report and not report, and the role some in the media have played in their interactions with the political players.

What to report and what to leave hidden?

Former National Party MP, and current independent Member of Parliament, Jami-Lee Ross.

The media face plenty of tough decisions about what to report in politics, especially in incredibly fraught cases such as the Jami-Lee Ross scandal. One of the biggest issues the media have been grappling with is whether to name the National MP who was reported to be in a three-year relationship with Ross, and who anonymously made allegations about his behaviour in Melanie Reid and Cass Mason’s report, Jami-Lee Ross: Four women speak out. The same National MP was also reported to have sent Ross the infamous abusive text message in which she told him, “You deserve to die.”

Journalists and newsrooms around the country continue to debate whether the National MP should continue to have her name kept from the public. Veteran political journalist, Richard Harman raised this on the Kiwi Journalists Association Facebook page: “Like most political journalists, I believe I know who that MP is… The inexorable pressure is now moving towards naming the MP. It’s a very difficult ethical issue. I certainly have emails from people on the left making the same allegation as Whaleoil — that the Press Gallery is party to a cover-up. But equally at what point does this simply become prurient gossip?”

What follows is a fascinating debate amongst journalists, with varying views. Journalist, Graham Adams argues in favour of disclosure and is worth quoting at length: “My view is that she should be named (and I think most of the media are waiting for someone else to do it first!). Until she is named, it casts suspicion on other female MPs who are not involved, which is unfair. Also, the female MP whose name has been frequently mentioned on social media represents a conservative electorate, is socially conservative herself and has promoted family values from her first days in Parliament. I think the public should always been told when an MP’s publicly professed values are at sharp variance to their own private behaviour. That is an obligation the media should fulfil. Furthermore, she has no right to privacy when she has anonymously and publicly shamed Jami-Lee Ross in the Newsroom piece by Melanie Reid. She’s an MP and a highly educated professional whose actions should be held to account. If she had any courage, she would come clean herself.”

Adams then wrote in more detail about the whole issue, suggesting the media, and parliamentary press gallery in particular, can be accused of a “cover-up” by not reporting on the anonymous National MP – see: The Jami-Lee Ross saga: Questions around cover-ups continue.

He also raises the issue of whether the media is being inconsistent, and is going easy on the National MP because she is powerful. The comparison is made with the media choosing in 2013 to publish the identity of the woman who had an affair with then then mayor of Auckland, Len Brown: “The fact that five years later the media is so coy about naming a married National MP who anonymously gave Newsroom highly personal details about her relationship with another married National MP inevitably raises uncomfortable questions — including whether there is one rule for Parliament which has a dedicated press gallery that operates in a symbiotic relationship with politicians and another for councils which don’t. A casual observer might conclude that when you’re a woman like Chuang who is an ambitious nobody you’re fair game but when you’re a woman like the National MP who is an ambitious somebody the media will protect you.”

The Southland Times also favours disclosure of the woman’s name. In the editorial, ‘Moving on’ is not acceptable, the newspaper argues that the MP is a “hypocrite” for not abiding by National’s core value of “Personal Responsibility”. The paper raises whether the women’s abusive text to Ross “could be a breach of the Harmful Digital Communication Act”, and whether she therefore can “really stay in her role as an MP”. The newspaper elaborates on this issue in second editorial, Another issue arises from the Ross case.

The Listener’s Jane Clifton discusses how gender issues also come into the debate: “Until now, the line in the sand has been the hypocrisy test. Outside the old News of the World wilds, the journalistic orthodoxy has always been that such personal indiscretions as boozing or illicit affairs go unreported unless the public figure concerned is guilty of obvious double-standards. #MeToo shifted the public interest sand line to: was there an imbalance of power, and/or abuse?” – see: Why you should never say ‘now I’ve seen everything’ in politics.

On Facebook Graham Adams takes the view that it’s actually her gender that is protecting her from being outed: “I imagine that if gender roles had been reversed and a man had sent a similar text to the female MP that included personal abuse (including calling her fat and sweaty) and telling her that she ‘deserved to die’, he would have been outed just as soon as his identity had been established. Not many journalists would have hesitated. And he would have been widely and viciously pilloried for it. The MP has successfully cast herself as a victim despite her rank in society as an MP and a successful professional, which is presumably why journalists are hesitant to name her.”

The Press Gallery’s role in the Jami-Lee Ross scandal

As the above debate shows, some are questions about the role of the Press Gallery journalists in how the whole scandal has been covered, and what that says about their proximately to those in power. Certainly, there has always been a complex and symbiotic relationship between journalists and politicians – they rely on each other for the communication of politics to the public. Journalists need MPs to provide them with content for stories, and MPs need the media to distribute their news and views.

But does that mean journalists end up being compromised or complicit in the political agendas of the various political actors? Chris Trotter definitely thinks so – see his Otago Daily Times column Too close for comfort. Here’s Trotter’s main question: “What is the electorate supposed to do if those entrusted with reporting the actions of the principal political players, themselves become important actors in the drama?”

RNZ’s Jo Moir, has been very frank about her use of politician sources, when reflecting on her major scoop in the Jami-Lee Ross scandal, when she published the details of the anonymous texts that were sent to Simon Bridges and Speaker Trevor Mallard, asking for the leak inquiry to be called off. Moir discusses this in the RNZ Focus on Politics programme for 24 August – listen here: Focus on Politics for 24 August 2018.

Moir explains: “Sources are a journalist’s lifeline. And I would probably say even more so when it comes to Parliament and the Press Gallery. I mean every great story that comes out of this place is usually from some sort of a relationship between a Press Gallery reporter and a politician. The amount of information that you get “off the record” in this environment is huge. And that is all based on trust. So, the reality is that journalists go to the grave with that information. And you are just never going to make it in the game really if you don’t.”

Of course, Moir then unintentionally became part of Ross’ downfall, as the National Party’s PWC investigation report focused on the phone calls and texts that Ross had made to Moir in concluding that he was the likely leaker of Bridges’ travel expenditure details. In response to this allegation, Ross tweeted that his communications with Moir were because she was a “friend”.

Some have suggested journalists have relationships with MPs that go further than friendship. As Stuff political editor Tracy Watkins has said, the revelations about Ross’ sexual relationships “sent shock waves through Parliament. Labour MPs were just as rocked as their National counterparts. There was a feeling that a line in New Zealand politics had finally been crossed. And a fear that there may be no going back. Parliament is never short of gossip about affairs between MPs, between MPs and their staffers – and, yes, journalists as well” – see: The Jami-Lee Ross saga – dirty, ugly, nasty politics with no end in sight.

This raises the question of whether political journalists choose not to report on certain issues in order to protect their own privacy, or that of their colleagues. Ross, himself, has hinted at this in some of his statements.

Blogger Pete George thinks relationships need to be disclosed: “I think that the media should name the MP who is at the centre of this issue, but if they do they should also look at the wider issue of relationships and sex among MPs, journalists and staff. Journalists should disclose personal relationships if it relates to politicians they are reporting on and giving their opinions on. There are issues with journalists straying more and more into political activist roles, so the public has a right to know who may be influencing their opinions and their choice of stories and headlines…When they don’t want to go near the sex and relationship thing it suggests they could have secrets of their own they don’t want disclosed. This is not a good situation for the supposedly without favour fearless fourth estate to be in.”

The media’s fraught use of anonymous sources

The media quite rightly relies on anonymous sources to carry out its investigations into issues that are in the public interest. Leaks are made to journalists, and “off the record” briefings are important in establishing important stories about politics and power. A number of the stories published about the Jami-Lee Ross scandal have relied on secret sources. Most notable, were Melanie Reid’s Newsroom story with the allegations about Ross’ treatment of women, and the RNZ Checkpoint broadcast of details about the abusive text sent to him by the National MP he allegedly had an affair with.

The use of such sources has helped the public understand what’s been going on behind the scenes. But that doesn’t mean that it is without ethical problems and questions. One of the journalists with the most experience of this, and who has deeply considered the ethics, is Nicky Hager – see his useful piece: Dirty Politics, 2018.

Hager sees some parallels with the journalistic practices he covered in his 2014 book, where the media ends up running the agendas of political actors: “This is reminiscent of the way that Cameron Slater used to hand out scoops attacking opposition politicians to willing journalists (the scoops often having been quietly prepared in John Key’s office).”

But he warns against the media doing the bidding of various political players: “I believe media should not take politically motivated attacks (Slater called them ‘hits’) from political people and allow their identities and motives to remain hidden from the public. Otherwise the journalists are just being used.”

Ironically, perhaps, Cameron Slater has some similar views in terms of the various items published about the Ross scandal. He argues that senior National Party figures were involved in providing the material to the media that exposed allegations about Ross. Slater has three lengthy blog posts that go into detail about what he sees as the evidence that National orchestrated the leaks about their errant MP – see: Another hit job from David Fisher which I must correct and tell the truth that the National party fails to, Did Michelle Boag just tell a porkie on national television? and Farrar follows my lead and calls for a truce, pity is the party appears to want to destroy itself.

Of course, he’s not the only one who thinks that National had its fingerprints on the “hitjob” against Ross. Heather du Plessis-Allan explained the Newsroom story like this: “The party is in full attack-Jami-Lee mode. Why do you think at least four women have suddenly come forward accusing Ross of everything from bullying to ‘brutal sex’?”

Finally, for one of the best investigations into the media and political machinations behind the Jami-Lee Ross scandal, see Selwyn Manning’s article, National Affairs and the Public Interest.

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

November 15, 2018

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Have the rules of the game changed in media and politics?

Is it really time to “move on” from the Jami-Lee Ross mega-scandal? Certainly, that’s what National leader Simon Bridges has been saying over the last week. There are others outside of the National Party who also have an interest in “moving on”.

Some in the media have been sympathetic to Bridges’ plea to stop focusing on the saga. Last week The Press newspaper published an editorial expressing horror at how the scandal had consumed us all: “this is cheap entertainment, delivered in bite-sized, episodic morsels. But now we are potentially actors, not just observers, in a slow-motion train wreck” – see: Turn away from the train wreck.

The newspaper suggests the scandal has become a tragedy, and Bridges’ call should be heeded, for the good of everyone: “it may be good advice for the rest of us to consider. How far down do we want to go in following one man’s descent? Ross and whoever is behind him have had the stage, they’ve had their 15 minutes of infamy. Now it’s exit stage right. And not just for Ross’ sake.”

This is not a view shared by all media. The Southland Times proclaimed bluntly in the weekend that ‘Moving on’ is not acceptable.

The hard-hitting editorial states: “There’s nothing worse than politicians who are hypocrites, and right now the National Party falls right into that category. If you ever wanted to read about a cop-out, here’s a cracker one for you. The National Party, it seems, is ‘moving on’. Well, surely the public deserves more than the glib response that came from its chief press secretary on Friday.”

Stuff journalist Martin van Beynen raises concerns that both journalists and the public likely have about how the media should continue to cover the story, asking: How do we handle a mentally unwell MP?

Here’s his main point: “Journalists are now in an invidious position. Let’s assume Ross, looking poised and comfortable, calls a press conference to announce more revelations about his former friends in the National Party. Do we ignore him because of his underlying illness and advise him to seek help or do we treat him as a flawed individual, assume his mental illness in under control, and report what he has to say, based on its merits? According to some of the pundits, journalists apparently have to be politically correct social workers as well as reporting events and their background.”

What should journalists and politicians leave out of the public sphere?

We have learnt a lot more about politics and politicians from the scandal. And now there is the question about whether we have learnt too much. This is something politicians and journalists have always had to grapple with – having to decide what to make public, and what to leave hidden.

Early on in the scandal, Danyl Mclauchlan wrote an excellent summary and discussion of what the whole episode meant, in which he pushed the point that it was very significant, because “So much of what happens in politics never makes it into the media” – see: The uniquely damaging betrayals of Jami-Lee Ross.

Many people argue, Mclauchlan says, that “Politics should be about policy and values”, when in fact “for professional politicians ‘values’ are mostly just a form of marketing”. Therefore a focus on policy and values can just be a disingenuous way of avoiding the reality of what politics is really about. That’s why the particulars of this scandal are important: “We’re learning a lot about some of the people who run our country, or who aspire to, because we’re – briefly – seeing them as they really are, not as they want to be seen.”

I also discussed some of this in an opinion piece, explaining how politicians generally have an informal pact of silence, which journalists also abide by, when it comes to certain topics – especially the “no go zones” of allegations of sexual improprieties and political finance corruption – but on occasions such as this there is a breakdown of those norms and conventions – see: The dangerously escalating political scandal wars between Simon Bridges and Jami-Lee Ross.

It can be both democratically useful and dangerous when these conventions breakdown, allowing the public to see much more of what goes on behind the scenes, including in politicians’ private lives. This was discussed further by RNZ’s Jeremy Rose, who suggested that if such a code of silence does exist, “then there is a real crisis of democracy” – see: Politics, sex and the media.

Is the delineation between the public and private lives of politicians breaking down?

The above article also quotes me from an appearance on TVNZ’s Q+A, about the media’s traditional boundaries between public and private lives: “We used to have a very strong delineation between reporting on politics and personal lives of politicians. The media did not go there, the politicians didn’t go there. They didn’t really used to bring up what’s going on beneath the bed sheets but of course now that Jami-Lee Ross has been in this situation, they sort of have to in a sense.”

In response, Rose asks: “So are we seeing an erosion of that convention?” And he points to various examples from his own employer as evidence that perhaps this is the case: “on Wednesday RNZ Morning Report presenter Susie Ferguson ended her interview with National Party leader Simon Bridges with this question: ‘Have you done anything that wouldn’t pass Paula Bennett’s test of ‘behaviour acceptable of a married MP?’ Simon Bridges’ replied ‘No’. And the interview ended. It was an unfair question.”

Also at RNZ, Colin Peacock continues to ask questions about how much journalists should be reporting on the details of the scandal – see: Meltdowns, blow-ups and blowback as MP goes rogue, in which he argues newsrooms will have to work out what is in the public interest as the scandal continues.

Peacock’s audio Mediawatch item from Sunday, JLR’s greatest hits keep coming, deals further with different opinions on what should be covered.

It includes a vivid statement from Newshub’s Duncan Garner who argues that both Ross and Bridges deserved scrutiny from the media and public: “It’s unbecoming, isn’t it, of the national’s representatives? And both men look simply ridiculous. But that’s what happens with the dance of the desperates turns to rolling around in the mud – fighting for their careers in the gutter, where the truth struggles to exist… I’ve never seen so much dirty, filthy laundry, and tawdry secrets dragged into the public arena before. This is most certainly unprecedented. It’s not some unseemly struggle over the direction of the party or the policies, it’s about twisted ambition, promises, dirty digging, and careers going nowhere fast.”

Allegations by and about Jami-Lee Ross have changed the game

Certainly, Jami-Lee Ross believes that conventions over keeping private lives out of politics and the media have been destroyed. After the Newsroom story was published with allegations from four women about their experiences with Ross, he hit back, saying: “A scab has been picked on the parliamentary personal issues. It has long been a case where personal matters are kept private, but the rules of the game have changed” – see: National MP Jami-Lee Ross admits to affairs with two women, vows to stay in Parliament.

Furthermore, he said: “There’s a lot of bed-hopping that goes on down in that Parliament. There’s a lot of behaviour that a lot of people would want kept secret and has been kept secret until now. But the way in which we now play politics is that we lift the bed-sheets.”

In an interview with the Herald’s Kirsty Johnston, Ross warned that, with the breakdown of conventions, more would now come out: “Half the Beehive were having inappropriate relationships, he said, but until now, that aspect of political life had been off limits… But those rules have changed in Parliament now. Things that were previously never discussed are now being discussed” – see: Volatile but not abusive: National MP Jami-Lee Ross speaks out about affair with fellow MP.

The charge of hypocrisy is now clearly one that Ross feels entitled to use in outing other MPs: “If the standard is that behaviour is no longer such that someone could continue as an MP then I’d suggest … that one out of three maybe one out of two MPs would have to question their behaviour as well.”

Stuff political editor Tracy Watkins also argues that an important line in politics and media has been crossed, and a return might now be impossible: “The bombshell Newsroom story that two women alleged they’d had had toxic sexual relationships with Ross pushed the nuclear button on their release. Ross accuses National of feeding Newsroom the story, alleging that one of the sources was an MP and two of them work for the party. The story certainly sent shock waves through Parliament. Labour MPs were just as rocked as their National counterparts. There was a feeling that a line in New Zealand politics had finally been crossed. And a fear that there may be no going back. Parliament is never short of gossip about affairs between MPs, between MPs and their staffers – and, yes, journalists as well. The parties all have dirt files. But they rarely use it. It’s called the nuclear option for a reason. All that has changed” – see: The Jami-Lee Ross saga – dirty, ugly, nasty politics with no end in sight.

Undoubtedly there will be many who see this breakdown of convention as a welcome development. For example, conservative blogger Ewen McQueen says: “MPs and journalists alike much prefer the code of silence that keeps the rest of us in the dark. We are told the reason for the secrecy is to protect MPs’ families. It is a reason that appears noble but which is merely self-serving” – see: Time to break Wellington’s code of silence.

So, are the media playing the role of “morality police” when they don’t report on the behaviour of politicians? McQueen seems to think so, arguing the public should be the judge: “The code of silence also insults the public of New Zealand who have a right to know the true character of the people they are being asked to vote for… The Wellington establishment arrogantly assumes we have no need to know and such matters are not relevant to public life. This is a lie.”

Finally, for the best discussion on questions of the delineation between public and private lives of politicians, see Tim Watkin’s blog post, Don’t give me culture – the question of character. He argues that the Jami-Lee Ross controversies raise the question, “how much does character and integrity matter?” Watkin suggests “Maybe we just want the right to know what our leaders are really like and for it to be up to us whether or not we want to vote for them – flaws and all.”

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

November 5, 2018

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Fixing New Zealand’s rotten dental healthcare

Yesterday at their annual conference in Dunedin, the Labour Party adopted a new policy of introducing universal free dental care. This is a big deal. If the Government actually follow through on this decision, it will make a huge difference to New Zealanders’ lives. And it’s a policy thats time has come.

I made the argument for this a few months ago, saying that the insistence of governments on keeping dental healthcare largely out of New Zealand’s health system has “been disastrous – especially for the poor” – see my Newsroom column, Time to campaign for free universal public dental care.

In this, I explain how the New Zealand public health system came to largely exclude dental healthcare, and why it has been a problem. We have ended up with a system in which we get free and subsidised hospital and doctors’ visits, and those under the age of 18 get some free dental care but otherwise, New Zealand has a private healthcare system for an important part of our health.

It also highlights that “Over the last year there has been an explosion of calls for a better dental deal for the public. This goes hand in hand with an increasing political radicalism that has seen a surge in concerns about inequality, poverty and the provision of welfare.”

Last week TVNZ’s Sunday programme broadcast a very good 13-minute report on a situation that “leaves thousands of Kiwis suffering every day with untreated dental decay” – see: Pulling teeth. In this report Matt Chisholm “meets a 26-year old Mum who needs 13 teeth pulled out and asks why with a publicly-funded health system do our teeth not count as important? What needs to change?”

Following up on this on Monday, TVNZ’s Breakfast programme interviewed dentist Scott Waghorn about the issues, and how the Government might help reduce prices – see the four-minute item: Dentists hoping subsidies could help reduce high costs, get more Kiwis. And for a news report on this, see 1News’ NZ dentists hopeful subsidies could help get more Kiwis looking after their mouths.

Pressure is building for universal free dental healthcare

The problems with our dental system haven’t really featured prominently in political debate in New Zealand – at least until recently. The politician most responsible for politicising it was Jim Anderton, who campaigned for many years to make dental care entirely free. And when he died in January of this year, his son made a plea to this Government to make it a reality, saying “help us guide Jacinda and her Labour-led government towards completing one of his unfinished projects, free dental care” – see Anna Whyte’s article from early this year: The cost of dental care in New Zealand: Jim Anderton’s ‘unfinished project’.

The same article quotes former Prime Minister Helen Clark voicing her worry over the affordability of dental care. And she has now taken up Anderton’s call for universal free dental care. She tweeted earlier this year to Jacinda Ardern, Winston Peters and Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni to say: “Time for a major government initiative on the right to dental care. NZ makes hospital care free – why not a right to dental care?”

Many dental professionals are joining in on this call. The University of Otago’s Jonathan Broadbent of the Faculty of Dentistry is quoted in the above article saying, “I believe that dentistry is a case study of what happens when we commercialise healthcare. Dental problems cause pain, embarrassment, worry just like any other heath problem, yet we set dentistry apart from other health problems”.

The views and research of Broadbent are also reported, along with colleague Murray Thomson, in a must-read article from May of this year by the ODT’s Bruce Munro, which reports that in New Zealand “by the age of 38, people born into disadvantaged families have lost six times as many teeth as those born into well-off families” – see: Dental care bites wallets: Kiwis leaving teeth to rot.

Dental researcher Murray Thomson is also quoted saying “The state of dental health in New Zealand can be likened to the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot of water… We maybe haven’t realised how bad it is… We’ve got used to the fact that people are missing out.”

And an Otago dentist is also reported as saying: “Of course it’s time to publicly fund it… Ask any good New Zealand dentist and they want it funded. I want it funded… The current system is not working.”

Other health professionals are starting to speak out. In August, Max Abbott, Pro Vice-Chancellor at AUT, pointed out the disproportionate effect of the current private system: “The New Zealand Health Survey shows that only a third of adults in the most deprived areas consulted a dental health professional during the past 12 months. In contrast, most adults in the least deprived areas did so” – see: New Zealand’s unmet oral health needs are ‘deplorable’.

There are some charity solutions responding to the problem. For example, the Southern Cross Health Trust has partnered with dental charity Revive a Smile, which has been “providing free treatment, check-ups and products for at-risk or low-income groups” since 2012 – see Ruby Nyika’s Poverty causing ‘third world’ dental problems, Hamilton dentist says.

However, organiser Assil Russell believes the problem is too big for charity, and she is campaigning for a dentistry subsidy to be established for those unable to afford dental care. She says “Dentistry has become for the rich”. Her petition, which will soon be presented to Parliament currently has 6,800 signatures. To sign it, go here: To: House of Representatives: Introduce universal free dental care.

For more arguments in favour of this, as well as some examples of the current problems and some history of the dental healthcare system, see Tom O’Connor’s Dental subsidy worth chewing over. He concludes, “The only humane solution is to include dentistry in the national health system, even if only for those with a Community Services Card initially.”

The dental system also isn’t working for young New Zealanders

If is often assumed that the dental healthcare system for those under the age of 18 means that at least all New Zealanders start life with good teeth. But sadly, this doesn’t appear to be the case anymore.

The reality is that the school dental system is badly underfunded, which is contributing to a disaster for young people’s teeth. This meant that last year a lack of dental care led to “7000 children required hospital dental treatment under general anaesthetic” – see RNZ’s Oral health services ‘failing children’. In this, the president of the New Zealand Dental Association, Bill O’Connor explains the severity of the situation and says “if the government increased funding for the dental service it would improve.”

Dentists are calling for a review of the whole system of dental services for children. O’Connor was also reported at the recent annual conference of dentists saying that “it was time the government got serious on ‘this appalling situation’, and called on the health minister to make it a priority” – see Hannah Martin’s ‘The rot needs to stop’: school dental services failing New Zealand children. But according to the Minister of Health, David Clark, such a review would not “appropriate” at this time.

Following this, columnist Dave Armstrong points out that “Kids in high-decile schools can wait up to 18 months for treatment” and has a suggestion: “Wouldn’t it be great if we had a major government programme – which included dentists, schools and DHBs – that declared war on child tooth decay?” – see: If dental professionals, hardly fringe radicals, are calling for a tax on sugar we should at least listen.

Pressure on Labour to deliver

Many sufferers of dental problems might now be celebrating that the Labour Party has committed this weekend to introducing some sort of universal free dental healthcare. But there will be a lot of resistance within the Government, mainly because of the high cost of such a programme, especially given Labour has other spending priorities and the Minister of Finance is determined to keep spending down and pay off more debt.

Pressure will have to be kept on the Labour-led Government and Health Minister David Clark if the policy is to be actually implemented, and not watered-down. As TVNZ’s Sunday programme discovered, the Minister of Health is avoiding answering any questions about this, and is reluctant to commit to doing anything.

In the past, Clark has also been ambivalent about how much he’s willing to prioritise dental health care reform, saying that more needs to be spent on this, but “We have laid out $8 billion in [health] funding and we have pretty much spent it in the promises we have made” – see Rachel Thomas’ David Clark is a fan of free dental care, but says $8b health budget is ‘pretty much spent’.

Finally, for the best political analysis of this situation, it’s well worth reading a column by Emma Espiner, who says “There seems to be a lack of understanding of the seriousness of poor dental health, and the importance of prevention, both by individuals and a parliament which has yet to do anything meaningful to address the longstanding failure of our dental health system to cater for all New Zealanders” – see: NZ dental care: the rotten truth. She says “there seems to be little appetite for structural change from the government benches, with the Minister of Health telling Stuff late last year that he agrees with Helen Clark in principle but the health budget has effectively already been spent. Frankly, that’s not good enough. Dental treatment in New Zealand is a national shame.”

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

October 25, 2018

Evening Report Analysis – National Affairs and the Public Interest

Evening Report Analysis – National Affairs and the Public Interest, by Selwyn Manning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Opposition’s Role As The Public’s Advocate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former prime minister and then National Party leader, Bill English with current deputy leader of the National Party, Paula Bennett. Image courtesy of Wikimedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The future of National’s leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Evening Report invites any individual connected to this analysis to have a right of reply.

Footnote: Interview between the author and Jami-Lee Ross on his role as a new National Party MP (August 13 2012):

[embedded content]

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

October 7, 2018

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: An Embarrassing week for National

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: An Embarrassing week for National

Published 5 October

“Embarrassing” is the word of the week for the National Party. Leader Simon Bridges applied the term in various ways to MP Jami-Lee Ross, when explaining that Ross’ personal circumstances required his temporary departure from Parliament.

Bridges described Ross’ personal situation as “perhaps actually embarrassing. A lot embarrassing, potentially”.

It was then Bridge’s turn to be embarrassed when the focus quickly shifted to why Bridges insisted on using that term, before later retracting it. Some saw it as a sign of incompetence and a lack of empathy for the beleaguered Ross, and others saw it as a sign that Bridges was somehow signalling that the departing MP is in fact connected with the leak inquiry, or is suffering from mental health issues.

As most commentators have said, the timing of Ross’ departure and the leak inquiry is either unfortunate or very telling. It’s natural that speculation has fallen on Ross as being the leaker within National who was trying to undermine his leader. And Audrey Young reported that “Jami-Lee Ross is among a handful of National MPs who have been quietly suspected as a potential leaker among colleagues for some time”, and therefore “the timing of his time-out from politics is cruel. Because if he is not the leaker, many people are left wondering whether he is” – see: Timing of Jami-Lee Ross’ departure from Parliament raises questions.

Bridges had no choice, according to Young, but to announce in his press conference that Ross’ departure is unrelated to the inquiry, regardless of whether he is under suspicion. But she points out that if it turns out Ross is eventually announced as being involved in the leak, then “he would be in the best place to endure the fallout – away from potentially unforgiving colleagues and the limelight.”

It seems possible, therefore, that Bridges’ repeated use of the term “embarrassing” about Ross was consciously or unconsciously designed to intimate that, although Bridges was formally saying that his departure was unrelated, it was in fact highly-related.

There has been a backlash against Bridges for his use of the word “embarrassing”. According to Newshub’s Duncan Garner, Jami-Lee Ross was also very unhappy about it. Garner says: “A senior source inside the National Party got hold of me yesterday to say Jami-Lee Ross, who stood down for personal reasons, is ‘highly pissed off’ with Bridges for saying the matter was embarrassing” – see: Jami-Lee Ross ‘pissed off’ with Simon Bridges’ ’embarrassing’ comment – source.

According to Garner, “The source went on to say what is embarrassing is National’s internal polling which has Bridges’ internal favourability collapsing”.

The National leader has now expressed regret, telling reporters: “I regret it, I think it was a poor choice of words” – see Newshub’s Simon Bridges speaks to media on Jami-Lee Ross, regrets calling MP’s issues ’embarrassing’. The same article also reports that “The investigation commissioned from PwC by National, is expected to report back in as little as a week. Bridges said today he expected it would be made public.”

Garner refers to a lengthy phone conversation with the National leader about the use of term “embarrassing” and whether there was a connection between the leaks and Ross: “Bridges got stern during the chat when he said Ross isn’t the leaker of his travel expenses and this is not some kind of manufactured cover up in advance of the investigation… He almost pleaded with me to believe that” – see: Simon Bridges’ ’embarrassing’ comment breached Jami-Lee Ross’ privacy – Garner.

There were other bizarre things said by Bridges at his press conference, such as: “You think you know your colleagues very well, but you don’t always know everything that’s going on”. Mike Hosking responds to this statement about Ross, saying: “What do we take out of that? We take out of that, he’s done something wrong”, and therefore Bridges “made matters a hundred times worse” – see: Bumbling Simon Bridges has made Jami-Lee Ross saga so much worse.

Hosking also speculates on Ross’ own statement about his need to put family and kids first: “which is [normally] code mainly for an indiscretion, or as the British so eloquently put it, you’ve been playing away.”

Bridges “looked spooked, rattled, and ill-prepared. Hence his bumbling performance” says Hosking. But perhaps that was simply because the situation is incredibly untidy: “So none of the speculation is surprising, and the pressure is now on National to make this look a lot tidier than it appears. Unless, of course, it can’t be tidied. Unless, of course, we have our leaker.” And he says that Bridges response to journalist’s questions about Ross’ innocence was “Not at all convincing.”

Veteran political commentator Richard Harman has thrown more petrol onto the fire, reporting further details. He conveys rumours that “Ross was being advised by National Party board member, Glenda Hughes”, who has previously helped other beleaguered MPs such as Todd Barclay – see: The Jami Less Ross affair.

Harman also puts a lot of attention on the claims of Winston Peters to know who the leaker is. The statement of Peters in Parliament a couple of weeks ago is reported: “Peters continued: ‘There are members over there that should be very nervous’. Peters was standing in his usual position, two seats below Ross but on the other side of the House. He then said “I won’t look at them” and then he turned to face where Ross had been sitting. He then said: “Or look where they should be, because if I do, then the suspicion will be cast on them without us getting the reward for disclosure.”

Harman draws attention to a blog post from Cameron Slater, which also deals with Peters and the leak in more detail – see: Winston to Bridges: “…reveal to the public who the leaker is, or I will”. Slater concludes: “I believe that Winston Peters does know who the leaker is. It is pretty much an open secret now among National people. I understand that the leaker has admitted as such to some Young Nationals in Auckland. I also know now who it is, and that is from many sources, all saying the same name. The clock is ticking. Observant and well informed journalists will also know as the leaker is now being shunned by caucus.”

All of this has turned into something of a disaster for Simon Bridges this week. Newspaper editorials have been scathing. The New Zealand Herald says about the inquiry: “This can not end well for National” – see: Simon Bridges’ stellar rise has struck bumbling block.

The editorial notes that “Ross, in his own public comments, implied his problems might not be confined to health.” But it’s Bridges who gets the worst evaluation: “The way an Opposition leader handles problems in his or her party provides an insight to their credentials for a more important job. So far, Bridges is not passing the test” – see: Simon Bridges’ stellar rise has struck bumbling block.

The Press also draws attention to Paula Bennett’s description of Ross’ personal situation as “traumatic”, which it says “again could increase public speculation and curiosity” – see: How to turn an opportunity into a disaster.

The newspaper complains that Bridges hasn’t dealt with Ross’ departure with “maturity and discretion” and expresses surprise that he used the word “embarrassing” about his MP “not once, not twice, but three times.” It concludes that Bridges “looks like a man who knows his days as leader are numbered.”

Leftwing political commentator Chris Trotter also sees the end in sight for Bridges, telling Duncan Garner yesterday that “When you see politicians gripped by this kind of paranoia, you know that things are very bad inside their party because why else would they be looking over their shoulder all the time?” – see: ‘Smell of death’ following Simon Bridges – Chris Trotter.

Trotter elaborates: “National is entering that terrible deadzone where all eyes are only on the leader – not on policy, not on the party, the deadzone that Labour lived in for nine long years.” The article also reports that Trotter believes “Bridges’ days could be numbered, with hints of a plot to roll him forming”.

The political editor of Stuff has some similar analysis: “Bridges’ pursuit of National’s travel expenses leaker is shaping up as one of those pivotal moments by which his leadership will be defined. If there were seeds of doubt in Bridges judgement before among his MPs, they must have blossomed into full grown dismay that Bridges’ decision to order an inquiry keeps blowing up in his face” – see Tracy Watkins’ Simon Bridges’ judgment call coming back to haunt him.

Finally, for some light relief from the National Party leader, watch the three-minute video of him doing comedy, which aired last night on the Jono and Ben show – see: Simon Bridges pranks customers at supermarket checkout.

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

September 13, 2018

Raglan Community Radio Interview – Pharmac Drug Change Causes Mental Health Problems

Interview by Raglan Community Radio

This morning we talk to Lisa Williams from Pharmac about a change to a generic antidepressant that is causing serious physical and mental health problems for some of the people who have made the change.

Click here for a link to this: Raglan Community Radio interview.

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

September 11, 2018

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Sympathy for Clare Curran

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Sympathy for Clare Curran

It is very hard not to feel sympathy for Clare Curran. The minister was obviously not coping with her job, and scrutiny from the National Party opposition and the media. She was clear about that herself in her statement, saying she found it an “intolerable” situation, and pleaded to be understood as a “human being”.

This has raised questions in recent days about whether Curran really deserved the treatment she was receiving, and the manner of her downfall. Some have seen it as a “media beat-up” or a “National Party lynching”.

Labour MP, and former Government cabinet minister, Clare Curran.

Many of her supporters, especially on social media, have painted a picture of the former minister as a victim of an unnecessarily brutal and dehumanising political culture. Some have questioned whether her downfall was even warranted, suggesting it was simply a result of bullies in Parliament and the media wanting to claim a “scalp”. Others feel the heat on Curran was over the top.

Such reactions are fair enough, and it’s always good to reflect on whether politics and the media are becoming too harsh at the expense of everyone’s humanity. However, the problem is that the people asserting the cries of “injustice” are invariably partisans of the politician in question, and their arguments often appear as just another form of opportunistically appealing to some sort of higher principle in order to defend their own team. Very seldom do those crying “unfair” seem to ask themselves whether they have behaved in the same way, or how they would react if the shoe was on the other foot and the other political side was under pressure.

For a good example of sympathy for Clare Curran over the whole scandal, you can read Frank Macskasy’s blog post, Kicking a person when they are down is never a good thing. He argues that National’s pursuit of Curran was akin to amoral hungry animals killing their prey: “Sensing the Minister’s vulnerability, National Opposition MPs continued to attack her in Parliament and through on-line social media. It was the most primal of interactions between creatures; a pack of predators hungry for a kill, circling a solitary, wounded creature. The ‘pack’ pursued her, drained her of strength until all resistance crumbled, and she relented”.

Macskasy does admit the same occurred to National when they were in power: “To be utterly, brutally fair – the Labour Opposition scored their own victories during nine years of Key’s administration, claiming one ‘scalp’ after another; Todd Barclay; Judith Collins; Aaron Gilmore; Phil Heatley; Mike Sabin; Kate Wilkinson; Maurice Williamson; Pansy Wong; Richard Worth”.

National Party blogger David Farrar has also expressed sympathy for Curran, but points out Labour was equally ruthless in targeting National MPs. Farrar says: “I actually feel sorry for Clare Curran… I’ve always found her well intentioned, nice on a personal level, and it must be horrible going through all this” – see: Duncan and Tova on Curran.

Farrar’s main point, however, is that no side is blameless in putting pressure on MPs: “Parliament is a tough environment and Labour never held back when a National MP was in trouble. As someone pointed out on Twitter, Labour tried to crucify Todd Barclay (also a really nice guy) for a stupid mistake, and even get him arrested.”

Similarly, Claire Trevett says this is simply reality for all in politics: “Ministers who make one mistake will always be branded a potential weak link and face greater scrutiny than their colleagues from the Opposition. It looks like bullying and sometimes it is. But neither side can cry foul because both do it” – see: Clare Curran the canary in the mine for Jacinda Ardern.

Trevett says some politicians actually benefit from the pressure: “those who emerge tougher than tungsten from the pressure… Judith Collins is one exhibit, Bill English and Helen Clark are others who have the intestinal fortitude to forge through hard times and ultimately triumph. The hard times simply make the redemption that much sweeter. Others crumble under the pressure”.

Too much media scrutiny of Curran?

The claim that the media has also been bullying towards politicians has been made. And Clare Curran seems to think so, too, making one last tweet at a political journalist who had been covering her press conference: “That is an incredibly nasty comment… Just show a damn example to other journalists will you” – see the Herald’s Clare Curran hits back at RNZ journalist on Twitter, then deletes account.

Certainly, a number of journalists have been rather scathing of Curran. The Political editor of the Otago Daily Times has reflected on Curran’s ten years as a politician in Dunedin, and suggested it might be time for Labour to seek a replacement for her, as her electorate is now vulnerable to National taking it off her – see Dene Mackenzie’s Gone but wrongs not forgotten.

Mackenzie argues that the MP was never strong under scrutiny: “Ms Curran was never suited to be a minister. She struggled in Opposition to build a credible reputation after unseating MP David Benson-Pope in a contested selection in February 2008, and was never confident under scrutiny.”

Furthermore, he argues that as the local MP for Dunedin South, Curran has been rather ineffective compared to her predecessors. And he expressed his frustrations with her interactions with the media: “She could not complete a task and was very defensive when questioned on any of her actions. Her relationships with even the most accommodating of local media personnel were fractious, to say the least. Arriving late for interviews was stock in trade. In fact, this reporter used to wait 10 to 15 minutes and return to the office rather than continue to wait for the then Opposition MP. As a minister, she has not been in contact.”

Some in the media have also challenged the notion that Curran was the victim of someone else’s harsh actions. For example, Heather du Plessis-Allan responded to this, saying “as for Curran’s exit statement, she told reporters that the pressure has become ‘intolerable’ because the current heat being placed on her is unlikely to go away. Come on, that’s blaming everyone else! Curran’s not in this position because people are chasing her. She’s in this position because she kept stuffing up” – see: Curran saga shows PM is lacking a spine.

And when Curran hit out at a journalist on Twitter, former parliamentarian Deborah Coddington tweeted: “MPs should just suck it up. Taxpayers pay them good wages. They want to regulate; they have to roll with the punches and NEVER blame media. It’s the old kitchen/heat cliche.”

Was Clare Curran “hard enough” for ministerial politics?

I’m reported in an ODT article about Curran’s demise, suggesting that the former minister was perhaps not as tough as she made out: “Edwards said Ms Curran was normally a feisty and combative debater, but recent events suggested she was not as tough as that veneer suggested” – see Mike Houlahan’s Pressure sinks Curran.

The same article also quotes rival local MP, and former minister, Michael Woodhouse: “The so-called intolerable pressure has been brought on entirely by her own actions… Life as a minister is difficult and busy and there is a high level of scrutiny. If she wanted less intolerable pressure she should have performed to a higher standard.”

As to Curran’s status as a tough and battling politician, Richard Harman has written a revealing commentary today which looks at some of the issues of her operating style. He relays a recent conversation with her: “she reminded me that she had worked for the Australian Labor Party. It was something her opponents didn’t seem to realise, she said. “I learned how to be tough there,” she said. Sadly, it is now obvious. She didn’t” – see: Why did Labour let Curran go.

Harman reflects on how Curran normally operated in politics with a “forceful personality”, but her performance last week in Parliament “was not the way an ALP hard person would have reacted.”

Others have drawn attention to Curran’s infamous and unique achievement of successfully challenging her Labour predecessor in Dunedin South, David Benson-Pope. Not only had this taken an incredibly ruthless approach from Curran, but there now seemed to be, according to Barry Soper, a case of “History repeating itself – or karma” – see: Clare Curran saga reflects poorly on Jacinda Ardern’s leadership.

Soper points out that the parallels between the declines of both Labour ministers are uncanny. For example, “By the time he stepped down as a minister, Benson-Pope was a quivering wreck, having developed a nervous tick.”

Curran an author of her own misfortune

Soper also suggests that politicians just have to get used to the rough and tumble of politics: “Politics is a tough business but if you answer questions honestly and in good faith you generally survive relatively unscathed.” And he doesn’t believe that Curran was in anyway a victim of misfortune: “Curran committed what were two significant strikes, meeting secretly with people who sought to gain from her role in Government, she should have been fired after the first and after the second it was a no-brainer.”

Also unsympathetic to Curran’s plight is broadcaster Kerre McIvor, who says “Her press conference on Friday afternoon was full of self pity and delusional justification” – see: Clare Curran had to go but must own mistakes. She suggests that some self-reflection is in order: “Come on, Clare! Whose fault is it that the media are asking questions and the Nats are taking chunks out of you?”

McIvor explains in detail why Curran’s misdemeanours were actually very serious, and she is worth quoting at length: “the clandestine meeting with Radio NZ’s head of news was a shining example of what NOT to do to create a thriving democratic system… The point is that in an open democracy, you cannot have a government interfering, or appearing to interfere, with the media. The Minister of Broadcasting held a meeting with a senior member of management at Radio NZ. The Cabinet Manual says that if a minister wants to meet with an employee of a government agency, then the minister must first have ensured the employee has raised the matter with the chief executive. That clearly didn’t happen. Who knows what sweetheart deals could be arranged in meetings between taxpayer funded ministers and members of taxpayer funded organisations?”

Ardern’s failure to be “cruel to be kind”

I’ve written about how Curran has faced “one of the most wretched weeks of her life”, and how this might be partly due to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern failing to be “cruel to be kind” in not removing her earlier – see: Curran’s misery at an end, but the PM’s goes on.

Here’s my main point about Ardern’s “kindness” in keeping Curran in the job as long as she did: “If it was a matter of personal friendship or loyalty, of giving a colleague another chance, then it will be a tough lesson for everyone concerned. The phrase “cruel to be kind” springs to mind, because allowing Ms Curran to stagger on did her no favours and certainly did not help the government.”

Similarly, Tracy Watkins has written, that “Sometimes in politics, you have to be cruel to be kind” and “Forcing Curran to limp on until then would have been as cruel as it was unwise politically” – see: Wounded Clare Curran had no choice but to quit.

Watkins suggests that it might be Ardern’s intended approach of being “kind in government” that has let her down: “Her popularity in huge part was based on her putting a softer kinder face on Government. But there is a fine line and strong leadership isn’t always just an image thing.”

In his article today on the issue, Richard Harman also draws attention to whether Ardern and the rest of the Government’s leadership and advisers did enough to help Curran during her difficulties, saying that normally these problems would mean “she would come under tight political management from someone higher up the Beehive. We now know that this did not happen and because of that she was doomed. It may be that management was attempted, and maybe it was rejected. We don’t know.”

Finally, despite the question of whether Clare Curran was the author of her own misfortune, clearly there is a need to remember that such politicians are – as the former minister rightly put it, “human beings”. And the pressures of life in politics need to be considered in the current focus on mental health issues. In this regard it’s worth considering Laura Walters’ thoughtful article, asking: Where is politics’ John Kirwan?

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

August 20, 2018

NZ and Pacific countries contest Asian influence for WHO regional director

Hundreds of millions of health dollars are at stake as the Pacific region grapples with a number of crises including diabetes and even the re-emergence of polio. Image: TVNZ

By Barbara Dreaver

Battlelines are being drawn as New Zealand and Pacific countries lobby for an important appointment at the World Health Organisation.

The region’s health ministers had all agreed to support a Pasifika candidate, but offers of aid and influence from Asian countries have left that in doubt.

Hundreds of millions of health dollars are at stake as the region grapples with a number of crises including diabetes and even the re-emergence of polio.

The regional director nominee, Dr Colin Tukuitonga, says the small island communities do not get a fair deal from the World Health Organisation.

“People complain about resource limitations, there is never enough money. The voice of the islands is often drowned out by the voices of the bigger Asian countries,” he said.

It is why New Zealand has nominated Dr Tukuitonga as the WHO regional director.

-Partners-

At a recent meeting, Pacific health ministers unanimously agreed to support that nomination.

Sudden change
But things suddenly changed. Both the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea have gone back on their agreement, publicly expressing commitment to Japan.

“This is an opportunity to remain united and influence a particularly important position for the health of the people of the region. And clearly we have two members who haven’t honoured their commitment to regionalism,” Dr Tukuitonga said.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters says the government hopes that the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea “will this time sign up for their own neighbourhood rather than bargain their vote off somewhere else for alternative reasons”.

Coincidentally, Japan has made aid offers to island countries, including a major international airport extension and rebuild for the Solomon Islands.

“A free airport does not improve the health of the Pacific people,” Peters said.

Dr Tukuitonga said: “Some of our island members are very vulnerable, very susceptible to these offers. And that’s the unfortunate thing I think.”

Nonetheless there’s been solid support for Dr Tukuitonga who’s pledging to fight for a region he’s already dedicated to.

Projected decline
“WHO budget is projected to decline. There’s a lot to be said about getting a fair share for our region because if you do that then you have a better chance of allocating a decent level of resource to our island members,” he said.

Peters said: “We start with a huge asset on our side. We have got the right candidate.”

It would be an historic win for the Pacific as the role has always been held by Asia.

Thirty countries will decide if the time is right for change in October.

Barbara Dreaver is the Pacific affairs correspondent of Television New Zealand. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

May 22, 2018

Keith Rankin ‘s Chart for this Month: Pregnancy Rates, New Zealand 1980 to 2017

Chart for this Month: Pregnancy Rates, New Zealand 1980 to 2017

Analysis by Keith Rankin

What’s happening in the 2010s’ decade? Chart by Keith Rankin.

Pregnancy rates have been dropping in New Zealand, especially since 2008. While pregnancy rates among women in their twenties have been dropping since 1990, all age groups shown reveal a clear change in trend since 2008. (While not shown, it is also true that pregnancy rates for women over 35 have stabilised over the last decade, following substantial rises in the decades before 2008.)

Pregnancy rate statistics include terminations, but not miscarriages. When pregnancy trends change in this way, it could be due to either a health epidemic (eg a sudden and exacerbating fall in sperm counts), a change in contraception culture, or a change in sexual mores.

Increased infertility – especially male infertility – may be a part of the story, though it will only be a small part. This health issue cannot explain the clear turning point in the data, after 2008.

Increased general use of contraception may be part of the decline in pregnancies from 1990, amongst women in their twenties. Most of that will be linked to family planning; fewer planned pregnancies rather than fewer unplanned pregnancies. The need to repay Student Loans and to avoid incurring Child Support (both which began around 1990) will be a part of that explanation relating to fewer planned pregnancies since 1990 of women in their twenties. These are unlikely to be factors in the sharp downturn after 2008.

The most likely reason for the post-2008 trend is changes in sexual mores, specifically involving a reduction in heterosexual intimacy. This new trend is opposite to (and longer-lasting than) the change in pregnancy rates that occurred in the late 1980s. In the late 1980s, more relationships broke up, in the face of financial pressure. Also, in response to the same financial pressures (for example, very high mortgage interest rates), there was a renewed wave of female entry into the labour force, meaning that many people were forming new relationships and liaisons, leading to increases in sexual activity.

A reverse of this may have been happening this decade. While the global financial crisis may have been a trigger for change, the direct social impact of that crisis in New Zealand has been substantially less than the impact of the economic changes of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

However – with young people having become substantially less mobile (and far more likely to still be living in their parents’ homes), and women in their twenties more focussed on long-term careers than on shorter‑term financial contingencies – then forming the conventional heterosexual relationships that led to most pregnancies will have been deprioritised. Now, more women in their thirties, having prioritised careers in their twenties, may be choosing to persist with those choices (knowing they will likely experience a childless future), at least so long as the ‘right man’ does not enter their lives. Possibly fewer women with ticking biological clocks are choosing male partners they may have misgivings about.

Finally, there may be a new wave of social puritanism this decade, leading to a less permissive society than those societies that prevailed in liberal democracies from the 1960s to the 1980s. Puritan waves have always existed in history. The rise of the smart phone and social media may have triggered the latest wave, leading to increased ‘remote’ social contact and less intimate contact. Many may have been somewhat desexualised by the easy and more personal access to pornography, for example through the now ubiquitous smartphones and laptops.

Whatever the precise mix of reasons, significant socio-demographic change has been taking place; change that has largely gone under the radar.

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media

April 23, 2018

Chinese ‘baseless rumour’, Nauru ‘justice’ for refugees and Fiji diabetes

Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific.David Robie talks on 95bFM about current Pacific issues

Reuben McLaren of 95bFM talks to Professor David Robie, director of the Pacific
Media Centre at Auckland University of Technology, on the centre’s Southern Cross radio programme.

David speaks about various upheavals around the Pacific, including the alleged Chinese military “base plans” for Vanuatu,
Nauru abolishing its Appeal CourtThis article was first published on Café Pacific.

MIL OSI – Source: Evening Report Arts and Media