Radio NZ tweeted this statement. Katrina Bungard makes clear that when she complained about Jami-Lee, she was satisfied with what they party did. She says they did all they could to help.

She explicitly says Jami-Lee alone is responsible for what happened.

A guest post by David Garrett:

Simon Bridges vs. JLR – how does this compare with past messy political divorces?

As the Simon Bridges – Jami-Lee Ross affair continues, with fresh developments happening daily if not hourly, I thought it would be interesting to compare this evolving political tempest – and God knows where it will end – with similar political fallings out between political friends  in the past. In short, there has been nothing remotely close to this in living memory. On the political richter scale, is a 10/10.

The most recent faintly similar case was former Labour MP Chris Carter leaking to the media that then leader Phil Goff was “a nice guy, but he just can’t win”. Goff you will remember took over from Helen Clark, and whatever he did he just couldn’t raise his prospects in the polls. He bought a motorbike, starting dying his hair, he even changed his manner of walking for God’s sake, all to no avail.

No-one outside the Labour caucus of the time knows what really went on behind the scenes, but Carter apparently decided  someone else was more likely to return to  him the Ministerial perks he had enjoyed. Carter’s  discontent began from the moment Labour lost, and he could no longer take junkets around the world on the guise of “ministerial business”.  The first signs of stress emerged when news of Carter’s lavish travel spending as a minister – in particular expenses incurred on  a trip to Tibet –  was about to become public, and threatened to embarrass the embattled  Labour party still further.

Carter’s first shot was the “nice guy but just can’t win leak”, and when that didn’t do the trick, he sent an anonymous letter to members of the Press Gallery claiming there was a leadership challenge against Goff.  Carter was quickly identified as the author of the letter, and suspended from the caucus on 30 July 2010. Carter apparently threatened to dish the dirt on his colleagues if he was kicked out of the party, and either because of those threats or for other reasons, he was not actually expelled from the party until 12 October 2010, after a last ditch attempt at a lengthy Labour Party Council meeting to avert his expulsion.

 In another echo of current events, when Carter was first suspended from the caucus  then political colleague and current Speaker  Trevor Mallard publicly suggested that Carter was “unbalanced” and that “he’s always been an eccentric”. On the richter scale of internecine party conflict and messy partings of the ways, the “Carter Affair” – covering a messy four months in 2010 – scores perhaps a 3.

To find something more dramatic we need to go back thirty years to the split between Roger Douglas and David Lange. In one of his memorable turns of phrase, Lange had said, during the early days of the turbulent economic reforms that followed the Labour win in 1984,  “there isn’t so much as a cigarette paper between me and Roger Douglas”. By 1988 that happy comity was all over; Lange declared that the government needed to stop “for a cup of tea”, while Douglas argued – and still does – that the best way to get over the pain which naturally flowed from the necessary radical economic reforms was to increase  the pace, and get the economy on a new footing as quickly as possible.

Crucially, the barbs that flew between Lange and Douglas are as nothing compared with those JLR has levelled at his leader over the past few days. Douglas revealed that Lange had told him the pressure was “killing him”, and Lange in turn made unflattering remarks about Roger’s lack of sensitivity and compassion. The worst Roger said about Lange – and at the time that was bad enough – was that he, Lange, had lied to Roger.

Roger confirms that in early 1988 he was heading overseas, with a full economic reform package – including the flat tax  and guaranteed minimum family income proposal – still firmly on the agenda. Roger says Lange shook his hand before he departed for an economic forum in Switzerland,  and said they would talk about it some more on Roger’s return.  While on a stopover in London, in the earlier hours of the morning London time, Roger learned that Lange had unilaterally cancelled the package. The relationship between the two former close political allies was irrevocably destroyed, and they did not see each other again for 16 years.

Crucially, at the time all this went down, both Roger and the rest of the Lange cabinet knew Lange was in the midst of a passionate affair with his speechwriter and later wife Margaret Pope.  Roger tells me that he would never  have dreamed of putting that into the public arena, despite his deep sense of betrayal by Lange, something he never forgave him for. On the latest drama, what appals Roger most is JLR taping conversations with his boss.  But back to Lange-Douglas. Perhaps that fallout rates a four or five on the richter scale.

John A Lee was a former soldier seriously wounded and  decorated for gallantry in World War I, and later a member of the first Labour government of Michael Joseph Savage, the latter still today a saintly figure to some Labour politicians. On his return from the War, Lee  was elected to parliament, but failed to gain a cabinet place after the first Labour government was elected in 1935 because of suspicions about him held by Savage and his successor Peter Fraser.

 In 1938, while a parliamentary undersecretary, Lee published Socialism in New Zealand, which advocated “pure” socialism as New Zealand’s only way forward. In a sense, he was the Roger Douglas of the late 1930’s, albeit with diametrically opposite views from Sir Roger. Lee became increasingly critical of Savage and Fraser’s more cautious and measured approach to reform, and in 1940 he was expelled from the Labour Party for attacking the terminally ill Michael J  Savage, who died shortly thereafter. In one of those delicious quirks thrown up by a small society, one Norm Douglas, Roger’s father, left the caucus in sympathy with Lee. He never regained a place in cabinet as a result.

In the time honoured fashion, Lee founded his own party, the Democratic Labour Party, but he was never re-elected – a fate which surely awaits JLR if he is foolish enough to contest the by-election in his Botany electorate. Lee never forgave his old enemies, including the dead Savage – so much so that he apparently used to take his dog for walks  to the Savage memorial on Bastion Point so the said dog could “piss on the old fraud”.  The Lee-Savage-Fraser parting of the ways was by modern standards at least as dramatic as Lange-Douglas, so let’s give it a five on the political richter scale.

So, back to Mr Jami-Lee Ross. I am writing this on Thursday 18 October, on a day when it is claimed that Ross conducted what can only be called abusive and manipulative sexual  relationships with at least two women, with two others alleging that he mistreated and abused them, albeit not sexually.  Ross denies the allegations, but they have been made by a well respected senior journalist who claims she has been investigating Ross’s personal relationships for a year. There is certainly more to come on this aspect of the story.

So where are we? Ross and Simon Bridges, formerly close political allies if not personal friends, are now bitter enemies, with Ross alleging serious criminal conduct on the part of Bridges, and Bridges claiming – correctly – that Ross has made highly damaging defamatory claims about him, claims which Bridges vehemently denies. I am informed that Ross is now utterly without friends in the National caucus, which would  seem to be supported by the fact that no-one has literally stood behind him, either at the unprecedented almost hour long stand up in parliament on Tuesday, or when he lead a group of journalists down to the Wellington Central Police Station to lay his complaint about Bridges.

The thing which elevates the current debacle way above anything  which has ever gone before is SEX. Savage was almost certainly a closet homosexual, something which his colleagues must have strongly suspected, if not known for sure in those less open times. Despite his hatred of him, Lee never even hinted at Savage’s sexual orientation, even after his death.

David Lange was bonking his speechwriter at a time when Roger Douglas feels he was utterly betrayed by Lange, and all of Lange’s cabinet colleagues knew what was happening. Back then however, a members private life was just that, and whether because of the possibility of mutually assured destruction or otherwise, members’ sex lives remained off the agenda. Admittedly, Lange-Douglas took place in a very different time, pre internet, and with a much more compliant media.

Taking everything into account, I believe what is unfolding as I write is a political cataclysm the likes of which has never been seen in New Zealand before, and may never be seen again. And we are only four days into the scandal: JLR is still, until 5pm tomorrow, an MP with the ability to say anything he likes with impunity – so long as he says it  in the House. The by election which he may or may not contest is at least weeks away.  God knows what else will emerge between now and then. Who ever said that politics was boring?

I’ve got a sick toddler to look after today so this may be the only blog post.

But a thought occurred to me last night. The conventional wisdom in the media was that having an inquiry into the leak was a huge mistake by Simon Bridges.

But think about the counterfactual. As damaging and messy as this last week has been, how much worse would it be if an embittered Jami-Lee had remained in place leaking and tape recording. How much more damage would have occurred?

I chatted to an MP about this yesterday and they said that there will not be a single member of caucus who now thinks the leak inquiry was a bad idea. As devastating as this week has been, they’re just relieved that JLR has been exposed and is out of caucus.

So with the benefit of hindsight, Bridges decision was the right one.

And also consider how a week ago the narrative was Bridges was being unfair to JLR. There was no proof he was the leaker (now very obvious he was). They even said that Bridges was unfair in making JLR take leave etc. While the real story is Bridges acted on the complaints from female MPs and staff within 24 hours of knowing about them. Now they say Bridges didn’t act fast enough when last week it was he acted too quickly.

Don’t get me wrong – this episode definitely is damaging to National, and Bridges as leader gets damaged by it also. But I doubt anyone can fairly point to how a different series of decisions would have led to better outcomes in the long term.

So Jami-Lee Ross has released the text messages with Greg Hamilton (NZNP General Manager) which he claimed proved his allegations of criminal corrupt behaviour.

Not only do they not prove his claims, they actually refute them. He really must be delusional if he thinks they were proof of anything, except what in hindsight was an obvious attempt to screw people over.

The full texts are here. What they show is:

1. Greg Hamilton asked Jami-Lee to track down the individual donors
2. Jami-Lee said he couldn’t, he only had the supplied names and addresses
3. Greg Hamilton said they are required by law to have a name and address and some of those supplied don’t match the electoral roll. He offered to verify them if there were phone numbers, or he could talk to the contact person.
4. Jami-Lee claims Bridges organised the donations (which contradicts their own taped conversation) and he just collected it. Says if the law has not been complied with, can return the money
5. Greg responds would be a shame to return the donations and he wants to line up the donors with the electoral roll as best to do now than at audit time

This is a diligent general manager ensuring the donations are legit and the donors are eligible to donate, and the requirements of the Act have been complied with. It is almost the polar opposite of what Ross claimed.

The texts show that Ross was clearly trying to set up Greg Hamilton, as well as Simon Bridges. This is again pretty despicable. Ross was a front bench MP and a former member of the Board of Directors and he is trying to set up the party’s general manager.

He just keeps making himself look worse and worse.

Andrew Geddis writes:

When Jami-Lee Ross re-enacted the Joker’s “everything burns” scene from The Dark Knight in his press conference at parliament, much was promised. Simon Bridges, we were told, had instructed him to divide up a $100,000 donation from a businessman into smaller, non-disclosable amounts. If established, that was not only the end of Bridges’ political career, but also the basis for potentially serious criminal charges.

Yep. We were told Bridges is corrupt and he had proof.

Then, yesterday, Ross’s story changed at his press conference after visiting the police. This money had not actually been divided up by him personally (because, we should note, if Ross had done so then he would have been guilty of those potentially serious criminal charges). Rather, the donation had appeared in his electorate bank account already split into these smaller, non-disclosable amounts.

That raised the question, of course, as to who had done the splitting up. Because Ross had stated in his original parliamentary press conference that the businessman in question had done nothing wrong. Which would not be true if that businessman had been a party to the donation splitting.

Then Ross released his recorded conversation with Bridges, and things changed again. For that recording showed that while Bridges clearly had knowledge of a donation being in the offing, he didn’t seem to know much more about it than that.

Yep. All the tape showed is that Simon knew $100,000 had been donated.

To me, this reads as though the businessman has told Bridges that the association he heads would like to support the National Party. The members of this association have then come together and chipped in individual donations that in total amount to $100,000, but none of which individually exceed the $15,000 public disclosure threshold. And that is all entirely legal.

It also would be legal for Bridges to indicate to (or even instruct) the association that he’d like the donation given in this way. It’s only if the businessman has funded the entire $100,000 amount himself, while getting friends and colleagues to transmit bits of it under their own name as “straw” donors, that the law would have been broken. But then the main party to that offending would be the businessman involved – whom, remember, Ross has said has done nothing wrong.

That is my understanding also. A group of people all made donations under the $15,000 level. So the businessman named didn’t himself make a $100,000 donation. He arranged for $100,000 to be donated.

If the other people were not donating their own money, but acting as fronts for the businessman, that would be illegal. But no law against someone encouraging other people to donate to a political party. In fact it is common.

So, based on what I’ve seen so far, I actually hope Bridges survives this onslaught and remains National’s leader. I hope that he and his party are soon able to return to arguing for their view of what New Zealand ought to be. I then hope they lose those arguments, because I disagree with them on many issues in a quite fundamental way. But I want them to lose on the arguments, not because of tactics designed to do no more than “wreck” someone.

I agree. Politics should not be about this.

Most will have seen by now (I’ve been flat out since 6 am doing media interviews, dropping Ben off to daycare and a regular session with my trainer, so hence only blogging now) the article on Newsroom where four women speak out about their experiences with Jami-Lee Ross.

This self-inflicted scandal is taking a terrible human toll. I’ll focus on the politics in another post, but I find it really sad the damage that has been done.

• Jami-Lee’s career is destroyed and he may not even be employable in NZ. He’s gone from being a newly promoted front bencher to a pariah
• His wife has the humiliation of what should be private matters between them laid out in public
• His children will grow up with articles on the Internet about their father’s relationships with other women. As a father this upsets me greatly. No kid should have to endure that.
• The four women in the article have obviously been through a horrible experience. I’m not the most sensitive soul out there but I found it hard to read the article. It impacted me emotionally. Forget politics. Those women have had a terrible time.
• In at least one case, a marriage has split up and you’ll have a husband and children hurting
• Simon Bridges has had someone who was one of his closest mates in caucus secretly tape record him. That is a huge betrayal of trust. Forget the politics. How would you feel if one if your mates did that to you?
• Maureen Pugh has been humiliated by the release of the tape with a harsh description of her. She is incredibly upset, as is her family. And those who have campaigned for her and supported her are also upset. Maureen’s public response has been magnanimous and classy. But’s let’s not pretend how terrible she must feel.
• 40,000 National Party members and supporters are upset. The vast majority of these people don’t want to be MPs. They don’t expect to gain anything in return for their hard work door knocking, donating, delivering etc. They just think that New Zealand does better when National is in Government. They feel betrayed and disappointed that this fiasco undermines their hard work

So there is a terrible personal cost to all this. It is very sad and I hope it stops.

Despite the anger at what Jami-Lee has done, a lot of people are genuinely worried for him. He needs support. While obviously the media will be seeking comment from him, I hope they do so in a way which doesn’t add to the immense pressure he must be under. I mean this most sincerely. I’m not saying this to be snarky.

I really hope Jami-Lee doesn’t contest the by-election. I think it would be an awful experience for him, and humiliating.

Most of all I hope things deescalate, not get worse. Time for everyone to take a deep breath and step back. Enough damage has been done.

Politico report:

President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday expressed confidence in the leaders of Saudi Arabia, even as U.S. lawmakers, business leaders and lobbyists criticized and severed ties with the kingdom over suspicions that Saudi officials orchestrated the killing of a dissident journalist.

Trump compared the allegations against the Saudis to accusations of sexual assault lobbed at Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. “Here we go again with, you know, you’re guilty until proven innocent,” Trump told The Associated Press in an interview. “I don’t like that.”

This is a weak and false analogy. The assault allegation against Kavanaugh had no evidence at all, just an accuser. This doesn’t mean it was false, just no proof.

With Saudi Arabia we have evidence. We have a missing man. We have evidence he entered their Embassy and no evidence he ever left. Add to that the motive, and the case is strong.

The analogy with Kavanaugh would be if a woman had been captured on video entering his house, and never seen again.

There seems no doubt Saudia Arabia murdered Khashoggi. They may try and blame it on a rogue team but of course it would have been sanctioned from the top. Some reports even point to the possibility he was chopped into pieces while still alive. Horrific.

If confirmed, this could make Saudi Arabia a pariah state.

The Herald reports:

Jami-Lee Ross’ recording of Simon Bridges reveals that the National Party leader thinks his MP Maureen Pugh is “f***ing useless” – but it is questionable whether it has any solid evidence of electoral fraud.

It doesn’t. In terms of the donation issue it is a fizzer. He over promised and under delivered.

In discussing getting some new list MPs to make way for some new ones, Bridges said: “I reckon it’s all three of our MPs who … not thinking of obvious ones like [Chris] Finlayson or [David] Carter, but actually we just we just want them to go. Like Maureen Pugh’s fucking useless.”

Ross responds by adding National MP Nicky Wagner’s name to the list of MPs who may not be wanted.

Bridges responds that he doesn’t want them all to go “this year”.

Here we see the real agenda. A senior trusted MP recorded private conversations with his leader, so he could use them against him later. Such a betrayal of trust.

Of course the tape recording is embarrassing to Bridges and the MPs. That is why Ross is releasing it. But every party leader has frank discussions with senior colleagues about caucus members and caucus renewal. Not just party leaders. Most of the last year people have speculated on who will go and when.

And yes talking about the relative value of MPs from different ethnicities happens also. Parties want to appeal to voters from all ethnicities, so they look to have MPs from various ethnic groups. And as the number of places in a caucus is limited, you discuss what is the higher priority. It doesn’t mean it is the only factor. The individual ability of the candidate plays a large part, but the discussions recorded is quite standard in politics.

A former senior office holder in the Labour Party once told me how they saw the relative worth of different MPs. Off memory it was Mainland Chinese then Hong Kong Chinese then Taiwanese then Sikh then Hindu Indian etc etc. Conversations tend to be quite crass, because you don;’t bother with the caveats such as “all other things equal” etc.

So the tape is embarrassing to Bridges (and Ross most of all), but is a total fizzer when it comes to the reason he claimed he was releasing it.

Ross seems bent on the politics of personal destruction. Maybe he also secretly recorded caucus meetings and will start releasing them. But wow is he going to struggle to find many people to talk to him in future, if people think he is recording them fur future leverage.

Bernard Orsman reports:

The Auckland Council wages bill is approaching $1 billion a year, of which about $100 million is not reported as staff costs for accounting reasons.

The council is obliged by law to publish staff costs for running the Super City, but is not required to publish staff costs charged against capital projects, like building roads or new libraries and swimming pools.

Last month, the council published operating staff costs of $866m in the latest annual report, but did not report capitalised staff costs of $91m.

So $957 million.

Rodney councillor Greg Sayers said council should be completely transparent with all its staff costs, saying Aucklanders deserve to know where council is spending money.

“There is no excuse for hiding these numbers from Auckland ratepayers, and it is disappointing the mayor has not demanded transparency from council staff.

“Council should not run the types of accounts that Enron would be proud of,” Sayers said.

It’s fine to capitalise some staff costs. But for reasons of transparency the financial statements should clearly state how much those staff costs were which were capitalised.

Apologies for the Delay

Stuff reports:

Luck can come from unexpected places. No one in the Beehive can have possibly imagined a gift like Jami-Lee Ross.

Every office in the Beehive will have A0 posters up of JLR, saluting him as their saviour.

Labour supporters can clearly remember a series of unpleasant episodes when the leadership of Phil Goff, David Shearer, David Cunliffe and Andrew Little was unravelling.

None of that compare to what National, which has managed to stay so united for so long, now faces.

What makes this worse is that National in the public polls was still polling very well – mid 40s, and ahead of Labour. The infighting normally occurs when you are polling in say the 20s and it looks like no chance of winning.

National is not just the caucus. It is 40,000 members also. They feel betrayed by this. They’re the ones who door knock, who deliver, who donate, and all their hard work is undermined by what has happened.

National’s problems come just as it appeared to be gaining ground on the one kind of issue which can unite voters: those that impact our wallets.

Surging petrol prices have been dominating the news like never before and this week could have continued as the Government races to change the Commerce Act so it can instruct the Commerce Commission to investigate.

Official figures released on Tuesday showed that petrol is pushing up the cost of living, with some predicting inflation could push up to 2.5 per cent next year.

While this is low by historical standards, it would represent a seven-year high and a hit to households, especially those on fixed incomes.

I agree the cost of living and petrol price is an issue with real resonance. Why petrol prices are so potent is they are simple to understand. Your weekly shopping bill changes depending on what you buy. You often don’t know if things have gone up much. There are specials and discounts.

Even your power bill is variable. It changes a lot most months depending on the weather.

But your petrol bill is far easier to see price changes. You always get say around 50 litres to fill up the tank. You know you normally pay $90 but lately it costs $125.

If you are interested in US politics, I can recommend a great podcast to listen to. Slow Burn, by Slate.

There have been two seasons so far – one on Watergate and one on Clinton’s impeachment. Each season has eight around one hour episodes. This allows them to get into detail far beyond what most people knew. I thought i knew both scandals well but learnt a lot.

They also get many interviews with first hand participants. With the Clinton season they even got Linda Tripp to talk for several hours. First time in two decades.

Some of the stuff I learnt on Watergate:

• The wife of the Attorney-General was forcibly restrained and sedated to stop her telling a journalist how one of the Watergate burglars was her husband’s driver. She was smeared as crazy when she told people this as no one could believe such wild claims
• Nixon is the one who got Senate staffers suspicious he might have taped conversations because Nixon used the tapes to argue against claims by John Dean, and his statements had so much detail of conversations, the staffers wondered if he had taped them
• The tapes were only confirmed when the former WH Deputy COS was asked directly about them. He had resolved not to volunteer any info on them but to tell the truth if asked directly. Only four people knew of the taping system.
• Nixon doctored some of the transcripts that were released, in an effort to not release the tapes.

The Clinton stuff was more dramatic.

• The description by Juanita Broaddrick of how Clinton maneuvered their meeting to be in her hotel room (he said there were too many journalists around the coffee shop) seemed eerily similar to the Harvey Weinstein allegations.  Also I was unaware that she told someone within hours of the (alleged) rape that it had happened and Clinton (then Arkansas AG) had done it. In the absence of witnesses, that is strong evidence she is being truthful.
• NBC delayed an interview with Broaddrick for weeks, so it wouldn’t air until after the vote in the Senate on convicting Clinton
• Lewinsky was threatened with 27 years jail for perjury to convince her to co-operate. She still tried to warn Clinton though and refused to wear a wire to a meeting with him
• When Clinton first wanted to stand for President in 1988, his COS talked him out of it by giving him a list of women it was rumoured he had slept with. It was not a short list.
• Paula Jones also told two friends with Clinton had done, the day it happened
• Tripp says that she she did betray Monica awfully, she did it to protect her from Clinton. She says Monica was an emotional 15 year old in a 24 year old’s body and Clinton was abusing her and using her for sex, while Monica thought it was true love. She claims (and of course this is self serving) that blowing the whistle was the only way to get it to stop and free Monica
• Tripp’s lawyer was friends with Ann Coulter and the tapes were first listened to at Coulter’s house
• The original Drudge Report story was not reported on by mainstream media until 72 hours after first published
• Clinton recorded a 79% approval rating at one stage during the scandal!
• Clinton argued he didn’t lie about having sexual relations with Lewinsky as that meant contact with an intent to arouse or gratify and she gratified him but he didn’t gratify her. So his argument was she had sexual relations with him but he didn’t have sexual relations with her!
• I’d forgotten how badly many liberals treated Lewinsky. Bill Maher said that she had seduced Clinton and she should apologise to America, not him. Maureen Dowd called her nutty and slutty etc.

Both Nixon and Clinton come out looking worse, after you listen to these. I was unaware how Nixon had even gone to the extent of fabricating transcripts to cover up. And with Clinton I wasn’t aware how credible and chilling the rape accusation was.

Politik reports:

A failed near megalomaniac grab for power appears to be the real reason that Jami Lee Ross fell out with National Leader Simon Bridges.

POLITIK has learned that Ross sought big rewards for his support for Bridges during the National Party leadership contest in February.

He was Bridges’ numbers man, and along with Todd McClay, he was part of Bridges’ inner circle during the campaign for leadership.

So when Bridges won, he moved to claim his reward.

But what he wanted was so big that there was no way the new leader could satisfy him.

POLITIK has learned from multiple party and caucus sources that Ross wanted to be Shadow Leader of the House; Chief Whip and to sit on the front bench.

Along with those posts he also also wanted to be on the party board and to be in charge of party polling.

In effect, he would have been a quasi-deputy leader with as much power as the leader himself.

Bridges said no and thus appears to have provoked Ross’s campaign against him.

Perhaps Jami-Lee watched too many episodes of (UK) House of Cards. That is about a Chief Whip who feels the new leader didn’t give him a big enough promotion. So he plots to bring the leader down, and does it through a young female reporter he gives exclusives too.

When the leak first happened no-one thought it could possibly be a National MP. But once the inquiry was established, Jami-Lee’s name did start to float around as a suspect. I heard it around a month ago but said it was ridiculous. If anyone was leaking against Bridges, you’d expect it to be someone who either campaigned for another candidate or got demoted in the reshuffle.

Jami-Lee was Bridge’s numbers man in the leadership contest. He got handsomely rewarded by catapulting to the front bench – which caused some dismay with his colleagues. They didn’t think he had done enough to be on the front bench. They saw it as a reward for supporting Bridges.

So that is why the idea of him being the leaker was so difficult to accept. He was doing far better under Bridges than he would be under any other Leader. But it so got around that rather than being grateful for the promotion, he was unhappy he hadn’t been promoted even higher. Also when Bridges announced the inquiry, he was reportedly extremely active going around colleagues trying to convince them it was a bad idea.

So while no one wanted it to be true, and were hoping the inquiry would point elsewhere, I doubt many in caucus were surprised when the inquiry found he was the likely leaker (which he still denies). But considering he has now admitted secretly tape recording conversations with his leader, I doubt he has a single supporter in caucus. In fact they’re probably all wondering if he tape recorded him also. It is hard to think of a greater betrayal of trust than tape recording your colleagues to gain evidence to try and use against them. Again it is like a bad House of Cards episode.

So almost unthinkable he won’t be suspended from caucus today.

Personally if I was in caucus, I’d leave it at that, rather than also ask the party expel him as a member. An expulsion from the party just keeps it in the news for months, as the process is not a quick one. Once he is a de facto independent MP, his news value becomes close to zero. He might resign on his own volition (very lonely being an independent MP who has been suspended) or he might stay on until the election. National isn’t going to try and use the wake jumping law against him, as they campaigned against it so hard. And again if they did, it just keeps the story going for longer.

So my advice is suspend Jami-Lee, and move on. The longer this plays out in public, the more damage it will do to National.

Also I hope that Jami-Lee’s friends support him through this time. I disapprove of what he did, but I know he must be under huge stress with the effective end of his political career. He’s been an elected official since the age of 18. It’s very sad to have come to this.

UPDATE: Jami-Lee has announced his resignation from National and from Parliament. He will fight a by-election as an Independent. He has accused Bridges of corruption over political donations and says he is providing proof to the Police, including a tape recording. It has also been revealed four women had made accusations of harassment from Ross, which is what led to his taking medical leave

Auckland Councillor Daniel Newman writes:

If Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern wants to uncover the root cause of motorist’s pain at the pump, she need only look in the mirror.

Labour has directed that the price of petrol and diesel is to rise by 3.5 cents a litre every year. On top of that, the Labour fuel tax hit Auckland motorists by an extra 11.5 cents (including GST) a litre on July 1.

This is precisely the reason why my Labour colleague Councillor Efeso Collins courageously voted against the Auckland-version of his own party’s fuel tax agenda. Speaking during that debate, Collins stated the obvious: “These taxes hit the poorest the most.”

Yep, they do.

I represent the Manurewa-Papakura Ward; some of the poorest people in Auckland are my constituents. Around 80 per cent of my constituents travel to and from work via a car. I represent shift workers, taxi drivers, mums and dads who drive their children across the city, people who need groceries, people whose movements are complex and who cannot easily align with a rigid timetable for a limited bus service.

Anyone who has children needs a car. They are essential to families.

The punitive application of fuel taxes that trigger the wholesale redistribution of wealth from the poorest with the least choice to enable greater transport choice (albeit slow and inconvenient) for those who have the most is a conundrum that demands a political distraction.

So poor families in South Auckland are funding trams for rich inner city residents.

The Herald reports:

Sidelined National MP Jami-Lee Ross has been identified as the person who leaked Simon Bridges’ expenses – but he furiously denies the accusation.

Bridges called a press conference for 1pm and told reporters an inquiry by PwC had concluded Ross was the person who leaked the information.

Bridges said he had also spoken with Ross about his conduct, which showed a pattern of offending.

Bridges called this a “pattern of conduct.”

“The report here, speaks for itself,” he said.

Asked why he does not just sack Ross, Bridges said because it’s about the National Party – that’s why he said he is bringing it before caucus tomorrow.

The National caucus would now discuss Ross’ future with the party tomorrow.

“Suspension is definitely an option,” Bridges said.

Ross, who has taken medical leave from Parliament, had pre-empted Bridges’ press conference, taking to Twitter to say that he would be blamed.

Bridges addressed Ross’ Tweet saying he was not surprised by his reaction due to the circumstances.

He said his allegations were wrong and Ross was “lashing out”.

Bridges insisted his leadership of the party was still strong.

He said he had the full confidence of caucus, saying what the report shows is that was the action of one single Member of Parliament.

Sadly this appears to be the end of Jami-Lee’s political career. His tweets seem to be part of a strategy to burn the village down after him.

The report is here – PWC Investigation Report. The key aspects is that Jami-Lee had text messages or calls with the Speaker, the Radio NZ reporter and the Police around the time of the anonymous messages sent by text. One call to the RNZ reporter was three minutes after Bridges said there would be an inquiry.

PWC say the evidence is not conclusive. There was no e-mail trail of the expenses being sent or printed. But that on balance of probabilities it is Jami-Lee. Ironically if he had not tried to get the inquiry called off, it looks like he would never have been identified. I should note Jami-Lee denies being the leaker.

This is a sad and bad day for National. For a decade or more National has had formidable internal discipline. But this sort of stuff is unforgiveable as it turns the public off big time. It is selfish in the extreme to publicly undermine the elected leader. If you don’t like whom your colleagues choose to be leader, you either put up with it, or you quietly do the numbers to roll them. What you don’t do is leak against them. Labour had nine years of that, and it made them almost unelectable until Jacinda saved them.

I like Jami-Lee. I’ve known him for a long time. He had a good future ahead of him. He had been promoted by Simon to the front bench. He’s a popular local MP. But the party is bigger than any individual, and I can’t see how caucus can take any decision other than to suspend him, just as Labour did with Chris Carter who got caught doing something similar against Phil Goff.

National should not under estimate how much damage disunity does. They need to resolve this issue decisively and quickly.

HDPA writes:

What’s the difference between Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Shane Jones this week?

When it comes to using big corporates as punching bags to score political points, not a lot.

And that’s all this week’s brouhaha about petrol and supermarket prices was. Political point scoring.

It’s an old trick many of us learn in the school yard. If you’re in trouble for something, find someone else you can blame for a bigger offence. The old cry of Johnny-punched-first. Or even better, Johnny punched first, and harder, and probably wouldn’t have stopped unless the teacher arrived.

That’s essentially what the PM’s done by accusing petrol retailers of “fleecing” Kiwis.

She pointed the finger elsewhere in the hope of distracting Kiwis from her own Government’s role in the petrol price rise.

It’s a raw flank for the Government. Not only because the Government itself raised the price by a whopping 14 cents in Auckland and 3.5 cents in the rest of the country. And that’s in the space of three months. But also because it reminds motorists of the broken promise. Remember no new taxes?

As well as the extra 15 cents, the Government is also getting an extra five cents a litre through GST on the higher retail price.

Realistically, the inquiry into petrol prices could end up doing what every other review has. Nothing.

The Commerce Commission is only acquiring powers to investigate petrol prices, but not to actually do anything about them.

This is a key point. Now it is possible their investigation will reveal useful information. But it is the Government that needs to then make decisions on them, and short of setting up Kiwifuel, can’t see them able to do much.

Stuff reports:

Green Party MP Chloe Swarbrick is calling for safety testing of drugs to be legalised ahead of the summer festival season.

The idea behind recreational drug testing is not to stop drug use but reduce harm, by letting consumers of illicit pills know if the drugs they are taking have been mixed with other dangerous chemicals.

Drug testing has taken place at some Kiwi festivals but currently exists in something of a legal grey area, as the Misuse of Drugs Act makes it illegal to knowingly permit drug use in any premises.

People are going to take drugs at music festivals. Unless you assign 1,000 police officers to a festival to check what every person has in their pockets, drug consumption will happen.

Some drugs such as synthetic cannabis are more dangerous than other drugs. Dozens of people have died from them.

So allowing people at festivals to test their drugs is a good idea. It might literally save lives.

So a good call from Swarbrick.

MSD has done its annual report on incomes and wellbeing. Some key aspects:

New Zealand’s net gains from before the GFC and recession to HES 2017 are better overall than for many OECD countries – the negative impact was more muted here and the recovery has been stronger than for many:

the UK median fell through the GFC and has only just returned to its pre-GFC level (4% above pre-GFC level in latest 2016/17 survey)

Italy, France and Germany were flat through the GFC but have seen small gains in recent years; Spain and Portugal were also fairly flat through the GFC but median incomes have fallen since

the US median in 2014 was much the same as in 2008 before the GFC, but had lifted a little by 2016

in Australia, household incomes across all parts of the distribution have been relatively flat since 2007-08, just as the GFC began to have an impact

New Zealand’s post-GFC gain of around 15% in real terms to 2017 at the median is more like that of the top performers such as Finland and Canada (~16%),

So NZ has had better real income growth post the GFC that almost any other OECD country.

And has the gains just been those at the top:

New Zealand, the share received by the top 1% … around 9% in the mid 1990s, and was steady or slightly falling through to 2014, in the 7-9% range. Information from the NZ Income Survey (using a sample of around 30,000 individuals) shows that there is no evidence of any rise over the years from 2010 to 2015.

Nope. And how about this inequality in incomes we hear about:

There is no evidence of any sustained rise or fall in BHC household income inequality in the last 10-15 years (90:10 ratio) or the last 20 years (Gini for 99%, and top 1% share) or the last 25 years (top 1% share from tax records).

Inconvenient facts for the inequality industry.

One group with negative net tax liability is low- to middle-income households with dependent children. For example, single-earner families with two children can earn up to around $60,000 pa before they pay any net tax (2016 settings). Around half of all households with children receive more in welfare benefits and tax credits than they pay in income tax.

We already have a generous welfare system. If you have two kids you effectively pay no tax until you earn $60,000. Half of all households with kids receive more in welfare than they pay in income tax.

Also of interest is that MSD have not reported the poverty rate for children as in both 2016 and 2017 it dropped so much, they are checking their data. A nice problem to have – explaining why the child poverty rate has dropped so much.

A cynic might wonder if the non-reporting was to prevent the new Government from being embarrassed in case the 2018 rate is actually higher than 2017.