Secret Power, New Zealand’s role in the international spy network, Craig Potton Publishing, 1996. ‘A masterpiece of investigative journalism’

– Jeffrey Richelson, US intelligence expert

Secrets and Lies, the anatomy of an anti-environmental PR campaign (with Bob Burton), Craig Potton Publishing, 1999. ‘An invaluable study of how PR is used by corporations to manipulate public opinion and subvert democracy’

– Edward S. Herman, co-author of Manufacturing Consent

The Hollow Men, A study in the politics of deception, Craig Potton Publishing, 2008. ‘One of the ten best New Zealand non-fiction books of the decade’

– New Zealand Herald

Other People’s Wars, New Zealand in Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror, Craig Potton Publishing, 2011. ‘Nicky Hager has more knowledge and understanding of the American intelligence world in Afghanistan – both its good and its very bad points – than any reporter I know’

– Seymour Hersh, investigative journalist

DIRTY POLITICS

Nicky Hager is known internationally for his investigative writing. His first book, Secret Power, about global surveillance systems, won him a US journalism prize and led to a year-long European Parliament inquiry. Since then, his books, contributions to books, and articles have been published in many countries (most recently, Secret Power in Egypt in 2014). His 1999 book, Secret and Lies, exposed an unscrupulous public relations campaign and Seeds of Distrust (2002) was a study of political management of the controversial genetic engineering issue.

His fourth book, The Hollow Men, was a detailed exposé of three years of politics within the conservative New Zealand National Party. The book, which prompted the resignation of the party leader when it was released, was adapted into a stage play and feature-length documentary film. His fifth book, Other People’s Wars, is the story of 10 years of New Zealand involvement in the war in Afghanistan and the wider war on terror. It was also adapted into a stage play. All these books were bestsellers.

Nicky has degrees in physics and philosophy, and lives in Wellington.

To my wonderful sisters

DIRTY POLITICS

How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand’s
political environment

NICKY HAGER

First published in 2014 by Craig Potton Publishing

This ebook edition published in 2014

Craig Potton Publishing

98 Vickerman Street, PO Box 555, Nelson, New Zealand

www.craigpotton.co.nz

© Nicky Hager

eISBN 978 1 927213 36 0

This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without the permission of the publishers.

CONTENTS

PREFACE

CHAPTER 1 THE RISE OF THE BLOGGERS

CHAPTER 2 THE PM’S BLACK OPS MAN

CHAPTER 3 STRAIGHT FROM THE BEEHIVE

CHAPTER 4 THE CRUSHER AND THE ATTACK DOG

CHAPTER 5 SIMON LUSK’S PLAN

CHAPTER 6 EL RUSHBO OF AOTEAROA

CHAPTER 7 CASH FOR COMMENT

CHAPTER 8 CHAOS AND MAYHEM LIMITED

CHAPTER 9 THE MANY HATS OF DAVID FARRAR

CHAPTER 10 SEX SCANDAL

CHAPTER 11 JOHN KEY AND A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

CHAPTER 12 THE SMILING ASSASSIN

AFTERWORD

ENDNOTES

INDEX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing a book seems like a solitary activity but it is the product of a great deal of trust, encouragement and support from others. Interested friends and family, people who helped with research and passed on pieces of information, brilliant IT support, comments on drafts, the National Party staffer who first suggested I work on this subject, the people who supported me personally and the confidential sources who trusted me with the information: dozens of people have helped in different ways. I am grateful to them, and to the three friends who make up my perfect publishing team: lawyer Steven Price, editor Anna Rogers and publisher Robbie Burton, with his colleagues at Craig Potton Publishing. Julia Wells, as usual, helped most of all.

PREFACE

New Zealand prime minister John Key had constructed an easy-going and relaxed public image. He began the 2014 election year by appearing at university orientation weeks, not to give speeches or debate policy, but to pose in ‘selfies’ with a crowd of students, more celebrity than politician. In rural Te Kuiti, he smiled for a beautifully composed photograph ‘having a beer and a good yarn’ with locals in a country pub, a photograph that would feature that night on his Facebook page. To the public, he was a man who stayed above the name calling and personal attacks of politics. He had declared during the 2011 election campaign ‘there’s no room for negative campaigning in New Zealand’.¹ The reality was very different.

Key had overseen a government involved in more personal attacks and negative politics than any in living memory. Robert Muldoon, National leader in the 1970s and 1980s, is remembered for his abrasive, attacking style, but the Key government had outstripped it in the frequency and breadth of attacks, while still managing to maintain the leader’s genial image. It had done this in part by using others – political allies, bloggers and the news media – to deliver the blows. The result was a new kind of attack politics that was rapidly changing the political environment in New Zealand. That is the subject of this book.

Dirty Politics follows my earlier book, The Hollow Men, which told the story of the National Party from 2003 to 2006 under the former leader Don Brash. This sequel describes the years of John Key’s leadership between 2008 and 2014.

The Hollow Men was based on a leak of leader’s office documents that revealed the internal discussions, strategy plans and secret donors behind an astonishingly cynical and manipulative plan to win the 2005 election. Brash resigned when the book was released and his successor, John Key, promised a different sort of leadership. He said he would not be using Brash’s advisers and pledged to ‘rise above the politics of personal attack’, saying that was not his style.²

In fact Key immediately rehired the controversial political strategists, Crosby Textor, and the politics of personal attack intensified. The difference from earlier leaders such as Muldoon was that the government ministers did not usually front the tactics themselves. Their actions and motives could remain hidden. Thus the National government had the political advantages both of the friendly face and the attack machine. Naturally this would not work if people could see both, so considerable effort went into hiding and denying these activities.

The 2006 change in National’s leadership coincided with major changes occurring in politics, the Internet and the news media. Political bloggers were moving from the margins into prominence just as news organisations were further cutting back on staff. New tactics were being imported from US politics.

The origins of this book can be traced to a political event in October 2013, when extremely personal details of Auckland mayor Len Brown’s sexual affairs were published on the right-wing blog site, Whale Oil. Putting aside the rights and wrongs of Brown’s personal actions, it became clear that the exposé had been arranged by his political enemies to try to push him out of office and replace him with their own mayoral candidate. It was a dirty type of politics that is not normal in this country. He was actually being attacked because of his political beliefs.

In January of the following year I travelled to Dunedin for a conference, where I met a series of people who raised their concern about Cameron Slater, the Whale Oil blogger and son of a former National Party president. One woman who had left a critical comment on the Whale Oil blog site had then faced threatening approaches by her employer about why she had made the comment from her work computer. A university academic who spoke on a panel with a visiting left-leaning MP was sent a series of heavy e-mails and had messages left on his phone advising him not to associate with the politician. He believed the messages led back to Slater. These sorts of stories were being repeated all around the country: an unpleasant experience for the individuals, which risked putting them off being involved in politics.

The third experience that persuaded me to investigate Whale Oil and the growth of attack politics was an account I heard of a meeting in a major news organisation. The point of the meeting had been to discuss Cameron Slater and whether news resources should be allocated to scrutinising his activities. According to one of the people present, however, senior staff began expressing their fears about attracting attacks from Slater on themselves and their organisation. By the end of the meeting they had decided to do nothing.

Finally, in this same period, Slater hit the news after making yet another personal attack. A young West Coast man named Judd Hall had died when the car in which he was a passenger crashed off the road. Slater copied a newspaper article onto his blog and casually headed it ‘Feral dies in Greymouth, did world a favour’.³ He was a friendly-faced young man, training for an IT diploma, and, tragically, the fourth son in the family to die in an accident. (One had been killed by a drunken driver, another had died in a fall and the third had been a victim of the 2010 Pike River mining disaster.) More than any single thing Slater had written, it provoked a furious public reaction.

Slater had made a specialty of collecting personal information on other people, including with the help of those he called his ‘hacker pals’.⁴ In April 2012 he boasted to a friend that he had received ‘28 Gb of emails plus a filing cabinet of documents’ about a businessman, which had been passed to him by a third party.⁵ This time, apparently as part of the angry backlash to his West Coast comments, hackers targeted him. A ‘denial of service’ attack was launched against his blog site, overloading his server and shutting down the website for three days. It appears the online attackers also gained access to his computer. Thus an insensitive comment about a car accident victim may have led to long-held secrets being revealed about Slater and his political collaborators: right up to the level of senior government ministers.

Some weeks later, out of the blue, I received a package: an 8-gigabyte USB digital storage device, the contents of which appeared to have originated from the attack on Slater’s website. On the USB were thousands of documents that revealed different parts of the National Party attack politics, a subject that until then had largely been a matter of speculation and denial. This was very different from my usual sources and investigations – I have not used this type of source before – but I believe not a single major news organisation in the country would turn down such fascinating and important material. Supplemented by some National Party sources, it has allowed stories to be told that the public has a right to know. I had no part in obtaining the material and I cannot say anything else about its origins.

The information that arrived on the USB consisted of thousands of pages of conversations on Facebook and by e-mail between Slater and his closest political associates: Jason Ede from the prime minister’s office, close friend and Cabinet minister Judith Collins, strategy consultant to National MPs Simon Lusk, Slater and Lusk’s apprentice Jordan Williams, their close collaborator David Farrar and a network of right-wing bloggers. There were also PR people such as Carrick Graham. It was clear that these materials were only a fraction of Slater’s documents, but they give a vivid picture of his and his colleagues’ activities. The project was suddenly much wider and more important than just the Whale Oil blog.

Important issues surround the use of leaked communications. First, everyone has the right to keep their communications private and there must be a very high public interest to justify publishing them. In this case, I believe most readers will agree that the materials raise very serious matters of political accountability, relating directly to the prime minister and other senior government ministers. They show a continuous collaboration between the prime minister’s office, bloggers and sympathetic media to arrange attacks on National’s opponents and to influence elections. This differs from the story and face presented by the National Party to the public and helps to explain much about what is wrong with contemporary politics. On the other hand, there was also a considerable amount of very personal information about relationships and other subjects, where the right to privacy outweighs any public interest. This material has not been included in the book and will not be passed to others. The fact that Slater and his associates have made a career of exposing the very private details of other people’s lives does not make it right to do that to them.

The chapters that follow will describe the origins and then the many facets of the covert attack machine run by the National Party and its allies. They include persistent attacks on Labour Party politicians, attacks that consciously set out to distract, wear down or demoralise them rather than trying to debate issues or win a political argument; orchestrated attacks on potential coalition partners; repeated searches for sexual scandal and other ‘dirt’ to use for political purposes; and supposedly independent ‘issue’ campaigns actually run by National Party figures to advance the party’s interests. Within the party there was concerted manipulation of National’s candidate selection processes.

The attacks are heightened by the routine use of extreme and mocking language. Environmentalists are green Taliban. Almost everyone on the left of politics is a liar and a hypocrite. An environment is created and encouraged where anonymous commenters on blogs and news sites join in the attacks, competing with each other in abuse and ugly personal insults. It is more like political warfare than a debate of ideas and beliefs.

The book begins by setting the scene and introducing the bloggers who became a political force only after the period covered by The Hollow Men. Then the serious material begins: the continuous close ties between the prime minister’s office and the attack dogs, the role of Judith Collins and the inside story of the political issues and campaigns that they manipulated – layer upon layer of hidden activities and dirty politics.

The main beneficiaries of the political attacks are the National Party and its senior politicians. This does not mean, as has been speculated, that Slater and the others were all secretly on the National Party payroll. The reality is more complicated. There are factions and tensions. John Key is very close to Farrar but does not and cannot control Slater. But when it comes to smears against Labour and other political opponents, the government and the attack bloggers do work together, with Ede as the primary conduit. When I write about National Party attack politics, readers will see that some attacks are collaborations with the prime minister’s office and the National Party, and some are with different parts of the Beehive, reflecting National’s deep factions. Sometimes political allies such as Slater and Farrar understand perfectly well what is in the party’s interests and do not need to be asked. But overall these activities systematically promote the interests of the party leadership, who are aware of and closely involved in many of the operations.

The prime minister appears in the early chapters mainly through the work of his senior staffer, Jason Ede. But by 2014, later in the book, it is clear there are regular communications between John Key and Slater.

It should not be a surprise that the negative politics documented in this book occurred under a government run by John Key, Steven Joyce and other colleagues, many of whom featured in The Hollow Men. With Key, the relaxed and smiling image had always been artifice, as anyone who had seen his face when he was displeased knew. But the image had worked well through his eight years as leader. For them, the systematic use of attack politics has been a dangerous secret, something National knew would look bad to the public and thus a political risk. But the short-term political gains were too tempting and it has continued year after year.

I wrote in the preface to The Hollow Men:

The underlying theme of the book is the conduct of politicians and others in politics – how their strategies, expediencies and the games they play to advance themselves can harm the whole political system. Short-term political necessities get in the way of the long-term good of the country. The [book] shows how easy it is to spin and manipulate and how our defences as a society (news media, electoral laws and so on) are inadequate to protect the public. This in turn creates the situation where many people ‘don’t like politics’ and leave it to the politicians – and if anything is clear from this story it is that politics should not be left to the politicians. The story is, in essence, about democracy – that ideal everyone in politics applauds and few respect.

These are the underlying ideas of this book too. Like the cynical advisers seen in The Hollow Men, the people described in these pages have helped to create a type of politics that disappoints and repels many ordinary people. But the book is not about the inevitability of expedient and unprincipled politics. Understanding what is wrong means things do not have to remain that way.Exposing dirty politics is an essential step in allowing reasonable people to understand and to choose other approaches. There is no need to follow those who are least principled down into the pit.

Nicky Hager

Wellington

August 2014

CHAPTER 1

THE RISE OF THE BLOGGERS

Early in New Zealand’s 2008 election year, the National Party expert in negative campaigning, John Ansell, was chatting by e-mail with Cameron Slater, then a little known right-wing blogger named ‘Whale Oil’. Ansell had made his name as author of mocking 2005 election television advertisements and billboards. He is best known for controversial Iwi/Kiwi billboards, seductively racist marketing that contrasted a Labour government that cared about Maori (Iwi) with a National Party that cared about all New Zealanders (Kiwi). Ansell was back working for National, preparing for 2008 election advertising, and was seeking Slater’s assistance.

Ansell explained that National wanted to present a less aggressive style during the coming election campaign. ‘The Nats are not keen to insult Clark, as a lot of our targets respect her,’ he said. ‘They don’t want to go hard ... because it doesn’t fit with John Key’s brand. He’s Mr Nice Guy who’s going to do things better but not scare people by being harsh.’¹

The idea was that Key, as party leader, would be presented as friendly and positive, while other people did the attacking. Slater and Ansell understood this tactic because they had been working together closely on precisely this sort of arm’s-length attack campaigning in the previous months. Slater wrote back, saying ‘If the Nats won’t attack [Labour] then let us, but we need some cash to do so … I can put together a consortium of bloggers to attack … National-aligned blogs get the softer stuff, ACT and Libertarianz get the harsh stuff.’²

Ansell pulled out of National Party advertising work shortly after, dissatisfied with the Mr Nice Guy brand, but Slater and his consortium of bloggers were just beginning. They would become the new experts in negative campaigning – the same kind of politics described in The Hollow Men but with new tactics and technology. They would overturn the traditional relationship between politics and news media by providing blog platforms that could spread news unconstrained by the media standards of accuracy, fairness and balance. They also offered a deniable channel that could be used over and over to launch attacks for politicians who wanted to keep their hands clean.

Ansell and Slater had been working together in the previous months on an important campaign for the National Party: an attack on the Labour government’s 2007 Electoral Finance Act (EFA). This legislation had arisen in part after revelations in The Hollow Men of undeclared financial relations between National and secret donors: the Exclusive Brethren church, the Talley fishing family and other big business figures. The revelations were embarrassing for National and seemed like an ideal opportunity for New Zealand to fix its weak laws covering secret money in elections. The electoral finance bill put restrictions on anonymous donations and a cap of $120,000 on how much each lobby group could spend on advertising to try to influence an election. In an unexpected twist of politics, though, some poor legislation drafting and vigorous negative campaigning had turned the issue around and the EFA became a strong focus of National Party attacks on the Labour government.

The ‘Free Speech Coalition’ declared that democracy was under attack by the legislation and paid for large billboards picturing Fiji’s Commodore Bainimarama, Chairman Mao and North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il applauding the suppression of New Zealand democracy. A protest at Parliament included placards saying ‘Labour: thieves of democracy’ and ‘We don’t want your fascist law’.

Big, bold and disingenuous, the supposedly independent coalition was a National Party-aligned campaign tactic, well timed in the lead-up to the 2008 election. The billboards were designed by Ansell, the ‘coalition’ spokesperson David Farrar ran the National Party’s polling and the main organiser, with him, was Cameron Slater.³ The Farrar–Slater ‘Free Speech Coalition’ team spent the final weeks of the 2008 election campaign travelling the country in a ‘BlogMobile’ motor home that PR man Matthew Hooton had arranged to be sponsored by an alcohol company.⁴ It was a successful trial of the tactic of separating attack activities from the ‘positive’ party leadership, and a critically important issue for National, since the party’s access to very wealthy donors gives it a major strategic advantage. Slater and Farrar would repeatedly play this pseudo-independent attack role in the following years.

Another key figure in this book is political campaign consultant Simon Lusk. He appeared briefly in The Hollow Men, writing to party leader Don Brash’s secretary about a 2005 meeting he had attended while acting as campaign manager for a local Hawke’s Bay National Party candidate. The private meeting had been between Brash and an Exclusive Brethren representative to discuss a million-dollar Brethren advertising campaign to attack the Green Party during that year’s election campaign.⁵

After The Hollow Men was published, Lusk had e-mail correspondence with me correcting a detail in the book and then explaining his ideas about negative campaigning.⁶ ‘There are a few basic propositions with negative campaigning that are worth knowing about,’ he wrote. ‘It lowers turnout, favours right more than left as the right continue to turn out, and drives away the independents. Voting then becomes more partisan.’ He then recommended an article about ‘one of the greatest ads in political history, the Willie Horton ad’.⁷ This controversial advertisement had associated the 1988 US presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, a liberal on prison policy, with the assault and rape of a white couple by a black convict, Willie Horton, and helped to secure the presidency for George Bush senior. The Bush campaign team had set out to make Willie Horton a household name.

As the article explained,

The only remaining question for Bush strategists was how to get their anti-Dukakis message out before the general public. If they directly attacked Dukakis, their campaign could suffer a backlash from people upset over negative campaigning. That tactic could risk their quest for the presidency. Increasingly, in the 1980s, the American public had grown weary of attack politics. Negative ads and tough rhetoric made the country feel badly about itself. Politicians who employed such tactics sometimes saw public support for their campaigns disappear over night.

Caught between their need to place negative information about Dukakis before the public and their desire to avoid a backlash against going on the attack, Bush operatives decided on a two-track system. The official campaign would attack Dukakis’ crime credentials and record as governor of Massachusetts … At the same time, however, taking advantage of a loophole in campaign finance rules, outside groups would run a second campaign that was much tougher. The outside track would feature ‘brass knuckles’ tactics that would appeal to the basest instincts of the American public on the subject of race. This unauthorized and uncoordinated campaign would say things and run advertisements that could not be said by the official Bush organization.

The article noted that Bush’s presidential effort had trained a generation of campaign operatives how to run a negative campaign. ‘Its “two-track” approach would become a model of how to exploit campaign finance laws and use outside groups to deliver hard-hitting messages on behalf of the candidate. Over the course of the following decade, this strategy would become commonplace in American elections.’⁸ And, as will become clear, in New Zealand elections. This, in a nutshell, was the thinking behind the National Party’s two-track approach: strenuously protecting the party leader’s friendly and approachable image while relying on other people for a continuous barrage of attacks and negative campaigning.

When he wrote about these ideas, Lusk was involved only in local National Party politics and was considering academic study about campaign strategy. By the following election, he had become a professional adviser for National Party candidates and MPs, and was a key figure with Cameron Slater and David Farrar in attack politics.

Meanwhile in February 2008, a few days after the Ansell–Slater conversation, Slater convened a gathering of right-wing bloggers at the Wildfire restaurant on Auckland’s Princes Wharf. He told the group, who wrote under such pseudonyms as Adolf Fiinkensein, Gooner and Insolent Prick, and included blogger and future National MP Nikki Kaye, that their table was ‘booked under the name of VRWC … be careful folks it is a full moon after all.’⁹ This referred to the group’s tongue-in-cheek title, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The occasion for the dinner was their Wellington colleague David Farrar being in town.¹⁰

The members of this group were in regular contact, coaxing one another on and sharing resources and ideas. Their e-mails from the first half of 2008 give a picture of the right-wing blogging scene at that time, when it had begun to discover its power but was still little known to the wider public. They also show the origins of what was to come.

Two days before the dinner, for instance, Slater wrote to New Zealand Herald gossip columnist Rachel Glucina, urging her to try to smear businessman Owen Glenn, who donated money to the Labour Party: ‘You should dig out some girl stories about Owen Glenn, either who he was/has shagged or tried to get in the sack.’ And, he urged, ‘If you can’t find any then make it up. … It is open season on him right now.’¹¹Trying to dig up sex accusations against political opponents would become a signature part of Slater’s political attacks. Anyone he did not like was probed for dirt (see Chapter 10 on his later sex-related attacks). Glucina would become a routine outlet for his and other National Party personal attacks.

Slater was in regular contact with his blogger friends Cathy Odgers, blog name Cactus Kate, Peter Smith (not his real name)¹² and Aaron Bhatnagar, with whom he often talked over his attack plans, and, most important, David Farrar, who produced the complementary attack blog called Kiwiblog. Slater and Farrar’s e-mails show day-by-day collaboration in political campaigning and blogging, and they have worked as a tag team in the years since.¹³ Also evident is early e-mail contact between Slater and Judith Collins, who, by the following election, would be close political friends and working together continuously.¹⁴

But the most important relationship forming during the 2008 election year was between the bloggers and John Key’s office, in particular the prime minister’s senior adviser and attack politics co-ordinator, Jason Ede. In May 2008, for instance, the web editor in Key’s office, Francis Till, wrote to three people, attaching a copy of an attack graphic used in the US against Hillary Clinton. ‘We need one of these,’ he said, meaning to be used against Labour leader Helen Clark. The recipients, whom he knew to e-mail for this kind of activity, were Slater, Farrar and Ede.¹⁵

Slater wrote back to Till, Farrar and Ede the next day with a Helen Clark version of the Clinton graphic he had produced. Ede wrote an hour later: ‘Cam, I’m keen to have a chat at some point. What’s your phone number?’¹⁶ A few days later Slater sent him an attack graphic against Labour Finance Minister Michael Cullen. Ede replied ‘hehehehehe’.¹⁷

The turning point in this relationship came two weeks later, when Slater got an e-mail from Kevin Taylor, John Key’s chief press secretary. Taylor explained that the National leader’s office had decided it was not going to engage with any blogs. ‘I have no intention of answering questions from a Labour-backed blog,’ he wrote, so they did not want to be seen helping National-aligned blogs either. However, ‘FYI, Jason Ede asked me to mention that he will be giving you a call in the next few days.’¹⁸

The new plan was that there would be no official links between Key’s office and the right-wing bloggers, but Jason Ede would become the ongoing connection. According to insiders, as the 2008 election campaign intensified, Ede established and ran morning telephone conference calls with Slater, Farrar and one or two other influential bloggers. Ede became known by his Beehive colleagues as the ‘black ops’ man, co-ordinating the smears against Labour and other opposition party politicians. Chairing these phone meetings on his government salary, Ede’s morning calls would discuss who should lead each attack and ensure that the other bloggers linked to it.¹⁹ After the 2008 election, which National won, Taylor was questioned about links with Cameron Slater. He said that Slater ‘has nothing to do’ with the prime minister’s office.²⁰

Thus, back then when no one was taking much notice of them, the basic arrangements of the attack politics took shape. The configuration was to be Ede–Farrar–Slater, with Lusk in the background, and stories and attacks fed out from them to people such as Rachel Glucina and a series of journalists and underresourced news organisations willing to take an easy scoop. Farrar’s brand was independent, rational analysis and Slater’s aggressive attack dog, but the consistent mission week after week was defending their party and mauling its opponents.

~

By the beginning of the 2011 election year, Slater and Ede were in regular contact. Ede had grown up in New Plymouth and worked for several years as a reporter on the local newspaper, rising to news editor, before moving to Auckland in the late 1990s to work as a journalist at Television New Zealand. By 2003 he had taken a job as senior press secretary in the National Party leader’s office, working alongside publications and information manager, David Farrar.²¹ Although Ede was relatively junior and not responsible for the deception and dirty politics during those years, his job was to defend his colleagues’ actions.

When Don Brash was caught out in a secret, million-dollar collaboration with the Exclusive Brethren church, Ede helped with the damage control. After Brash’s calculatedly racist speech at Orewa in 2004, Ede defended the speech and evaded difficult questions over its factual claims. He handled the damage control again when Brash was caught out secretly telling visiting American politicians that if he were elected, New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy would be ‘gone by lunchtime’. Shortly after that, Ede advised that they ‘keep quiet’ over a meeting Brash had with the hawkish US official, Richard Armitage.²² Two elections later, Ede was the longest serving media adviser in the prime minister’s office and, by then, running Key’s secretive operations. On 27 January 2011, for instance, Ede wrote to Slater, saying that if Labour criticised National’s candidate Jami-Lee Ross about the cost of the Botany by-election, ‘I hope I can count on you to run some interference.’ Slater replied that he had ‘a strategy to smack Labour on that … I’ve run it before and will run it again.’²³ A fortnight later Slater told Simon Lusk about plans he had with Ede to target Labour’s by-election candidate, Michael Woods. ‘Jason Ede and I are going to run a sting on him and set him up,’ Slater wrote. ‘He will go off like a firecracker and [Labour leader] Goff will have to disown him.’²⁴ Lusk wrote back, ‘Sweet, have you got through to Jason I am on the right side and don’t mind playing pretty rough?’²⁵

Slater also told Lusk about Ede sticking up for him in a dispute with an Auckland National Party figure. ‘The c**t has been told by Jason to bite his fucking tongue,’ Slater wrote, ‘because National needs attack dogs like me to play nicely.’ Lusk replied, ‘At least Jason is on to it.’²⁶ The following month, when Slater was co-ordinating a media sting on Auckland mayor Len Brown, Ede was in the loop as well and invited Slater and the journalist for a beer afterwards.²⁷ The attack dog and prime minister’s office now seemed to be routinely working together.²⁸

So were Slater and Lusk, each on the way to becoming a specialist in attack politics. During those last two years Slater had gone from being virtually unknown to being moderately notorious after repeatedly identifying people on his blog, full title Whale Oil Beef Hooked, who had been granted name suppression in court.²⁹ His life was now a busy stream of daily blog attacks, internal National Party politics and political campaigns, paid and unpaid. Lusk was establishing himself as a paid political strategy consultant. They were in contact most days via Facebook messaging and their conversations prefigured much of what was coming.

Their conversations jumped from political plans, to enthusiastic discussion of guns, hunting and women, and back to political plans, sometimes boastful, sometimes very serious. Lusk tended to be cautious and strategic, Slater energetic and impulsive. Both were still early in their political careers and keen to prove themselves, and impress each other, as seen in this exchange about a National Party official Slater had been attacking on his blog:

Cameron Slater: he has tried to get Cactus to talk with me

Simon Lusk: there is fuck all point in that

Cameron Slater: he asked what he is doing that upsets me. Cactus told him... breathing

Simon Lusk: she is classy

Cameron Slater: and owned by us

Simon Lusk: Yes. I need to meet her, so she understands that I am ideologically sound, though I am a fully qualified redneck with a rifle, a shotgun and a four wheel drive. Actually four rifles and three shot guns.

Cameron Slater: I’ll find out when she is back.³⁰

In another conversation, Slater sent Lusk a message he had just received from National Cabinet minister Judith Collins, congratulating him on a blog post he and Lusk had written about internal Auckland National Party politics. ‘Loved your utu post,’ she said. ‘Personally I would be out for total destruction … But then again I’ve learnt to give is better than to receive.’³¹

Lusk was impressed. He wrote back to Slater a few minutes later, saying, ‘That’s why I am keen to have her as leader, our side will learn to fight properly.’ Slater added, ‘and fight hard’. He mused, ‘I wonder if Crusher [Judith Collins] and [Steven] Joyce have done a deal.’ The party was already manoeuvring over who would eventually replace John Key. ‘A Crusher Joyce combo would smash the shit out of Labour for at least another two terms.’³² Lusk pursued another thought: ‘We need to talk to Crusher about what happens if Winston gets back in and we end up out of power.’³³

Slater discussed that same subject with his friend Peter Smith a few days later. They were talking about the latest poll results and National’s chances of victory later that year. This led to a recurring subject in the National Party attack strategies: how to knock out Labour’s potential coalition partners, particularly New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters. ‘Winston is the biggest threat,’ Smith wrote. ‘Not after I’ve finished with him,’ Slater replied. ‘I hope you destroy him,’ Smith said. Slater said he had ‘some people who are prepared to pay me $50k to campaign against him’.³⁴

Shortly after this conversation Slater displayed a mock up of an anti-
Winston Peters billboard on his blog. ‘Winston Peters can be knocked out of politics permanently if a good campaign is run against him,’ he wrote. ‘To do this we need hoardings like this one below.’ He appealed for donations to fight Peters and also to fight MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) during that year’s electoral system referendum – two birds with the one stone.³⁵ Later that year, just before the election, Slater organised anti-Winston Peters billboards and advertisements – much like his original mock up – under the name of his and Lusk’s ‘Vote for Change’ anti-MMP group.³⁶

Back in the Sunday morning chat with Lusk, Slater moved on from Peters, writing, ‘Len Brown is such a dick.’ Brown had won the Auckland super city mayoralty four months earlier, defeating their preferred right-wing candidate, John Banks. Slater had an almost obsessive drive to discredit Brown and get him chucked out of office.

Lusk told Slater that he was ‘thinking seriously’ about trying to get someone to fund a strong campaign for the Auckland mayoralty, ‘building a war chest and a stack of candidates … I want to fuck up the left at local body as well as central.’ With nearly three years until the next mayoral election, there was no great hurry. ‘Just let it sleep for a while,’ he said. ‘I need to get the money first and the first pitch is to engage me and you: me for strategy, you for defining Len.’³⁷ Slater had already been ‘defining’ Len Brown, personally attacking him at every opportunity. Much more of this was to come.

Lusk and Slater’s other recurring Facebook discussions were about Lusk’s two main areas of work for that year: his plan to move National to the right by influencing candidate selection processes, and setting up a lobby group to get rid of New Zealand’s MMP proportional representation voting system. They were counting on David Farrar’s assistance. ‘I was talking with Farrar about [US election strategy] yesterday. He has some good ideas too,’ Slater said. ‘He needs some,’ Lusk replied, ‘he doesn’t want to be labelled pinko when we move things to the right.’ Slater answered, ‘He’ll morph.’³⁸

‘There is going to be a lot of utu,’ Lusk said, talking about the internal party war under way over candidate selections. ‘Yes and utu is best served cold,’ Slater replied, ‘and in person to their face so they know it was you who spilled their guts onto their shoes.’³⁹ Slater proudly listed some of his ‘Whale Oil Rules of Politics’: 1. If you are explaining, you are losing; 2. Utu is good, even necessary; 3. Never hug a corpse; 4. Don’t let mongrels get away with being mongrels. Lusk added: ‘Don’t fuck with the whale.’ Yep, Slater agreed.⁴⁰ Vengeance is a recurring theme in his conversations.⁴¹

~

The Whale Oil blog often had a vigilante feel, including ‘bounties’ for anyone who could produce embarrassing photographs or information about his favourite opponents. ‘Spread the word of a bounty,’ he said to a Wellington National Party friend. ‘I want Williams caught drunk and staggering.’ This was part of a long-term campaign of attacks on former North Shore City mayor, and then New Zealand First MP, Andrew Williams. His friend said ‘it is proving harder than I thought,’ but Slater encouraged him that ‘parliament is back next week’.⁴²

Slater followed up this conversation a few days later with a Whaleoil Bounty List on his blog. ‘This parliamentary term I will be offering the following bounties,’ he wrote. There was a $250 bounty for a photo of Andrew Williams or Winston Peters drunk in Courtenay Place; a $500 bounty for video of either Peters or Williams drunk in Courtenay Place; and a $1,000 bounty for both of them drunk together in Courtenay Place. The post invited suggestions for other bounty targets.⁴³

Slater boasted online about his ‘Whaleoil Army’ of supporters, who helped to collect the photographs, tip-offs and dirt for the blog. (This was partly true but also a useful cover for the materials he received from National Party politicians and their staff.) Readers were invited to cheer him on when the latest target got ‘harpooned’ by the whale and, like a British tabloid newspaper, he declared ‘Gotcha’ for his successful attacks. Readers also joined in the attacks. In its first eight years, the blog had about 400,000 comments,⁴⁴ although this number was misleading. A few of the names – Gazzaw, Mr_Blobby, Thor42, Sir Cullen’s Sidekick, Petal, Phar Lap and so on – belonged to people who had each written several thousand comments over the years. Most of the comments came, and still come, from just a few hundred people, the blogosphere equivalent of radio talkback callers with too much time on their hands. They create the impression of a much wider discussion than actually exists. Nonetheless, these were the people, almost all of them men, who helped to create the intellectual, political and ethical culture of the blog.

Here is Thor42 offering his wisdom on poverty, one of an estimated 3800 comments he made on the Whale Oil blog. ‘Almost all the “poor” are poor,’ he wrote in January 2014, ‘because (a) they don’t have the intelligence and persistence needed to succeed and (b) they make really bad decisions.’⁴⁵ Guzzaw did not like the Green Party and Greenpeace and declared them green Taliban, communists, wankers, fuckwits, hypocrites and many other names in his nearly 7000 comments written between 2011 and 2014.⁴⁶ Mr_Blobby commented about 4000 times, including these three comments out of 29 he wrote over two days: ‘Len Brown is fucking c**t’, ‘Fuck off c**t’ (to another commenter) and, his suggestion for prison food, ‘two choices, bread and water or fish head soup and rice, anything else supplied by the family’.⁴⁷ Phar Lap, with a more modest 2000 comments between 2012 and 2014, went in for vitriol. ‘What part of RIGHT don’t you understand, you little fat Green frog,’ he wrote about another commenter. ‘We will always be in control of jealous self pitying psychopaths like you. You are so sick and bitter of successful people you are full of mad dog shit. In fact your mouth is all brown you even talk the shit you are full of.’⁴⁸

The Whale Oil comments are a free zone for all sorts of ranting and prejudice. Here is ‘Ian’, a professional landlord and property investor, commenting on gay people on 19 May 2013. ‘I won’t employ them nor give them rentals and to hell with the repercussions,’ he wrote, ‘what I do with my properties and whom I employ is my business.’ This was the first of eight frothing posts he wrote on the subject during one day. ‘Iran has the right idea for these filthy scum,’ he wrote an hour later. His fourth comment, a few hours after that, said gay people were ‘perverted derelicts of society’; the fifth said, ‘one day the scum that forced it upon us to accept these deviants will really suffer.’ His seventh comment went further: ‘I have paid fines for punching shit like you over, you effeminate piece of gutless shit, and believe me, if I wasn’t worried about the disease you carry I would still be doing it. I take great delight in kicking in heads of your filth.’⁴⁹

Cameron Slater has stated he is not anti-gay. However he sparked these comments with a post about negative attitudes to gay neighbours in France and was then willing to leave them and most other extreme comments on his blog. The abusive tone of the blog is set by Slater himself – extreme and unfair criticisms, mocking and caricaturing – and then amplified in the comments. This is a serious problem with blogs, and news websites, that allow anonymous comments. Most of the bigoted, abusive and nasty comments are made by people who would never say such things if they were identified. Blogs can seem like the ultimate space for freedom of speech but anonymous speech, unless strictly moderated, is something different: it brings out the worst in people, not the best, and sometimes it just brings out the worst people.

Slater’s blog posts are relentlessly aggressive and partisan. Here is a snapshot of his thinking. When the devastating earthquake struck Christchurch on 22 February 2011, Slater initially helped his Seventh Day Adventist church in gathering aid supplies to send to the city and castigated companies that were slow to help. But then his partisan prejudices came to the fore.

Writing to his friend Peter Smith, he said, ‘The place is fucked … they should just board it up and close it down.’ Smith replied, ‘A real tragedy, but it will fuck labour for the election.’ Slater said, ‘Yep blessings.’ Later his views hardened: ‘What i can’t believe … is how we have to bail out those useless pricks in the sth island, again.’ Smith replied, ‘I said to someone today National should let them rot, after all they are useless scum Labour voters especially in the areas where the earthquake hit … well hopefully more scum labour voters will piss off to Australia [and] at least the uninsured get fucking nothing.’ Slater added, ‘Those suburbs are hard core Labour … the owners will be Nat voters though and the voters tenants, so the houses are gone and the scum are gone too, and so they should get nothing.’⁵⁰

In its early days, at the beginning of 2006, the Whale Oil blog was purely political, an outlet for Slater’s opinions and little noticed attacks. His few but loyal commenters were often his blogger friends such as Bhatnagar and Smith. But as Slater worked to build up the visitor numbers, the blog gradually morphed into something new, more like an amusement site with the entertaining venom of his political posts fitted in between all sorts of pure entertainment.

Blog visitors were, and are, drawn into a strange collection of quirky Photos of the Day, clips from old films and television programmes (Mental Health Breaks), unusual Maps of the Day, footage of motorbike races or guns, Daily Proverbs, old music videos, Faces of the Day, articles such as ‘Stinky farts are saving your life’ and so on. These entertainments are in effect bait, interspersed with his many blog posts, political attack cartoons, anti-climate change articles taken from foreign websites, anti-gun control stories from Fox News and the rest. It is a clever formula, like a food with an enticing combination of sugar, fat and salt, drawing people into a political attack site.

So this was Whale Oil and Cameron Slater. What the public saw was partly political theatre and partly a genuine bully, the son of his hard-nosed right-wing father, who was renowned for being the ‘Rasputin’ of the Auckland National Party.⁵¹ Reckless of other people’s feelings, the younger Slater had embraced the role of attack dog, creating a public persona that, like most such fronts, obscured as much as it revealed of his personality.

A blog does not succeed without skill and hard work, and Slater’s output was relentless: day after day he continued to produce five to 10 daily blog posts. But his conversations show he was far from contented. He wanted more public prominence. He wanted more traffic on his blog. He wanted much more influence over politics. In his mind, the way to achieve this was to launch ever more devastating hits and stings against his political enemies. Ede and the prime minister’s office were happy to use him in this role.

CHAPTER 2

THE PM’S BLACK OPS MAN

Despite John Key’s 2006 pledge that he would stop using Don Brash-era advisers, the National Party’s strategy advisers for the 2011 election were the Australian political consultants, Crosby Textor. Mark Textor flew back and forth to New Zealand advising on messaging and approach. When Crosby Textor work in Australia and Britain it is always controversial, owing to their long reputation for negative politics. But their approach to their involvement with the National Party was like their advice about many potentially contentious issues in the election: say nothing and hope no one notices. It worked.

The ideas presented by Textor were simple and effective. The main asset in the campaign was the party leader John Key and he should not be tarnished by the things his government had or had not done in the previous three years. Much better to talk about the future than their record. Key was to remain positive and look forward.¹ The campaign slogan, ‘Building a Brighter Future’, was optimistic, inoffensive and comfortingly meaningless.

Being seen engaging in attack politics would not, of course, fit the plan and so Key left the negative campaigning, unseen and deniable, to his parliamentary staff and their political allies. What follows is an example of this. It is the story of one of Cameron Slater’s largest attacks during the 2011 election year, which was planned, timed and executed in collaboration with the prime minister’s black ops man, Jason Ede.

Ede was very cautious about keeping his activities hidden. Instead of his parliament e-mail account, he used a series of personal e-mail addresses, including political.animal101@gmail.com, and, during the 2011 election operations, nzedjed@gmail.com. His preference was phone calls where there was no record of what had been said. When he went on Facebook for communication it was not to a personal page. Instead he had a variety of fake identities through which he could operate anonymously in the online world.² Fortunately, however, enough e-mails have come to light to reveal his role.

Slater got the tip-off for his biggest 2011 attack from his blogger friend Aaron Bhatnagar, a former Auckland city councillor and business investor who had written a guest post as ‘Whale Oil Business Correspondent Winslow Taggart’, promoting ‘one of New Zealand’s best run’ retirement companies, Ryman Healthcare, in which he is a shareholder.³ Bhatnagar’s approach to politics is summed up by his own words to Slater: ‘I’m getting bored. I need mischief to keep me busy …’⁴ He had been caught out using an anonymous identity to insert derogatory passages on the Wikipedia page of left-leaning Auckland mayor Dick Hubbard and earlier was associated with an anonymous smear campaign during Hubbard’s mayoral campaign.⁵ On another occasion he asked Slater to help him find a ‘paparazzi photographer’ to ‘spook’ a lawyer outside his legal chambers.⁶

This time, Bhatnagar had been sniffing around the Labour Party’s websites and stumbled across an insecure location containing gigabytes of sensitive party information, including lists of donors and supporters. In the middle of election year, this was embarrassing and potentially very harmful to the Labour Party. Bhatnagar passed the find on to his friend.⁷

Slater told the story later of how he discovered the insecure data himself and researched it himself. He made an online video showing how he did it.8 He said he had publicised the materials so the Labour Party would take responsibility for the security flaw.⁹ News stories said ‘National denies link with blogger over Labour Party data’ and National Party president Peter Goodfellow said the party had ‘played no part in passing information to Slater’.¹⁰ He said the ‘tech community’ had been talking about the Labour vulnerability and the party’s IT employee had ‘accessed the information’, but ‘we were more concerned about our own security and wanted to double-check that our system was as solid as we thought it was’.¹¹ The IT employee had ‘not had any contact with Cameron Slater about the data or the websites’.¹²

Most of this was not true. Internal documents show that Slater worked step by step with National Party staff on the attack and that their aim throughout was to cause maximum harm to Labour. Some people would have rung up their equivalents in the opposing party and told them they had a security flaw, aware that these mistakes can happen to anyone. (Slater himself joked privately to Bhatnagar that it was the kind of computer error that National made: ‘I couldn’t believe they would be so stupid … it’s what National would have done.’)¹³ Instead what follows is a classic case study of attack politics.

The story begins with Slater and Bhatnagar chatting on Facebook on a Friday evening, 3 June 2011.

Cameron Slater: That website info will hit soon. Watch the damage that ensues

Aaron Bhatnagar: I’ve been meaning to ask you! LOL [laugh out loud], when do you run it?

Cameron Slater: been working thru it all... was going to do it this week but Goff is away. Far better to do it when the putz is back

Cameron Slater: the most damaging is the 18000 emails, and the Credit card transactions

Aaron Bhatnagar: fuck me, I hadn’t been that forensic myself. This will be huge

Cameron Slater: got the whole of their email database

Aaron Bhatnagar: oh no, LOL .... this is violence writ large

Cameron Slater: I think some teaser videos of screenshots and stuff drip fed over a few days, then drop the bomb say wed morning so [Parliament’s Wednesday afternoon] general debate is awesome

… The media are far too lazy to do what i have already done … so prob best to package it into bite size pieces.

Aaron Bhatnagar: unreal. I knew there was heaps there, but I hadn’t actually leached it all. Credit card info? That’s insane. Labour will be ruined....

I’m sure Chaos and Mayhem Ltd [Slater and his friends] will find a way to use all this left wing online data

Cameron Slater: got First name, Last Name and email, in 3 files, main labour mail list

Aaron Bhatnagar: could set back the online left wing community for 3 years.... I’ve told no one

Cameron Slater: and don’t

Aaron Bhatnagar: I wouldn’t wreck what might potentially be your greatest story....

Then Bhatnagar asked, ‘Do the Nats know?’ As we have seen, both National and Slater would later deny collaborating on the leak. Slater replied that he had been ‘working with senior nats for [the] release’.¹⁴

The Labour Party’s computers were insecure but they did keep logs of the outside computers that accessed the data. These show that the first time someone downloaded the Party’s database was on 27 May 2011.¹⁵ The outside computer had a disguised IP address – an IP address is the computer equivalent of a phone number – but it was probably Bhatnagar, when he first found he could access the data a week before the above conversation with Slater. It looks likely that he told Slater about it at that stage.

That first download of the Labour data occurred on a Friday. The next time someone accessed and downloaded the database was after the weekend, at 11 a.m. on the Monday morning, 30 May, using an untraceable Telecom IP address. Jason Ede was one of the people who accessed and downloaded the website at this stage. This 30 May visit appears to be him, probing into the Labour Party website while he worked at his desk in the prime minister’s ninth-floor offices. The same computer accessed the site a second time eight days later.

The following day, 31 May, someone else accessed the Labour data and their IP address was easily traced to the site, national.org.nz: the database had been downloaded by someone at National Party headquarters. The logs show that that person poked around the Labour Party website for about two hours. This was almost certainly the National Party’s IT employee mentioned by Goodfellow. The data had proved to be technically difficult to search and they needed specialist assistance.

On Wednesday 1 June, following this flurry of activity, Ede sent an e-mail to Slater and their regular collaborator David Farrar with the news that ‘Goffmeister’, the Labour Party leader Phil Goff, was going to be away from Parliament at his son’s wedding the following week.¹⁶ It was following this that Slater told Bhatnagar that he had been ‘going to do [the data release] this week but Goff is away’.

Slater revealed to Bhatnagar that the data included a back-up of the ‘civicrm stuff’ (a computer programme that manages an organisation’s members, donors, bulk mailing and so on). It was not encrypted. ‘Rebuilding it now’, he said, without a pronoun to indicate who was doing this.17 (There is no sign in the documents of anyone other than the National Party IT person being involved.) The following Friday Slater was chatting with Simon Lusk via Facebook and first told him about having the Labour data. ‘Just got three files of all Labour’s online donations and cc [credit card] details,’ he said. Slater said to Lusk that it was ‘doing my head in on best way to do the story’. He described his idea. ‘I thought a post each morning promising a data dump each afternoon … then a post dumping data each afternoon.’ He said, ‘I want this to drip feed all week. The traffic [on the blog] is going to be massive.’ Lusk was thinking in other directions. He suggested that Slater could ‘promise to stop if trev [Labour MP Trevor Mallard] resigns and lets darren [Darren Hughes, a Labour MP who had recently resigned over sexual allegations] have his seat. There are so many c**ty plays you can make.’ Slater continued excitedly on his own track: ‘which means the hits will just keep on flowing. I want to devastate the c**ts.’¹⁸

The details of the plan were worked out between Slater and Ede in the final days before the launch. The computer logs show them both accessing the Labour site on 7 June, Ede (identifiable by his computer’s technical characteristics) arriving at 10.11 p.m. and Slater (who forgot to disguise his home IP address) two minutes later at 10.13 p.m. Then on 10 June, just two days before the attack was launched, they to-ed and fro-ed by e-mail, working out which bits of the Labour information Slater should emphasise.

Slater e-mailed Ede, for instance, asking ‘Who is David Talbot?’ It was a ‘name that comes up a lot in the email lists’, using a parliamentary e-mail address.¹⁹ Ede e-mailed back that he would double-check. ‘I note that he does a lot of party-related stuff online,’ he said.²⁰ Slater replied, ‘Yes, I think if we can confirm he is out of office staff then he is a parliamentary services staff laundering money.’²¹ Slater would later feature Talbot in his roll-out of attack stories. Ede wrote to Slater about a name he had found in the lists of Labour Party donors: ‘I see Helen Kelly has donated – confirmation she is anti-Govt.’²² Considering Kelly was head of the Council of Trade Unions and a well-known Labour supporter, this was hardly news. Later that day Slater asked, ‘Any other interesting names?’²³ The only people working on this were Slater and the prime minister’s man, Ede – and the IT technician.

The attack began on Sunday 12 June with an article Slater had arranged in a Sunday newspaper. He simultaneously began publishing a series of posts on his blog with the tag line ‘Labour Leaks’, announcing a long list of ‘rorts’ that would progressively be ‘outed’ on his site over the following days. ‘They will be caught out,’ he wrote. ‘Rorters will be exposed. Official complaints will be made, and will continue to be made … Keep coming back for details. There will be updates several times a day.’²⁴

Early on that Sunday morning Bhatnagar contacted Slater again. Their conversation is very revealing. ‘And so it begins …,’ Bhatnagar wrote. ‘Yep and it is going to hurt,’ Slater replied, ‘that document is devastating … this is going to be a feeding frenzy, especially when I publish all the credit card transactions, then the membership lists, then the 18000 emails.’ Thinking of the media reaction, Bhatnagar advised Slater to ‘keep your phone charged then – you will need the battery life!’²⁵

Slater then set out in writing the motivations underlying the leaks. It would be, he said, ‘death by a 1000 leaks’.

I have … cross referenced names with letter writers. I will have the definitive list of labour activists

it will shut down their donors, shut down their IT systems

shut down their membership flow

and shut down their online campaigns.²⁶

Bhatnagar joked back: ‘Join the Labour Party and the Whaleoil email loop at the same time. Not a compelling message for left wing voters.’

Slater continued: plus it makes all their activists well known now … someone writes a letter … oh you would say that you are a member of the labour party

they are going to die hard this week.²⁷

In other words, the aim was not to expose poor Internet security or some wrongdoing, or to prove a political point, but to do as much damage as possible to the Labour Party, undermining its ability to maintain its membership and campaign for its policies. It served another purpose, too, which had been summed up by Peter Smith writing to Slater about another attack the month before. This had served as ‘a massive distraction [for Labour] from fighting the campaign and trying to beat the nats,’ he noted with pleasure. ‘Every day is critical to labour and they are wasting them on sideshows.’²⁸ One kind of political exposé releases information to hold politicians accountable in their exercise of power; the kind described here simply attacks and distracts political opponents.

Bhatnagar made contact again later that Sunday to report the consternation in Labour’s ranks about how the leak occurred. ‘Same theme is developing nicely on Kiwiblog,’ Slater replied. Bhatnagar said, ‘Hahaha, must be 2 weeks of bad news here.’ Slater said, ‘Wonder how they are going to manage this fuck up … [if] they go full frontal aggressive … which i think they will, i will create labourleaks.com and publish it all including the database backups.’²⁹

Ede made contact by e-mail in the early afternoon to send Slater a post from the left-wing blog, The Standard. ‘And the standard attack begins,’ he wrote, ‘they say it’s theft.’³⁰ The blog post said that the real goal of the information releases was ‘to try to scare off Labour’s donors and activists’, which was entirely correct.³¹

The next morning, Slater began a new round of attacks. At 9 a.m. Slater published a post about the Labour Party’s donor information that featured David Talbot. ‘One of the most startling things I noticed from these transactions,’ he wrote, ‘is that some are being processed by parliamentary services staff. Throughout the files you can see transactions processed by David Talbot. He is a staffer, paid by parliamentary services who works in Phil Goff’s office. This is a huge conflict, and raises questions about how the Labour party is handling its affairs. Why would a Labour Party leader’s office staffer be handling credit card transactions?’³² But he and Ede had got it wrong.

A few days later Slater wrote: ‘In hindsight that was probably a mistake. I absolutely accept that David Talbot is employed on a part-time basis by the Labour leader’s office and divides his time between Parliamentary Services (taxpayer funding) and the separately paid work he does for the Labour Party (covered by their incredibly tiny donations). Nothing wrong with that at all.’ He added that Talbot seemed sometimes to have used the parliamentary e-mail address for Labour work and vice versa. ‘Sure, it’s not the crime of the century,’ he said.³³

But this was a minor setback. Mostly it was going to plan. That afternoon Slater called for Labour officials to resign. He said that ‘at the very least’ the general secretary ‘should be sacked or resign’ and that the party president should have to go too.³⁴ An hour later David Farrar published on Kiwiblog, also calling for Labour Party resignations. ‘I’m not sure who is the appropriate person to resign,’ he wrote, ‘but I think someone does have to be held accountable …’³⁵

Also, a problem had appeared. Labour had gone through the computer logs discussed earlier and blogger John Pagani publicised that the IP address of one of the computers that downloaded the Labour data was at the National Party headquarters. Slater’s response was simply to deny it. ‘National has not been involved in this release,’ he responded, ‘like I would trust them to keep this information quiet for as long as I have been in Labour’s backend.’ He said, ‘John Pagani simply lies to suggest otherwise, as does [party president] Moira Coatsworth and [party secretary] Chris Flatt.’³⁶ Slater felt the need to say more on this in a later post. ‘Labour have gone all in on their attacks on me and my alleged puppet masters in National,’ he wrote, noting that Pagani had made the links to National using IP address information. ‘I am assuming that this information was provided by the same IT muppets that secured their site so well. Probably not useful then is it?’³⁷

But it had been a close shave. The next day, 14 June, Ede and Slater exchanged several e-mails expressing their relief that Labour had not discovered Ede’s role. Ede wrote: ‘An interesting sidebar in Pagani’s story is that they’re chasing us by matching IP neighbourhoods and the types of computer we use. You stand out like dogs balls because of your damn Mac!!!!!’³⁸ He continued, ‘In my case, I wish to offer a hearty sigh of relief and celebrate dynamic IP addresses.’ He meant his computer regularly changed its IP address, which ensured he could not be identified by its IP address. If Ede had had a static IP address like Slater, the Labour Party might have been able to prove he had been inside their computer system. He titled his e-mail, ‘Thank You for dynamic IP addresses.’³⁹

It is unusually grubby to have a member of the prime minister’s staff digging around in their opponent’s computer system looking for dirt. Ede was doing all this in his role as ‘senior adviser’ to the prime minister, based in his ninth-floor Beehive office, number 9042, only two doors away from John Key’s.⁴⁰ Senior party officials were involved as well as the senior adviser, and it seems improbable that either would do it without informing the prime minister.

Besides the internal harm to Labour in the midst of an election year, they had achieved a week of bad publicity for Labour. In one of Ede’s e-mails, as he and Slater debriefed on the Labour data leaks, Ede offered an ironical assessment of what else they had achieved with the attack. ‘Can’t believe Labour is injecting so much energy into this,’ he said, ‘when they could be talking policy. #Winning.’⁴¹ The disruption and distraction was, of course, what they had intended. This tactic is used repeatedly, where a primary purpose of the attack politics is to embroil the opposition in petty crises and scandals so they cannot get on with promoting their own messages, policies and plans.

At the end of a week of releasing the Labour data, Slater caught up with his friend Peter Smith via Facebook. Smith suggested that Slater lay a complaint with the parliamentary speaker about things he’d uncovered in the data but Slater said he was not sure it would go anywhere. He was more interested in the damage they had caused:

the important thing is that their comms methods are shut down

their fundraising methods are shut down

so far [the Labour blog] Red Alert has been like a ghost town

they won’t be getting anymore credit card donations

and they look like muppets.⁴²

Later that evening Bhatnagar got in touch as well, suggesting a celebration lunch: ‘yum char thursday midday?’ Slater said he’d be there. Bhatnagar asked, ‘What’s next in the death by 1000 cuts?’ ‘I haven’t decided yet,’ Slater replied. ‘Want to see what they do next.’⁴³ Just a few weeks later he would be running his next major attack on the Labour Party, again in quiet and undeclared collaboration with the prime minister’s office.

CHAPTER 3

STRAIGHT FROM THE BEEHIVE

Slater’s next attack that year began in July 2011, only four months before the general election, when John Key mishandled two foreign policy matters and embarrassed himself during a much-vaunted trip to visit US president Barack Obama. Although he was by now a capable politician, Key was neither very interested nor experienced in foreign policy. In the first case, he repeatedly refused to answer questions on news reports about suspicions of spying by a group of Israeli backpackers, who had hurriedly left the country after one died in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. His attitude merely inflamed the situation and he had to back down a few hours later. He was widely thought to have mishandled the issue.¹

Then, while he was meeting Obama, news arrived of the mass killing of young Norwegian Labour Party members by a far-right racist at a summer camp outside Oslo. When Obama and Key spoke to the press after their meeting, the latter suggested that Islamic terrorists were responsible and tried to use the tragedy to score a political point. ‘If it is an act of global terrorism,’ he said, ‘I think what it shows is no country large or small is immune from that risk and that’s why New Zealand’s played its part in Afghanistan.’²

He looked foolish. The media talked about it being two gaffes in a row. Labour Party leader Phil Goff jumped on Key’s mistakes: ‘the prime minister has to understand the responsibilities of his office. He cannot mouth off without checking his facts first, which he’s now done … on a number of occasions in the past few days.’³ National was looking for a way to recover and an opportunity appeared to turn the attacks against Goff.

While defending his actions concerning the Israeli backpackers, Key said that Goff had also been briefed by the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) director on the case, but Goff denied this. However, he had remembered wrongly and, after a conversation with the SIS director, admitted he had indeed been told about the affair. The SIS director ‘said he flicked the issue past me and said there wasn’t much to it,’ Goff said. ‘If there had been anything of substance said to me, I’m sure I would recollect it.’⁴ This presented a golden opportunity for the National government to embarrass Goff and draw out the matter by publicising the official records of the briefing. It would, however, have looked bad for the prime minister, who is minister in charge of the SIS, to release details of a secret intelligence briefing in order to embarrass his political opponent. The motives would have been obvious. So someone else was chosen to make the attack and that person was Slater.

Slater would later claim that he pursued the subject, using the Official Information Act (OIA), entirely on his own initiative. John Key would likewise claim no involvement. However, Slater’s communications with his political friends show what actually happened. While Goff in part brought the trouble on himself, it is a textbook example of the prime minister’s office using Slater to carry out their plans.

The story begins on the day Goff admitted his mistake. Slater published a blog post headed ‘Goff needs to go’: ‘All somebody has to do now is ask [SIS director] Warren Tucker to produce the briefing notes and Goff is a goner.’⁵ The following day he sent a carefully worded information request to Tucker asking for copies of the briefing notes and ‘details of any acknowledgment’ that Goff had read them.⁶

Just two days after that, on 28 July 2011, Slater boasted to Peter Smith via Facebook about what he had coming. Smith said it looked like Goff would last as Labour leader until the election date. ‘No he won’t,’ Slater replied. ‘I’ll finish him off in the next couple of days.’ ‘More dirt?’ Smith asked. ‘Can’t say right now,’ Slater said. ‘I’m sworn to secrecy. But it will be catastrophic.’⁷

They continued the discussion the next day. Smith asked if Slater’s latest post, a joke text from Goff to Helen Clark about being in trouble, was ‘the beginning of the end for Goff?’

Cameron Slater: yep

Peter Smith: more to come? over the weekend?

Cameron Slater: yep

Peter Smith: misbehavior/lies/corruption? when will your post be?

Cameron Slater: can’t say, have to be patient.⁸

On 1 August Smith asked again, ‘getting close to a release of your Goff tease?’ Slater said he was ‘waiting on documents, then pow … it will happen this week … it should take him down’.⁹

Any regular user of the OIA knows that you almost never get a reply before the statutory 20 working days and that, with a sensitive subject, it usually takes considerably longer. But it seems someone had told Slater that his request would be processed, signed off and sent to him in just a few days. It also seems that Slater had some advance knowledge of what the information said.

At 9 p.m. the next day, 2 August, Slater was chatting via Facebook with Aaron Bhatnagar. ‘Should be a big day tomorrow,’ he said, ‘if my PO Box has a nice brown envelope with OHMS [On Her Majesty’s Service] on it.’ Bhatnagar said, ‘Oh, what’s that about?’ Slater said he had ‘OIAd the briefing minutes and notes for Goff’s SIS briefing … it has been expedited, in the public interest. It is devastating for Goff I am told.’¹⁰ By the next afternoon, only six working days since making the request, Slater was feeling impatient. Bhatnagar asked him if the package had arrived. ‘Nope,’ Slater replied, ‘getting really annoyed.’¹¹ It arrived soon after and Slater launched his attack on 4 August.

The SIS papers noted that Goff and Tucker had discussed ‘Investigation into Israeli Nationals in Christchurch’ and a briefing paper on the subject had been ‘read by/discussed with Mr Goff’. This sounds like more than ‘flicked by’. Slater wrote extravagant posts repeatedly calling Goff a liar, saying he had a ‘history of lying’ and claiming that he had accused the SIS director of lying.¹² Goff made it worse for himself by getting annoyed that his credibility had been questioned. The messy news coverage that followed did Goff no good. Key then joined in, saying on Radio New Zealand that someone was not telling the truth and that he did not believe Tucker would mislead the public.¹³

When Bhatnagar wrote to Slater a few hours after the news began, he said, ‘Bet you have a shit eating grin right now.’ Slater replied, ‘Meanwhile Goff is dying by inches, it’s on every channel and [media] outlet.’ Bhatnagar said that David Farrar had chimed in attacking Goff as well, and Slater added that Larry Williams of Newstalk ZB private radio was also ‘going large on it’.¹⁴ Other commentators such as PR man Matthew Hooton joined in too.¹⁵ That night, Smith wrote to ask if he was having a good day. ‘Yep,’ Slater replied, ‘fucked him hard.’¹⁶ It was the second big hit in a row, coming only weeks after the Labour Party data leaks.

Slater wrote that Goff’s actions alone had ‘led to a non issue being turned into three weeks worth of bad headlines’, but this was disingenuous.¹⁷ Slater knew his own actions had led to the bad headlines and was proud of it. The attack had successfully distracted attention from Key’s gaffes.

Whether Goff deserved this or not, the point here is the nature of the attack politics. Goff is a conservative on foreign policy and intelligence issues who would not naturally question or criticise the intelligence services. The aim from the start was to cause him political trouble, not to reveal or debate anything about his beliefs or policies. Documents like the SIS briefing notes are not usually released to the public, under the official information law or otherwise. Someone had overruled the usual practice and then fast-tracked the release. The released documents were stamped as being declassified on 26 July 2011, the same day that Slater sent off his request. Where was the time for decision-making and consultations?

Slater had been ‘sworn to secrecy’; he knew from the start that his information request had ‘been expedited’ and that the documents were ‘devastating’ for Goff. He was working clandestinely with insiders who knew what the briefing paper said and were involved in its release to him under the OIA. Those insiders can only have been in the SIS or Key’s office, and the SIS, and especially Tucker, would surely never have done something so unusual, so political and so public without their minister’s knowledge and approval. If Tucker had wanted to release the documents on his own initiative, he would normally have done so to the media first. Why would public servants expedite release to such an obviously partisan person?

In other words, it was not the SIS that tipped off Slater and arranged for him to run the attack. It was the prime minister’s staff. Given that it was highly political SIS business, there seems no doubt that John Key knew what was happening, approved it and had his staff liaise with Slater about the release.

The Labour Party questioned whether the document release had been a political set-up, but Slater insisted it was all his own idea. ‘The Official Information Act is designed so that the powerful can be held to account,’ he wrote. ‘While it is common for the Official Information Act to be utilised by journalists and others in the “media”, it is a law designed to enable citizens to hold their government machinery to account. That … is all “Citizen” Slater did. That he was first off the mark, and cannily couched his request in deliberately limited terms that seemed likely to get a quick result … just make him an effective inquirer.’¹⁸

A spokesperson for Key said ‘he had not contacted Slater about the matter’.¹⁹ Another report said, ‘Prime Minister John Key has denied his office had any contact with a right-wing blogger about requesting the release of the SIS papers that suggested Mr Goff had been briefed on the matter.’²⁰ It is worth stepping back and considering what had happened. Goff’s memory lapse was minor but there were serious issues involved. The prime minister had abused his position as minister in charge of the SIS to embarrass another politician only months before an election.

The obvious guess for who liaised with Slater over the SIS papers is Jason Ede. It is exactly what he would do the following year when he quietly tipped off Slater to make another hurried official information request.

That case concerned the embarrassing discovery of a major computer vulnerability in the Ministry of Social Development’s computers. In October 2012 an IT technician named Ira Bailey found a similar sort of fault to the one revealed the previous year in the Labour Party’s computers, where people could access large quantities of unsecured data. But rather than publicising the private information as Slater and Ede had done, Bailey contacted the ministry and asked if, like many organisations, they paid for information about security faults. When they declined he gave the story to a journalist. Widespread publicity followed and Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett faced damaging questioning in Parliament about whether she had leaked Bailey’s name to the media.

The Green Party requested copies of Bennett’s communications and, apparently fearing more bad publicity, someone in the government decided it would be better if the news came out through the Whale Oil blog instead. Ede contacted Slater about the impending information release to the Greens, writing from one of his non-parliamentary e-mail addresses, to suggest that the blogger request the information as well. He had ‘heard the Greens are getting it tonight – if you fire in an email you may be well served.’²¹

Ede recommended the wording that Slater use in his official information request: ‘Written and email communications within, to and from, Paula Bennett’s Ministerial office and its staff in relation to Ira Bailey from the beginning of last week til today’²² and Slater sent the request that day, using exactly the same words, apart from inserting a bracketed date, ‘Mon 8 October 2012’, after ‘last week’.²³ Slater received the information from Bennett by the following day and was able to publicise it with a government-friendly spin – ‘Bennett’s office in the clear’ – less than two days after Ede wrote to him.²⁴ Slater used the occasion as an excuse for gratuitous criticism of the people who had embarrassed the government: Bailey and journalist Keith Ng.²⁵

Slater finished his account of the incident by justifying the unnatural speed with which his information request had been answered, much as he had justified the rapid release of the SIS briefing. ‘Normally government departments and politicians use 20 days as a target timeframe despite information being to hand,’ he said. ‘In this case it is apparent that the information was to hand, and because I confined the request to a small timeframe and specific details [it] was able to be provided in a timely manner. I think Paula Bennett’s office are to be commended for that.’²⁶

Journalists have reported that this has become a regular trick in various ministers’ offices. One described how he would request information, wait the usual 20 working days or longer and then, when it was close to being released Slater would be tipped off to request the same information. The information would then be e-mailed to Slater at the same time as it was put in the post to the journalist. Slater could scoop the story on his blog, with his pro-
government spin, before the letter reached the journalist; he was undermining the media’s work and helping the government’s public relations work at the same time.²⁷

A pattern emerges: when the National government had a sticky issue, Ede and Slater worked together to attack its opponents. Earlier in 2012, for instance, the government was facing a barrage of criticism and leaks over its plans to restructure the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). Ede wrote to Slater proposing he seek information under the OIA in order to hit back at the diplomats about how well they were paid. ‘The OIA would be to the department,’ he wrote, seeking ‘salary bands’ and ‘total remuneration packages for MFAT staffers based overseas. Needs to include a request for a list of all staff allowances.’²⁸ Slater was being used to show up the people who were challenging the government’s actions. Later that month Slater wrote a scathing attack on ‘fat cat’ diplomats and how much they were paid in allowances while posted overseas. He headed the post ‘There is someone paid more than wharfies for doing less … Kiwi MFAT troughers are living it large at the taxpayer expense.’²⁹

There are numerous mentions throughout Slater’s communications of contacts and meetings with Ede: ‘spoken to Ede this morning’, ‘I told Ede that yesterday’, ‘should I call Ede and ask …’, ‘Ede needs to get the PM onto it’, ‘I’ve got good info from the PM’s office’, ‘Jason is a good c**t’ and so on.³⁰ Ede became Slater’s point of contact on many matters concerning the government. During the 2011 election, for instance, Slater helped to identify people who had been putting stickers on National Party billboards. The first person to whom he e-mailed the information, before leading an attack against them, was Ede.³¹ Ten days later, worried that a National candidate might be caught breaking the electoral rules, Slater contacted Ede.³²

Other ministers’ offices also began feeding information to Slater, such as Gillon Carruthers, press secretary for Education Minister Anne Tolley. ‘I got those stats out of Tolley’s office, seems Gillon has worked out that feeding the whale might help,’ Slater wrote in early 2011. ‘Yes they should have all worked it out now,’ Lusk replied.³³

The prime minister’s office used the bloggers to launch attacks on anyone they saw as a political challenge. Each example is not earth shattering on its own but the cumulative effect is intended to wear down their opponents. This is reminiscent of the politics associated with US president Richard Nixon. His staff were instructed to use the resources of government to cause trouble for his political enemies. A 1971 White House document said, ‘This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly – how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.’³⁴

Jason Ede was also in continuous contact with David Farrar and, as seen in Chapter 9, got National research unit staff to prepare material for Kiwiblog. Even right-wing blogger Cactus Kate identified Farrar as placing material from National Party researchers on his blog and calling it his own work. In May 2011, while writing about the National and Labour parties debating tax policy, she commented: ‘The National Party research unit were quick to provide comment [on the tax policy] via Kiwiblog. (I have known David for 16 years and I know he doesn’t write “bullshit”… it would be as obvious as someone else writing my posts for me and being delightfully polite). Anyway, the Unit found some MAF stats …’³⁵

There is a constant stream of posts on Kiwiblog that look as though they have been supplied by the National Party. When political writer Jane Clifton gave the keynote speech at a 10th birthday celebration event for Farrar’s Kiwiblog in August 2013, she said, ‘I must say I still get quite a giggle when I hear various people around the traps saying, “It’s disgraceful, Kiwiblog and Whale Oil get a feed straight from the National Party, straight from the Beehive.” It’s like, well yeah, why wouldn’t National Party people feed to pro-National Party blogs?’³⁶ But Farrar and Slater both chose to deny this to their readers and the public, year after year, to preserve the illusion that their blogs were separate from the party.

The Cactus Kate ‘bullshit’ story comes from a blog that frequently critiques the Whale Oil and Kiwiblog blogs, written by journalist Peter Aranyi. It was headed ‘In one swift blow, Kate knocked the wind out of the duplicitous toady.’ Slater was frequently annoyed by Aranyi’s writing. In June 2012 he wrote via Facebook to a trusted friend about the 2011 election year, when he had received regular criticism from Aranyi’s blog. ‘He was working at Radio Live and attacking me on his blog at the same time, accusing me of working with the Nats and how it was somehow unethical. Of course I was … but so what.’³⁷ Of course he was. This was no secret among his friends. It was only the public that was not supposed to know.

CHAPTER 4

THE CRUSHER AND THE ATTACK DOG

The attack bloggers’ point of contact in the National government, year after year, remained John Key’s office. But Cameron Slater had another close friend and ally in the government, Cabinet minister Judith Collins. They had much in common. One cultivated the iron woman persona of Crusher Collins, future prime minister, the other the reckless bully-boy persona of Whale Oil, crusading outsider. They were drawn together by right-wing politics and a shared attraction to aggressive and often petty attack politics.

Slater was a devoted supporter of Collins, using his blog to promote her and to attack her critics. Collins, in return, fed a continuous supply of material to Slater: public press releases, political gossip, tip-offs and serious leaks. She boasted for him in 2013 that ‘you might not like it but Whaleoil is better informed and better read than any other news outlet or social media’.¹ They talked often by phone, and in the evenings and weekends they chatted via Facebook. In work hours Collins e-mailed him directly from her sixth-floor Beehive office.

Often their exchanges were about small events of the day. The following are typical of Collins’s messages: ‘You should whack these guys hard, they are truly pathetic’;² ‘Cam, FYI. Another own goal for plughead’, her name for Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove;³ could he edit her Wikipedia page and replace an unflattering photo;⁴ and, forwarding a document, ‘I think I seriously annoyed certain people over it. Too bad!’⁵ There are hundreds of e-mails between them, including many from her private e-mail address.

The same gossipy tone is found in their Facebook discussions. ‘Did you see the line up the [Labour Party] had for [the TV3 programme] the Nation!’ she wrote during the 2011 election campaign. ‘Like Mangrove, Beaumont and septic tank are going to bring them any votes.’ (‘Mangrove’ was a nickname for Labour MP Stuart Nash and ‘Septic Tank’ was Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni.)6 Labour MP Jacinda Adern was ‘My Little Pony’.⁷ At other times they discussed more serious issues, as when Slater wrote that she and he needed to find a right-wing candidate to take on Auckland mayor Len Brown: ‘put your thinking cap on.’⁸

In one conversation, Collins complained at length about the people arrested in the 2007 Urewera police raids. Slater replied that he had ‘had an interesting chat with [a police source] on Thursday night about this.’ ‘Yes?’ Collins said. ‘There might be a stray video arrive in my PO box this week,’ Slater said. ‘Oh, gosh,’ she replied sarcastically, ‘what a shock. The sort of thing that people who are no longer before the courts would [not] want seen.’ Slater agreed: ‘Terrible … not the kind of thing they would want seen since they are portraying themselves as nice people.’⁹ There is no sign that he received the video, but this was the minister of police, later minister of justice, apparently talking without concern about someone leaking police evidence. (Slater obviously had no concerns about the police evidence either, and in this period when Collins was also minister of corrections, he appears to have used a prison officer in the department to move a prisoner between prisons on his instructions.)¹⁰

Collins’s cynicism about her parliamentary colleagues is clear in her conversations. ‘Did you notice that Deborah Coddington was talking up [National MP] Nikki Kaye today in HOS [Herald on Sunday]?’ she wrote. ‘Wonder what she is expecting in return.’¹¹ Or writing about her ACT Party coalition partner: ‘Boscawen will be right … He’s too Aspergers to lie.’¹² And when one of her least favourite Cabinet colleagues, Simon Power, announced he was leaving at the 2011 election, she commented, ‘all those 2005 intake [of National MPs] who suck up to him would have thought, “What, you bastard, why did I waste my time being nice to you?”’¹³

But what Collins and Slater shared most were their dislikes and enmities. Their hostility towards many people in the National Party was at least as strong as their dislike for their political opponents. As quoted in Chapter 1, Collins wrote about Auckland National Party internal politics, ‘Personally I would be out for total destruction … But then again I’ve learnt to give is better than to receive.’14 They called it the double rule. If someone attacked them, they gave back twice as much. Here is Slater writing about a senior National Party official who had annoyed him:

Cameron Slater: he is a very silly man, because I could stop the people who are going against him. But now, he is just going to get double.

Judith Collins: you know the rule. always reward with Double.

Cameron Slater: i learned the rule from you! Double it is.

Judith Collins: If you can’t be loved, then best to be feared.¹⁵

The pair worked together using the Whale Oil blog to mock or attack their opponents. A frequent target was Labour MP Trevor Mallard. Here is a relatively harmless example from during the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Judith Collins: Cam, last night at the Parliamentary function for the All Blacks and Springboks. Mallard made a complete duck of himself. Has anyone told you yet?

Cameron Slater: no what happened?

Judith Collins: Well, he was representing Phil as leader of the opposition and when he spoke, he talked about how nice it was that there was a united welcome for the Springbok as 30 years’ ago, just down the road, ‘my good mates were batoning my other good mates’. Cue - sharp intake of breath all around. The Springbok captain in his reply pointed out very nicely that he was a little boy at the time (3 years’ old) but he very graciously dealt with the clodhopper. One of the All Blacks said to me later that he had asked Mallard what the f...k he thought he was doing. People were appalled.

Cameron Slater: That is just silly stuff. How many there? Can I blog it

Judith Collins: You can use it if you like but just don’t say it was me …¹⁶

The next morning Slater published a post on the Whale Oil blog entitled ‘How Embarrassing’, by Cameron Slater:

Things were trucking along nicely until Mallard got up to speak. He talked about how nice it was that there was a united welcome for the Springbok as 30 years ago, just down the road, ‘my good mates were batoning my other good mates’.

Cue – sharp intake of breath all around.

The Springbok captain in his reply pointed out very nicely that he was a little boy at the time (3 years old) but he very graciously dealt with the crippled campaign manager.

One of the All Blacks said to my tipster later on that evening that he had asked Mallard what the f**k he thought he was doing.¹⁷

Slater had changed her quaintly old-fashioned word ‘clodhopper’, obviously not his style, but otherwise it was almost entirely written by Collins.

Slater had headed the post ‘via the tip line’. When she sent her account of the event the day before, Slater had joked ‘tipline is very busy’. Collins didn’t understand and replied, ‘Really? Labour or Nats.’ He replied, ‘No the tipline is busy talking about mallard at the rugby function.’ Collins said ‘Oh dear … I can be a bit slow …’ Slater said, ‘Hehe, best thing I ever did was start referring to the tipline.’¹⁸ The ‘tipline’ often meant Collins. She caught on and some e-mails she sent him from then on began ‘for the tipline’.¹⁹

Another example of information sent from Collins was the occasion when Mallard had carelessly pressed ‘reply to all’ while answering an e-mail sent to all MPs by a member of the public. His reply, sent at noon, therefore also went to all MPs, including Collins. She forwarded the e-mail straight to Slater with the subject line ‘Note to self trev, don’t reply to all’.²⁰ By 12.53 p.m. Slater had posted the e-mails on his blog, headed ‘Note to self trev, don’t hit reply to all’.²¹

Slightly less harmless was an occasion in September 2013 when the executive assistant to the newly elected leader of the Labour Party, David Cunliffe, e-mailed an invitation to a group of senior Labour MPs to meet with Cunliffe and accidentally included the address of a National Cabinet minister, Amy Adams. It was clearly a mistake by a staff member, the kind of thing that most people would not exploit. The Slater documents show what happened next.

The executive assistant had sent out the invitation at 12.55 p.m. The papers show that Adams’s senior private secretary printed out the e-mail and only 10 minutes later, at 1.05 p.m., someone scanned it on the photocopier on the Beehive building’s fourth floor, home to Adams’s office, e-mailing it directly to ‘AJA’ (presumably Amy Juliet Adams).

Question time in Parliament intervened for the next three hours, then just after 5 p.m. ‘AJA’ forwarded the Labour Party e-mail to Judith Collins in her ministerial office two floors above. Notice that Adams chose Collins as the recipient. Collins had had it for only two minutes when, at 5.09 p.m., she forwarded the scanned document to Slater.²² By 5.21 the e-mail was posted on Slater’s blog. ‘David Cunliffe’s team isn’t off to a good start,’ Slater wrote, ‘here they are inviting Amy Adams to a private function for Labour MPs.’²³ It feels like an undignified use of a police minister’s and environment minister’s time.

These conversations and political collaborations provide the background to much more serious and questionable attacks conducted by Collins and Slater, again reliant on Collins’s ministerial access to information. The first occurred in 2009, when Collins was the minister of police and corrections. In August of that year her government’s reputation had taken a hammering when MPs’ and ministers’ expenses were released. The figures showed that Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Bill English, had been claiming a $700 per week accommodation allowance for living in his family home. English eventually offered to pay back some, then all, of the allowance but not before he and the government had suffered considerable bad publicity and public scepticism. Just a week after he gave up the allowance, Collins and Slater came up with a plan for some political revenge.

It began on 7 October 2009, when Slater published a Whale Oil blog post entitled ‘A curious set of circumstances’. Slater said the ‘curious little story’ began with Labour MPs sending official information requests and asking questions in Parliament about English’s accommodation allowance. ‘Making up requests is an art form in itself,’ he wrote, ‘and if you are able to know exactly where to go asking those questions then it becomes a whole lot easier.’ He then named a man, Simon Pleasants, who worked for Ministerial Services managing ministerial housing and who, the Internet showed, had worked for Helen Clark’s Labour government.

‘Now I find this set of circumstances very curious to say the least,’ Slater wrote. ‘What we have here is a hard core Labour flunky, a tribal member working in an area where information has seemingly been flowing to opposition members where very specific questions have been asked that really couldn’t have been asked unless someone was in the know.’²⁴

These were serious allegations against an employee based on nothing but guilt by association. But Slater did not stop there. Two weeks later, on the Whale Oil blog, he was calling Pleasants a ‘Labour Party snitch’ and the ‘prime suspect’ in feeding information to the Labour MPs.²⁵ A week after that, unsupported by any evidence, Slater had moved from suspicion to fact: ‘all the information the [Labour MPs] Pete Hodgson and Trevor “Putin” Mallard used was kindly provided by their flunkie and snitch, Simon Pleasants.’²⁶

Where had all this come from? The allegation was leaked by Collins. On 6 October 2009, the day before his first post, Slater had received an e-mail from Judith Collins’s private e-mail address. It was clear that they had already been discussing the subject and she was now putting the crucial details in writing. The e-mail contained just five words: ‘Simon Pleasants, Manager, Ministerial Property.’²⁷ It seems very much as though a senior Cabinet minister was collaborating in publicly accusing a ministerial staff member of wrongdoing.

Slater’s attack on Pleasants unleashed the usual outpouring of abusive blog comments. Allan: ‘The prick should be sacked immediately.’ Mikenz: ‘we must sack the fuck!’ Roger: ‘Somebody fire the c**t – Can we get the prat harpooned? And shamed … and tarred ’n feathered.’ The right-wing blogger Keeping Stock (Tony Stuart) wrote: ‘Superb work Cam! … I wonder if Mr Pleasants will get a less-than-pleasant invitation to have a wee chat with his boss sometime this morning…’²⁸ Nick Bryant, press secretary to Minister of Economic Development and Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee, joined in the comments disguised as Manu and Former Hack (he had previously worked for the National Business Review). ‘Well done,’ he wrote. ‘You might well have one for the harpoon gallery here.’ He had searched out further information on the Internet showing Pleasants’s previous work for the Labour government, which he copied into the comments, and asked, ‘Any progress on this today Whale? … Any interest from the MSM [mainstream media]?’²⁹ In fact no media used the story. Slater and Collins had smeared the name of a government employee without evidence or the employee being able to reply.

One commenter was less sure: ‘your evidence of wrongdoing is?’ A West Auckland commenter named TonyC (Tony Cooke) replied: ‘His wrongdoing is being a pinko communist fuck, nuf said.’³⁰ As it turned out, there had been no good grounds for targeting Pleasants, who retained his job until he later chose to move to another department.

Being picked out for casual accusations and vigilante justice is of course a shocking experience for the people concerned. A few hours after Slater published the first Pleasants post a commenter called Sinner left a message on the blog. Responding to another commenter who had said ‘If this Simon Pleasants is guilty…’, he wrote, ‘he is clearly guilty, he should be fired, he should be bankrupted, his family thrown in the gutter, he should [be imprisoned] for at least 6 years, then he should be banned from any civil service position…’ Then he said, ‘Ah fuck it. Shoot him, and shoot his wife and kids if they can’t be bothered to pay for the bullet.’³¹

The police investigated the ‘Shoot him’ comment under the offence of intimidation. In early November a police officer turned up on Slater’s doorstep with an ultimatum. He could either remove the comment – and another that proposed ‘cut[ting] the bastard’s throat’ – from his blog, as they risked legitimising violence, or go to the police station. Slater removed the comments. The same Sinner had written about 2000 Whale Oil comments, often aggressive, under a range of names. For instance, a few days after the ‘Shoot him’ comment, when another commenter questioned the importance of Slater’s scoops, Sinner responded: ‘How many fucking bureaucrats have you personally driven to suicide? None, right? so fuck off!’³² The rest of Sinner’s comments remain on Slater’s website.

If a minister had suspicions about a staff member, there were formal processes to follow. But, despite knowing the character of Slater’s blog and the reaction that would follow, Collins instead collaborated with Slater, leaking information and having the employee publicly tried and hanged, comfortable in the knowledge that her role would remain secret. Slater obscured her involvement by making the accusation sound as if he had merely noticed a ‘curious set of circumstances’. As with his work for John Key’s office, he was conducting a political attack to help the government. It was also Collins’s and Slater’s double rule in action, except that the minister of police and future minister of justice apparently felt no need to have evidence before inflicting punishment. The police had taken the threatened violence and intimidation seriously and moved to stop it. Little did they know that their minister had helped to organise it.

Another leak hit the news dramatically in 2012 when Collins was minister for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Bronwyn Pullar, a former National Party activist, had been accidentally sent details of 6700 ACC clients while she was in dispute about her own ACC support following an accident. Pullar’s ‘support person’ in negotiations with the ACC was former National Party president Michelle Boag, whom Slater regarded as an enemy and attacked on his blog at every opportunity. (Boag had displaced his father, John Slater, as party president many years earlier.)³³ Boag sent an e-mail to Collins about the Pullar case in March 2012. It was leaked to the Herald on Sunday about a week later, revealing for the first time Pullar’s name as the claimant, Boag’s role in her case and, embarrassing for them both, an alleged attempt to do a deal over Pullar’s ACC payment before returning the client list. The leak was instantly controversial.

Collins strenuously denied that she or her office leaked the letter and began defamation proceedings against two Labour MPs who made the accusation. Cameron Slater initially became interested in the issue in a peripheral way. A friend of his, an ex-prostitute, feared that she was one of the clients whose details had been accidentally released and asked for his help. At that stage no one outside the government knew the name of the person to whom the ACC information had been sent. Slater’s friend had been told the ACC file went to a man and she said she was going ‘fuckin nuts’: as an ex-prostitute her ACC file was ‘flammable’ and would ‘bust some big balls for sure’.³⁴

Slater said, ‘I’ll tell you what I’ll do, I will call Collins and get the real story.’³⁵ After talking to Collins, he rang his friend the next day to say, ‘The file was an excel spreadsheet … there is fuck all info in it except names and numbers.’ He reassured her that ‘your file wasn’t leaked or anyone elses’.³⁶ And Collins had told him more. ‘The person who got it was a woman,’ he said, ‘she then tried to blackmail ACC into giving her something or she would release the file … she is now likely to be prosecuted for extortion.’ That evening his friend was still worried. ‘Yeah but I spoke to the minister,’ Slater repeated, ‘it was a single excel spreadsheet … a goddammed spreadsheet … and the silly bitch tried to get money for it … There is a lot of misinformation and overreaction. Judith has never lied to me.’³⁷

The reason for describing this conversation is that it shows Slater was in communication with Collins about the case in the days between her receiving the Boag–Pullar e-mail and when it was leaked. Collins was giving Slater confidential information about what the e-mail contained and the possible ACC reaction to it. Collins, as ACC minister, was sharing sensitive information about her department’s business and about one of its clients.

The first time that the public heard about the leaked e-mail and its contents was in the Herald on Sunday on 18 March 2012.³⁸ Until then, the only people who could have known about the leak were presumably the leaker and the journalist, and perhaps the newspaper editor. But, as often happens, Slater got excited and hinted in advance about his role in political schemes. Another conversation with his ex-prostitute friend suggests he was aware the leak was coming.

On the Friday evening, two days before the Sunday newspaper came out, he boasted to his friend that he had known it was only a spreadsheet and now ‘I know who it is too’: he had had another conversation, presumably with Collins again, and learnt of Pullar’s identity. More important, he had heard what was going to happen to Pullar: ‘She is going to get ratfucked hard.’³⁹ (‘Ratfucked’ is an American term for political dirty tricks.)

Two days later the leak appeared. The media mentioned the possibility of senior ACC staff leaking the e-mail, but the two main suspects for the leak were Boag, Slater’s enemy, and Collins, his close friend with whom he had already been discussing the Pullar case, and who had apparently also told him about Pullar’s identity. Which of the two women was more likely to have told him about the imminent ‘ratfucking’?

If it was Collins, then the leaked e-mail may have been passed to Herald journalist David Fisher via Slater, who had given a series of other stories to the same journalist in that period and would have been happy to make trouble for Boag.⁴⁰ Collins could then say with a straight face that she was not the leaker. By then it would have been just another piece of the constant flow of tips and documents going from Collins to Slater. It could have been sent from Collins’s private e-mail address or, like the Amy Adams e-mail, been printed out, rescanned and then e-mailed, leaving no trace on the ministerial e-mail system.

But this was much more risky than passing on titbits to mock Labour MPs. Boag had her own friends in Cabinet and was furious about the leak. Only a tiny number of people had had access to the e-mail before it was leaked and Collins was an obvious suspect. She was repeatedly asked if she was the leaker. She responded that ‘I’ve been very clear all along … I am 100 percent sure there was no leak from me or my office.’⁴¹ She said she had printed out the e-mail in her office and her assistant had forwarded a copy to ACC, but she had not leaked it. John Key said he was ‘utterly convinced’ the leak did not come from Collins or her office: ‘She has absolutely assured me that it didn’t come from her office and I’ve got no reason at all to question her.’ He had felt the need to ‘directly [ask] her the question on two occasions’.⁴²

On most Sundays, Slater prepared a series of filler posts in advance, many of them cut and pasted stories from foreign newspapers, that were published automatically throughout the morning, allowing him some quiet time off. But this Sunday he was hard at work early. He posted about Pullar and the Herald on Sunday story at 9.18 a.m., 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., expressing great approval that ‘someone has shone a very bright light into a very dark corner and exposed [Boag] and her bully tactics’.⁴³

His journalist friend Jonathan Marshall contacted Slater the next morning via Facebook about the leak blog posts. ‘[David] Fisher will be pleased with you,’ he said. ‘Why?’ Slater asked. ‘Acc stuff. She [Pullar] sounds like a mole,’ Marshall said. ‘She is a mole, a blackmailing mole and it has got Boag a beauty,’ Slater replied. ‘Yeah I loved it. Well done,’ Marshall said.⁴⁴

There were then the days of allegations and denials about who was responsible for the leak. The following week, on 28 March, Slater joked with Jordan Williams over Facebook about iPredict running stakes on who had leaked the Pullar e-mail. ‘See i predict?’ Jordan asked. Slater asked on what and Williams said the ‘acc leaker’. ‘Heh,’ Slater replied, ‘who is winning?’ Williams, who had been spending money to move the stakes, said, ‘Collins or acc official. I’ve shorted Simon [Lusk] quite a bit, brought him right down.’ Slater said, ‘Heh, he had nothing to do with it, neither did Crusher [Collins]. My pick is [ACC deputy chair John] McCliskie.’ Williams said, ‘Course he didn’t. Crusher would talk to you [but] Simon doesn’t deal with media, ever.’ Slater said, ‘Nope … you should start pumping up Boags stocks, hehe.’ Williams replied, ‘Lol.’⁴⁵

But the same day when he was chatting over Facebook to Aaron Bhatnagar, Slater suddenly burst out angrily, ‘Time to take the c**t out. Hamish is involved in this up to his neck.’ Bhatnagar replied, ‘Hamish Price? I know he’s a gossip, but what has he done?’ Price was a well-known figure in the Auckland National Party. Slater said, ‘He was telling anyone who would listen that Collins leaked to me and i leaked to Fisher.’ Bhatnagar said, ‘For gods sake. Its this kind of crap that will see us out of office in 2 years.’ ‘Yep,’ said Slater.⁴⁶

This chapter raises a number of concerns about Collins: she was apparently unworried about the leak of police evidence; she was directly involved in providing information about and attacking a Ministerial Services staff member; she disclosed confidential departmental and client information, not to mention possibly leaking the controversial Pullar e-mail; she made it her business to feed a stream of information, gossip and documents for use on the Whale Oil site. She was also a close friend and trusted confidante of Cameron Slater, which says much about her as a politician.

CHAPTER 5

SIMON LUSK’S PLAN

Simon Lusk had been watching US Republican politics for years and looking for ideas that were applicable to New Zealand. Gradually he put together a plan to move the country’s politics to the right. He laid this out in conversations with his close political allies and in a three-page strategy paper that was never intended to be made public.

The plan was practical and methodical. The idea was to target candidate selection processes in safe National seats, installing a rump of hard right candidates who would influence politics for many years to come. Suitable candidates could also be found and trained for local government elections. At the same time, a pool of younger people would be identified, cultivated and guided into right-wing politics. Each of these groups would be managed and supported by professional strategy advisers, notably Lusk himself. Such figures were familiar in US politics but not in New Zealand.

Lusk was also well aware, from his American observations, that the single greatest advantage of right-wing parties and candidates was their ability to greatly outspend their opponents with support from wealthy and corporate donors. Fundraising was central to the plan. Next, the right could dominate the media by the dominance of right-wing blogs: ‘the right currently controls the blogosphere,’ he wrote, ‘and political journalists repeat much of what appears on blogs.’ The blogs were part of the second track of politics available for ‘black ops’ and negative campaigning. Finally, his plan involved ‘weakening the power of those who believe in big government’, meaning deliberate strategies and tactics to marginalise anyone, even within the National Party itself, who did not hold hard right views. All the strands required long-term effort, he argued, ‘investing for at least 20 years’ to ensure these changes to the political environment are permanent.¹

Lusk was very much a successor of the advisers seen around National leader Don Brash in The Hollow Men, who saw their role as moving the party and New Zealand politics to the right. Like them, Lusk understood that he lived in a country where the hard right ACT Party could attract only about 1 per cent of voters and where the majority consistently supported more moderate policies, including publicly provided health, education and social support. His plan needed to be implemented by stealth.

The difference between Lusk and many big ideas people is that he actually got things done. His first attempt as a professional strategy adviser had been the 2008 election, when he assisted the election campaigns of six conservative National Party candidates, four of whom won.² These included Sam Lotu-Iiga and Louise Upston: Lusk was campaign manager for Upston and ‘shrewd counsel’ to Lotu-Iiga.³ Both of them proved to be socially and economically on the right of the party, with Lotu-Iiga working closely with ACT MPs and both voting against the 2013 Marriage Equality Bill.⁴

In the following years, Lusk continued to work as a mentor for some MPs, for instance Lotu-Iiga, who personally paid him a retainer for the service.⁵ Some Cabinet ministers had misgivings about Lusk’s growing influence; they believed him to have links to 13 National MPs. This was discussed at the 27 June 2011 Cabinet meeting and a message was sent to all MPs discouraging them from paying for Lusk’s services. MPs, including Lotu-Iiga, stopped paying the retainer but remained in contact with Lusk. Meanwhile another minister, Judith Collins, reportedly heard the Cabinet discussion and resolved to make contact with Lusk. She saw him as having influence over 13 caucus votes in a post-John Key leadership bid.⁶

Although sometimes, like Slater, a controversial figure, Lusk was nonetheless thoroughly within the National Party, part of the hard right wing then associated with Collins. Shortly after the 2008 election, when Lusk and Slater had become friends, the latter arranged for Lusk to meet his father, John. Lusk reported back that it ‘went bloody well with your father, I am planning to talk to him further about professionalising politics in Auckland (which won’t cost much at all) to really smash the left.’⁷

By 2011 Lusk was being paid by a new set of candidates to help them win selection for National in that year’s election. Early on a Saturday evening in January Lusk and Slater were chatting via Facebook about Lusk’s latest success, the selection of Jami-Lee Ross for a by-election in the safe National seat of Botany.

Slater wrote that he had received the ‘utu post’.⁸ This was a specialty of Lusk’s where he wrote, under Slater’s name, what he publicly called a ‘lessons post’ about the selection process – when it was over. He told Slater to ‘change anything you like, and beef it up a bit. There has to be consequences to people’s actions.’⁹ The utu post, which appeared on the Whale Oil blog the next day, said Jami-Lee Ross was the ‘winner on the night and likely to have a long career as an MP’.¹⁰ In contrast, Slater’s friend Aaron Bhatnagar needed to get new advisers and ‘break his habit of playing dirty’. Slater had added some words to make the criticism easier for Bhatnagar: ‘Aaron is a mate and so hopefully he will take this commentary as it is intended, cold hard facts from the Whale, acting as a mate.’ But Slater could be surprisingly disloyal to his friends. In this same Facebook discussion he wrote about Bhatnagar: ‘What a loser, he couldn’t even win WITH daddy’s money, you think Zac Goldsmith would have ever stood in a seat he couldn’t win. Rich people don’t lose selections unless they are fucking hopeless or fucking stupid. He lost to a maori and that is even funnier.’¹¹

The utu post also suggested that another selection candidate, former broadcaster, Maggie Barry needed to ‘get some proper advisers’. But the strongest criticism was reserved for Bhatnagar’s political adviser, Hamish Price, ‘a nasty, offensive and divisive self important fool of a man that should be avoided at all costs by any candidate’. After dumping on his adviser competition, Lusk wrote: ‘If Maggie does decide to pursue a career with National she should do what this blog recommends to all candidates. Get proper professional advice from discreet and competent people with a track record of winning. There are a number of people who work behind the scenes and shun publicity, and candidates can call the tip line for their details.’¹²

This sounds like Lusk advertising for paying work. But more important to him was building his ‘loose alliance of committed fiscal conservatives’, the group of right-wing MPs who, under his guidance, would help to move the National Party permanently to the right. This was the post about which Judith Collins wrote to Slater, ‘Loved the utu post.’ Slater said cheerfully, ‘Shit this utu post is going to cause some rumbles. Chaos and mayhem.’¹³

After discussing the utu post, Lusk said to Slater, ‘I reckon i can get a few candidates paying you to sort out their facebook pages, could be a nice little earner through the entire cycle.’ He continued, ‘I can sort out Mark no worries, he doesn’t mind spending.’14 Mark was Mark Mitchell, another of Lusk’s paying clients, who was competing for selection in the safe National Party seat of Rodney, where long-time MP Lockwood Smith had decided not to stand again. Mitchell was a good example of the hard right MP grouping Lusk was trying to build. ‘I’d really like to have him win to prove it can be done, and that you and i are crucial in peoples career.’¹⁵

Over the following weeks Lusk and Slater wrote over 20 Whale Oil posts about the Rodney electorate selection process, attacking first a local candidate and front runner named Brent Robinson, then the other front runner, Scott Simpson, and also various party officials who were standing in the way of Lusk’s client. Here are Lusk and Slater at the beginning of the Rodney selection campaign.

Simon Lusk: i want to see mark selected, but if brent plays fair i am going to play fair…. obviously with the option of playing the man if we decide it is necessary

Cameron Slater: well [what about] a post about sometimes when an MP has been there forever it is time to look outside the party hierarchy because the MP has stifled the best

Simon Lusk: yes, and that we need a genuine star, someone that has made it on a global scale … and while brent is a willing toiler for the party, we must stop selecting second raters

Cameron Slater: you’ve got it

Simon Lusk: We’ll have a proper post when we pull the trigger, nice but create doubts in the minds of the delegates … frame the race as a very successful man who is turning down millions a year to do the best he can for NZ…

Cameron Slater: successful but tough

Simon Lusk: yes, is excellent under pressure

Cameron Slater: not a panty-waist … we can sex it up with the war stories then the media will pick it up.¹⁶

Mark Mitchell, the man they were promoting, had been a New Zealand police officer and dog handler until 2002, when he moved to the Middle East after the 2003 Iraq invasion. He was one of a rush of former police and military personnel who took lucrative private security jobs helping to protect the ill-fated occupation forces in Iraq.

Simon Lusk: his dog stories are awesome, czar nailed a lot of bad bastards, including ripping a monsoon shield off a car to sort out three gang members that were taking on mark

Cameron Slater: hope it chewed on them hard

Simon Lusk: i believe it did, mark said when they start screaming you know the fight will go out of them

Cameron Slater: lol

Simon Lusk: broke a guys elbow

Cameron Slater: so tough in business, tough in terrorists, tough on crime

Simon Lusk: that is fucken impressive, bite hard enough to break an elbow

Cameron Slater: just plain tough

Simon Lusk: compassionate though

Cameron Slater: doing for the underdog, nabbing bad bastards since xxxx

Simon Lusk: how good are your media contacts to get coverage of some of his stuff protecting his staffers after the iraqi terrorists killed lots of people

Cameron Slater: easy … once i start pumping his story they will pick it up anyway …¹⁷

Lusk said, ‘I think it would also be worth talking to jason ede about mark, not yet but soon, saying that he is a good news story that will appeal to the masses.’ Slater replied, ‘Ok will work on that.’ Lusk wanted Ede to know that he and Slater were the ones who were going to get Mitchell into Parliament. ‘We need to think about this,’ he said, ‘how to tell the story about the nailing, that it isn’t random, it is smart people making smart decisions to fuck up opponents. Ede needs to know that it is your set up.’¹⁸ The first Whale Oil post about the Rodney electorate selection appeared a few days later, written in Lusk’s style. ‘This blog does not take sides in selection races,’ it said. ‘The delegates can be trusted to make the right choice, and should be left alone to make the right choice.’

After this post Slater went down to Hawke’s Bay to hunt with Lusk and then, on 7 February, they both went to Puhoi, north of Auckland, to plan out the selection campaign with Mitchell. From then on their campaign intensified. They had apparently decided it was necessary to play the man. The first target was Brent Robinson. A Whale Oil post declared that ‘thanks to the tipline’ it appeared that Robinson had been signing up people in his church to become National Party members. ‘Branch stacking may or may not be constitutionally valid,’ they wrote, ‘but it is highly unethical.’ National should be looking carefully at what has gone on to see if Robinson was ‘fit to go through pre selection’.¹⁹

The next day the attack shifted to the electorate chair, Cehill Pienaar. The tipline had, they claimed, run hot with unspecified criticism of Pienaar. ‘The calls and the people now talking have become overwhelming.’ The post then made a threat about what Mitchell might do with his money. ‘What concerns me is that with at least one of the candidates known to be a scrapper that this could all end up being discussed in a court and poor [National Party lawyer] Peter Kiely will have to expend an enormous amount of energy hosing down the issues.’²⁰

For the next few days Lusk and Slater ran two themes, attacking Robinson for his Christian connections – ‘the last thing the party needs is more allegations of interference in the party from religious brethren’²¹ – and attacking Pienaar about his past in South Africa: ‘there are a few people in the South African press who have long memories of this man, and there have been offers of providing full details of his extremely colourful past, especially in the 1980s.’²² A post called ‘Rodney skulduggery recap’ said of Robinson that ‘some tiplines un-kindly describe the protagonists as members of “The Cult”’. Meanwhile Pienaar was ‘outed as an extreme right wing former South African politician’.²³

Several posts followed about Pienaar’s pro-apartheid beliefs in the 1980s. ‘It galls me as a kiwi,’ the post said, ‘that people like him are hiding here in New Zealand and attempting to pervert our democratic processes here. By helping, orchestrating and enabling the branch stacking of Brent Robinson he has brought his despicable politics to the fore in New Zealand.’²⁴ Lusk joked to Slater via Facebook that ‘cehill just keeps on giving doesn’t he’. The Dominion Post had run the Whale Oil allegations against Robinson and Pienaar that morning.²⁵ Slater said, ‘I had jonathan marshall asking me why I drip fed all the cehill stuff and don’t just do a big post … idiot repeaters [journalists] … they obviously don’t know about [Whale Oil] Rule of Politics #43, Death by a Thousand cuts is always better than a swift beheading.’²⁶

National Party insiders were well aware of the Whale Oil campaign but did not know yet who Slater was backing. ‘They have no idea that I’m on mark’s side,’ he wrote to Lusk, ‘just that you are.’ Lusk replied that the party president had warned Mitchell off working with him. ‘Doesn’t worry me too much,’ he said. ‘My reach in auckland is improving a lot, sam [Lotu-Iiga] and JLR [Jami-Lee Ross] will help things. It is a long game and I am going to outlast the others.’ They moved to discussing who they could get to lobby for Mitchell within the party. ‘I just need to think it through with a gun in my hand and a couple of dogs to control,’ Lusk said, ‘too complex for sitting at a desk.’²⁷ This was part of the routine of Lusk’s days; the day before he had written, ‘I am going to go and drill holes in cute little bunny rabbits.’²⁸

The following day, 22 February 2011, the blog had ‘A thought for Rodney electorate’: ‘Proverbs 22:8 Those who plant injustice will harvest disaster, and their reign of terror will come to an end.’ It said, ‘National Party delegates are sensible people, as they go into the meet the candidates meetings and the final selection I know that they will do the right thing.’²⁹ Lusk and Slater now moved to the next stage of their campaign.

The next day they ran a post headed ‘Scott Simpson now favourite in Rodney’. It was timed in the early evening before the first meet-the-candidates meeting for the selection hopefuls. The attacks on Pienaar would continue – Slater: ‘check out my latest post, if that doesn’t fuck pienaar nothing will’ – but the main target was now the other front runner, Scott Simpson.³⁰ The post purported to be praising Simpson. He was a former Northern regional chair, he deserved his ‘long awaited chance of running for office’ and he had shown ‘a huge degree of dedication to the party’. They then put the knife in.

Scott does have a few negatives that have also come through the tipline. Most appear to be from people in the McCully/Boag camp who think this blogger is too dumb to work out the game they are playing. In the interests of fairness the weaknesses are [With my comments in brackets]:

• Scott is too old. [WO [Whale Oil]: True, he is older than Maggie Barry so he will never make it into cabinet especially with the cycle the way it is – he would likely be 64 before National is next in government.]

• Scott is not particularly likable. [WO: Sure Scott is not as user friendly as someone like John Key, Paula Bennett or John Carter, but he is a lot more likable than Tim Groser or Chris Finlayson. And he wont rabbit on in latin.]

• Scott has a blood feud with the President who is shacked up with Scotts ex-wife. [WO: So what! Both men are big enough to deal with this and for those morons in the party who think the President will break a habit of a lifetime and actually do anything let alone try to kneecap Scott, it is not going to happen. Ever. Not even Scott can enrage Peter enough so he will get off his arse and do anything.]

This blog is not endorsing Scott, as it stays neutral, but it is saying do not vote for Brent Robinson, who’s unethical behaviour means he is not fit for political office let alone the local bowling club committee in Orewa.³¹

At 6.30 the following morning Slater wrote to Lusk, ‘Is that all you want up for Rodney.’ Lusk had supplied him with the next attack post on Simpson. Lusk answered, ‘Let me look at it again. I think so. We are trying to take out Scott and that will do that.’ Slater replied, ‘Up now.’³² The post, about the meet-the-candidates meeting, said, ‘Scott confirmed his front runner status with a solid performance’, then continued: ‘the only strange thing was that … [he] went all negative, which is the cardinal sin in selection.’ It questioned whether Scott Simpson could ‘lose the unloseable selection’ and cited ‘concerned’ people who alleged that he had rigged the regional delegate list.’³³ They, of course, were the main ones going negative. Lusk explained to Slater they needed to be careful. ‘The difficulty is that we want scotts people to lean on brent [Robinson] to get him out first,’ he wrote later that day. ‘Then we can smash scott.’³⁴

Mitchell, their selection candidate, was paying big money for this dirty campaigning, and was well aware of what he was buying. Slater wrote to Lusk, ‘I hope Mark is up with the play on these posts.’ Lusk said, ‘Yes am talking to him a lot. He is telling me that it is having a massive effect.’ Slater replied, ‘Hehe.’³⁵ Winning a selection in such a safe electorate almost guaranteed the candidate a place in Parliament indefinitely and attack politics was a major part of how it was being achieved. In just a few weeks there had been so much conflict and controversy that Lusk and Slater had their first victory. The party officials, rattled by the criticism, moved the selection date back by two weeks.

At this point, the end of February, a National Party board member became concerned about the direction the selection was taking and raised questions about Mark Mitchell’s past. Lusk and Slater talked over the problem via Facebook and decided the best strategy was to hit back immediately. Lusk said, ‘Why don’t you write something, email it through to me. I will sort it out with mark and it can go online.’ Slater replied, ‘I’ll write it up about how they are saying [the information on his past] is supposed to be bad but not actually showing people the info, so in the interests of getting things out in the open here it is … seems pretty above board to me etc etc.’ Lusk agreed. Half an hour later Slater wrote, ‘Ok I’m off home … will think of Rodney post on the drive, unless you come up with something suitably nasty meanwhile.’³⁶

By 10 o’clock that night they had something suitably nasty. Without irony they published another attack on Simpson, entitled ‘Muckraking in Rodney’. ‘Not content with having his mates jack up the regional delegates in his favour,’ they wrote, ‘Scott Simpson and his pals are now really stooping low by touting that one of the candidates has a dodgy background that should be looked into.’ They batted aside the questions about Mitchell’s past and said, ‘Frankly these tactics smack of desperation and show clearly that Scott Simpson thinks that Mark Mitchell is a serious threat to him.’ They repeated the hints of legal action. ‘Misrepresenting the truth can often lead to legal actions and I doubt the board member concerned has my robust attitude towards legal action.’ They urged the party leadership to intervene in the selection process.³⁷

And so it went on. More attack posts followed until the National Party decided to cancel the selection process and reopen it again later that month. Simpson pulled out and moved to the Coromandel electorate, where he won the selection and became an MP without having to face more weeks of orchestrated attacks.³⁸ Lusk and Slater moved the negative campaigning back to Robinson, whom they hounded with claims of being ‘shabby’, ‘shameless’, ‘unethical’ and ‘unscrupulous’.³⁹

Slater also used a small sum of money provided by Lusk to manipulate Victoria University’s iPredict rankings of the Rodney candidates and then wrote posts using the iPredict results to reinforce their campaign. Here are Lusk and Slater discussing iPredict: ‘Great post on ipredict,’ Lusk said. ‘You like, i manipulate[d] scott to being the front runner before i posted, only took $5,’ Slater replied. ‘How much of that $200 have you got left?’ Lusk asked. ‘All of it,’ Slater replied. ‘I have been slowly buying up no MMP when it falls below 20, but now I will use it to manipulate Rodney stocks.’ Lusk said, ‘Let me know when you run out.’⁴⁰ Thus Slater could write, for instance, ‘Brent Robinson has some strong backing on iPredict though this has tailed off in the last day or two.’⁴¹ It is surprising that Victoria University associates itself with the iPredict ‘market-based forecasting system’ and equally surprising that many politicians and others take its results seriously. It is readily used as a political tool, in this case for just $200.

On 27 March a flattering profile of Mitchell appeared in the Sunday Star-Times. ‘Former cop Mark Mitchell’s exploits in the Middle East sound like the plot of a Hollywood blockbuster – but has he got what it takes to make it as a politician?’ it began. ‘He’s had violent confrontations with gangs and criminals during 14 years in the New Zealand police force. He’s spent eight years as a top international hostage negotiator, at one point fighting for his life in a five-day siege in Iraq, a story which is set to feature in a movie made by Brad Pitt.’⁴²

The newspaper had been given a rosy version of Mitchell’s career. Mitchell presumably was caught up in the siege – he had gone to make money in the midst of a bloody civil war – but his job was not as a hostage negotiator and the words ‘top’, ‘international’ and ‘eight years’ only compounded the exaggeration of his role. He was a private security contractor, that dubious by-product of the Iraq occupation.⁴³ The movie did not eventuate. Slater sent a crowing message to Lusk saying, about the other Rodney selection candidates, ‘Fuck they must be bitter about the [Sunday Star-Times] article.’⁴⁴

At the same time as the public sell, Lusk proposed that they send a quiet word to the National Party hierarchy not to try to raise negative stories about Mitchell. This appears to be a reference to possible legal action. He wrote to Slater, ‘You could tell your father that people need to be careful as Mark has very deep pockets and is not interested in the results, just hammering opponents.’ Slater replied, ‘I will.’⁴⁵

On the day of the selection meeting, 26 April 2011, they posted a final ‘Rodney skulduggery update’, rerunning all the attack lines against Brent Robinson. They quoted Proverbs 28:10, ‘Those who lead good people along an evil path will fall into their own trap, but the honest will inherit good things.’⁴⁶ Mitchell won.

On the morning after the selection meeting Slater and Lusk wrote the utu post, describing the winners and losers, and reminding other would-be candidates about the ‘very small group of talented, experienced professionals’ who could enhance their chances. As they spun the results in the utu post, Slater and Lusk still did not admit their role. ‘Delegates in Rodney have told me what a fantastic guy [Mitchell] is,’ the post said, as if they had not been working for him for months. ‘It is hard to remember the last time a National candidate met delegates by helping them bale hay and then had a few beers afterwards, but this kind of touch builds loyalty, loyalty that helped Mark win on the first ballot.’⁴⁷ A wealthy, hard-line private security industry man had turned up from overseas and walked into a safe seat; some soft lighting was required.

Without Lusk and Slater’s vigorous and covert negative campaigning, it is unlikely that Mitchell would have won the seat. The successful candidate would most likely have been either Robinson or Simpson, probably Simpson. The painfully insincere blog posts, the obviously biased attacks and the rest of the heavy-handed negative campaigning had done its job. It was not hay baling that got Mitchell in. Mitchell’s main contribution in his first three years in Parliament would be a private member’s bill called the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill: law and order posturing that did almost nothing to change the problems it talked about. He spoke up for strip searching of inmates in private prisons, praised an amendment of surveillance laws and moved an amendment to the 2013 marriage equality law to reassure marriage celebrants that they would not be obliged to marry gay and lesbian people if it was against their ‘religious or philosophical beliefs’ (before he voted against the gay marriage law).⁴⁸

Lusk and Slater had also achieved their own personal goal, proving that they could win a safe seat selection against the odds and decide who made it into Parliament. They had used the same formula seen in earlier chapters: persistent negative politics and attacks delivered without revealing who was behind them. And, unlike most people, Lusk and Slater thrived on this stuff and had little time for those who didn’t. Here, for instance, are the pair talking about their frustration with senior National Party officials part way through the Rodney selection campaign. Slater had said, ‘I’m pretty pissed about their attitude’, but Lusk replied, ‘I am not. I am just motivated to cut throats. Unfortunately the biggest buzz I get is when I wreck someone, only done it three times, but I was on a massive high.’⁴⁹

This kind of politics tends to reshape the political environment, making it harder to discuss and convey policy and ideas. The short-term political gains for a tiny minority cause long-term political problems for everyone. Attack politics is also effective because other people may not even realise that an orchestrated campaign is occurring. As Lusk said about one of his candidate selection clients that year, ‘I have told him that I need to remain completely anonymous.’⁵⁰

Lusk and Slater had been working on other candidate selection campaigns at the same time. Around this time Lusk wrote to Slater, ‘I am going to tie up the palmerston north campaign by sunday, I’ll let you know what your cut is.’⁵¹ There had already been talk of payments from Mark Mitchell in Rodney as well. For instance, an invoice from Slater to Lusk later that year had charged $3,450 for ‘social media management’ and a few months later there was a similar invoice for $6,325.⁵² It is not clear from the documents who the Palmerston North client was. But the Whale Oil commentary on the Palmerston North selection result warmly congratulated the winner, Leonie Hapeta, and said she would be a great candidate.⁵³ In the Hutt Valley’s Rimutaka electorate Lusk and Slater backed Jonathan Fletcher, who also won the candidacy but without the fight seen in Rodney.⁵⁴ Lusk wrote on his website that he had won three out of three candidate selection contests that year.⁵⁵

Slater came through this period annoyed at the resistance they had received from the party hierarchy, but again Lusk was focused on his bigger plan: ‘I dont really care. I just know i will be around and you will be around and pinko [David Farrar] will be around when they are long gone.’ Slater said that he cared ‘in so much as they treat us with contempt until they need us’, but Lusk replied: ‘I have at least half a dozen people in their twenties who will be in caucus one day. It is a never ending cycle, and i am the one that is capturing all the talent, they will all be clients.’⁵⁶

To Lusk, such young people were assets in the long-term political plan. A few days earlier, he had written to Slater about the impressive organiser of the Student Volunteer Army (SVA), Sam Johnson, who was co-ordinating voluntary clean-up efforts after the Christchurch earthquake. Lusk did not like a complimentary comment made by a Green Party MP about the SVA and wrote, ‘Cam, can you bash this c**t … I’ll write it.’ He went on, ‘Sam is a client. He will pay off long term.’⁵⁷ It is doubtful that Johnson saw himself as a client or as part of Lusk’s plans and would like to be talked about in this way.

In mid-2013 someone in the National Party hierarchy leaked a set of strategy papers written by Lusk, including the plan quoted at the start of this chapter. The aim was to deter candidates and MPs from using Lusk’s services. Judith Collins e-mailed Slater an article about the Lusk paper leaks and Slater forwarded it to Lusk. But Lusk did not sound concerned: ‘Been good for business, cam, everyone now knows that they need us on side to win.’⁵⁸ As it turned out, by the time Mitchell was declared winner in the Rodney candidate selection, Slater and Lusk did not even talk about it in their long Facebook discussions. They had moved on and had new targets on their minds. Two weeks earlier Lusk had contacted Slater to ask, ‘Has Rodney [Hide] got you on the pay roll or is he able to be taken out to save ACT.’ Slater replied, ‘Not on payroll.’ Lusk wrote back, ‘Will call to discuss later.’ Their next black ops project was under way.

CHAPTER 6

EL RUSHBO OF AOTEAROA

The campaign to take out Rodney Hide and ‘save ACT’ began immediately. According to Cameron Slater’s private assessment, ‘National is fucked longterm if ACT is gone and MMP retained.’¹ Preserving ACT and getting rid of MMP would take much of Slater’s and Lusk’s time over the following months.

The first step was a series of posts on the Whale Oil blog, written by Lusk and Slater, to prepare the ground. They began on 16 April 2011 with one headed ‘Is ACT Rooted?’ It said ‘private polling’ showed Rodney Hide would ‘lose heavily’ in his Epsom electorate compared with other potential ACT candidates. Losing Epsom would mean ACT was gone from Parliament. ‘Now don’t get me wrong,’ the post continued. ‘I like Rodney but friends have to sometimes be a little frank with their opinions and only true friends will be truly honest.’ As true friends, they listed Hide’s many mistakes and failures, and concluded: ‘The question for ACT’s backers’ – it is a party ultimately controlled by its wealthy donors – ‘is do they want to let one man’s ego wreck a party they have spent nearly two decades and millions of their dollars building?’²

The following day there was another post: ‘Are ACT Rooted II?’ It said, ‘Much and all as I like Rodney, him remaining leader of ACT means they are rooted.’ The post argued that without ACT the National Party had no natural coalition partners. ‘So National need to consider how to keep ACT in Parliament’, and the ‘obvious thing to do is to offer Rodney a job overseas so he leaves with dignity’.³ A few days after that the blog highlighted the news that former National Party leader Don Brash might challenge Hide at an ACT Party board meeting scheduled for seven days later. ‘This could well be an interesting week in politics.’⁴

What the blog had not said, and no one else knew at that stage, was that Lusk was already quietly co-ordinating Brash’s leadership bid. The Whale Oil blog posts were once again part of a covert campaign. At that stage, however, Hide had absolutely no intention of being pushed from the leadership. He had been ACT Party leader for seven years and had survived challenges to his leadership before. He expected to do so again.

Then, with six days to go before the ACT board meeting, Lusk found the leverage he needed to help force Hide out and install his client Brash. At 10 p.m. on the Sunday, he explained the plan to Slater via Facebook messaging. ‘Cam,’ he wrote, ‘we can fuck up rodney.’ He had heard about Hide sending some inappropriate text messages to a young woman: ‘Jordan is talking to a girl that rodney has been sending dodgy texts to.’⁵

Slater was instantly interested. ‘Get the txts,’ he wrote back. ‘I can get them to Jonathan Marshall, just the sort of grubby shit he would be into.’ Lusk replied. ‘Trying. Problem is that jordan needs to get them first, probably wednesday night, but at the same time we can use this to our advantage.’⁶

Slater said the timing was okay. ‘Drop them hard this Fri,’ he said, ‘no coming back from that.’ Lusk had a different idea. He said they could tell Hide that someone had the texts ‘and will leak them if he doesn’t resign by friday, and how will the new mrs hide react to that’. This tactic, he explained, was ‘straight out of my personal playbook, upset the missus, cause strife at home.’ Slater said, ‘Yep, feedback and static.’⁷

Lusk cautioned that they had ‘better not tell don, he will have kittens if he were involved in this’. Slater replied, ‘Dark arts, shhh.’ Lusk said, ‘I forgot to mention, [another MP] was rooting this sheila rodney has been texting, a while ago though.’ Slater asked, ‘Who is it?’⁸ There was a break in their chatting and then Lusk replied, ‘I wasn’t going to say that in case your email gets read.’ Slater said, ‘My email doesn’t get read, lol.’⁹

By the Tuesday some media commentators had suggested Hide should step down but he still had no intention of doing so. Lusk and Slater went public with a hinted threat. At 10.45 that morning Slater published a Whale Oil post headed ‘Custer’s Last Stand’, saying ‘the tipline is running so hot that it is practically on fire’. Hide, he said, was contemplating a personal attack on Brash based on his ethics, and this would be ‘a great day for Don because it would mean personal life was absolutely fair game, and I just absolutely love politicians’ dirty laundry being aired in public’.¹⁰ In case the meaning was not clear, he continued: ‘Not a classical scholar, Rodney probably is unaware of William Congreve, but here are a couple of excellent quotes: ‘O fie, miss, you must not kiss and tell.’ And the better known: ‘Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.’¹¹

At lunchtime, a couple of hours after the post, Slater and Lusk made contact via Facebook. ‘Not a peep out of Rodney,’ Slater said. ‘Interesting,’ Lusk replied. ‘I wonder how he is feeling after the last stand post. Hopefully he is crapping himself.’¹² Later that day they repeated the hints in a follow-up Whale Oil post.¹³ Hide spent a day making his decision and then on the Thursday morning announced he was standing down. Brash became the leader of the ACT Party.¹⁴ John Key had mixed feelings about Brash but declared that he was open to forming a coalition with the Brash-led ACT Party.

There were of course various political pressures on Hide as he made the decision but the threats described here were something completely different. The documents do not contain the texts and we do not know that they exist. There is also no evidence that a direct threat was made to Hide. Nonetheless, Slater and Lusk’s planning and the thinly veiled threat on the blog post go far beyond normal politics. They feel more like blackmail.

Shortly after these events Lusk wrote to Slater via Facebook: ‘Don [Brash] had told [New Zealand Herald reporter] derek cheng i was not paid by him and i was not paid by ACT as far as he knew and he wasn’t going to comment any further on who was involved with his coup.’ Slater wrote back: ‘Lol, bwahaha.’¹⁵

~

The Jordan who was trying to get a copy of Hide’s texts for Lusk and Slater was a young lawyer named Jordan Williams. He was headed for a prominent role in the Slater–Lusk–Farrar attack politics, acting as an apprentice to Lusk and Slater, including anonymous writing for the Whale Oil blog, and as a close collaborator of David Farrar, regularly working, socialising and holidaying with him.

Williams had grown up in Hawke’s Bay and got to know Lusk while he was a student and National Party volunteer. He wrote to Don Brash, a family friend, when he was living in a Victoria University hostel, offering to help in National’s 2005 election campaign. Later, it was Williams who escorted Brash in public during the days of his ACT Party leadership bid. Lusk, Slater and Farrar used him repeatedly in their schemes and campaigns.

One evening the following year, for instance, Slater shot a message through to Williams to help his ongoing attacks against Winston Peters. Without even a hello, he said, ‘Get down to [the Wellington pub] back benchers and video winston pissed off his tree.’ Williams replied, ‘You’re kidding, who said that? I am already in bed, but if you don’t have anyone else I’ll do it.’ Slater reassured Williams that Peters was ‘sinking piss like [there’s] no tomorrow … get your girlfriend to ask for a photo, but put it on video and pretend you are taking a still.’ Williams said, ‘That is an amazing idea.’ A little over an hour later Williams wrote, ‘I am so annoyed’. Peters had not been there after all. Slater said ‘Never mind’ and Williams replied, ‘If you get the heads up again text me right away.’¹⁶ This exchange sums up the relationship between the two men.

With ACT ‘saved’ from Rodney Hide, Slater, Lusk, Farrar and Williams moved on to MMP. Coinciding with the 2011 election there was to be a referendum on whether New Zealand would retain its mixed member proportional (MMP) electoral system. Back in 1993 the hard right of New Zealand politics had organised a multi-million-dollar campaign to try to stop MMP being voted in. Their policies lacked majority support and proportional representation did not serve them well. After failing to stop MMP in 1993, they had repeatedly pressed for a fresh MMP referendum as a step towards getting rid of it.¹⁷ When Brash was National Party leader in 2005 he promised National would have the referendum. His successor John Key agreed and the long-awaited referendum was happening that year.¹⁸

A few weeks after the ACT Party leadership coup, the Whale Oil blog pointed out to its readers that a new anti-MMP group had been announced in the newspaper that day. ‘Finally someone has got off their arse and decided to challenge the hegemony of MMP,’ Slater wrote. The ‘someone’ was Slater and Lusk themselves. Lusk would be the campaign manager and their apprentice Williams the fresh-faced spokesperson, while Slater did a large part of the work, including about 80 anti-MMP Whale Oil blog posts. None of the posts declared that Slater was part of the group. Farrar helped to set up the group and assisted, also undeclared, from the sidelines.

Like Farrar and Slater’s 2007–08 group fighting election finance reform called the Free Speech Coalition, the anti-MMP campaign demonstrates another function of the party-aligned bloggers: to organise campaigning that is at arm’s length but still serves National Party interests. Both the Whale Oil blog and Kiwiblog would be important to the anti-MMP cause.

Lusk and Slater knew they were burdened by strong public memories of the ultra-negative 1993 anti-MMP campaign. Their 2011 group, Vote for Change, was therefore consciously branded as something different. Its website included a section called ‘Pledges to New Zealand’, which promised the group would be made up of ‘New Zealanders from across the political spectrum’ and would conduct no negative campaigning. They would not attack the pro-MMP campaigners or score points by attacking politicians’ reputations. ‘Our campaign,’ the site said, ‘cares more about improving the public’s view of politicians and the political environment than it does about winning.’¹⁹

This was not true and nor were the pledges. The group had a bad start over their claims of broad membership. A few days after the launch Slater wrote urgently to Aaron Bhatnagar one evening saying ‘Defriend alex fogerty, pronto’, meaning removing him as a friend on Facebook. Slater explained that Fogerty was a ‘young nat in wellington but was once in australia and has links to white supremicist group, bomber [Martyn Bradbury, a left-wing blogger] has outed him, and he was part of Vfc [Vote for Change] but they have booted him tonight.’²⁰

Jordan Williams, as spokesperson, was in a flap as the media calls began. He wrote to Slater: ‘Radio live and the dom calling, not taking calls, cannot get a hold of Katrina – I assume the nats know.’ Fogerty had been National MP Katrina Shanks’s electorate executive as well as a founding member of Vote for Change. Slater replied, ‘Fuck Katrina, leave her to the wolves.’ He said, ‘We have fired him and so now it is up to the Nats, not our problem anymore. Oh and thank Martyn Bradbury for drawing our attention to the issue, most profusely.’²¹

Williams wrote back with an idea for a diversion. ‘Any convicted child rapists among that labour party membership list?’ he asked. He was thinking of the Labour Party data Slater and Ede had accessed. ‘Let’s start googling,’ he said. Slater replied, ‘Leave that to me, you stay clean.’ He reminded Williams to send Bradbury an e-mail thanking him. ‘It will put him off,’ Slater said.²²

The membership of Vote for Change had been a line-up of well-known Business Roundtable and National Party people, with just one person on the left of politics, former Waitakere mayor Bob Harvey. The next afternoon, Jordan wrote to Slater, ‘Call me urgently, I cannot get hold of Bob or his EA [executive assistant].’ Slater replied, ‘Too late, its on the Herald.’ Bob Harvey had seen the bad publicity and already resigned from the group. ‘What’s the play? FUCK,’ Williams wrote. Slater replied, ‘Well its done and this little c**t has destroyed the whole campaign, for now. We just carry on … and Bob Harvey can go fuck himself.’ Williams replied that an ‘earthquake right now would be good’. Slater said, ‘Have you got hold of Simon. Patience, reacting is what they want.’²³ As this exchange illustrates, the group was being run by Slater and Williams, with Lusk as strategist and fundraiser in the background.²⁴ With or without Bob Harvey, it was effectively a three-person organisation,²⁵ though it was presented to the public as a grassroots, membership-based group.

The Vote for Change campaign was almost entirely negative. Knowing that the former first past the post system, the only alternative with significant public support, was unpopular with most voters, the group was vague about what it was promoting.²⁶ Instead nearly all its resources and public statements were used to malign MMP. Much of this was done by breaking the third ‘pledge to New Zealanders’ about not attacking the behaviour of politicians. As noted in Chapter 1, Slater arranged $50,000 of advertisements to simultaneously attack New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and MMP. In addition, he produced a series of nasty YouTube videos mocking individual MPs, implying that politicians would somehow be better behaved and of higher quality without MMP.

The final pledge about not attacking their opponents was also immediately broken. Slater, unsurprisingly, turned on anyone who publicly supported MMP. They were, he wrote, hypocrites, liars, vested interests and meddling academics. Author spokesperson Philip Temple was a ‘beardy weirdy’ and overall the pro-MMP campaign was ‘the nastiest, most negative campaign in the history of New Zealand’.²⁷

The anti-MMP campaign was disingenuous about its motives. Its publicity materials said that those involved opposed MMP because it gave too much power to party bosses and made it difficult to hold governments to account.²⁸ But, as was evident in a discussion Slater had with Judith Collins in late August, part way through the campaign, it had nothing to do with empowering the public. He told her via Facebook about National Party officials who did not want to be publicly associated with the anti-MMP campaign, including intervening to stop Jordan Williams being guest speaker at a National Party meeting.

Collins snapped back, ‘What the hell are they doing?’ Slater said, ‘They don’t want anyone in National to have a position.’ Collins replied, ‘That’s not what we’ve been told.’ She said she would ‘take it up on Monday’, presumably at Cabinet. Slater explained his frustration. Unless they got rid of MMP, it was ‘basically … dooming National in the long term.’ It would ‘be bloody hard to get you to be PM long term under MMP with all our partners dying out.’ Collins replied, ‘Or even to have National in there at all.’²⁹ This is what their campaign was all about: securing National’s long-term position.

The anti-MMP fundraising had not gone as well as they hoped – Lusk wrote ‘traveling with [1993 anti-MMP campaigner] peter shirtcliffe … Fuck all money in christchurch, everyone is broke after the earthquake’ – Slater replied ‘fucking losers’ – so they resorted to tricks to try to get publicity.30 For example, Williams used a false identity to tip off Bradbury about the anti-MMP group’s own mocking YouTube videos breaking parliamentary rules: filmed footage of Parliament was not supposed to be used without permission for ‘satire, ridicule or denigration’ of MPs. They were hoping controversy over rule-breaking would give publicity to their attack ads. When Bradbury blogged on the rules breach Williams wrote to Slater: ‘hook line sinker. It’s up.’ Slater replied, ‘Lol and he had published all the videos. Awesome.’³¹

‘He reckons the rules are in the Broadcasting Act. Can’t see them,’ Williams wrote, ‘think he must have misread thomas’ email....’ Thomas was the false name Williams had used for the tip-off. ‘The [rules] are on parliaments website,’ Slater replied, ‘“Thomas” could go and point that out in the comments at Bombers blog.’ Jordan said he was reluctant ‘as the blog might log my IP.’ Slater said to e-mail Bradbury instead. Also, he said, ‘get “Thomas” to email Trevor [Mallard, who featured in one of the attack advertisements] and point out the outrageous attack on him, with a link to Martyn’s post as well for good measure.’³²

Their main campaign plan was to have John Key speak publicly against MMP, but Key’s staff saw political risk in him being seen trying to influence the referendum. Slater used the Whale Oil blog repeatedly to urge Key to take a stand. Key eventually gave the endorsement they had hoped for, shortly before voting day, saying he was voting ‘to get rid of MMP’.³³ But generally the anti-MMP campaign was not going very well.

Nor was the ACT Party. Don Brash had not been a good choice and, as staff deserted him, Williams wrote to Slater, ‘Poor don, he’s rooted.’ He proposed Slater try to help, but Slater said ‘can’t be bothered with those numpties … can’t be fagged’. ACT were ‘losers, they have picked the same people who we dorked in the [Brash] coup, guess what the result will be.’³⁴ As the election approached, Slater told an ACT Party office holder, ‘Actually think it would be good if Don died next week.’³⁵

But in Slater’s main pre-election activity, he had been thoroughly successful. Throughout the year, he had launched attack after attack on the Labour Party and its potential coalition partners. With the Labour database, Phil Goff’s SIS briefing and many others in between, Labour had been left constantly dealing with attacks. Slater boasted, ‘Its always up to me, am i the only one who can get hits on labour?³⁶ Here he is joking with Lusk about one of these hits.

Cameron Slater: lol, i hear Labour are seriously fucked off i leaked their ICT policy

Simon Lusk: well they are fools for having one....

Cameron Slater: Farrar is going to mock them tomorrow, a) that I leaked it, b) that it is naf

Simon Lusk: I’ll do up a post, Labours dumb policies noone cares about.³⁷

Part of the tactic was to discourage their opponents. Slater explained a post he had written about Labour Party press secretary, Fran Mold. ‘She is the enemy,’ he wrote to Williams, ‘also she is weak so you get in her head.’³⁸ He had discussed the same subject with his friend Peter Smith. ‘Use the word demoralising,’ he wrote. Smith replied that ‘demoralised will be the new buzz word … I take it you want it used everywhere possible.’ Slater said yes, and Smith wrote back the next day, ‘I am enjoying the use of the word demoralised.’ Slater said, ‘Yes, it is fun.’ The word appears frequently in his posts.³⁹

In the election on 26 November ACT survived narrowly and a confident National returned to government. The anti-MMP campaign failed, but Slater felt empowered by his successes. ‘I feel like this election campaign has been mine, plus my loyal tipline submitters,’ he told Bhatnagar. ‘Well, I am tempted to say that ripping open Labour’s website was a big part of it,’ Bhatnagar replied. ‘The truth is though, the media were warming up to you well before, but that might have been the issue that put you on the radar as the “Mainstream Blog”.’ Slater said, ‘Hehe yes it did.’⁴⁰

Another National Party friend had written to him a few weeks earlier to say, ‘Sad to hear Mr Farrar got eaten by an Orca earlier today.’ Slater wrote back, ‘Does that make me the number one blogger.’ The friend said, ‘I thought you already were?’ ‘The only one that matters,’ Slater replied.41 Jonathan Marshall also wrote to compliment him: ‘Don’t you just love how much of an impact you have on a country from a south auckland warehouse?’ Slater replied, ‘Heh, i own the news.’⁴²

At election time Slater told Bhatnagar that he was getting 35,000 views on the Whale Oil site every day. Bhatnagar called him the ‘El Rushbo of Aotearoa’, likening him to ultra-conservative US talkback host and prominent promoter of the Tea Party movement, Rush Limbaugh. ‘I’m 10k above farrar everyday now, lol,’ Slater said. ‘Fuck, he will be shocked at that,’ Bhatnagar said. ‘I think he is, because it isn’t just creeping past it is blasting past,’ Slater said. Bhatnagar wrote, ‘I think you have gained a critical mass.’ Yes, Slater replied, ‘and they are staying too. My stats say i have almost every ministers office as early readers each morning.’⁴³ Peter Smith also complimented him: ‘I don’t think there are any other horses in the race, are there. Farrar is a travel and theatre blogger … But yours has the sharp edge, made better by the hatred the left have for you.’ Slater said: ‘I feed off the hatred.’⁴⁴

That was 2011. The influence of the Whale Oil website and the wider attack team grew in the following years. There was an increasing supply of leaks and tip-offs from the government to fuel his attacks, and Slater acted with a growing sense of his own impunity. The 2011 election had been a turning point. The success of the attack politics employed by Slater, Lusk, Williams and Farrar guaranteed that the same tactics would be used again, even more aggressively, for the 2014 election.

CHAPTER 7

CASH FOR COMMENT

The story gets grubbier. Through all his campaigns, conflicts and controversies, Cameron Slater was always secretive, if not decidedly evasive, about who paid him and how he earned his living. In the early years of the Whale Oil blog there probably was not much income. At the end of 2011, for instance, he told Jonathan Marshall, ‘Now I need a job.’ Marshall said, ‘I thought you were working’, but Slater replied, ‘Finished, on election day’. When Marshall asked who he had been working for, Slater replied, ‘Can’t say.’¹

In fact, Slater told different stories about his employment and income to different friends, and different stories again to the media. The one constant was that he complained about not having enough money, but with nearly everyone he was close-lipped about the source of the money he did earn. On one occasion in 2012 he explained to Jordan Williams that he was slow paying a legal bill because he was ‘waiting for some funds to arrive from the US’, but did not explain further.² He was probably being paid by Lusk for the National candidate work and he received about $3,000 per month for advertising on Whale Oil.³ But added together these were not enough to support a household and all his work expenses. Most of his money came from elsewhere. Who was paying?

There is a 2005 film called Thank You for Smoking, which concerns the tobacco industry’s main lobbyist in Washington DC, a fictional character called Nick Naylor (played by Aaron Eckhart). In the opening scene he says, ‘Few people on this planet know what it is like to be truly despised.’ Looking over a studio audience where he is about to appear on a TV show, he adds, ‘Can you blame them? I earn a living fronting an organisation that kills one thousand two hundred human beings a day. We’re talking two jumbo jet planeloads a day of men, women and children. I mean there’s Caesar, Alexander the Great and me …’⁴

Suave and cynical, he enjoys his job. He meets once a week with two other lobbyists, his closest friends, at a corner table in Bert’s Restaurant: Polly Bailey, a lobbyist for the alcohol industry, and Bobby Jay Bliss, the chief spokesperson for the firearms industry. They call themselves the MOD Squad. One week Polly says, ‘So, my day is ruined. Dateline is doing a segment on fetal alcohol syndrome next Thursday.’ Nick replies, ‘That’s a tough one.’ She says, ‘We’re going to get creamed. Do you have any ideas for me?’ Nick responds, ‘I don’t know. Deformed kids are tough. I’m lucky. My product only makes them bald before it kills them.’ MOD Squad jokingly stood for ‘Merchants of Death’, later in the film joined by lobbyists for the oil industry, fast food and hazardous waste.⁵

Every country has its MOD Squad and it goes with the territory that the people involved tend to be jokey and cynical about their choice in life. In New Zealand Nick Naylor’s real-life equivalent is a man named Carrick Graham, who worked for 10 years as the PR person–lobbyist (‘corporate affairs manager’) for British American Tobacco, the country’s largest tobacco company. Like Slater, he is a child of the National Party. His father, Doug Graham, was a long-time National Cabinet minister, and Graham junior and Slater grew up surrounded by the intrigues of the Auckland National Party. His official story is that he used to work for the tobacco industry, starting in 1996 and leaving in 2006, but it seems he just changed his employment arrangement, moving from employee to generously paid consultant. Carrick Graham is the main person, year after year, who has paid Cameron Slater most of his income.

Slater earns his living by putting articles on his website written by Graham, and others, as if they are his own work. This includes material for the tobacco industry but, like the MOD Squad, also for large alcohol companies and other lucrative clients that prefer not to operate openly. Graham and others send Slater the completed articles, with the heading already written and often the pictures supplied, and he simply pastes them onto his site and publishes them at the specified time. As the country’s largest audience political blog, it is a potent platform for planting corporate messages. The attack politics revealed in the preceding chapters are also being offered to commercial clients: spin, ridicule, attacks and smears for hire.

The Slater documents provided for this book were just a sample of all his communications and e-mails over nearly a decade as a blogger. But they show a flow of articles written by Graham arriving to Slater by e-mail and every one of them being posted at the time he requested. For this Slater is paid about $6,500 each month, for what in total would be about an hour of work. Slater appeared in the Auckland High Court in June 2014 claiming he was a media organisation and deserved the protection of a media organisation in a defamation case, but real media organisations do not take money to publish stories prepared by PR people.⁶ It is not clear when this arrangement began, but it appears to have been going on for several years at the time of writing. There is concrete evidence of payments in 2012 and 2013, and he was being routinely sent prepared stories to post in 2014.

On 26 February 2014, for instance, Slater received an e-mail from Carrick Graham, which contained the finished text of a snide attack on Professor Doug Sellman, head of the National Addiction Centre.⁷ The next morning, pre-set for 8 a.m. publication, the post appeared on the Whale Oil site headed ‘Confirmed: Doug Sellman Gone Mad’. It said ‘by Cameron Slater’, but every word, and the headline, had come from Graham or perhaps Graham’s client.⁸ It is for this that Slater gets paid.

The Doug Sellman post had arisen from a sad news story a few days earlier about desperate alcoholics repeatedly stealing bottles of hand sanitiser from Waikato Hospital to drink the high-alcohol liquid.⁹ Sellman, asked to comment, said it was what you would expect in a society like New Zealand’s with a heavy drinking culture, exacerbated by ‘excessive alcohol marketing’.¹⁰ These last words had obviously upset someone associated with marketing alcohol, who paid Carrick Graham to write the latest in a series of Whale Oil posts ridiculing Sellman and, more importantly, ridiculing the suggestion that New Zealand might need alcohol marketing controls.

The blog post was not intended as reasoned debate. It began, ‘If there was ever a case of demonstrating once and for all that Professor Doug Sellman is mad, this article “Drunks steal sanitiser for alcohol” proves it … any ounce of credibility that this guy once had has long-since evaporated.’ The post referred to the thefts and said that Sellman ‘must have some demons in the closet to go anywhere near this, as most people would see it as something as important as a stone in your tyre’s tread’. It continued: ‘any chance to slag off the alcohol industry, trust Doug to be wheeled out for a comment … Maybe it’s time Doug has a quiet beer under a tree and learns to calm the f**k down.’¹¹ Graham had been paid to sit in his chic Parnell offices writing this stuff and then to pay Slater to publish it.

This chapter considers several of these ‘cash for comment’ campaigns, starting with Graham’s long-term client, the tobacco industry. It is illuminating to follow Graham and Slater step by step through their work. Each of the campaigns relies on the special unregulated nature of blogs – where, unlike other news media, there is no obligation to be fair, balanced or accurate – that allows them to hide their clients’ identities and say things they would not get away with through traditional media.

Like the fictitious Nick Naylor, tobacco companies know what most people think of them and prefer to keep their heads down as much as possible. They tend to exercise their influence quietly and put a huge effort into monitoring and undermining their public health opponents. Carrick Graham is involved in these activities on behalf of the tobacco industry. One piece of this work was visible in public when Graham appeared before a select committee in April 2014, arguing against plain packaging of cigarettes as spokesperson for an archetypal pro-smoking industry front group called the New Zealand Association of Convenience Stores.¹² This sounds like a group of little shop owners but its members include British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco. All the rest of his tobacco industry work, however, has been covert.

In the months after the select committee meeting, a series of posts appeared on the Whale Oil site attacking the idea of plain cigarette packaging. Carrick Graham writes in a different style to Slater. These tobacco posts appear to have come from him as part of several years of pro-tobacco company posts published on the blog, attacking tobacco regulations and the ‘health jihadists’ who study and advocate tobacco control.

An important clue in documenting Graham’s tobacco company work is the Official Information Act requests he sends to the Ministry of Health. In 2012 and 2013, for instance, Graham and his Facilitate Communications company sent about 30 requests seeking many thousands of pages of ministry information. They covered a range of subjects but two-thirds related to tobacco, reflecting how important a part of his work this is.

Several requests related to the plain packaging proposal, and others to a possible state register of tobacco sellers, National Tobacco Control Working Group meetings and enforcement of smoke-free laws. There was also detailed probing into government funding for smoker cessation schemes and any organisations speaking up on tobacco control.¹³ If there was nothing in the ministry reply worthy of attack, he appeared to do nothing with the information. But any replies that could be used to attack opponents of smoking were used in articles he wrote for the Whale Oil blog.

In November 2013, for instance, he requested ‘copies of all communications, including any reports, emails or other correspondence … [and] any contracts or agreements for services’ for two women: Sue Taylor and Teresa Taylor of T&T Consulting and Te Reo Marama, who were involved in Maori smoking cessation programmes. A few months later a Whale Oil post appeared, in faux ordinary-person language, saying, ‘This week the Health Select Committee will hear again from a bunch of troughers demanding NZ truck ahead with plain packaging for ciggie packs.’ The ‘prime example’ of this was Sue Taylor of Te Reo Marama. Graham used a pseudonym to comment at the bottom of the Whale Oil post:¹⁴ ‘How [health minister] Tony Ryall has allowed this to carry on under his watch is amazing. No wonder they have to keep tipping in millions into the health system as troughers eat away at it with a vengeance.’¹⁵

This was a familiar game for Graham. In September 2009 he was asked by the Sunday Star-Times why, if he had stopped working for British American Tobacco, he still showered the Ministry of Health with information requests about anti-smoking non-government organisations (NGOs). He said he was not paid by cigarette companies to do this but acted out of ‘personal interest’.¹⁶ A month after the interview the Whale Oil blog began a series of attack posts about Te Reo Marama. The first post, under Cameron Slater’s name, said, ‘I have obtained under the OIA [Official Information Act] a large box of papers about one organisation purporting to be at the forefront of stopping Maori smoking.’¹⁷

It was the same when Graham was working for British American Tobacco in 2003. His friend Matthew Hooton spent months writing a series of very similarly worded information requests to the Ministry of Health, probing ministry funding for tobacco control groups. This information was saved up quietly and then released in Parliament by ACT MP Rodney Hide in October 2003, without explanation as to its source, to try to derail the passing of a new smoke-free law that banned smoking in cafes, pubs, restaurants, schools and childcare centres.¹⁸

Hide, backed up by MP Peter Dunne, argued that it was wrong for anti-smoking groups to receive public funding and that the revelations required withdrawal of the smoke-free law. His ACT colleagues chimed in claiming ‘abuse of power’, ‘a blatant attempt at political manipulation’ and the ‘taint and ooze of corruption’.¹⁹ Peter Dunne, who had repeatedly moved to have debate on the bill discharged, used the controversy to argue for the bill to be stalled and sent back to a select committee.²⁰

There was another pattern too. In addition to the paid posts, there was a Whale Oil commenter called ‘Naylor’, who commented on the funding for Te Reo Marama and other tobacco-related subjects. Here he is in 2009:

Cigarette companies don’t kill New Zealanders. Which part of that don’t people understand. Anyone who thinks breathing smoke into their lungs is a good idea is a complete loser. People have a choice and the ability to think about this. Oh, and don’t try the pathetic line about children not having any idea what they are doing – that’s crap.²¹

It could be Nick Naylor from Thank You for Smoking. In fact it was Carrick Graham.²² He used the Whale Oil comments to say things a smooth PR consultant would never say under his own name. His private joke was that the Naylor commenting on Whale Oil used the e-mail address nicknaylorpr@gmail.com.²³ He was enjoying the part of South Seas Nick Naylor.

When Graham writes as Naylor, he can say things he would never say under his own name. After the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, for instance, Naylor wrote, ‘Where’s the tobacco companies when you need them. A few ciggies and the stress levels in christchurch will be all gone. Come on cough up!’²⁴ He repeatedly ridiculed MPs Hone Harawira and Tariana Turia, who were pushing for government action on tobacco because of its impact on Maori health. ‘Fook bros,’ Naylor wrote, ‘stop hassling the cuzzies aye or we’ll give you the bash too. We are oppressed by the government and if it wasn’t for Tariana and Hone we would never get anywhere.’²⁵

He wrote comments in the same vein under the pseudonym ‘Lion King’, and used the e-mail address lionkingonfire@gmail.com for certain particularly secret campaigns. ‘No doubt Uncle Wiremu drove his ko holden re waka (my waka is my holden) to the pub,’ he commented as Lion King in July 2013, ‘so he could claim ko local pub te hapu (my sub tribe is the local pub) while smoking tupeka (tobacco). Kapai bro.’²⁶ Graham’s father had been a respected National government minister of treaty settlements. His son, the rich boy laughing at other people, comes across as a very different sort of person.

Cameron Slater, for his part, willingly published years of pro-tobacco company spin as his own writing, some written by Graham and also some that seemed to be in his own distinctive style. He then used the payments he received from Graham to help fund his attack activities in support of the National Party.

Tobacco dollars also went directly into politics as well, with Graham acting as a go-between to funnel tobacco company money into right-wing politics. Graham made an appearance in The Hollow Men when he paid for two tables of guests, costing $10,000 each, at a 2005 Don Brash fundraising dinner.²⁷ Early in the 2011 election year, when Simon Lusk was seeking corporate money for the anti-MMP campaign and other projects, Slater wrote to him, ‘I’m getting Carrick Graham to come up with some big money donors for you.’ Lusk said, ‘Thanks for that’. Slater explained that Graham would ‘give you some tobacco guys to go see’.²⁸ The documents do not say whether the funding was given.

Slater was apparently aware of other destinations for the tobacco money. When Peter Dunne was in trouble for leaking to a journalist in June 2013, Jordan Williams wrote to Slater saying, ‘Hey, you know an easy way to push dunne out? get him to stand for Wellington mayor, have the conversation with him.’ Slater said, ‘I know a much easier way.’ If they wanted Dunne out of Parliament, they could ‘release details of his donations (undeclared) that he received personally from tobacco companies’.²⁹ It should be said that Dunne has previously denied being influenced by the tobacco industry.³⁰

~

Carrick Graham’s next major client is the person who arranged the attack on Doug Sellman. When he sent the e-mail to Slater, the subject line began ‘KR hit’. The initials stand for Katherine Rich, who featured as a principled young National Party MP in The Hollow Men, standing up to leader Don Brash’s single parent bashing plans. When she left Parliament in 2008 she was already negotiating her new job as chief executive of the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council. This sounds homely and harmless, but the council represents a range of large and aggressive foreign and local companies including those marketing alcohol, the biggest seller in supermarkets. The board chairman who appointed her was managing director of Coca-Cola Amatil New Zealand. In this role, Rich had become the Polly Bailey of the MOD Squad, a leading industry lobbyist fighting attempts at alcohol and tobacco law reform, public health policies aimed at reducing obesity and various other public interest initiatives.³¹ The biggest companies selling alcohol, soft drinks and confectionary and tobacco are her employers. She uses Graham’s and Slater’s services to defend these companies and attack anyone who threatens their interests.

But why was a respectable person like her involved in a snide attack on a university professor? There had been seven personal attacks in a row on Sellman in the previous four months, plus the bonus of Graham’s comments such as the following from Lion King: ‘What a complete cock-smoker. Who the fuck signs off the funding for this trougher?’ And on the same day from Naylor: ‘Sellman is clearly in his own little perfect world … Must be tough being such an expert. Probably drives him to drink at home each night before flogging himself with a whip.’³²

While holding her Food and Grocery Council job, Rich had been appointed by the National government to the board of the Health Promotion Agency, guiding its policy on alcohol, obesity and tobacco, supposedly acting in the best interests of the health of the nation. So what was she doing paying for snide attacks on a university professor? The obvious answer is because it was in the interests of the big companies she represents, and could be done secretly.

Here are examples of what the Food and Grocery Council paid to have written and published over a few weeks in January and February 2014. In each case, her initials ‘KR’ or her name are on the e-mails sending the ‘hits’ to Slater for publication.³³ They all concern food issues and public health. The first concerned a product recall of several thousand bottles of cream in January 2014 after Fonterra, which was a member of the council, discovered E. coli contamination.³⁴ Fonterra was sensitive after other bad publicity over contaminated products; Rich, and whoever she was representing, were keen to minimise the issue as much as possible. Graham sent an e-mail to Slater with the subject line ‘KR – Fonterra (first thing in morning)’. The prepared text, headed ‘Calm down, move on’, said, ‘Better circle the wagons … Fonterra is recalling a few thousand bottles of cream. Nothing strange about that, yet, as typical of most lightweight MSM journalists you’d think the plague had hit New Zealand … People need to calm the f**k down.’³⁵ It appeared on the blog word for word first thing the next morning.³⁶

This was followed that afternoon by another post from Graham, ‘Monday hit #2 KR’, headed ‘The world is coming to an end’. It said, ‘It’s no wonder New Zealanders are looking to blogs for real-world information when MSM media outlets are scraping the barrel like they are with this story.’³⁷ The post named and mocked a Television New Zealand reporter, Matty McLean, who had reported on the product recall, a PR tactic for trying to put reporters off doing such stories in future. Slater posted it that afternoon.³⁸

Carrick Graham’s next job for the Food and Grocery Council was a few days later, this time in defence of Coca-Cola and Frucor, the manufacturer of Pepsi. On 20 and 21 January advertisements in the New Zealand Herald had sought people whose families had suffered from Type 2 diabetes, heart condition and/or premature death ‘from becoming addicted to Cola at an early age’. They said Australian lawyers were considering a class action against cola companies.³⁹ Rich and Graham responded immediately. Graham e-mailed Slater a blog post on 21 January with the subject line ‘KR Hit – TF #1’ and a note saying ‘we’ll run more hits based on these as well’.⁴⁰

Rather than addressing the health problems associated with sweet drinks, they focused the response on attacking a man named Tony Falkenstein (‘TF’), who was the New Zealand contact on the class action advertisement.⁴¹ Carrick e-mailed through ‘KR hit #2 TF’ later that day. ‘Run tomorrow morning,’ he wrote to Slater. ‘Follow-up piece coming shortly for tomorrow afternoon. 3 hits smashing him good and proper.’⁴² He also forwarded Slater an e-mail from Rich, with a copy of the class action advertisement to use with the post.⁴³ Slater published it as directed and Graham wrote in the on-line comments as Naylor, ‘Coke will spend millions to defend this. Typical exploitative Australians – trying to make money off dumb kiwis.’⁴⁴

A third post, e-mailed through to Slater as ‘KR hit #3 TF – For tomorrow afternoon,’ said, ‘While Tony Falkenstein is trying to make out he actually cares about sugary drinks, his credibility and involvement in the obesity debate is tumbling faster than his Just Water International share price.’ Falkenstein was likely to ‘face the wrath’ of public health researchers and doctors opposed to sweetened drink sales (‘publicly funded troughers’), who wouldn’t like ‘being played like two-bit hookers’.⁴⁵ The general idea appeared to be to make Falkenstein and the health professionals sound dodgy and deflect attention away from the health issues. Each hit was posted by Slater, unchanged, under his own name.

In the same week there was also a television news item about a call for a ban on energy drinks in schools. Slater sent an e-mail with a link for the news story to Graham, who replied, ‘Yes, have forwarded to KR and Frucor.’ He said that Frucor would not do anything (‘they’re useless’) but ‘Coke keeps sending stuff to KR expecting her to do something (where we come in). Hit pending.’⁴⁶

Other health-related attacks can be directly traced to information requests Graham had sent to the Ministry of Health. There were, for instance, seven Whale Oil posts in a row in 2012 attacking ‘The Brestapo’, people advocating and supporting breast feeding of babies, and objecting to regulations on the sale of infant formula. Like the tobacco ‘hits’, the blog posts contained specific information on government funding (‘troughing’ from the ‘public trough’) received by groups such as Women’s Health Action, which Graham had requested from the ministry a few months before these posts. All seven of Graham and Slater’s posts were headed ‘Sucking on the Taxpayers’ Tit’.⁴⁷

Writing as the Whale Oil commenter Naylor, Graham said, ‘Brilliant, simply brilliant. The Brestapo are now using tactics employed against tobacco against infant formula companies. I can just imagine what Fonterra will be thinking about this [as] their global competitiveness gets hijacked by the Brestapo seeking plain packs for infant formula.’ These comments give grounds to suspect that, as with the contamination issues, this attack on the Brestapo was being done on behalf of New Zealand’s largest company, Fonterra.⁴⁸

These activities could sound like ‘just’ public relations rather than politics. However the clash between the organisations working in the public interest and organised commercial forces is one of the main front lines of democratic politics in the world today. It is not a coincidence that the commercially motivated attacks on public health professionals used the same attack lines as many right-wing attacks on politicians: that they are all interested only in getting their snouts into the public trough.

Slater did not write these posts and so, of course, the positions he was seen expressing on Whale Oil changed, depending on what the clients wanted. Strange contradictions resulted. For instance, in the same months as it was mocking Doug Sellman for advocating alcohol controls, the Whale Oil blog also ran a succession of posts attacking ready-to-drink pre-mixed spirits (RTDs). The posts were scathing about the irresponsibility of producing and selling RTDs, quoting Cactus Kate describing them as ‘Liquid Panty Remover’ aimed at young girls.

The blog slammed RTD producer Independent Liquor for sponsoring the Cleo–Cruiser vodka bachelor of the year competition, criticised David Farrar for having Independent Liquor sponsor Kiwiblog’s 10th birthday celebration (including making special bottles of ‘Kiwiblog’ RTD), scoffed at the effectiveness of a voluntary industry code to control RTDs, wrote approvingly about a mooted ban on youth-focused RTDs and produced several blogs about a drunk nine-year-old boy caught on film in Hamilton.⁴⁹ All this on a blog that usually defended the alcohol and tobacco industries and ridiculed anyone raising such concerns.

Many or all of these RTD posts were written by Carrick Graham. He e-mailed one to Slater on 9 January 2014, with the subject line ‘IL Hit’, that was headed ‘Farrar now mouthpiece for Independent Liquor?’⁵⁰ Graham’s alto-ego Naylor then commented on his own post, saying ‘FFS [for fuck’s sake] Farrar is turning into a corporate whore. He’s running the polling for the Nats and is in bed with a booze company! No wonder the Nats caved in to the alcohol industry over RTDs.’⁵¹ Lion King wrote, ‘If this isn’t a wake-up call from Crusher to come down like a tonne of bricks on those RTD producers then God knows what is.’⁵²

Naylor/Graham is the same person who wrote, regarding cigarettes, ‘don’t try the pathetic line about children not having any idea what they are doing.’ This time he said, ‘Lolly water RTD drinks are targeted at young impressionable girls. Hook them young and all care and no responsibility about binge drinking and what happens once they’ve had too many to know what’s going on.’⁵³ What was going on here?

The first thing to notice is that the post was called ‘IL hit’. It was specifically an attack on the company, Independent Liquor. Most of the anti-RTD posts criticised Independent Liquor. Then on 23 January 2014, in the midst of the campaign, a private meeting was held at Graham’s Parnell offices called ‘Catch up RTD project’. Those present were Graham, Slater and a man named Matt Wilson.⁵⁴ Wilson was the corporate relations manager for DB (Dominion Breweries), the person in charge of the company’s public relations and political activities. DB, targeting young men to drink Tui beer and other products, and Independent Liquor were two of the biggest alcohol companies in New Zealand – and fierce competitors. This seems to have been some kind of commercial turf battle, more about market share than the safety of young people.⁵⁵

Slater was paid for his services at the end of each month by Graham’s Facilitate Communications. His monthly pay rate of $6,555 (including GST) is shown in a December 2013 e-mail, called ‘December hits coin’.⁵⁶ That is at least $500 for the few minutes spent cutting and pasting each pre-written article onto his site. Slater appeared to be earning the same monthly rate of pay two years earlier.

When Jordan Williams wrote to Slater in January 2012 asking about his consulting rates for a client at his law firm, the blogger replied, ‘Well depends on the work, how long the engagement and what they want … I have one client who pays me $1000 a week. I have another that pays me $20,000 every 3 months. And a couple more in between.’⁵⁷ This suggests that Graham provided the $20,000 every three months (about $6,600 per month) and, if true, an unknown client was paying $1,000 per week. Another document in Chapter 8 shows that Slater was already doing this type of work in 2010.

Slater explained that what he charged was ‘sometimes dependent on willingness and ability to pay. Also risk factor … so if say [collapsed finance company director] Mark Hotchin was to approach me for work I would charge absolutely heaps because a) he has heaps of coin, b) he has a reputation worse than a tobacco company and c) because he can.’⁵⁸ He was willing to take money from Hotchin or a tobacco company, he just expected to be paid more. Nick Naylor would have approved.

CHAPTER 8

CHAOS AND MAYHEM LIMITED

Carrick Graham, Cameron Slater and collaborators such as Cathy Odgers had a name for their corporate-funded attacks and spin doctoring. They called it Chaos and Mayhem (C&M for short). They seem to have treated it as a game, mischievous and fun. Their friends sometimes referred to them as Chaos and Mayhem Limited.

Two other major C&M campaigns run through the Whale Oil site related to union and employment politics. The first occurred in the excited months after the 2011 election and Slater’s rise to leading political blog, when Whale Oil played a leading role in a bitter Ports of Auckland battle with the Maritime Union of New Zealand. On New Year’s Day 2012 Cathy Odgers sent Slater an opinion piece from that morning’s paper by an Auckland businessman saying that the Auckland port was inefficient and the chief executive ‘should sack the entire workforce and start again’.1 Odgers wrote, ‘Sack em!! Lol.’² An interesting discussion developed.

Slater replied that Ports of Auckland should put them on a retainer and ‘then we will take out the union for good’.³ Odgers said, ‘Tell that to your guy. He’s in control. Rob’s just in the background.’⁴ Slater said, ‘Right, I’ll get onto it then. What do you reckon for a fee?’⁵

Odgers replied with a plan. ‘10k [$10,000] for first attack,’ she said. ‘We will include other bloggers in for that price (without telling them of course as none will be doing research and work). Bonuses for digging up shit on Union head + taking them out completely.’ She continued, ‘We will need inside info leaked to us first etc. I’ll write this up this arvo, it’s pissing down here and will be inside having midgets massaging me all day.’ (She lived in Hong Kong.) ‘You can add bits in tomorrow (your work examples from 2010) and send to your guy.’⁶

Slater spent the next few months pounding the union with almost daily attacks on his blog about the workers being overpaid and lazy, repeatedly using information that it seemed could only have come to him from the Ports of Auckland (POA) management.⁷ The union believed that POA had deliberately planned a fight with them over new work conditions to precipitate a crisis and replace the union workers with private contractors. Slater claimed publicly that his anti-union campaign involved no collusion with the port company, but his Facebook conversations with his friend Peter Smith tell otherwise. Here is a conversation from the late evening of 12 March 2012, in the midst of the fight.

‘Are the unionists feeling crushed?’ Smith asked. ‘Hope so, will crush them some more tomorrow,’ Slater replied. Smith said, ‘POAL must love you at present. You have controlled their social media, and done a great job for them in getting the truth out there.’ Slater replied that ‘today on Red Radio [Radio New Zealand] a unionist was moaning about not having time with his family. Tomorrow I am blogging about the 20 weeks paid leave he had.’⁸ Slater published the story the following day and the port company later had to pay out in a court settlement for leaking details of the man’s personnel file. Some very revealing comments between Slater and Smith came next.

‘Good to see [POA chair] Richard Pearson fronting,’ Smith said. ‘He is a really cool guy. I met him just before Xmas at his bach. He has serious credibility and has managed to seriously fuck over the unions elsewhere.’ The maritime union was ‘now realising that Pearson has played them like a Marist brother plays a little boy.’ Slater agreed, describing Pearson as ‘a good c**t, I have had long chats with him. He is a union breaker.’⁹ It is not clear if this is the same man Slater had talked about being in contact with earlier or what, if any, agreement was reached about payment. Smith said that Pearson ‘told me before Christmas that they were going to contract out [the wharfies’ jobs]. If only I could have bought shares then.’ Slater said, ‘they have planned this and executed it precisely.’¹⁰ This is not what the company said publicly.

This conversation shows that Slater knew what the port company’s plans were before they happened and fitted his attacks around the company PR strategy. He also publicised all the ship arrivals day by day. In the above exchange he told Smith, ‘Another ship is due in at 0530’, a vessel belonging to shipping company Maersk. Smith said, ‘I guess when you are on a first name basis with every major shipping CEO around the world, a nudge and a wink and bang unions fucked and ship cleared loaded no matter what.’ He asked if Slater knew POA’s next move. ‘Keep processing the ships. They will announce this week that the third contractor is a new company made up of the IEA [individual employment agreement] workers who have banded together.’ He said they were 55 workers who had left the union some time ago and that, in contrast, ‘the union will fade away as they all go broke’.¹¹

Two days later, after Slater had attacked the union member with the paid leave and the story had been run prominently by many news organisations, Slater and Smith chatted again. Smith said, ‘TVNZ have a cheek. They did not even name you, or [have] the courtesy of interviewing you.’ Slater did not care. He was enjoying his impact. He replied, ‘Bwahaha.’¹² The day after that Smith asked, ‘Are you going to put more hits on them tomorrow?’ Slater said, ‘Of course’. When Smith wrote, ‘How pissed are the unions with you?’, Slater replied, ‘Very’ and declared, ‘I’m a one man union wrecking machine.’¹³

A POA adviser, Brent Impey, said publicly that there had been no collusion with any blogger, including Slater, and that the latter had been granted access to the port ‘no different from any other journalist’. He said POA did not know how information was leaked to Slater.¹⁴ Slater also said, ‘I have no idea who leaked me the documents.’¹⁵ Both sides denied that Slater had been paid.¹⁶

POA was assisted in its union-breaking plans by a PR company called Sweeney Vesty, which had helped to co-ordinate a similar aggressive campaign for Carter Holt Harvey when it restructured and laid off staff at its Kinleith pulp and paper mill a decade earlier.¹⁷ A Sweeney Vesty senior consultant who worked on the POA campaign, Steve Fisher, boasted afterwards within the PR industry that they had used Slater, chuckling that he had been ‘a great hired gun’.¹⁸

Were they misleading the public when they said they did not work together? It is not clear whether the payment discussed at the start eventuated, but it certainly looks as though they were collaborating. It had been an aggressive campaign but this should come as no surprise; Chaos and Mayhem Limited could be distinctly nasty. In 2013 I helped to research and write an international study about people using tax havens, an industry in which Cathy Odgers is a lawyer. She wrote an attack post about it for the Whale Oil blog and sent the following e-mail to David Farrar, Cameron Slater and Matthew Hooton.

To Farrar, Slater, Hooton: Make sure when Cam finds it that you subtly repost where Hager lives. I’ve done a post for Saturday on whale blog as can’t run myself as too close to work. The leaks he is involved with include tens of thousands of rich Chinese. Mainland and HK. It would be a disaster if they all knew where he lived. He may even need police protection. I’ve spent all day telling clients it is not our company but have asked a few how they would react if they knew a bit about the people publishing the material. I was delighted to assist with the full details for Mr Hager. Those Chinese can be very vicious when they lose face. Hiding money from wife for concubines and having their family trust deed leaked online with beneficiaries for example makes for very unhappy billionaires. Many trusts are not tax driven at all in Cooks they are cock driven. Chop chop for Nicky. Shame Russians don’t seem affected but our Chinese friends need a helping hand.¹⁹

Slater and Hooton both replied, naming the address (Hooton gave just the street, not the number). Slater appended property records and wrote, ‘Here are Hager’s details for your clients.’²⁰

There is no sign that Carrick Graham took part in the POA campaign, but he was very involved in another one that started at the end of that year. For 18 months angry Whale Oil posts appeared about an organisation called Building Service Contractors of New Zealand (BSC). Most Whale Oil readers were probably bemused about why Slater was so interested and wound up about the details of this obscure organisation. The answer was that once again someone else was writing the posts and Slater was being paid to publish them. The episode showed how a determined business person, with the help of a PR company and a political blog, could overturn government policy and advantage his company.

The BSC is the industry association for commercial cleaning companies. The 1999–2008 Labour-led government had brokered an agreement between BSC, for the cleaning companies, and the Service and Food Workers Union, for the cleaning staff, to improve training and employment conditions for the low-paid cleaners. Cleaning companies would be eligible for contracts in government buildings only if they were BSC members and agreed to the improved standards for cleaners. It was a straightforward piece of public policy to achieve a social goal. The campaign run on the Whale Oil blog was to have the agreement scrapped.

Starting in 2012, posts began to appear rubbishing the ‘piss-ant little organisation’ BSC and mocking its national president ‘El Presidente Patrick Lee-Lo’. Month after month there were posts about the BSC fleecing its members, the staff ‘troughing’ on the members’ money, Lee-Lo’s appearance (‘70s porn star look alike’), Lee-Lo telling ‘porkies’, Lee-Lo being a stooge of the union, the organisation crumbling and members preparing to leave, and the BSC being awarded the Whale Oil 2013 Worst Trade Association Prize.²¹ The strategy, in other words, was to create as much chaos and mayhem as possible to force the policy change.

The attack campaign was designed and executed by Carrick Graham. He wrote the Whale Oil posts and then, using both his Naylor and Lion King pseudonyms, was even more abusive commenting on his own posts. ‘The guy is unbelievable,’ he wrote as Lion King. ‘Clearly has no concept of up or down and believes his own bullshit doesn’t stink. He has abused multiple companies and franchisees [and] brought shame onto the BSC … Fuck me sideways with a rubber cock because if he can get away with this he’ll get away with stonewalling the BSC members from getting a slice of the $1.8m he’s sucked out of them.’²² As Naylor, he derided BSC as lame, incompetent, doing nothing for its members, hitting them up for excessive fees and travelling the world on junkets. ‘The BSC is a joke,’ he concluded.²³ None of this was actually about the policies the campaign was trying to change. It was just more battering to make BSC an easier target.

But step by step the campaign raised its real agenda of getting rid of the BSC–union accord about cleaning contracts in government buildings. When the National government did not at first agree to dropping the agreement, they simply upped the pressure. Someone must have been spending a lot of money on the campaign. Graham arranged direct lobbying of National Party politicians over Rule 67 of the government procurement regulations, which contained the provision about only BSC members who had agreed to the worker protections being entitled to bid for cleaning government buildings.

Graham knew about Slater’s close relationship with Judith Collins and prepared a lobbying document on Rule 67. ‘Cam,’ he wrote, ‘here’s a paper for Crusher etc outlining why Rule 67 is no longer needed and how it conflicts with the Govt’s procurement rules … [Labour minister Simon] Bridges needs to get on board and support removal of Rule 67.’²⁴ The attached document laid out their case and reminded Collins that ‘Whale Oil has continued to expose the BSC’.²⁵

Graham’s document said, ‘There are companies that are highly frustrated by being blocked from tendering from govt contracts due to Rule 67 and the provision that they must be a member of the BSC.’ Here was the real reason for all the insults.²⁶ It was an issue most politicians and virtually all of the public had never heard of and that the National government was neither interested in nor motivated to change. Instead it appears the campaign had been initiated and funded by a cleaning company chief executive who was angry that his company was not in line for government contracts. The role of this company and the reasons it bought Graham’s and Slater’s services were never revealed, but a careful reading of the campaign materials makes it apparent who was behind the campaign.

When the anti-BSC posts first began appearing on Whale Oil, a knowledgeable commenter called Fred, who had very strong views about the issue, appeared immediately on the blog. ‘Great article,’ he wrote, ‘our company has had dealings with this guy [Lee-Lo] and he is a prick! … he has made lots of enemies and has no friends left! … Time for him to quit.’²⁷ Many more comments arrived from Fred until June 2013 and then more again in the same tone from someone called Barney.

‘Paddy Plumbly Lee-Lo is merely a clown in the show,’ Fred wrote. ‘This rort has been going on far longer than he has been El Presidente. Other culpable names [are] Brian Young and Bent Bob King who still sits behind the scenes and pulls Paddy’s strings.’²⁸ Then, a few days later, ‘This guy is bent but remember he is the fall guy for Bent Bob! … Nice food in white collar cells boys! ha.’²⁹ Anonymity removes concerns about defamation. Fred made his politics clear: ‘Rabbits, possums, gorse and unions all need to be eradicated to ensure a more productive NZ Inc.’³⁰

Barney took over and showed a more specific interest. The BSC–union agreement was ‘a sham … protecting the market share of large foreign owned cleaning companies and Paddy’s mates.’³¹ Bridges’s decisions on BSC would ‘be a defining moment in his career as a politician. Is he packing a small set or does he have a big swinging set that he’s prepared to slap [Council of Trade Unions head] Helen Kelly and her underlings around the face with!’³² He was annoyed at Steven Joyce for not yet dropping the BSC agreement. ‘This story gets much worse as [Joyce] the supposed champion of business and free markets … is protecting the BSC and Spotless [a cleaning company with government contracts].’³³ In some cases Lion King (Carrick Graham) and Barney were the only people who commented on Graham’s BSC posts.

It turns out that Fred and Barney were the same person: Grant McLauchlan, managing director of a Dunedin-based cleaning company called Crest Commercial Cleaning.³⁴ He was almost certainly behind the attack campaign, partly through a political hostility to unions and regulations, but perhaps mostly because a policy change would give companies such as his own access to lucrative government contracts.³⁵ All it took was one angry man, Graham and Slater as guns for hire and a willingness to pay their fees.

The campaign worked. In May 2014 Bridges announced that National had dropped the BSC–union agreement and opened up government contracts without the requirements about training and conditions for the cleaners. A final Whale Oil blog appeared headed ‘Gotcha … Simon Bridges mans up’.³⁶ Graham joined in the comments as Lion King. ‘Well done WO,’ he wrote, ‘you’ve served this Patrick Lee-Lo and the BSC up on a plate. Another smashing of a union scam.’³⁷ Crest Commercial Cleaning advertised heavily on the Whale Oil site in the following months.³⁸

It is likely that Graham used the Whale Oil blog for various other clients, but no one would have known why a particular issue or person became one of Slater’s many targets. An example of this was the executive principal of a North Auckland private school who was in a matrimonial dispute with his ex-wife in late 2012. She hired Carrick Graham, ‘to whom she was referred by her lawyer’, and a concerted character assassination of her former husband began on Whale Oil.³⁹ The first post appeared on 24 October 2012, marked ‘via the tip line’, and hinted about a complaint made by the ex-wife to the police alleging an assault two years earlier. Posts followed on 28 and 30 October, then 3, 4, 6 and 8 November.

The police laid no charges over the assault complaint though they issued a warning, but the campaign was vigilante justice. Many other unsubstantiated accusations, not of violence, were made. When a student tried to stick up for the principal in the Whale Oil comments, Slater responded, ‘Is he running one up you too?’⁴⁰ The principal subsequently left the job and moved overseas.

Carrick Graham had a phrase he used to describe the work he did with Slater on BSC and the other campaigns: ‘below the line communications support’. He spelt out what they could offer in a confidential document he prepared for prospective clients. In December 2013, for instance, he pitched for work to the confectionery company Nestlé. He introduced his Nestlé pitch by saying ‘with obesity now at the forefront as a major public health issue facing New Zealand, Nestlé faces risks not only to its corporate reputation, but also potential regulatory and consumer action against brands “seen” as contributing to obesity. With the Ministry of Health channelling over $27 million into obesity related services to NGOs, the risk of Nestlé being at the receiving end of unwarranted attention is very real, together with the corresponding increased regulatory risks.’⁴¹ To put it plainly, policy to reduce obesity might clash with maximising profit.

He listed the normal ‘above the line’ PR activities his company could offer Nestlé, such as communications to media and stakeholders, monitoring social media and lobbying key politicians and officials. But at least as much effort was proposed ‘below the line’, ‘to support the re-framing of the debate’. This included ‘countering unsupported and so-called research on Nestlé products/company initiatives by external parties [and] identify[ing] key lobby group activities, linkages and proposals i.e. Otago University’s Big Food symposium framing efforts’.

In other words, he was offering to monitor and counter public health activities on obesity. This would go hand in hand with ‘countering negative commentary of Nestlé’s brands/activities [and] reframing issues via aligned content on social media platforms’.⁴² This was his respectable way of describing the personal attacks against public health groups and professionals, and the denigration of their motives, described in Chapter 7. The ‘aligned content on social media platforms’ largely meant writing on Whale Oil and ‘below the line’ was a euphemism for attack strategies, conducted covertly through third parties such as Slater and his commenters.

Graham’s price for his services was stated as $7,500 per month and, not forgetting Slater, he noted that ‘disbursements, for example dissemination of information via third parties, may incur an additional charge’. He concluded that ‘As stakeholder and NGO interest in the companies behind brands increases, reputations can and are quickly enhanced or lost on-line … Nestlé is a greatly respected company within the FMCG [fast-moving consumer goods] world and its presence in New Zealand should be celebrated … But the world is constantly changing and as a result of this, the ability to control the messaging around a product or company is becoming increasingly difficult. We believe we can assist Nestlé in this area. Facilitate looks forward to working with you.’⁴³

Graham and Slater’s Chaos and Mayhem activities are part of a worldwide PR industry that earns money by helping big companies to manage news and politics in their favour. This bigger picture of manipulating media is seen in another money-making opportunity that came along for Graham and Slater in 2014, when an e-mail had arrived out of the blue from Sam Ryan of the Washington DC company Keybridge Communications.

Keybridge has a simple business model. Working for clients such as the pharmaceutical industry and private healthcare lobby, it writes op-ed (opposite the editorial) articles and letters to the editor, finds credible-sounding people to sign them and then arranges for placement in prominent publications. In this way big corporations can get carefully crafted PR messages into mainstream media which look as though they are independently written. The Keybridge website says, ‘Our opinion media services are highly sophisticated, and unrivalled. We have a daily track record of successful op-ed, editorial, and letter placements in the county’s leading media outlets.’⁴⁴ Here is Ryan’s 27 February 2014 letter to Graham.

Carrick, It’s a pleasure to meet you, and thanks for your note. Here is the situation: Ideally, we’d like to find someone willing to author an oped that we could pitch for placement in a major newspaper. As I mentioned in my note to Shane, I’m working on a campaign related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There’s a TPP meeting in Singapore this week, and a proposal has been [put] forward that would exclude tobacco from the TPP on the grounds that it’s ‘uniquely harmful’. The problem is that this exemption would eventually be applied to other industries and is fundamentally anti-free trade. If ratified, this proposal would mark the first time in modern history a specific industry was singled out for special treatment in a trade deal. The author needs to have credibility (a scholar or economist type) on trade issues and – most important – be from a TPP country other than the United States.

To minimize work for the author, we could write an initial draft, which the author could then edit however he/she wanted to make it their own. We could also handle pitching the newspapers, as well. My company specializes in opeds, so this is a straightforward process for us. In terms of compensation, I could pay you $1,000 US for an introduction that results in someone agreeing to work with us on this project.

Let me know if this is something you think you could help us with.

Best, Sam⁴⁵

It is not clear if Ryan was being paid by the tobacco industry or the other big lobbies behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Either way, it was an example of PR people trying to manipulate ‘public space’ to plant private PR messages and advance the interests of their paying clients. It is obviously a service primarily for wealthy interests: he could offer US$1,000 for a single introduction. Graham forwarded the e-mail to Slater: ‘Any ideas of who we could get to do this? Jared? … and share the loot.’⁴⁶ They had been sharing the loot for years.

CHAPTER 9

THE MANY HATS OF DAVID FARRAR

It is now clear who was paying Slater for the ‘consulting’ that supported his political attack activities. Unethical commercial work was funding unethical political work. But for each political hit, attack and piece of spin on the Whale Oil blog there was frequently something similar on David Farrar’s Kiwiblog as well. Who was paying Farrar?

In many ways, the answer is as much of a concern as it is for Slater. Kiwiblog presented itself to the world as an independent, albeit right-leaning, source of digested news and comments. Farrar appeared regularly in the media as a right-wing blogger, commentator and columnist. But, unlike Slater, he did not just collude with and receive information from the prime minister’s office and the National Party. He contracted to them, earned most of his income from them and was intimately part of their strategies. When the Kiwiblog motto said ‘fomenting happy mischief since 2003’, it was mischief for the National Party.

Farrar is an intensely political person. He joined the National Party at university and by his late twenties was working full time in the National leader’s office. When he left that job in March 2004, he sent a farewell e-mail to a wide circle of parliamentary people, media and lobbyists: ‘after having agreed to help out for a few months in the lead up to the 1996 election, I never thought I would still be here eight years later, but I can’t think of any place I would rather have been.’ He announced that he had established a small polling and market research company, Curia Market Research Limited, ‘to capitalise on the ten years I have spent in the polling area’.¹

From then his life followed two major paths. He earned his living as a pollster but, as he later wrote, when establishing Curia he was ‘fortunate to have one significant client’; he did not give the name. This was the beginning of years of playing down and actively distracting attention away from the fact that the significant client was and remained the National Party.² The other path was blogging.

Only a few months earlier, while still in the National leader’s office, Farrar had started Kiwiblog. Blogs were then a new method of disseminating party messages that was being promoted in international right-wing political circles. Farrar attended a ‘young leaders forum’ that year in Punta Gorda, Florida, hosted by the US Republican Party as part of an association of right-wing parties called the International Democratic Union (IDU).³ These meetings are designed to build networks between party people in different countries, and to share skills and political methods. Farrar, who described himself as ‘a strategic analyst for the party leader’, gave a PowerPoint presentation on New Zealand politics and ‘what the [National] party had to do to improve its place in the opinion polls’.⁴

Another IDU presentation, at a subsequent youth leaders’ meeting, spelled out the newly discovered importance of blogging for IDU member party campaigning. It reads like a blueprint for what Whale Oil and Kiwiblog would become. Soren Dayton, of the US Young Republican National Federation, called blogs a ‘political-technological innovation’ that was producing a ‘political revolution’. First, he said, blogs provided a way to get around electoral spending laws because they did not need to be ‘associated (in name) with your party or campaign’. Indeed blogs did not need to be funded or controlled by the party, but could still primarily work in its interests.⁵ This sums up the relationship between Kiwiblog and the National Party: the blog is run by the chief pollster, the head of the company that does National’s week by week polling, and a devoted party member.

Blogs, Dayton continued, could ‘bypass, drive, and attack the media’: ‘Bloggers like to undermine the credibility of the media. It is fun!’ But, at the same time, ‘hopefully [the media] will repeat the facts and themes of your bloggers’. He continued, ‘Reporters on deadline need to figure out “what is going on” and they can turn to blogs for summaries of that. Never forget rule #1 of handling the press: Reporters are lazy and under-informed. It is your job to inform them with your information. Therefore, high-profile blogs can establish “what is going on”.’ He pointed out that ‘even if blogs are not cited explicitly, they highlight what is important. In this way blogs often determine media content and framing. Often blogs will break stories before the media does.’⁶

He gave examples of blogs being used to attack opposition politicians at election time, ‘at almost no cost to the campaign’. They used staffers to record everything their political opponents said in public – ‘politicians are always on candid camera’ – and then the blogs hammered them for mistakes or anything that could sound stupid. One reason blogs could break stories first was that the information did not need to meet ‘the standards of most media sources’.⁷

Blogs, he argued, ‘don’t have the same limitations as the “old” media’ and ‘do not need to use the same standards as professional journalists. Blog content is always a mixture of opinion and fact.’ For example, ‘unsourced rumour is usually not enough to print’ in news media but that did not stop blogs printing it. He concluded, ‘you can use blogs to spread information that the media won’t or can’t … A jerk with a laptop – and an audience – can change the world.’⁸ This political-technological innovation had now reached New Zealand.

Over the next 10 years there were over 30,000 Kiwiblog posts, a prodigious amount of effort.⁹ Farrar’s formula was a constant flow of news and analysis that defended nearly everything his party did, attacked nearly everything its opponents did but was interspersed with occasional non-partisan views that gave an air of independence. It was part of the attack politics, its tone mocking in contrast to Whale Oil’s abuse. In fact, they often worked like a tag team, linking to and building on each other’s posts. The Kiwiblog posts in turn had generated over a million comments, nearly all anonymous and thus, as with Whale Oil, less restrained than Farrar in the attacks and abuse they directed towards the people he had criticised.¹⁰

Like Slater, Farrar worked closely with Jason Ede. In September 2013, for instance, three Labour Party MPs were giving speeches around the country as they vied for the party leadership. There was unexpected public and media interest in the process and Labour was gaining positive publicity. An assault on the candidates was needed. Slater wrote to Ede to suggest that they compile a list of the policy proposals made by each candidate that would require additional government spending. Ede replied the same day, from a non-parliamentary e-mail, saying, ‘I asked research to start compiling the list this morning.’¹¹

The next morning at 9 o’clock Farrar published a post called ‘Who is promising what’, in which he wrote, ‘I’ve done this little table below for easy reference.’¹² This was almost certainly Ede’s list, produced by National’s parliamentary research staff.¹³ Slater wrote a post later that day saying, ‘David Farrar looks at the mountains of unfunded promises so far’.¹⁴ The following day Farrar ran the same list as the basis of a column in the National Business Review, so that newspaper, too, received the National Party material as if it were written by Farrar. A week later Farrar published the list in the National Business Review again, with a few additions.¹⁵

Farrar’s double life of party pollster and supposedly independent blogger had an obvious problem. The Kiwiblog model relied on not being ‘associated (in name) with your party’. Otherwise it would just look to the public like a party political broadcast. Being chief pollster for a political party was hardly compatible with fronting an independent political blog. He was regularly advising and briefing the prime minister and other senior party officials as they decided how to negotiate issues, out-manoeuvre their opponents and win public support. John Key told a private ACT Party meeting in April 2014 that National was ‘addicted to polling’ and polled every week; it was Farrar who briefed him on the results.¹⁶ His solution to this problem, even though his polling role was written about occasionally in the media, was to try to downplay it anyway. He also had to hide how much of his content came from Ede and National Party staff. It is surprising how well both of these stratagems worked.

For his first few years of operations, Farrar consistently refused to say even where his polling company was based. A former employee said they were told not to tell anyone where they were working. If they were asked during a telephone survey, they were told to say, ‘This is Curia Market Research, based in a building in Willis Street.’ They polled on Sundays, Monday and Tuesday evenings with about 10–12 staff working at a time.¹⁷

The ‘building in Willis Street’ was the National Party headquarters and for those three evenings a week they took over the conference room. The ex-staffer described how they worked with the past National Party leaders looking down from framed pictures around the walls. The polling staff were often drawn from Young Nationals, as was the supervisor, Anna Nuzum, who opened the building for them and collected up their results. They sometimes polled about commercial products as well, but this was secondary to the core work done for National.¹⁸ Farrar got his own offices for the 2008 election, next door to his apartment in Thorndon. Another employee said that, in her experience, all Farrar’s election year polling was for the National Party, with cash draws and other bonuses to attract enough staff for the Sunday to Thursday evening polling schedule.¹⁹

The National Party polls naturally measured voting preferences ‘if an election were held today’, broken down by gender, regions and occupation, and tracked public feeling on a range of topical issues. Curia reports to the National Party leadership then showed the results over time. The standard poll concluded with specific questioning about some current issue, where a subject was introduced and the interviewee was asked their opinion.²⁰ Occasionally these final questions were for other organisations, such as in April 2014 when Farrar inserted a curious set of questions into the weekly polling for the conservative Christian group Family First.²¹

An interesting discovery about Farrar’s paid work for National is that he does not only do polling. In May–June 2014, for instance, Farrar arranged for the callers in Curia’s Wellington office to phone long lists of voters in Taupo and ask how they intended to vote. ‘Good evening,’ the script went. ‘My name is ____ and I am calling on behalf of Louise Upston, your local Member of Parliament. Louise has asked me to call you about the issues that are most important to you.’ That, however, was not the main reason for calling. Question three asked, ‘Which party do you most support?’ and ‘Do you always support that party or just usually support that party?’ The script ended by saying, ‘Before I go, I need to let you know that this call is authorised by Louise Upston MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.’²²

This is another sign of how enmeshed Farrar is in National Party activities. The survey form was headed ‘Questions for Taupo Canvass’: it was election canvassing, not polling. He organised canvassing in other electorates as well, for instance calls to lists of registered voters in the South Island Waitaki electorate. Canvassing is an important part of larger parties’ ‘getting out the vote’ activity. It is where the party visits or phones each registered voter in a target electorate and asks them how they intend to vote in the coming election. This information is collated so the party can work on election day to remind its supporters to vote and maybe offer them transport to the polling booth. Canvassing also helps the party to target individuals with advertising. Most parties use volunteers but National was apparently paying Farrar to organise canvassing for at least some regions.

The canvassing and polling work shows Farrar working at the heart of National Party strategy, integrated into the party’s week-by-week political management. Kiwiblog was one of the assets in that management. Like Slater with his private PR work, Farrar’s National Party income supported his National Party-aligned blog activities. It also supported his National Party-aligned issues campaigning. He played a lead role in the 2007–08 anti-election finance reform campaign and a background role in the 2011 anti-MMP campaign. His most recent political campaign was an initiative called the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union (NZTU), launched in October 2013.

Like the blogs that ‘need not be associated (in name) with your party or campaign’, the NZTU is an example of a supposedly independent organisation designed to back up the work of a political party. Its launch press release described it as a ‘politically independent grassroots campaign’, but it is no more politically independent than the election finance and anti-MMP campaigns.²³ In fact, it was like a rerun of the anti-MMP campaign, with Jordan Williams once again as frontperson and Farrar as founder and main strategist.

Slater was not so keen on this campaign. He wrote to Aaron Bhatnagar, while the group was in its planning stages, ‘Just a heads up … Jordan Williams is on the bludge for coin for his and Farrar’s Taxpayers Alliance … he was asking me for an introduction to you despite Farrar big noting that you and he were BFF [best friends forever] … I’ll talk to you more when you get back … but I have told him and Farrar to shove it … it is just ego-centric rather than actually delivering something … I didn’t pass on your details.’24 But the new group’s anti-public spending orientation, where it attacked Labour-type policies more than National ones, meant that Slater ended up collaborating with it.

The Taxpayers’ Union was an idea that Farrar had got through his IDU contacts. He wrote in the National Business Review on the day of the launch that he had been on the youth executive of the IDU where he got to know a British Conservative Party activist named Matthew Elliott, who co-founded the UK Taxpayers’ Alliance. ‘Over the years I saw the Taxpayers’ Alliance go from being a volunteer effort to a major political force in the United Kingdom,’ he wrote. Jordan Williams had also met Elliott at a youth IDU meeting.²⁵ The British model had proven itself to be a general purpose ‘independent’ campaign machine assisting the Conservative Party.

In 2013 Elliott gave a presentation at an IDU meeting on ‘successful issue based campaigns’. Like Slater, Lusk, Farrar and Williams in New Zealand, the Taxpayers’ Alliance had fronted a nationwide campaign to defeat a referendum on whether Britain should move to a proportional representation voting system. As in New Zealand it was a strongly negative attack campaign and the main beneficiary, when a ‘no’ vote won, was the Conservative Party.²⁶

In New Zealand the new Taxpayers’ Union said it would campaign on all issues of government waste and, like Kiwiblog, it chose some non-right wing subjects to suggest independence. But overall it has proved to be a vehicle for promoting smaller government and implicitly supporting the National Party. (Selectively attacking instances of wasteful public spending, actual or exaggerated, is a traditional method used by right-wing groups to delegitimise public services and to argue for cuts.) Although the National Party’s greatest natural advantage is funding from wealthy donors and big companies, there are limits on how much it can legally spend during an election campaign. Other ways must be found. The NZTU, which had a policy of accepting anonymous and undeclared donations, operates, in effect, as an arm’s-length ally of the National Party.

The partisan nature of the NZTU and its direct involvement in attack politics was summed up by its assistance during Slater’s campaign against the Labour mayor of Auckland, Len Brown. Slater tackled Brown about his affair, which is not a matter of public spending, but the NZTU was used to help carry on the attacks. An information request to the Auckland City Council made while researching this book asked how many requests for information they had received concerning Brown in the first five months after Slater’s revelations. There had been a total of 18 requests from eight news organisations, but 14 from the NZTU and Jordan Williams alone, as they repeatedly dug for any spending by the mayor that they could publicise to add fuel to the sex scandal.²⁷

It should have been obvious that the NZTU was a political tool. Not long before Williams had been the public face of the anti-MMP campaign and then part of Don Brash’s ACT Party leadership coup. It was the same few people with a new device for influencing politics, but the group and its stated motives were largely taken at face value. Most news media reported uncritically on the NZTU’s launch and frequent press statements, which were quoted 93 times in its first six months.²⁸ In June 2014 Fairfax Media entered into a collaborative project with the NZTU called the Ratepayer’s Report, an unusual move for a media organisation.²⁹ Rather than being treated as a news source, the NZTU needs greater media scrutiny.

Williams also used the ‘politically independent’ NZTU to attack National’s political opponents. For instance, he used the organisation to criticise a comment made by the Labour Party revenue spokesperson, David Clark, about e-commerce. He then wrote a Whale Oil post quoting his NZTU comments and using them for a general political attack. ‘David Clark is supposed to be a rising star in the Labour Party,’ he wrote. ‘How a spokesperson for such an important portfolio could say something so stupid should be a big wakeup call for Labour. What will be next, a coalition partner promising to print money? These people are not fit for government.’³⁰ He sent it to Slater, saying, ‘Just emailed you a blog post (assuming you’re no fan of David Clark). I’m happy to do more over the break if you’re wanting them.’ Slater replied, ‘Sure, chuck them thru.’³¹ The post appeared under Cameron Slater’s name a couple of hours later.

The NZTU was Farrar’s baby but no questions were asked about his role either. In his efforts for the party he was managing to wear many different hats at once: pollster, independent blogger, political campaigner and finally political commentator. The last one is the strangest. During the 2011 election year Farrar was paid by both major newspaper companies – ‘David Farrar on Politics’, weekly, and ‘By the numbers’, twice weekly – to write commentary on the election campaign. It was like the Australian news media using the political research company Crosby Textor as commentators.

The New Zealand Herald called him ‘blogger David Farrar’ and Fairfax Media pointed readers to his disclosure statement on Kiwiblog. Neither mentioned that he was playing a major role in the National Party election campaign. Then and since he has been a regular commentator on various Newstalk ZB radio programmes, Radio New Zealand and Radio Rhema, plus having numerous other appearances in other media. He is usually given a title such as ‘political blogger’ and his National party polling role is almost never mentioned. The radio programmes also use Slater.

People with political views can, of course, be commentators. But there is a world of difference between a right- or left-leaning commentator, whose responsibility is to inform the public, and a party person or spin doctor whose primary responsibility is to private political or commercial interests. News media should be better at telling which is which. The same standards should apply to left-leaning commentators.

Part of the way Farrar deflected attention from his National Party work was by referring enquiries to a carefully prepared conflict of interest disclosure statement on his blog. (As Dayton wrote, ‘Reporters on deadline need to figure out “what is going on” and they can turn to blogs for summaries of that.’) The statement goes into meticulous and long-winded detail about many small issues – Farrar’s free newspaper subscriptions, software and theatre tickets, free meals at various embassies and high commissions, air tickets to speak at conferences and even his membership of the World Wildlife Fund (which the World Wide Fund for Nature has not been called since 1986) – but is virtually silent on the only issue that really matters.³²

When he comes to the subject of who he works for, he is suddenly imprecise: ‘Curia’s clients have included newspapers, political parties, Government Departments, corporates, lobby groups, local body candidates and non profits.’ Notice newspapers come before political parties, although he has done vastly more polling work for one political party than for any newspapers. He then lists 16 of the organisations for which he has done polling, without clarifying that he has worked only once or occasionally for 15 of them, through all the years, and has worked for one, the National Party, week after week, year after year since 2004.³³ It also says nothing about Farrar organising party canvassing work. Few readers would guess that Farrar is the chief pollster of the National Party and that the rest of the disclosure is mostly padding and camouflage.

CHAPTER 10

SEX SCANDAL

The next election to which Cameron Slater could apply his attack skills was not national, but the important 2013 election for the mayor of the Auckland super city. It would be Whale Oil’s most spectacular operation to date and also the grubbiest. Only a few months after Len Brown was elected in 2010, beating the right-wing candidate John Banks, Slater and Simon Lusk had started discussing how they could get rid of Brown.¹ Slater related that he had told a Labour Party campaign organiser that he should ‘start worrying about how I am going to take down Len over the next two years’. The organiser had responded that the polls were moving against National. Lusk replied, ‘You and Farrar have taken care of that.’²

Slater believed it was his personal responsibility to help get a right-wing mayor elected. He and Aaron Bhatnagar discussed finding a suitable person to stand. ‘We need a candidate,’ Slater said in November 2011. ‘We have the money, we have the team, we should approach someone and say if they shut up and do as they are told we will get them elected.’³ It was still two years until the election but Slater was determined to eliminate Brown.

His method was a sex scandal. The attack was launched on 15 October 2013, when intimate details of an affair between Brown and a woman named Bevan Chuang were published on the Whale Oil website. Readers were treated to details of masturbation, ejaculations and other things that most people do not need to know about a public figure.⁴ Many people were critical of Brown for having the affair, but the use of the humiliating detail and the way the story came out were the first signs that there was dirty politics at work.

Slater had worked on the story with a ‘freelance journalist’ named Stephen Cook, and there was not the slightest doubt about their motives. The first lines of the first blog post said, ‘Len Brown’s hold on the Auckland mayoralty is in serious jeopardy following bombshell allegations of a two-year extra-marital affair with a council employee 25 years his junior. Brown – who last weekend was returned for a second term with a 50,000-vote majority – is expected to face enormous pressure this week to resign over what rates as possibly the biggest sex scandal in New Zealand local body history.’⁵ They were not subtle: the aim was to take Brown out.

On the first day the story prompted exactly the hoped-for blaze of media publicity, but thereafter it did not all go according to plan. The following day New Zealand Herald journalists Lincoln Tan, Bernard Orsman and Jared Savage began to report a murky story behind the revelations. They wrote that the woman at the centre of the scandal had ‘felt pressured to reveal the affair by a member of his right-wing rival John Palino’s election team’ and was now sorry she had gone public. Bevan Chuang told the Herald she ‘entered an intimate relationship with Luigi Wewege, a member of Mr Palino’s failed campaign team, who wanted her to expose the mayor’s infidelity when he found out about the affair’.

‘Luigi started pursuing non-stop about how I should tell on Len,’ Ms Chuang said. ‘I was asked to record phone calls because that’s when Len would say all the dirty stuff. She says Mr Wewege wanted to publish the allegations on the Whale Oil blogsite, run by Cameron Slater, to ruin Mr Brown’s reputation before the election but she refused to swear an affidavit and produce text messages to corroborate her story. The 32-year-old was herself standing as a candidate in the Auckland local body elections on a right-leaning ticket and provided the evidence only when her world began ‘falling apart’ on Sunday, when she failed to be elected by 211 votes. ‘I narrowly lost the local board seat and Palino lost too, and ... just increased the pressure about exposing the affair,’ she said.⁶

In other words, the revelations appeared to be a deliberate smear job by the National Party-aligned mayoral candidate, John Palino, and his campaign team, carried out with the assistance of Slater. This was not surprising given that Palino’s campaign manager was Slater’s father, John, in whose house Cameron Slater had been living for some of 2013 while the mayoral campaign was being developed. Palino said he had no knowledge of the affair or who was involved in revealing it, and Wewege denied that he had been in a relationship with Chuang or that he had pressured her for information.⁷ Slater would claim his attack had nothing to do with the National Party. None of their denials stood up to investigation.

Three days after Slater’s first blog post, Chuang wrote, ‘I have been foolish, but I feel used, abused and manipulated by people I thought were friends, who have taken snippets of what I said to advance their own political agendas and muck raking campaigns.’⁸ She wanted to ‘apologise to Len for my foolishness and [the] hurt I’ve caused’.⁹ Chuang, too, was a casualty of the dirty politics. A combination of the reporters’ investigation and the Slater documents allows the tawdry story to be told.

The plot began to form in mid-2013. In June Slater chatted over Facebook with Auckland councillor Sharon Stewart, who told him excitedly, ‘who would ever have thought you and I would be Facebook friends.’ Slater was more interested in passing on his thoughts about the Palino mayoralty campaign. ‘OK,’ he said, ‘JP [John Palino] needs to be careful with donors. He needs good advice, not sure he has it yet … and he needs to get funding for someone to run a third party campaign against Len.’¹⁰ This is the same time that Luigi Wewege was pressuring Chuang to give him usable evidence of her affair. Then, or soon after, Slater junior and Wewege began working on the plan together (they had been Facebook friends since January 2012).¹¹ About this time, too, Slater’s father became Palino’s campaign manager.

Wewege gave Chuang an audio recorder to use in phone calls with Brown, in the hope of capturing incriminating conversation. By 28 August she told him by text that she could not ‘get any evidence’ from Brown because he was not answering her calls. She also pleaded that ‘it won’t help my future by saying I’ve been involved in an extramarital affair’.¹² In a sad exchange of texts, later reproduced in the media, Chuang wrote, ‘I absolutely undoubtedly love you. I just don’t know if you do.’ Wewege replied, ‘Not true! You just make me sad sometimes … you know [what] you can do to change my life and you won’t do it! All it is … is just a shrewd [shred] of evidence and I promise you are fully protected. Baby, I have everything set up, people are just waiting for you.’¹³ On 8 September Chuang said she was returning the audio recorder. It was now a month before the election and Wewege texted her, urging, ‘Baby but YOU can change the election.’¹⁴ Wewege began asking her for copies of her and Brown’s texts, and suggesting that she meet with Slater and Stephen Cook.

In the background during this pressuring were Slater and Cook. Two weeks before the mayoral election, Slater sent Aaron Bhatnagar a copy of an American article about Nixon-era political dirty tricks, which the people involved had approvingly called ratfucking. He said, ‘Someone posted this on a blog yesterday in a post about me … Let us raise a morning glass to Donald Segretti, the ratfucker … Apparently it is dreadful and I am guilty of it … I view it as aspirational,’ he said. ‘It is proper politics.’¹⁵

With only days to go until election day, Wewege still had not persuaded Chuang to hand over the incriminating texts. It was a repeat of the Rodney Hide campaign the year before, when Slater and Lusk were waiting for Jordan Williams to persuade a young woman to hand over ‘dodgy texts’, and time was running out. In that case Slater had placed hints of sexual impropriety on his blog on the Tuesday morning before the crucial Saturday meeting. Political people, consciously or unconsciously, often repeat the same moves. On the Tuesday morning before the Saturday mayoral election, Slater wrote a post attacking Brown and dropping in a line about him ‘running a glad eye over asian beauties [and] lying through his teeth on his position on almost everything’.¹⁶ The aim appears to have been to flush out the story in time to derail Brown before election day.

The hints rattled Brown, who told his wife about the affair during that pre-election week. But the story did not come out before voting day. Because Slater’s father was campaign manager for the National-aligned mayoral candidate, he had to be careful that a half-cocked attack on Brown did not rebound against their candidate in the voting. The evidence had not arrived in time so Slater and Cook waited to see the votes counted before making their next move. When Palino lost, they moved into overdrive on Plan B, which was to use the affair to force Brown to stand down.

Chuang later revealed that, on the day after the election, a Sunday morning, she spoke to Cameron Slater, who urged her that the revelations be used to shame Brown into resigning.¹⁷ That afternoon Palino himself sent Chuang a series of text messages, suggesting that they meet. She agreed and went to a secret meeting with Palino at 10 o’clock that evening in a Mission Bay car park, across the road from the Berkeley Cinema. Chuang said Palino’s camp again raised the possibility that Brown could be shamed into resigning the mayoralty. She said Palino discussed the idea of information about the affair being presented privately to Brown to persuade him to stand down: he could cite health problems and the affair need not be revealed.¹⁸ In other words, it was a plan for the same sort of blackmail that had been intended for Rodney Hide. Chuang said she left the car park meeting around 11.30 p.m.¹⁹

The next day, Monday, 14 October 2013, Slater and Cook at last persuaded Chuang to give them the information they had been pursuing for months. Rather than the private word to Brown, they opted for full public humiliation, timed for the next afternoon at 2 o’clock. On that Tuesday Slater sent the text in advance to Bhatnagar, while preparing for the launch. Bhatnagar said, ‘Wow … wow.’ Slater boasted, ‘There is worse’, and Bhatnagar said, ‘Not all on the same day i hope? dragging out over a couple of days?’ Slater replied, ‘Over months.’²⁰ Councillor Sharon Stewart wrote, ‘Oh my goddd – John [Palino] might end up Mayor after all …’ Slater replied smugly, ‘Yup, Tuesday.’²¹ That evening Bhatnagar wrote again, saying that some people from the National Party-aligned Citizens and Ratepayers grouping were asking him ‘to lay off the Len Brown jokes. Say it might be damaging … WTF [what the fuck]?’ Slater replied, ‘Fuck off, you owe them nothing, keep kicking him.’²²

New Zealand media have a tradition of not reporting news on public figures’ sexual affairs. This is where a blog is such a devastating tool. Once the allegations about a major political figure were published on the blog, there was pressure on media organisations not to be last with the news. One prominent blog can force other news media to publish a story that otherwise they would not. This was the argument for blogs given at the International Democratic Union meeting, that they ‘don’t have the same limitations as the “old” media [and] do not need to use the same standards as professional journalists’.²³ Soon all the media were running the story. Wewege simply left the country, Slater senior denied any knowledge of the plot and Brown was hit by a wave of humiliating news coverage.

Some commentators would later argue that it was a legitimate news story, which it partly was. But there is a catch. If having an affair disqualified people from taking part in politics, the result would be a never-ending cycle of sexual accusations, witch hunts and scandals initiated for political purposes. Even where hypocrisy justifies publication, for instance with an outspoken morals campaigner, revealing an affair is still very different from publishing the intimate details. But according to Cameron Slater’s selective morality, it was fine for him to do to an opponent what he would be incensed to see done to someone he liked. The tell-tale flaw in his and his collaborators’ ethics was that the thing they attacked Brown over, the affair, was not actually the reason they opposed him politically. It was just a tool. A dirty trick. This is why it is so damaging to allow someone like Slater to define the news.

The Manawatu Standard summed up the issue by contrasting these revelations with the legitimate exposing of abuses of official power. ‘The difference in this case,’ the editor Michael Cummings wrote, ‘as has subsequently become clear, is that the outing of the relationship was orchestrated at least to some degree by Brown’s political enemies solely for their own political gain. The blogger who broke the story, Cameron Slater, might present himself simply as a truth teller, but his motivation was clearly fuelled by political malice. And therein lies the beginning of the journey down a slippery slope.’²⁴

As usual, Farrar’s Kiwiblog chimed in as the ‘reasonable’ right-wing blog but still joined in the attack. He commented that Wewege’s actions reflected poorly on him, stuck up for Slater (‘it is ironic that Whale Oil demanded a higher level of proof than many in the media would have’) and talked his way around to concluding that the best thing might be for Brown to resign. ‘The question is whether he wants to stay on, risking being a lame duck Mayor who will be the butt of jokes for the next three years,’ he wrote. Calling the controversy ‘Lengate’, he said, ‘I imagine the media will be putting in LGOIMA [Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act] requests for any expense forms from the Mayor. If there was any spending of ratepayer money on the affair, then that would become a more serious issue.’²⁵ But he did not have to wait for the media. Farrar’s Taxpayers’ Union then wrote the information requests for the expense forms and made many other information requests about Brown in the following weeks to continue the attack.

Jordan Williams contacted Slater the day after Farrar’s post: ‘I think this story could last a few more days. Have you had someone OIA [send an information request] for all of the expense material that is being reviewed by the CEO? if not, I will do it this afternoon.’ Slater replied: ‘Haven’t had a chance … but … he did take a young asian lady to China and Hongkong in Jan. So who paid for that. Maybe a LGOIMA request for who paid for Len Brown’s airfares and that of his companion … and, if the council, then who was his companion.’ The companion would turn out to be an innocent interpreter, but Williams was excited by the political possibilities. ‘No!’ he replied. ‘Yep’, Slater said. ‘Different Asian women or the same one?’ Williams asked. ‘Possibly same one, may be different, but a lgoima will shake them up,’ Slater replied. Williams asked, ‘Who is going to do that?’ Slater said, ‘You are.’²⁶ Here is the Taxpayers’ Union in action.

A final part of the story came to light because of personal fights within the Auckland National Party involving Hamish Price who, like Slater and Carrick Graham, came from a National Party family. His grandfather, Allan Highet, was the National Party MP for Remuera from 1966 to 1984, before Graham’s father took over the seat. Price had stepped in to help Bevan Chuang in the days after the Len Brown revelations. He was incensed when the Whale Oil commenter, Lion King, whom he knew to be Carrick Graham, left a snide comment ending, ‘Better watch out Hamish, you’ll have the clap in no time at this rate.’²⁷ The next day he lashed back at Slater and Stephen Cook publicly over the whole Len Brown–Bevan Chuang exposé.

‘You and Stephen have been a party to a sickening, deceitful, dishonest and corrupt plan to not just steal a democratic election, but to exploit other people’s misery,’ he wrote on Facebook. ‘I’m not sure which was your lowest point in this. Was it Stephen making claims to the media that Bevan was engaged in discussions to make a porn film, when they were discussions that HE initiated and which she rejected immediately, or was it selling out to certain media sources the location of Bevan’s safe hideout in Auckland, when you both knew that she was under stress as a result of the situation you had put her in?’²⁸

Slater had hit back at Price, saying he was just annoyed that Palino’s team had declined his offer of doing paid policy development for their campaign. ‘On that count,’ Price wrote, ‘I find it hilariously improbable that your father would have a deep and profound recollection of the conversation that I had with [Palino’s original campaign manager] Rob Nesbit-Savage about scoping some policy work for the campaign, back in June, yet he would have zero recollection of Luigi [Wewege] blabbing to numerous people on the campaign about the plot to embarrass Len Brown into standing aside. Hell, I was first told about the Palino/Luigi plot to smear Len on 25 September. How is it possible that I heard the rumour, as had at least one other person outside the campaign I discussed it with, yet neither your father, nor Palino … knew about it?’²⁹ If Price and others in the National Party had heard of the plot by 25 September, it seems likely that it would have been widely known around the National leadership.

This was far from the only time Slater saw sex scandal as a useful tactic or tool. It was a regular part of his attacks and dirty tricks. His sex-related attacks fall into different types. The first is political blackmail, as we saw with Rodney Hide and as the Palino team contemplated with Len Brown. Another example of this was in August 2010, during another ACT Party leadership tussle, when ACT MP John Boscawen was planning to challenge Heather Roy, who Slater supported, for the deputy party leadership at the following day’s 10 a.m. caucus meeting.

Slater contacted his ex-prostitute friend, who regularly dug for dirt for him around Auckland’s brothels. ‘Boscawen,’ he wrote. ‘Any dirt on what who, when and how would be good before 10am … especially how he likes it and where he buys it from.’ It was not for publicising, just for applying pressure. ‘It won’t go public,’ he said, ‘its for a quiet hit.’³⁰ If she had found some dirt, the challenge might have gone differently: Boscawen succeeded. But the ex-prostitute replied, ‘Nothing, dead ends – he must cover his bases well – just waiting back to hear from 3 big clubs and if they aint got nothing its a nope – bugger:).’³¹

The aim of the next type, sex-related attacks, was simply smearing anyone who had annoyed him. For instance, on one occasion Slater was feeling annoyed with the New Zealand Herald and told a blogger friend that ‘Marshall is working up some dirt on that’. His friend asked, ‘Dirt on what?’, and Slater said, ‘Herald editors, and their wayward rooting. Had a mate say that he has never seen anything like it.’ The friend said, ‘He [Marshall] will need to be quiet on that. He works for fairfax.’ Slater replied, ‘He will be quiet, but he has some payback on those c**ts, and he is my mate.’³²

It became routine for Slater to dig for sexual information about all sorts of people. Once, annoyed by something journalist Duncan Garner had written, he wrote to his ex-prostitute friend, ‘BTW [By the way] do you have any sleaze on Duncan Garner.’ She replied, ‘Sadly no.’ Slater said, ‘Scratch around please … he is being a cock … and it is never wise to piss off the whale.’ She said, ‘Will do … I will see if anyone wants to spill.’ Slater said, ‘Cool.’³³ On another occasion he was considering attacking a National MP he did not like and his National Party friend advised that ‘DPF [David Farrar] will know.’ Slater said, ‘Yes, the keeper of the dirt.’³⁴

The most frequent sex-related attacks that Slater tried to organise were against Labour Party MPs. In 2012, for instance, Slater was angry at a Labour MP for suggesting in Parliament that he had helped Judith Collins to leak the controversial Pullar ACC e-mail. Jordan Williams suggested they arrange an attack on him. ‘What’s the plan tomorrow,’ he asked, ‘are you going after [the MP]? Surely he has rooted enough women around parliament to get the hit on.’ Slater replied, ‘Fuck yeah, it will be spectacular. Start digging dirt on the c**t and feed it to Simon. I’m going to out his rooting.’35 It was the same for a second Labour MP. In September 2013 Slater heard a rumour and told Aaron Bhatnagar, ‘I suspect [the MP] might be good for a sting.’ Bhatnagar replied, ‘Some hooky-fucky for [the MP].’³⁶

For months during the 2011 election year Slater ran a campaign of sexual innuendo blog posts against another Labour MP. At the same time the MP’s Wikipedia page was changed repeatedly to add comments about his sex life. These alterations were being made by Jordan Williams. ‘The wankers keep removing that stuff on [his] wiki page,’ he wrote to Slater.³⁷ Then a week later: ‘some wanker keeps changing [his] page, it’s every day I’ve got to change it back now!’³⁸ They also ran similar campaigns of sexual innuendo on the Whale Oil blog against other Labour MPs. There is no evidence that any of these accusations had any basis, but blogs do not have to prove their attacks.

Slater often pumped his ex-prostitute friend for information. ‘Now tell me who … current MPs … are rooting in brothels and like different stuff,’ he wrote in June 2011, ‘time for a book to take some out.’ His friend replied that he should talk to another woman with ‘her finger more on the pulse’ and who knew ‘heaps of shit’. She said, ‘I should send you a friend request, she is on the piss tonight, so may spill.’ Slater said, ‘Right lets get digging … time to let those pricks know they can be got.’ His friend checked that Slater would not name her on his blog and he assured her that he would not even mention her. ‘Done,’ she replied. Slater said, ‘Ok cool … i want to take out some pollies. Let them know they can be got, so [they] play ball with the whale.’³⁹ The following month Slater pressed his friend for information again. ‘How many politicians did you do?’ he asked. ‘A lot,’ she said, ‘and what is interesting is I am pulling all accounts from my club days … so there are some high peoples accounts on there that will ping my memory.’ Slater replied, ‘Oooohhh can I have the politicians please.’⁴⁰

If Slater and his colleagues had been moral conservative campaigners, their interest in other people’s personal lives might have had some small justification. But, as with the attack on Len Brown, the aim was purely to hurt their political opponents. They were attacking him and others for personal behaviour which, when it occurred in their own circle, was joked about and encouraged. The preface to this book promised that no very personal information, including that about individuals’ relationships, would appear in these pages. It is sufficient to say that the Slater papers provide ample evidence of the hypocrisy of exposing others because of their sex lives. Many of the attitudes expressed towards women are also abhorrent.⁴¹

As an example, without using people’s names, when David Farrar organised a ‘Princess party’ for National Party friends, a conversation between some of the planned guests was approvingly reported. One man said to another, ‘I have cleared the field for you, given you the most likely targets and will get them drunk for you.’ Another said, ‘I’d try [a young woman] she is filthy.’ The Young Nationals women were described as ‘retards’ and ‘just dirty girls who flip it up’.⁴² There was much more. Slater himself had a difficult and painful time between mid-2012 and mid-2013 after a court judgement referred to him having an affair and this was repeated in the news media.⁴³ He was still living at his father’s home, and getting over this, just a few months before his hit on Len Brown. Yet he showed no sign of empathy: Brown was simply the enemy.

Far from feeling remorseful, Slater was empowered by his spectacular attack on Brown. Just one week after the affair was made public, when it was clear Brown was not going to resign, Slater started hunting for more sex-related dirt on the mayor. On 23 October he asked his ex-prostitute friend if she could help to dig up some more stories: ‘Rattle your cages to see if Len rooted in brothels.’ He declared confidently, ‘He will have. I’d love a hooker to come forward and tell all about Lenny.’ His friend wrote back, ‘What man in grey hasn’t?’ Slater continued, ‘Get me dirt … he will get away with it otherwise … whatever you’ve got or can rustle up, what he likes, when, how, and how he pays.’ His friend said, ‘I will get my sticky feelers out.’⁴⁴

Slater caught up with Stephen Cook via Facebook the following week. ‘Happy birthday my brother in crime,’ Cook wrote. He said ‘love your work’, then attacked the woman who had been their source. ‘Fucken Chung,’ he said, spelling her name wrongly. Slater said, ‘Stupid tart, she has produced no evidence of her claims … media are laughing at her now.’ But he was no longer really interested in her: ‘I’m onto someone who sat next to brown on a plane.’45 He hoped it would be his next hit. It was not.

In the week before Christmas Slater tried again. He contacted the friend with the prostitute contacts again and asked about the Mustang Gentleman’s Club in the Auckland suburb of North Harbour. Again it was the same impatient questioning. ‘Did Brown use Mustangs?’ he asked. ‘If so how often? And will they talk?’ His friend replied, ‘Younger girls always talk – send in someone with the pretence of a booking (day shift) and maybe see what you come up with whilst they sit at the bar having a chat with the girls – that’s all I can say.’ But Slater was not content with that. ‘Hmmm,’ he said, ‘any chance of some payment receipts … snigger.’⁴⁶

‘Maybe send one of your guys in for a booking but drag it out at bar and buy the girls a drink (day girls not night shift) and see what they say,’ she said. ‘Just an idea.’ ‘One of my guys? It is just me honey,’ Slater replied. ‘I am sure you can call in a fave and send someone in,’ she said.⁴⁷ However the next day, after Brown faced a council meeting and was only censured about the affair, Slater tried again. He went straight to the subject without even saying hello: ‘Right, so lenny the rooter ain’t going anywhere … time for some real murk … have a chat to your contacts … time to out his brothel rooting.’⁴⁸

In that same Christmas week his journalist friend, Jonathan Marshall, got in touch from Australia: ‘I wish I was over there trying to find the evidence to get rid of Len.’ Slater replied that he wished Marshall was ‘over here working for me smashing up loads of people’. Marshall said, ‘Haha it would be fun. Len safe for now then? I really thought you had him.’ Slater replied, ‘Nah, he is a dead man walking there is plenty more … I know of a brothel … need someone to go there and get a story …’⁴⁹

~

The politically motivated way that Slater set out to humiliate Len Brown, pressured the source and plotted with the opposing candidate, should have totally discredited him. That would be the end of a journalist’s reputation, but in the following months Slater won two awards for best blog in New Zealand, at both the ESET NetGuide Web Awards and Canon Media Awards. The first he probably deserved. It was a prize that emphasised skills in attracting website visitors and clicks; other awards were made for best real estate site, best mobile app and best shopping site.⁵⁰ It was not about journalism or ethics. After the awards ceremony Slater wrote to an old mate Russell Beaumont, the blogger ‘Barnsley Bill’, ‘This was my acceptance speech … “Is [left-wing blogger] Russell Brown here? To all you leftie suckholes who think I am irrelevant … Fuck you.”’ There was resounding applause, he said. Beaumont wrote back, ‘Bwahaha.’⁵¹

But when Slater won best blog at the national media awards a few months later, largely on the strength of his Len Brown ‘success’, it was a sad joke. He used his acceptance speech to make yet another sexual accusation against the Auckland mayor. ‘I brought my lawyer here tonight,’ he joked, ‘and he said to me, “Cameron, show some grace and humility.” The only problem with that is that I don’t know anyone called Grace or Humility, and it sounds remarkably like hookers’ names. Never mind, I’m going to give Len Brown a call, he’s got five hidden numbers on his phone, and that’s the guy that has let me get this.’⁵²

Slater’s manner at the ceremony reflected his deep ambivalence towards the news media. He wanted them to pick up his hits and attacks, but regarded them with contempt when they did. ‘I am friends with a great many media people,’ he said to a colleague in 2012, ‘how do you think they get their stories.’⁵³ Or, more recently, ‘Do those media c**ts ever get any ideas from their own brains?’⁵⁴ He called them ‘repeaters’ and ‘churnalists’. As a friend said, ‘Yet again they follow the Whale.’⁵⁵

It is all too easy to get confused about the nature of blogs: they mimic news media and magazines. They contain things that look like articles, and scoops and breaking news. Slater calls himself an editor and there are the usual commercial advertisements between the posts. But the real test should be about standards. And there is also an uncomfortable reason why Slater, and Farrar, were not completely discredited: despite everything, some news organisations still wanted their stories and comment. The fewer journalists there are in a newsroom, the more susceptible they are to someone feeding them hot scoops and easy content on a plate, and leading them in their daily news priorities and angles. The Len Brown story had enhanced Slater’s standing: he was seen to have got a big scoop and drawn heavy traffic to his website (albeit so that people could read about an affair). The story of Cameron Slater and his Len Brown hit was a perfect challenge to news media, about where they are going and what they want to be. It was a story of success, but only as long as every ethical standard was suspended.

CHAPTER 11

JOHN KEY AND A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

A growing list of people has quietly used and benefited from attack politics: John Palino and his Auckland mayoralty campaign team, Ports of Auckland and its PR advisers, individuals such as Grant McLauchlan of Crest Commercial Cleaning, Katherine Rich and the big corporations, National Party selection candidates, ACT Party factions, the anti-MMP campaign and Cabinet minister Judith Collins. They were mostly respectable and successful people who were willing to use the dirty and dishonest services of Cameron Slater and his colleagues, on the confident assumption that what they were doing would remain secret and deniable. Personal and corporate advantage trumped ethics. But there is a final name to add to the list. Successful, smiling and confident, the single most important beneficiary of and collaborator in the attack politics was the prime minister, John Key.

By early in the 2014 election year, John Key was working more closely than ever with Slater and Farrar. His staff was actively collaborating in a succession of political hits and stings. At that stage Key feared a close election and attack politics was a proven and powerful tool.

This was not going to be an election of policy, vision or scrutinising the government’s record. Key and National would claim to be running a positive, forward-looking campaign, but the 2014 election year was defined by a noticeably relentless succession of attacks against Labour and its potential coalition partners. Many ordinary people began to feel that something was not right, that a dirty kind of politics was at work.

The most immediate strategic problem for Key and National as they entered the election year was coalition partners. Their own coalition partners were run down and unpopular, promising few extra seats in Parliament. Labour’s potential partners, by contrast, were looking strong. A new threat, the Internet Party, underwritten by Internet multi-millionaire Kim Dotcom, was preparing to launch as well. These were the first priorities for attacks.

Slater and his National Party contacts had been digging for dirt to use to undermine the Internet Party. Throughout January, as the new party’s launch approached, Slater had been attacking it almost daily. On 15 January, for instance, when the party was formally announced, he released a copy of a strategy paper written by Internet’s political strategist and containing details of its election plans.¹ The timing of the leak was clearly intended to undermine the announcement and the leak itself to hurt the party’s planning. Just normal politics? No. A party digging around inside opposing parties, looking for their campaign plans, negotiations with other parties and internal business, is not fair play. But this is exactly what the National-aligned Slater did. More attacks followed soon after.

The strategy paper leak was followed a few days later by a gloating blog post. Slater showed a picture of a Stuff website poll asking whether people would vote for the Internet Party. (The poll was unscientific, but showed 23.3 per cent support for the new party.) ‘I think it will be interesting to see what that poll is going to look like once all the information about the infamous Herr Schmitz [Kim Dotcom’s original surname] is in the public domain,’ he began. ‘I know you read this Kim. How could you not? It’s riveting stuff, eh? How’s the witch hunt going? Found your leak yet? Is it a person, or are your systems compromised? The good thing is that we are pretty much hard wired into a data stream here that’s going to make Kim rip up the carpets and look behind every electrical socket. *snigger*’²

Slater was acting like a bully. ‘Now, I realise some will think I’m just trying to manipulate the process here but I’ve got a friendly warning for people who think being involved with the Internet Party is a good thing … Unless you jettison Kim Dotcom now, you’re going to become collateral damage. And the media, if you haven’t figured it out by now (yes, I’m talking to you Dom Post editorial writer), then you’re dumber than a sack of hammers. Don’t come crying to me afterwards.’³

As usual, Slater crowed in advance to his old blogging friends about his attack plans. In late January 2014, a few days after the ‘found your leak yet?’ post, he told Aaron Bhatnagar about his progress. ‘My [Dotcom] mansion sources tell me Kim is not happy,’ Slater said. ‘Good,’ Bhatnagar said. ‘Hope the bastard is sweating between his fat rolls.’ Slater was feeling confident: ‘I have lots on him … death by 1000 cuts.’ Bhatnagar was ‘look[ing] forward to seeing it roll out. When do you expect to unleash?’ Slater said he had ‘small stuff in coming days … big stuff when witness statements are completed’.⁴

He also boasted to Russell Beaumont on 30 January. ‘Wait till you see what comes out in coming weeks on that fat c**t,’ he wrote. ‘My sources are gold.’ Beaumont congratulated him: ‘You certainly fucked the internet party good and hard. I expect that was the final straw.’ Slater replied, ‘Nope they are still going, but i have more on them.’ Then he revealed the first of his big hits. He and his National Party contacts, who had helped him get Dotcom sources, had heard about Winston Peters visiting Dotcom’s home. They saw the opportunity to damage two coalition partners at once. ‘Winston has been out there 3 times,’ Slater announced. ‘I’m getting the exact dates, then I will ring Winston and doorstep the c**t.’⁵

As he often did, Slater seems to have used New Zealand Herald gossip columnist Rachel Glucina to help with the story. A week after his conversation with Beaumont, Glucina included a snippet in her regular column. ‘Did Winston Peters visit the Dotcom mansion for secret meetings?’ she wrote. ‘Peters was playing coy yesterday when The Diary phoned. Rumours that he went there three times are “false”, he says, but he refused to specify if he’d been there at all.’⁶

Why would Slater give his story to someone else first? First, presumably, because Peters was more likely to take a call and answer questions from Glucina than from Slater. But there is a pattern here that is repeated. The problem with the three-visits story was that it was not very damaging: there is nothing unusual or wrong about people from two parties talking. However if Peters was questioned by the gossip columnist and chose not to confirm the meetings, then there was the potential to attack him subsequently about his truthfulness. This was what Slater did on the Whale Oil blog four days later. He said Glucina had ‘the good oil again on the comings and goings from the Dotcom Mansion’ and ‘Winston Peters is being less than honest … because my sources tell me that last year he did go out to the Dotcom Mansion at least three times.’⁷ (Slater also used Glucina to call Green Party leader Russel Norman two weeks earlier about him visiting Dotcom and, when Norman confirmed the visit, the best Slater could manage was a post criticising his carbon footprint for taking a taxi to the meeting.)⁸

The Peters visits still did not sound very bad so Slater simply made up a further smear, without a shred of evidence, suggesting that Peters might be getting money from Dotcom in exchange for some sort of favours. ‘What is more concerning though is that Kim Dotcom thinks he can influence and buy off politicians at the drop of a hat … What I want to know is if Winston Peters took a donation from Kim Dotcom … I can imagine what the answer would be though if asked.’⁹ Having set up the appearance of murky controversy, the attack was ready for its next stage, which happened the following afternoon.

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 John Key was in Parliament, being asked uncomfortable questions about his own coalition partner. Peter Dunne was in trouble over a genuine issue of political accountability, accused of leaking a confidential intelligence report to a journalist. Winston Peters joined in the questioning and enquired if Key had asked Dunne for his assurance that he did not leak the report. Key had his answer ready. ‘No,’ he said, ‘because I accepted him at his word, just as, I am sure, I will accept that member’s word that he did not discuss anything untoward when he went to the Dotcom mansion three times.’¹⁰ There was instant attention from the parliamentary journalists at the prime minister making such an intriguing allegation.

Slater’s story about the three visits was thus springboarded into the national news. By ‘accepting’ that they did not discuss ‘anything untoward’, Key had of course implied that something untoward may well have gone on. A campaign of innuendo followed. Key ‘demanded’ that the New Zealand First and Green Party leaders ‘come clean’ and told the media there were ‘some very serious questions that now need to be answered’.¹¹ David Farrar’s Kiwiblog joined in, arguing that the contacts with Dotcom looked ‘pretty close to corruption’ and that there could have been a secret deal whereby Dotcom cheated election laws by spending $2 million campaigning for his ‘fictitious party’ and then at the last minute destroyed it himself in order to back the other parties.¹²

There is no evidence that there was anything of substance to justify the attacks and innuendo. Nonetheless, New Zealand First and the Green Party spent days responding to the accusations. It had been a neatly conducted hit, putting the two party leaders on the defensive and creating in the public mind a general impression of dodgy dealing. It would have been another successful Slater–Farrar–National Party attack that came and went, but this time the plan went off track for Key when questions started to be asked on how he knew about Peters’s three visits. Key had been harmed politically the year before when unlawful spy agency monitoring of New Zealanders, including Kim Dotcom, was discovered. Suggestions that spy agencies had been involved were very risky for him. Most people had not noticed the Whale Oil story so it seemed suspicious that the prime minister knew specific details about another MP’s private meetings.

The day after his three-visits comment in Parliament, Key felt a need to explain. ‘I can absolutely categorically tell you it’s got nothing to do with any official agency,’ he told private radio. ‘From time to time people see things, and from time to time they tell me.’ That obviously did not sound sufficiently reassuring so he kept going. ‘I heard it from an individual who’s a person who’s got nothing to do with the National Party, nothing to do with any government agency. The person told me it was three [visits], I was pretty sure they’d be right because they often are.’¹³

A day later, still facing the risk of rekindling spy concerns, he tried again. ‘Contrary to what you might want to believe, I can read,’ he said. ‘It happened to be in the New Zealand Herald [Glucina], it happened to be on the Whale Oil website, and a member of the public basically, for want of a better term, rang me up and said what was the case.’ And then it came out. Asked if the source was Cameron Slater, he said, ‘I wouldn’t say that … I wouldn’t say either way.’ He explained that he ‘regularly called’ Slater, ‘to see what he’s got on his site and mind’.¹⁴ Another news organisation reported Key saying that they spoke ‘every so often’ and that he had phoned Slater earlier that week, during which they ‘briefly’ discussed Dotcom.15 Told that Key had identified him, Slater said, ‘If the Prime Minister says I’m the source, I guess I must have been.’¹⁶

It was the first time that Key had had to publicly acknowledge his links to Slater. When he said he heard the three-visits information from someone ‘who’s got nothing to do with the National Party’, he must have been referring to Slater. When he said a member of the public ‘for want of a better term’ had rung him up, he meant, as he subsequently admitted, that he himself had phoned Slater earlier that week. When he said he was ‘pretty sure they’d be right because they often are’, he was talking about his growing trust in and reliance upon Slater.

Key did not control Slater, but when it came to smearing the reputations of their political opponents, they willingly worked together. Key was not responsible for everything Slater, Farrar and colleagues did; but as leader of the National Party and head of the prime minister’s office, he was directly responsible when his staff and the party worked with them. The bloggers were now a routine part of John Key’s political management. The Winston Peters three-visits hit had been a typical collaboration and there were more to come.

Slater had told Bhatnagar and Beaumont he had more ‘big stuff’ to use against Dotcom and the Internet Party in the ‘coming weeks’. The next hit was in March, timed to coincide with and disrupt the party’s launch. Slater, or someone working with him, had learnt from one of Dotcom’s staff that Dotcom owned an early copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He in fact also collected memorabilia from other Second World War figures – a pen that had belonged to Stalin and a cigar holder from Churchill – but this was seen as the king hit to discredit him as being a Nazi supporter. The execution of the attack followed a now familiar modus operandi, starting with a media ally confronting the target with the story out of the blue.

Although Slater had been pursuing the information for months, the story appeared first on television news. The TV3 reporter said, ‘On the eve of the launch of his Internet Party, Dotcom has confirmed he purchased one of the first copies of Adolf Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, signed by the man who went on to establish the Third Reich. Dotcom fronted up to 3 News to talk politics, not expecting questions about Nazi memorabilia.’¹⁷ The news item showed black and white footage of Hitler. The reporter then asked Dotcom, ‘Some New Zealanders … may be concerned that you have that [book], because that may suggest that you subscribe to some theories of war …’ He finished the item by saying it was ‘confession time’ for Dotcom ahead of his party launch and ‘ahead of his enemies, who also have this information’.¹⁸

The story was lead news at 6 p.m. on 26 March 2014. Just fifteen minutes later Slater published his own detailed Whale Oil account of Kim Dotcom’s ‘love for Adolf Hitler’, saying the 3 News was ‘coincidentally parallel’ to his own ‘exclusive’ investigation.¹⁹ It is possible that they were given the story independently but it looks as if Slater gave it to them and agreed they could use it first. When given a sensitive story, a journalist’s immediate questions should be, ‘Who is behind it?’ and ‘What are their motives?, but the lure of an easy lead story can be too tempting.

As with the Len Brown smear, Slater’s political motives were clear. ‘The fact that many Kiwi soldiers died fighting that regime to free the world of racism, anti-Semitism and Nazism has obviously passed Dotcom by as he seeks to enter New Zealand politics,’ he wrote. ‘Ahead of the launch of the Internet party we think this vital information is important for voters to know … Perhaps Dotcom’s abiding hatred for John Key can be put down to the fact that John Key is of jewish descent. Perhaps too this is why he seeks to go to war with Hollywood, which conspiracy theorists will have you know is controlled by the Jews.’²⁰

The main source named for the Whale Oil post was a former Dotcom employee, Alex Mardikian. The next day, coincidentally parallel, the New Zealand Herald’s Rachel Glucina interviewed the same man. He ‘spoke exclusively to The Diary from Los Angeles’ about Dotcom ‘as he launched his foray into New Zealand politics’. The piece was not flattering.²¹ On the day of the party launch, 27 March, TV3 ran another story attacking Dotcom, quoting his former head of security, Wayne Tempero.²² Slater’s short list of significant phone numbers in early 2014 included Tempero; Slater may well have helped to facilitate this story as well.²³ More stories followed, including more Nazi ones and a series about some of Tempero’s security stuff who were in a dispute with Dotcom about their pay.

In short, an orchestrated smear campaign was under way. This was Slater’s ‘gold’. Some staff in one of the news organisations involved felt very uneasy about their organisation co-operating in blatant attack politics. Colleagues reported angry outbursts about the ethics of taking stories from Slater and supporting his political agendas. They said the organisation had had to agree to Slater’s terms, including when they released the stories.²⁴

~

The election year attack politics were in full swing – a rerun of the 2011 election. Simon Lusk again seemed to be manipulating candidate selections in safe National seats, using the Whale Oil blog to boost his clients and attack anyone standing in their way. A series of posts, under Slater’s name, boosted Lusk’s clients and talked about the need for ‘professional’ support for the would-be candidates. There were familiar attacks on Hunua electorate chair, Ian McDougall, who apparently did not support Lusk’s client, although the worst criticism he could find of him was that ‘National members are embarrassed to visit him at his humble two bedroomed flat’.²⁵ As in 2011, he wrote that ‘regular readers will know this blog hates people cheating, rigging or behaving unethically in selection processes’.²⁶

The Whale Oil blog was also being used for concerted attacks on individual journalists who wrote stories the National government did not like. A succession of journalists, whose names are not being used for reasons of confidentiality, found themselves the subject of repeated slurs and insults. All governments are guilty of rewarding sympathetic journalists and making life harder for critical ones, but John Key’s administration has been unusually intolerant and organised in the pressure it quietly applies to certain journalists, directly and through their employers. Whale Oil attacks appeared to be a co-ordinated part of this.

In the year leading up to the election Jason Ede worked feeding ideas, information and often images for use on the attack blogs. Four days after David Cunliffe was elected Labour leader, for instance, he sent Slater an anti-Cunliffe image questioning whether he was genuine about helping workers. ‘Can you really trust David Cunliffe?’ it asked. His e-mail said, ‘If you’re not so keen on this I might give it a rejig and push elsewhere.’²⁷ In December 2013 he was caught taking a photo of rubbish after the parliamentary journalists’ annual party, a photo that appeared straight afterwards on the Whale Oil blog. In May 2014 he was again seen taking a photo, this time of David Cunliffe as he had a moment to himself in Parliament’s Copperfield’s cafe. The photo was on the Whale Oil site by 1.15 p.m. and Slater wrote, ‘No one wants to sit with David Cunliffe at lunch. How awkward. Even his own party don’t want to be seen with him.’²⁸ Every day the Whale Oil blog had several posts attacking Labour, adding up to about 500 in the first six months of the election year. It became the Labour Party smear site. Any negative bad news about Labour was featured there, together with a running critique, fair or unfair, of everything they did: leader David Cunliffe photographed with a chalk-written sign spelling ‘raffle’ incorrectly;²⁹ a newspaper poll graphic showing the Labour leader with a shadow on his trousers, headlined ‘Did David Cunliffe wet his pants?’³⁰ The Whale Oil Cartoons of the Day had an unpleasantly propagandist feel.³¹

Read together, the posts gave the strong impression that someone other than Slater was monitoring every word Cunliffe uttered, then fact checking them or working out how they could be mocked. In the US Republican Party presentation on the political uses of blogs at the International Democratic Union meeting, case study #6 concerned a former senator, George Allen, who had failed to get re-elected. He lost, the study suggested, because ‘his opponent had a staffer whose sole job was to record everything Allen said in public’. Any time he said something stupid, or that could be made to seem stupid, it was ‘put on the internet within 24 hours’ and seen by large numbers of people ‘at almost no cost to the campaign’.³² Someone appeared to be playing this role in New Zealand and feeding the results to the attack blogs. If National websites had published this material, it would have looked extremely undignified and caused a backlash against the party and its leader. Instead, as usual, it seems to have been outsourced to Slater and Farrar.

Most damaging of all was a series of mini-scandals designed to distract and discredit the Labour leader. In April, for instance, the Whale Oil blog claimed that Cunliffe had lied about his grandfather’s war medal at a Young Labour conference the day after Anzac Day. Someone had read the speech and fact checked it, including locating and checking the grandfather’s military records. Headed ‘Cunliffe caught in another mistruth’, the post reproduced a copy of the grandfather’s war record with no sign of the Military Medal he had mentioned.³³ Cunliffe had to correct his statement, more carefully naming the three medals his grandfather had received.

It looked like a small mistake, but Slater played it up as part of an anti-Cunliffe narrative. He insisted that ‘the fault lies with David Cunliffe who is a proven liar’ and asked whether ‘he should get away with telling lies’.³⁴ Once again the Labour leader and his staff had been thrown into confusion, setting their electioneering aside to deal with yet another crisis before it blew out of proportion. By then they would have had little doubt that more attacks were imminent.

CHAPTER 12

THE SMILING ASSASSIN

A much more serious attack occurred in June 2014, just three months before election day. The previous month National Cabinet minister Maurice Williamson had been forced to resign when it came to light that he had phoned a senior police officer to advocate for a Chinese immigrant businessman and National Party donor, named Donghua Liu, who had been arrested on domestic violence charges. He had told the officer that ‘Mr Liu is investing a lot of money in New Zealand’ and was accused of trying to influence a police investigation.¹ National’s close ties to wealthy Chinese immigrant donors had become a serious vulnerability for the party and they were keen to turn attention back on Labour.

Six weeks later a scandal blew up for Cunliffe over the same businessman, Donghua Liu. On Tuesday 17 June, during a press conference announcing Labour’s policy on the KiwiSaver savings scheme, TV3 asked Cunliffe:

TV3: Have you ever met Donghua Liu?

David Cunliffe: I don’t recall meeting him, no.

TV3: Did you have anything to do with the granting of his permanent residency?

David Cunliffe: No I did not.

TV3: Did you advocate on his behalf at all?

David Cunliffe: Nope.

TV3: Were you aware of official advice advising against granting permanent residency?

David Cunliffe: Not to my recollection.²

The very next morning the government released a letter to the media, under the Official Information Act, which Cunliffe had written to the Immigration Service in 2003 about Liu’s residency application. The media naturally challenged Cunliffe about his previous day’s denial. ‘Why did you lie about it yesterday?’ a reporter asked. ‘I did not,’ Cunliffe replied. ‘You did, you said no twice, three times … If it was not a lie, what was it?’ When Cunliffe said it was ‘certainly a failure to recall’, the reporter responded, ‘You stuck your neck out pretty far, though, didn’t you?’³

By 1 p.m. the New Zealand Herald’s chief political commentator, John Armstrong, was writing, ‘David Cunliffe is in deep political trouble. So deep that his resignation as Labour’s leader may now be very much in order.’⁴ Commentators joined in discussing which Labour MP might take over the leadership if Cunliffe was forced to stand down.

It all looked devastating for Cunliffe and Labour, and it undoubtedly damaged their already dented election prospects. Within an hour John Key had joined in from New York, saying that ‘politics is about trust’ and that after this the public would struggle to trust the Labour leader. ‘Mr Cunliffe has asked New Zealanders to trust him that he’s had no involvement with Donghua Liu, yet this letter suggests the opposite and quite clearly he’ll need to explain his actions.’⁵ Deputy Prime Minister Bill English said Cunliffe had been ‘tricky’ and could not be trusted.⁶

From the start there was something fishy about the scandal. The first clues appeared the following day, 19 June. New Zealand Herald journalists asked Cabinet minister Michael Woodhouse, who had released the Cunliffe letter, if he had told John Key about it in advance. At 2 p.m. Woodhouse said he had not told Key; at 3 p.m. he changed his story and said officials from his office had briefed Key’s office on the letter; and then at 7 p.m. he said he had personally told Key’s office about the letter and arranged for them to be sent copies.⁷ He had told Key’s staff on approximately 10 May. They had had weeks to plan what they would do with the letter.

The Cunliffe–Liu ‘scandal’ occurred after the period covered by the Slater documents, so the exact story of what happened is not known. This is the situation the public is usually in, of needing to recognise political manipulation from the available clues. Tell-tale signs from the political attacks described in earlier chapters are plain to see. There can be no doubt that the government orchestrated the release of the letter to harm Cunliffe.

First, as with the Goff–SIS hit, the journalists had been tipped off to make the official information request – by someone who knew about the Liu letter. Next, the requested information was released two days after the requests were submitted.

But most obviously suspicious was the way the story came out. Why was Cunliffe asked very specific questions about his personal links to Liu just 24 hours before the fast-tracked letter reached the media? At that stage no one outside government supposedly even knew that the letter or any link to Liu existed. The political damage arose because Cunliffe was asked those questions when he did not know about the letter. It was the denial, not the letter itself, that provided ammunition for the accusations of untrustworthiness and lying. As with the Peters three-visits and Mein Kampf hits, the target was confronted with a story out of nowhere. As Slater had said to Ede during the 2011 election, they had run a sting on Cunliffe, set him up and he went off like a firecracker.

It is important to note that Cunliffe had not done anything improper by writing, or signing, the letter. It was a standard request on behalf of a constituent: hard-working electorate executives write hundreds like this every year. It noted that Donghua Liu, who lived in Cunliffe’s electorate, had been waiting eight months since his application had been accepted for processing and said ‘it would be very helpful to Mr Liu to be advised of an estimated period of time in which he could expect a decision on his case’.⁸ That was all. Cunliffe had not ‘advocated’ for Liu, or apparently even met him: the residency application, it seems, had been arranged by an immigration consultant.

The idea that Cunliffe would deliberately lie was much less likely than that, 11 years later, he could simply not remember the letter. It was one of the thousands from constituents who had asked for help during his years as an MP. The letter itself would have caused little controversy. But because of the well-timed questioning, he would be decried as untrustworthy and people would be calling for his resignation just 24 hours later.

The other sign of orchestration was noticed by Danyl McLauchlan on his blog, The Dim-Post. He noted that ‘a couple of people have asked me on twitter why I think the David Cunliffe/Liu letter story came from the Nats instead of just being good hard reporting by the Herald journalist’.⁹ He explained that someone with the pseudonym Barnsley Bill had commented on a post he had written about opinion polls, saying: ‘Within 24 hours the poll[s] are going to be the least of Cunliffes problems. Keep an eye on the herald website, we are about to see pledge card theft relegated to second place as the biggest labour funding scandal.’¹⁰ This comment had been left at 10.21 a.m. on Tuesday 17 June, before Cunliffe was asked the Liu questions, and, indeed, about 24 hours before the Cunliffe letter was received by the New Zealand Herald and hit the news. Cunliffe had been asked the four Liu questions at a media event where he was announcing the party’s KiwiSaver savings policy. The event started at 10.15 a.m. and the questions were not asked until near the end, at about 10.45 a.m.¹¹ In other words, Barnsley Bill knew in advance that the scandal was coming.

Barnsley Bill, real name Russell Beaumont, has already appeared a few times in this book, in conversation with Slater.¹² When Slater could not keep his excitement to himself, he regularly chatted online to Beaumont and others about his coming hits. Beaumont’s pre-knowledge strongly points to Slater being involved. The final likeness to the other Slater–Ede attacks was the timing. The trap was sprung on a Wednesday before Parliament’s
3–4 p.m. general debate, the best time in the week for government MPs to attack the opposition. Deputy Prime Minister Bill English led the way, reading out each of the questions and answers from the Cunliffe questioning the day before. ‘That was yesterday,’ he said. ‘Today, of course, we have the letter that he wrote advocating exactly for his permanent residency.’ No one, he said, trusted Cunliffe concerning his links with Liu.¹³

Next, Woodhouse, the minister who had released the letter, also read out Cunliffe’s questions and answers from the day before, and said it was ‘not the behaviour of somebody who should aspire to lead this country’.¹⁴ Health Minister Tony Ryall said, ‘So here is Mr Cunliffe, who only a few hours ago denied he had ever met Mr Liu and … here we have today a letter from Mr Cunliffe making representations on behalf of Mr Liu … It is hugely embarrassing for Mr Cunliffe and for the Labour Party.’¹⁵ And so on. It had been a neatly conducted smear.

Meanwhile a more important story was missed. In arranging to tip off the media and release the letter, the government had abused its power and its control over public service files. Any government can make endless mischief by digging into the files of its predecessors, but they usually refrain from doing this. And the usual understanding is that the current government checks with the previous government before releasing politically sensitive material requested via the OIA. But in this case confronting Cunliffe without warning was crucial to the plan.

As I argued in The Hollow Men, the trick of political media management is not to get this or that press release covered; it is about ‘framing’ how journalists perceive issues. The National Party strategies described here were designed to make their opponents seem incompetent and untrustworthy, and they worked whenever, as happened with the Liu letter, the journalists in effect joined in their attacks.

Which brings us back to the quote from Simon Lusk in the first chapter. ‘There are a few basic propositions with negative campaigning that are worth knowing about. It lowers turnout, favours right more than left as the right continue to turn out, and drives away the independents.’ In short, many people simply stop participating in politics. If politicians cannot be trusted, if politics looks like a petty or ugly game and if no one seems to be talking about the things that matter, then what’s the point of bothering to participate? Just leave them to it. There are innovations in US Republican Party thinking on this point: election tactics do not have to be just about winning votes; they can be equally effective if groups of people in society just stop voting altogether. We should not assume that everyone thinks low voter turnout is a bad idea.

Sitting in the midst of the negative politics was John Key. For years Jason Ede had been working in his office, two doors along the corridor, co-ordinating attack politics for the National government. When Key first arrived back in New Zealand as a millionaire businessman and jumped into a safe National Party seat, it emerged that his nickname while he worked as a currency trader had been ‘the smiling assassin’. But he had already been cultivating his friendly rags to riches story and for his first years in politics people simply did not believe it. But the Mr Nice Guy brand, as John Ansell called it, had gone hand in hand with the National Party attack machine throughout his years in government. As part of this, Key had inevitably become closer to and more reliant upon Cameron Slater.

This brings us full circle to the start of the book and Slater’s gratuitous insult about the young ‘feral’ who died in Greymouth and ‘did [the] world a favour’. In the ferocious public backlash that followed, Slater’s friends rallied around to support him. According to Slater talking on Facebook, one of those who phoned him to commiserate was John Key.

It was five days since Slater had written the grossly insulting post and, as usual, he was talking over events on Facebook with his buddy, Russell Beaumont (Barnsley Bill). Beaumont raised the subject of the young man’s outspoken and grieving mother. Slater replied, ‘Why would I apologise to that slut?’ Beaumont said, ‘You were never going to apologise anyway.’ Slater was feeling justified about what he had done. ‘JK [his usual shorthand for John Key] rang me,’ he said. In Slater’s words, Key had told him that the dead man’s mother ‘was the same feral fucking bitch that screams at him when he goes to pike river meetings’.¹⁶ It seems unlikely that Key would have used such language, but it is clear he had rung to reassure Slater that he should not feel bad about upsetting the mother. When the rest of the country was feeling appalled by Slater’s offensiveness, the prime minister of New Zealand was calling to show his support.

Slater’s comments about the man’s death are what apparently led to his website being taken down and eventually to the leak of the information that allowed this book to be written. So it is perhaps fitting that Key should share in this political karma. The retaliation against the remarks exposed both Key and Slater, the friendly and unfriendly faces of National, who secretly collaborated throughout a period of dirty politics.

AFTERWORD

The attacks, manipulation and other dirty politics seen in the preceding pages are made possible by problems and weaknesses in the political environment: underresourcing of news media, weak freedom of information laws, too much advantage for parties aligned to wealthy interests, discouragement of political participation, and a lack of understanding of blogs and political ethics. Each is a human problem and so can be improved.

First, the media. On 22 July 2014, as this book neared completion, the public broadcaster Television New Zealand did a prime-time item about Cameron Slater and his links to the prime minister. It is a perfect illustration of how the people in this book could get away with what they did. The item, which appeared on TVNZ’s 7 p.m. magazine programme, Seven Sharp, began with a reporter joking with Slater in his kitchen. ‘I wouldn’t want to get on your bad side, I’ll tell you that,’ she said. ‘That’s a very wise thing,’ Slater replied. ‘You should put that … that should be in the show, you know, “I don’t want to get on your bad side.”’

‘Cam Slater has powerful friends,’ the reporter continued, looking at the contacts on Slater’s mobile phone. ‘Judith Collins, Patrick Gower, Paul Henry – very nice. These are just his favourites, you know, the ones he calls all the time. And look, yeah, you’ve got JK in there. So we figure, if he’s got the prime minister’s ear, we’d better get to know him.’ After they went out driving in Slater’s car, she concluded ‘He’s actually quite likeable … You can understand why John Key talks to him. He’s way less crazy than he used to be. He makes political in-jokes … He says outrageous things … And he has amazing gossip … No wonder the PM takes his calls. No wonder Newstalk ZB has him in for an hour-long radio show every Monday … How things have changed. There was a time when the media wouldn’t go near Cam Slater.’¹

The reporter was surprised to learn that Slater is a Christian, which he was during almost all the events covered in this book, but said, ‘He’s still super unkind online and he’s got his sights set firmly on Kim Dotcom. Cam reckons he’s got dirt he’ll release just before the election. [To Slater] Can we have a hint as to what the Kim Dotcom stuff will be?’ Slater said, ‘Ah, nah, not at this point.’ She asked, as if dirt were an acceptable part of election campaigns, ‘Do you think it’s enough to derail his campaign?’ Slater replied, ‘I think with the magnitude of what I’m sitting on, it will derail his campaign. It will derail Hone Harawira’s as well.’ She asked, ‘So should he be scared of you?’ Slater answered, ‘Every politician should be scared of me.’²

The item ended with the host Mike Hosking saying, ‘Love it’. Co-host Toni Street asked Hosking if he was on Slater’s top 10 contact list. ‘Nah,’ he said, ‘although I do note that he quotes my editorials quite a lot, so clearly a man of taste.’³ If this had been scripted by Slater, not a word would have needed to be different. Lack of media scrutiny is a big part of why John Key’s government could get away with running the friendly, relaxed leader image while being involved in continuous negative politics.

The problem is not the journalists. The problem is commercialised news and repeated cuts to newsroom staff. Without serious action, it will only get worse. A change is needed so that quality news is recognised as an essential public good and publicly funded like other essential services. The most hopeful option is a dramatic increase in long-term public funding and statutory independence for non-commercial television, radio and (perhaps eventually) print news media. This can be built on existing public broadcasting, including a decommercialised TVNZ news service. Important elements of this will be regional news gathering and the potential to supply news content to small private news organisations.

This book has raised the problem of news organisations that, in exchange for easy stories, co-operate in a government’s PR plans. It is common to view journalists as left or right depending on whether they are sympathetic to or critical of a particular government. But this is sloppy thinking. The real divide is between news organisations that hold governments, of whatever colour, to account on behalf of the public and those who are friendly to the powerful. It is actually the divide between good and bad journalism. Finally, news media need to give their audiences and readers genuinely independent political, social and business commentators, not party-aligned or PR people. This would instantly help to raise the standard of political debate and conduct.

The next issue is transparency. New Zealand’s freedom of information laws and systems are weak and make it too easy for governments to release only the information that suits them. A serious overhaul of information legislation, resources and training is overdue. The laws also need to be extended. Leaders’ budgets must be given the same transparency as MPs’ spending; and Ministerial Services and Parliamentary Services need to be brought under financial scrutiny and strengthened freedom of information laws. Although a great deal of public money was used on the dirty politics described in this book, using the existing inadequate freedom of information laws would have illuminated almost none of it.

Third, private funding of election campaigns means parties aligned to business interests or led by millionaires have a financial advantage and are more likely to win. This is a fundamental flaw in the electoral system. There is a simple solution. Parliament costs about $140 million of public money each year and Ministerial Services another $60 million.⁴ Overall the governing coalition controls many tens of billions of dollars of public spending. Yet the crucial ingredient in this – democratic elections – is compromised by requiring political parties to seek private funding of the few million dollars required each three years for election campaigns. This is unfair and opens the door to pressure and influence. Large political donations (more than the average person could give) should not be allowed and should be replaced by public funding to protect the integrity of the electoral system. Full transparency is also required for the money behind third-party campaigns that set out to influence voters.

Fourth, the very serious issue of tactics that aim to push opposing or critical people out of politics. This was the apparent intention of many of the Whale Oil personal attacks and what Simon Lusk seemed to have had in mind with his strategic goal of ‘weakening the power of those who believe in big government’ (i.e. anyone without hard right beliefs). Large numbers of people have been shocked to find themselves the target of personal attacks on the Whale Oil and Kiwiblog sites, some of which were co-ordinated directly from the Beehive.

This is part of a wider problem. John Key’s government was unusually aggressive at attacking and trying to silence scientists, journalists, academics, public interest groups and any other people who publicly criticised its actions. It cut public funding for a wide array of organisations that represented and advocated for communities. The essence of democratic government is that the widest possible range of people have their share of influence and an equal chance of being heard. The politics revealed in this book is about small numbers of people trying to have much more than their fair share.

All academics, scientists, medical staff and others on public salaries should be actively encouraged to participate in pressing social and political issues, and should be protected in their careers when they do so. Likewise, all public employees should be encouraged and feel safe to participate in politics in their own time, thereby showing that politics is valued. The country needs to face up to and reverse the fear that many people feel about being politically active. Governments should also provide secure funding for a range of independent research and policy institutes, providing a reservoir of thinkers, writers and researchers to develop policy and be available to comment on important public interest issues. Each of these initiatives is designed to ensure that public debate and commentary are not dominated by the Nick Naylors and Whale Oils.

Fifth – a small but important step – is the public understanding of the nature of political blogs. As we saw in the US Republican Party literature, blogs can be a powerful means for political parties to promote themselves and attack their opponents, without admitting they are doing so. The public does not know it is being fed party spin and the party does not have to take responsibility for the personal attacks and dirty tactics.

Political blogs are relatively new, and it takes time for people to understand their benefits and downsides. Some blogs provide valuable and independent analysis. But the lesson of Kiwiblog and Whale Oil is that although they partly mimic news media, drawing on their established trust and credibility, the blogs are in fact wholly partisan and dishonest. This also means that no credible news media should use Cameron Slater or David Farrar as commentators. Slater and his friends’ cash for comment activities should permanently disqualify them from news media roles.

Finally, political ethics. A good deal of political commentary makes the mistake of thinking that if a politician or party is successful in the polls, this equates to worthiness and virtue. Unfortunately, people sometimes succeed in politics, as in other spheres, precisely because they are not ethical.

There are simple rules about what is fair game in politics. It is legitimate to expose deliberate untruths, hidden influence and abuse of power: things that stop political people acting with integrity and with accountability for their decisions and actions. But attacking other people’s personal lives and denigrating them as a tactic is not fair play. An overemphasis on small errors and slips also trivialises politics.

All countries need and deserve politicians who respect news media independence, freedom of information and the rights of their opponents; politicians who refrain from dirty tricks and abuses of power even when these could provide an advantage; politicians who would not knowingly use something as negative and unscrupulous as the Whale Oil blog. It is never right to poison the political environment for short-term political gain.

ENDNOTES

PREFACE

1 Amelia Romanos, ‘Greens billboard vandal quits’, New Zealand Herald, 15 November 2011.

2 Tracy Watkins, Dominion Post, ‘Key: I believe in an inclusive New Zealand’, 28 November 2006.

3 Cameron Slater, Whale Oil blog, ‘Feral dies in Greymouth, did world a favour’, 25 January 2014.

4 Cameron Slater, Facebook private messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 5 October 2011.

5 Jonathan Marshall, Facebook private messaging to Cameron Slater, 30 April 2012. Slater wrote to his journalist friend, Jonathan Marshall, ‘I have a massive story this week, gonna run for days.’ ‘What is it?’ Marshall asked. ‘Three journos will be casualties,’ Slater said, ‘fraud, sfo [Serious Fraud Office], fma [Financial Markets Authority] … rat fink directors, dodgy transactions, I’ve got 28Gb of emails, plus a filing cabinet of documents.’ Marshall said, ‘niccce.’ Slater said he had ‘three journos putting their names to articles written by the fraudster.... 2 ex NBR and one Herald.... [and] two lawyers who will go down plus a liquidator.’ Slater was subsequently sued by the man concerned, Matthew Blomfield.

CHAPTER 1: The Rise of the Bloggers

1 John Ansell, e-mails to Cameron Slater, 21 February 2008.

2 Cameron Slater, e-mail to John Ansell, 21 February 2008. Ansell and Slater collaborated on various attack ad ideas over the next few months but Ansell switched to working for the ACT Party and then became disillusioned with both National and ACT.

3 The Free Speech Coalition operated for several months in 2007 and early 2008, with the billboards erected in December 2007 and early 2008. David Farrar was the main speaker at the 21 November 2007 protest rally, and the main authors on the Kill the Bill campaign blog were Farrar and Cameron Slater. John Ansell acknowledges his role in ‘our’ billboards in an e-mail to Cameron Slater on 22 February 2008.

4 David Farrar and Cameron Slater spent two weeks on blogging, joining in National Party campaign events and using the Free Speech Coalition for election-time attacks on Labour and its potential coalition partner New Zealand First. Slater joined the ‘BlogMobile’ in Wellington on 3 October and they began touring the North Island. His Facebook posts show them a week later ‘in Rotovegas Rotorua taking the BlogMobile to meet John Key’ and two days after that ‘in Tauranga hunting Winston Peters’, the New Zealand First Party leader. In Hawke’s Bay he first met Simon Lusk and the two became Facebook friends, before passing through Wellington again ‘ready to ambush some pinkos’ (Cameron Slater, Facebook page, 3–19 October 2008). On election day Slater ‘voted to end the witch’s reign’ and, when National won, declared himself ‘as happy as a pig in shit’. He celebrated the following day with a barbecue at Farrar’s home in Wellington. Cameron Slater, Facebook page, 28 October 2008 to 1 November 2008.

5 Nicky Hager, The Hollow Men, Craig Potton Publishing, Nelson, 2006, p. 27.

6 The book included three Lusk e-mails discussing plans for third-party election advertising. Lusk explained that the first two e-mails were indeed about the Exclusive Brethren’s secret plans but a third e-mail was about another planned third-party advertising campaign by the Sensible Sentencing Trust that did not end up going ahead. This second advertising campaign was to be ‘loosely based’ on the US Willie Horton advertisements, discussed below.

7 Simon Lusk, e-mail to Nicky Hager, 27 November 2006.

8 ‘Independent Ads: The National Security Political Action Committee “Willie Horton”’, www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/independentads.html, downloaded 5 July 2014.

9 Cameron Slater, ‘VRWC Dinner booked’, e-mail to ‘Adolf Fiinkensein’, ‘Gooner’, Darren Greenwood, Chuck Bird, Nikki Kaye, ‘Insolent Prick’ and David Farrar, 21 February 2008. Gooner was the ACT Party official, Nick Kearney, and Adolf Fiinkensein was ‘Rob R’. Other right-wing bloggers at the time were ‘Keeping Stock’ (Tony Stuart) and Aaron Bhatnagar.

10 Cameron Slater, ‘Farrar is up tomorrow’, e-mail to Adolf Fiinkensein, 20 February 2008.

11 Cameron Slater, ‘Owen Glenn’, e-mail to Rachel Glucina, 19 February 2008.

12 This name is changed for privacy reasons, as he plays no part in the story apart from being half of discussions with Cameron Slater.

13 For instance, on 11 April 2008, Slater asked for Farrar’s help locating Labour MP Judith Tizard’s private home address: ‘Can you look up Tizards electoral roll address please?’ Farrar had access to the National Party ‘Feedback’ canvassing database but replied, ‘I can’t login to Feedback at the moment. Ask Kate in the Reg Office on Monday and she should be able to’ (Cameron Slater, ‘Something I was mucking around with last night’, e-mails from and to David Farrar, 12 April 2008). Later that month Slater sent Farrar an attack video called Labour Mash, ‘something I was mucking around with last night.’ Farrar replied a few hours later, ‘Can you youtube this? Ta’ (Cameron Slater, ‘Williamsons video’, e-mails from and to David Farrar, 21 April 2008). A few days later Slater sought Farrar’s guidance on when to post another video: ‘Shall I post it for Monday? If not, when?’ Farrar replied that Monday would be good (Cameron Slater, ‘Williamsons video’, e-mails from and to David Farrar, 25 April 2008).

14 On 13 March 2008, for instance, Collins mailed out a press release widely attacking the Families Commission. Slater e-mailed her back with a blog post he’d written about it: ‘Enjoy’. The post was not about the political issues and instead attacked the Labour government minister nastily: the ‘childless and barren minister Ruth Dyson had the temerity to tell Judith Collins, a caring mother, that she and Labour cared more about parents than her’, which was to be expected ‘given the lead from her own childless Leader’, Helen Clark. Collins replied cheerfully: ‘That’s very naughty’ (Judith Collins, ‘Re Families Commission’, e-mails to and from Cameron Slater, 13 March 2008).

15 Francis Till, ‘we need one of these’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, David Farrar and Jason Ede, 8 May 2008.

16 Jason Ede, ‘Re: we need one of these’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 9 May 2008.

17 Jason Ede, ‘Michael the Tank engine’, e-mails to and from Cameron Slater, 13 May 2008.

18 Kevin Taylor, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 28 May 2008.

19 Confidential source.

20 Tim Hume, ‘Internet Warrior’, Sunday Star-Times, 12 July 2009.

21 National Party, ‘National Members of Parliament and Staff’, 3 November 2003.

22 Hager, The Hollow Men, pp. 33, 91–92, 105–06, 108.

23 Jason Ede, ‘By-election’, e-mails to and from Cameron Slater, 27 January 2011.

24 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 10 February 2011. I have occasionally corrected small spelling errors in the Facebook messaging chat without changing the meaning.

25 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 10 February 2011.

26 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 9 February 2011.

27 Slater had been running a petty campaign against Len Brown for weeks, first challenging him about an election comment he had made about travelling by train and then spending early mornings with his journalist collaborator Jonathan Marshall trying to get photographs of Brown on the train or in his mayoral car, to mock him in either case. Slater arranged for Marshall, then a reporter on the Sunday Star-Times, to ambush Brown at 6 a.m. on 3 March and the following morning Marshall sent Slater the draft story: ‘Auckland mayor Len Brown is trying to champion public transport but his publicity stunt has derailed, writes Jonathan Marshall.’ Salter replied: ‘lol [laugh out loud], excuse me if I don’t just gloat enormously’ (Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Jonathan Marshall, 19 February and 3 March 2011). Jason Ede approved of the Len Brown stalking and suggested to Marshall that the three of them get together for a beer (Jonathan Marshall, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 19 February and 3 March 2011).

28 Ede was also helping Slater with information. Early that year Slater confided to friends that publisher HarperCollins had contacted him to write a book for release just before the election. ‘My book is going to be about Helen Clark, how she fucked the country, how she fucked Labour and how she made it look like she actually cared about both,’ he wrote. ‘For the book I’m going to get former Labour MPs JT [John Tamihere] and Michael Bassett to knife the bitch (Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Peter Smith, 5 February 2011). Ede was using National Party parliamentary resources to get materials for the book. ‘Any idea on the time frame for those graphs,’ Slater wrote on one occasion. ‘Getting hassled for my draft chapter by publisher … need the info to frame the chapter.’ Ede replied, ‘Sorry, I didn’t realise it was urgent. Will pursue’ (Cameron Slater, ‘Any idea on timeframe for those graphs’, e-mails to and from Jason Ede, 28 January 2011). As it turned out, HarperCollins went cold on the book plan and three months later Slater started telling friends he was doing a book about ‘rooting MPs’ (Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to a friend, 6 June 2011).

29 A ‘Newztext’ search for Cameron Slater gives no results up until 2007, a couple of mentions concerning the Electoral Finance Bill in late 2007 and then leaps to over 200 mentions in 2010, when Slater had the period of gaining publicity for breaking suppression orders.

30 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 3 February 2011.

31 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 30 January 2011. Collins is referring to criticism of National Party candidate Jami-Lee Ross by Aaron Bhatnagar.

32 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 3 February 2011.

33 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 30 January 2011.

34 Peter Smith, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 5 February 2011.

35 Cameron Slater, ‘Winston Billboards’, Whale Oil blog, 6 March 2011.

36 Simon Lusk, Vote for Change, Registered Promoter Referendum Expense Return 2011 form, 26 March 2012, shows billboard and newspaper advertising costs as $54,669. The anti-MMP campaign is discussed in Chapter 6.

37 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 30 January 2011.

38 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 25 February 2011.

39 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 10 February 2011.

40 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 29 January 2011.

41 When a woman upset Slater in 2012, for instance, he wrote to a friend, ‘There will be retribution … don’t you worry about that … I have put some things in train …’ She asked, ‘What have you done? Or do I not want to ask?’ Slater said, ‘Don’t ask… you know what I can do, you’ve seen it … so don’t ask because then you can deny all knowledge …’ (Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from friend, 17 June 2012).

42 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Wellington National Party friend, 2 February 2012.

43 Cameron Slater, ‘Whaleoil Bounty List’, Whale Oil blog, 8 February 2012.

44 A survey of the 400,000 comments between 2008 and 2014 shows the volume of abusive and attack language, including in diminishing order of occurrence: fuck (about 20,000 times), idiot, bullshit, corrupt, homo, prick, cock, hypocrite, liar, c**t, scum, bitch, bludger, wanker, vile and commie.

45 Thor42, comment on Whale Oil blog, 25 January 2014.

46 Gazzaw, comments on Whale Oil blog, 2011–14.

47 Mr_Blobby, comments on Whale Oil blog, 29 and 30 April 2013.

48 Phar Lap, comments on Whale Oil blog, 29 January 2012.

49 ‘Ian’, comments on Whale Oil blog, 19 May 2013.

50 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Peter Smith, 24 February and 23 June 2011.

51 Brian Rudman, ‘Sex, lies and right-wing blogs’, New Zealand Herald, 18 October 2013.

CHAPTER 2: The PM’s Black Ops Man

1 Confidential source.

2 For instance, Jordan Williams asked Cameron Slater, ‘What’s Jason Ede’s identity on Facebook?’ Slater replied, ‘No idea. I think he has loads of them’ (Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Jordan Williams, 21 March 2012).

3 Winslow Taggart, ‘Incompetent business reporting by the Sunday Star-Times’, Whale Oil blog, 27 May 2012.

4 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 25 July 2011.

5 Cathy Odgers wrote about him that ‘Bhatty needs to grow the fuck up and realise that fat indians with a BA in Russian are no good in politics and the only reason he has any chance is because daddy’s rich …’ (Cameron Slater, comments copied into a Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 29 January 2011). Reference for the Hubbard tricks: Russell Brown, ‘Everybody’s Machiavelli’, Public Address, 17 October 2013.

6 Aaron Bhatnagar, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 18 June 2013.

7 Aaron Bhatnagar was pleased with himself for finding the website vulnerability and hoped he might get some personal acknowledgement. ‘Wouldn’t mind a wee wink and nod one day in appreciation,’ he wrote to Slater, who replied. ‘Will do’. But he did not. Aaron Bhatnagar, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 3 June 2011.

8 Cameron Slater, ‘Labour Leaks – How I did it’, Whale Oil blog, 31 June 2011.

9 Tracy Watkins and Danya Levy, ‘Blogger to reveal party data’, Dominion Post, 15 June 2011.

10 ‘National denies link with blogger over Labour Party data’, Radio New Zealand Newswire, 14 June 2011, and Tracy Watkins and Danya Levy, ‘Blogger to reveal party data’, Dominion Post, 15 June 2011.

11 ‘National under fire over donor list leak’, Timaru Herald, 14 June 2011.

12 ‘National denies link with blogger over Labour Party data’, Radio New Zealand Newswire, 14 June 2011.

13 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 3 June 2011.

14 Ibid.

15 Details of the logs were published by John Pagani, ‘How the dirty tricks machine works’, Press, 14 June 2011.

16 Jason Ede, ‘So the Goffmeister is away next week?’, e-mail to Cameron Slater and David Farrar, 1 June 2011.

17 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 3 June 2011.

18 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 10 June 2011.

19 Cameron Slater, ‘Who is David Talbot?’, e-mail to Jason Ede, 10 June 2011.

20 Jason Ede, ‘Re: Who is David Talbot?’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 10 June 2011.

21 Cameron Slater, ‘Re: Who is David Talbot?’, e-mail to Jason Ede, 10 June 2011.

22 Jason Ede, ‘Re: Who is David Talbot?’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 10 June 2011.

23 Cameron Slater, ‘Re: Who is David Talbot?’, e-mail to Jason Ede, 10 June 2011.

24 Cameron Slater, ‘Illegal use of parliamentary services funds’, Whale Oil blog, 12 June 2011.

25 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Aaron Bhatnagar, 12 June 2011.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Peter Smith, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 3 April 2011.

29 Ibid.

30 Jason Ede, ‘And the standard attack begins – they say it’s theft’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 12 June 2011.

31 ‘Eddie’, ‘Nats steal donor data’, The Standard blog, 12 June 2011.

32 Cameron Slater, ‘Labour Leaks – Online Donations’, Whale Oil blog, 13 June 2011.

33 Cameron Slater, ‘Labour Leaks – Explaining David Talbot’, Whale Oil blog, 16 June 2011.

34 Cameron Slater, ‘Labour Leaks – How I did it’, Whale Oil blog, 13 June 2011.

35 David Farrar, ‘Labour’s 0/100 for security’, 13 June 2011.

36 Cameron Slater, ‘Labour Leaks – How I did it’, Whale Oil blog, 13 June 2011.

37 Cameron Slater, ‘Labour Leaks – The Password Issue’, Whale Oil blog, 15 June 2011.

38 Jason Ede, ‘Worth noting the way Labour is identifying you …’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 14 June 2011.

39 Jason Ede, ‘Thank You for dynamic IP addresses’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 14 June 2011.

40 National Government, Ministerial phone directory, January 2013.

41 Jason Ede, ‘Worth noting the way Labour is identifying you...’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 14 June 2011.

42 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Peter Smith, 19 June 2011.

43 Aaron Bhatnagar, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 19 June 2011.

CHAPTER 3: Straight from the Beehive

1 Tracy Watkins, ‘PM John Key finds himself on shaky ground’, Dominion Post, 21 July 2011.

2 Danya Levy, ‘P.M. regrets first comment on Israelis’, Dominion Post, 25 July 2011.

3 Ibid.

4 ‘SIS did tell Goff about spy inquiry’, Fairfax NZ News, 26 July 2011.

5 Cameron Slater, ‘Goff needs to go’, Whale Oil blog post, 25 July 2011.

6 Cameron Slater, ‘Official Information Act Request’, letter to Warren Tucker, 26 July 2011.

7 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Peter Smith, 28 July 2011.

8 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Peter Smith, 29 July 2011.

9 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Peter Smith, 1 August 2011.

10 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 2 August 2011.

11 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 3 August 2011.

12 Cameron Slater, ‘Questions for Phil Goff’, Whale Oil blog post, 4 August 2011.

13 ‘P.M. says someone is not telling the truth’, Radio New Zealand Newswire, 5 August 2011.

14 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 4 August 2011.

15 Matthew Hooton, quoted in Cameron Slater, ‘Why Goff can’t be believed’, Whale Oil blog post, 4 August 2011.

16 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Peter Smith, 4 August 2011.

17 Cameron Slater, ‘Goff continues to lie’, Whale Oil blog post, 9 August 2011.

18 Cameron Slater, ‘I wrote an email’, Whale Oil blog post, 6 August 2011.

19 Audrey Young, ‘Goff airs suspicions about spy briefing’, 6 August 2011.

20 ‘Today in Politics’, Dominion Post, 9 August 2011.

21 Jason Ede, political.animal101@gmail.com, ‘Useful questions’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 18 October 2012.

22 Ibid.

23 Cameron Slater, e-mail to Paula Bennett, 18 October 2012.

24 Cameron Slater, ‘Bennett’s office in the clear’, Whale Oil blog post, 8.30 a.m. 20 October 2012.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Private source.

28 Jason Ede, politicalanimal101@gmail.com, ‘Mfat’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 6 March 2012.

29 Cameron Slater, ‘There is someone paid more than wharfies for doing less’, Whale Oil blog post, 27 March 2012. This post was based on a leak to journalists and it was not clear if it was related to a Slater information request.

30 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Jordan Williams, 7 May 2013; Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 24 November 2011; Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Jordan Williams, 26 August 2013; Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 20 February 2011; Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 30 September 2011; and Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 4 March 2011.

31 Cameron Slater, ‘Whale Oil tips submission’, e-mail to Jason Ede, 14 November 2011.

32 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 24 November 2011.

33 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 21 February 2011.

34 John Dean, ‘Dealing with our Political Enemies’, White House Counsel’s Office, 16 August 1971.

35 Cathy Odgers, quoted in Peter Aranyi, ‘In one swift blow, Kate knocked the wind out of the duplicitous toady’, The Paepae blog, 18 May 2011.

36 Jane Clifton, keynote speech at Kiwiblog 10th birthday event, 26 August 2013.

37 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to friend, 30 June 2012.

CHAPTER 4: The Crusher and the Attack Dog

1 Judith Collins, quoted in David Fisher, ‘National turns on hard right adviser’, New Zealand Herald, 1 June 2013.

2 Judith Collins, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 3 October 2010.

3 Judith Collins, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 2 September 2009.

4 Judith Collins, ‘Emailing/ 103_Collins.jpg’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 19 January 2011.

5 Judith Collins, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 6 March 2010.

6 Judith Collins, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 27 August 2011. Collins’s Facebook messaging is recorded under the name ‘Facebook User’, presumably for fear of her words reaching the public, but there is no doubt that it is her.

7 Ibid.

8 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Judith Collins, 27 August 2011.

9 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Judith Collins, 11 September 2011.

10 The story begins on 10 July 2010 when Slater was chatting on Facebook with a friend, whose ex-partner had recently been imprisoned. Slater’s friend was annoyed that her estranged daughter was travelling to Hamilton to see her father (the ex-partner) at Waikeria Prison for his birthday. ‘I am extremely upset and I feel very betrayed by my daughter,’ she said. ‘I want [the ex-partner] transferred to a prison that is a lot harder for [her daughter] to get to. Any ideas?’ There are, of course, very strict and formal procedures governing decisions about prisoners. But Slater replied ten minutes later, ‘Yep leave it with me’ (Friend, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 10 July 2010). Three days later his friend wrote again to say she was ecstatic, because that afternoon her daughter had texted to say, ‘Daddy is being sent to Palmerston North’ (Friend, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 13 July 2010). The same thing happened again four months later. Slater’s friend contacted him on 6 November 2010 to say that she had just heard that her ex-partner was ‘being moved from Manawatu prison back to Waikeria prison in a week or two’. The man came from Hamilton and had probably requested to return to the local prison. She said, ‘This is not good. Is there anything you can do?’ Once again, replying eight minutes later, Slater said, ‘Yep … will get onto it’ (Friend, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 6 November 2010). The following day she reported that her ex-partner had tried to commit suicide. Slater replied: ‘Send him a message to tell him to try harder next time. What a loser, can’t even kill himself properly. He is a c**t. Hopefully his move to a Sth Island prison might teach him who is [in] control of his life.’ His friend replied, ‘Please tell me you are not joking about the South Island.’ Slater wrote back a few minutes later to say, ‘I’m not joking … I’ve asked … let’s see what happens … i seriously doubt he tried to kill himself … i can find out if he did’ (Friend, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 7 November 2010). Who was he asking? The answer is found in his Facebook conversations with another friend. On that same day, 10 July 2010, when Slater said, ‘Yep, leave it to me’, he contacted another friend to whom he had obviously already spoken about the subject. He wrote the prisoner’s full name and Waikeria Prison, and said, ‘Be nice if he couldn’t have visitors tomorrow for his birthday. And be real nice if he got moved to the South Island’ (Another friend, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 10 July 2010). It was the same on 6 November. He wrote the man’s full name again and said he was being ‘moved from Manawatu prison back to Waikeria prison in a week or two … i think he would be better off in a south island prison’ (Another friend, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 6 November 2010). Slater and his friend talked about her prison service friend, and, when he was having troubles there, Slater had offered in return: ‘your mate. Let me know the details of your mate having probs with Corrections bosses, I’ll try and sort it out for him’ (Another friend, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 3 August 2010). We can only guess who he was thinking of asking for help.

11 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Judith Collins, 11 September 2011.

12 Judith Collins, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 31 July 2011. She continued: ‘The two things that ACT has lots of: Money and Ego. They forget that a rich man’s vote is worth the same as a poor man’s vote.’

13 Ibid. In another interesting exchange, Slater referred to a Simon Power media interview: ‘what about his “Oh i had a whole lot of drafted bills and handed them to my officials, who btw [by the way] are the best in the beehive.”’ Collins replied, ‘Of course they were all drafted by [law firm] Russell McVeagh when we were in opposition. Guess it’s the same thing!’

14 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 30 January 2011. Collins is referring to criticism of National Party candidate Jami-Lee Ross by Aaron Bhatnagar.

15 Judith Collins, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 27 August 2011.

16 Judith Collins, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 29 July 2011.

17 Cameron Slater, ‘How Embarrassing’, Whale Oil blog, 30 July 2011.

18 Judith Collins, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 29 July 2011. She wrote again the following day to say ‘Mallard has taken offence! That’s because it’s true. What a tosser! … Probably expects someone to comment on it when the House is back this week. Oh dear, someone might.’ Judith Collins, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 30 July 2011.

19 For instance, Judith Collins, ‘Fw: The New Zealand Maori Internet Society Welcomes David Cunliffe As Labour’s ICT Spokesperson’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 24 September 2013.

20 Judith Collins, ‘FW: Note to self trev, don’t reply to all’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 9 March 2011.

21 Cameron Slater, ‘Note to self trev, don’t hit reply to all’, Whale Oil blog, 9 March 2011.

22 Level 4.5L Copier, ‘From 4.5L copier’, e-mail to AJA, 1.05 p.m. 16 September 2013; forwarded by AJA to Judith Collins at 5.07 p.m. 16 September 2013; forwarded from Collins to Cameron Slater at 5.09 p.m. 16 September 2014.

23 Cameron Slater, ‘Always suspected Amy was a bit pink, didn’t know she was an ABC [Anyone But Cunliffe] though’, Whale Oil blog, 16 September 2013.

24 Cameron Slater, ‘A curious set of circumstances’, Whale Oil blog, 7 October 2009.

25 Cameron Slater, ‘Labour snitch running comms courses now’, Whale Oil blog, 21 October 2009.

26 Cameron Slater, ‘Will Putin Mallard apologise?’, Whale Oil blog, 28 October 2009.

27 Judith Collins, ‘no subject’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 6 October 2009.

28 Comments by ‘Keeping Stock’ (Tony Stuart), ‘Allan’, ‘mikenz’ and ‘Roger’ on Cameron Slater, ‘A curious set of circumstances’, Whale Oil blog, 7 October 2009.

29 Nick Bryant, comments from nick.bryant@parliament.govt.nz on Cameron Slater, ‘A curious set of circumstances’, Whale Oil blog, 7 October 2009. Bryant appeared in Nicky Hager, Secrets and Lies, the anatomy of an anti-environmental PR campaign, Craig Potton Publishing, Nelson, 1999, when, as a student, he was being paid by his public relations company father to attend native forest conservation meetings and report on what was being said. He fed other things to Slater. For instance, Slater wrote to Lusk, ‘check your inbox … email from Nick Bryant about Radio NZ … there is a post in that … just need to clear my head … off line for a bit … have a think and see what you think.’ Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 6 May 2011.

30 Comments by ‘Guest’ and ‘TonyC’ on Cameron Slater, ‘A curious set of circumstances’, Whale Oil blog, 7 October 2009.

31 Comment by ‘Sinner’ on Cameron Slater, ‘A curious set of circumstances’, Whale Oil blog, 7 October 2009.

32 Comment by ‘Sinner’ on Cameron Slater, ‘Just when there was hope’, Whale Oil blog, 12 October 2009. Also, two days after the shooting Pleasants comment, Sinner was one of two commenters on a Slater post containing slow-motion video of bullets hitting different targets. He wrote, ‘What, no video of a bullet hitting the cranium of a lefty politician found guilty of corruption…’ Comment by ‘Sinner’ on Cameron Slater, ‘Slow Motion Bullet Fascination’, Whale Oil blog, 9 October 2009. Sinner is a Wellington-based man.

33 For instance, one time Aaron Bhatnagar said to Cameron Slater that maybe his father was in line for one of the Queen’s Birthday or New Year honours. ‘Fat chance i reckon,’ Slater replied, ‘if he didn’t get it last time based on all the referees i organised then he never will … the national party really are c**ts, to their own … the single thing that irks me about national is the way they treated Dad. Boag swans around like she is Queen muck and all she did is destroy things. I bet she gets something long before Dad does.’ Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 13 April 2013.

34 Ex-prostitute friend, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 13 March 2012.

35 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to ex-prostitute friend, 13 March 2012.

36 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to ex-prostitute friend, 14 March 2012.

37 Ibid.

38 David Fisher, ‘National’s Boag was in ACC meeting’, Herald on Sunday, 18 March 2012.

39 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to ex-prostitute friend, 16 March 2012.

40 Confidential source. Slater gave various stories to the journalist David Fisher around that time including the Labour Party data story. They later fell out when Fisher wrote stories Slater did not like.

41 ‘Judith Collins on offensive over Radio NZ comments’, 3 News, 29 March 2012.

42 John Hartavelt, ‘Whodunit?’, Dominion Post, 28 March 2012.

43 Cameron Slater, ‘Boag involved in ACC privacy standover’, Whale Oil blog, 18 March 2012.

44 Jonathan Marshall, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 19 March 2012.

45 Jordan Willams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 28 March 2012.

46 Aaron Bhatnagar, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 28 March 2012.

CHAPTER 5: Simon Lusk’s Plan

1 Simon Lusk, ‘Building a Fiscally Conservative Majority’, February 2012. The full text is:

This National Government has been a disappointment to fiscal conservatives. The wet wing of the National Party control the senior ranks of the party, and cannot be easily replaced without losing an election. After National loses an election there will be a clean out. It is essential we have fiscal conservatives who are willing to make serious changes to control the culture of the party. This is part of a long-term plan to move the political centre to the right. This means reducing the size of government, weakening the power of those who believe in big government, and investing for at least 20 years to ensure that these changes are permanent. I have formed a lose alliance of committed fiscal conservatives who believe in this, and to date have funded it myself as I believe in it. The organisation is informal as formality imposes costs, and I believe entrepreneurial ventures are best when they are informal until they are ready to hit the market. New Zealand’s political market is exceptionally retarded. The first organized group to professionalise and fund politics properly will obtain prime mover advantage, and control the market for some time. There is a one off opportunity to exploit the gap in the market, and I am looking to exploit this gap.

Project Outline: Building a better New Zealand by creating an enduring fiscal conservative majority.

Aims: 1. To move New Zealand’s political centre to the right by professionalising politics, placing fiscal conservatives in key elected positions and support them by building teams around them. 2. To grow the New Zealand economy rapidly by implementing free market policies that engage growth. Limit government, remove regulation and subsidies, and reduce taxes and government spending.

Areas of Operation 1. Politicians: a. Place fiscal conservatives in safe blue seats. b. Select and develop a limited number of young people to position them for a career in politics. c. Build capable politically able teams to serve on local bodies and as mayors. d. Train potential candidates over many years so when they are elected they can make real change based on solid planning rather than intent. 2. Media a. Dominate the media by controlling the message through credible right wing blogs. 3. Professional Campaigning a. Build a professional campaigning industry that exploits the gap created by amateur campaigners. b. Make fundraising a key part of political professionalism. c. Prepare long term campaigns for reducing the size of government, changing education, increasing mining’s contribution to GDP and making property development easier. 4. Taking Over the Public Service a. Work with public servants to create a pool of fiscal conservative bureaucrats who will work with politicians to implement policy. b. Institute reforms necessary to ensure policy is implemented by bureaucrats, rather than blocked by them. 5. Company Boards a. Work with good people to build a network of company directors who are fiscal conservatives for long term careers at director level. b. Use this to build long term donor networks based on personal relationships, rather than having to cold call donors.

Investment for the Future: Making these changes requires investment. I have been personally funding this as much as I can, but there are limits to my resources and poor cashflow delays. 1. Invest in groups making a difference: Stop donating to the current Government. They have not listened and will not listen. 2. Support Professionalisation of politics: Politics in New Zealand is amateur. There is a huge gap in campaign professionalism. The introduction of funding and professionalism to New Zealand politics will create a gap that Labour will have to match to gain power. To match donations they will have to move to the right to receive business donations. Union money will not be able to match business money. Currently National raises about $6m per three year cycle. Tripling this would create a huge gap between National and Labour which would take many years for Labour to catch up. 3. Build a Donor Network: Rather than contributing cash, support the building of a large donor network by providing or obtaining board appointments to a small number of individuals. These people will be responsible for building the war chest for a fiscally conservative National Party, and funding the professionalisation of campaigning. Cold calling for donations is very, very difficult. Calling based on long term friendships and shared experience is much more straightforward. To fundraise effectively we need good people with tenure as directors who are known amongst potential donors. I can provide resumes for several people who are fiscal conservatives and understand the role they will play in the future. 4. Blackball Current MPs: Support the blackballing of current National MPs, stopping them from trading on their time as MPs to build a lucrative business career. National’s Cabinet have largely ignored the financial backers, MPs will continue to do so unless I can point out the consequences of ignoring donors. If donors buy into this, and the next National government does not offer former Ministers jobs there will be a very clear incentive for the next crop of Ministers to listen carefully to donors, rather than ignoring them. There is a broader approach I will brief you on verbally. 5. Supporting the Right Wing Blogosphere: The right currently controls the blogosphere, and the political journalists repeat much of what appears on blogs. The case in point is the way the Maritime Union have received huge negative publicity about their salaries, based on POAL working with certain bloggers to control the story. Financial support for these bloggers will enable them to build their credibility and readership.

Fiscal Neutrality: I have a personal policy of never suggesting spending without suggesting where corresponding cuts can be made: 1. National Party Donations: Cease giving and tell them that until their actions show they have listened they should not bother asking. 2. Government Relations & Lobbying: This project will provide a direct link into caucus. This means government relations and lobbying expenses can be reduced, and in the medium term reduced dramatically.

2 Simon Lusk, personal website on ‘Strategy, Campaign Management and Political Career Planning’, ww.simonlusk.co.nz, downloaded 12 June 2014.

3 Louise Upston, Maiden Statement, Hansard, 17 December 2008 and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Address in Reply, Hansard, 9 December 2008.

4 ‘Gay marriage: How MPs voted’, New Zealand Herald, 18 April 2013.

5 Confidential source.

6 Confidential source.

7 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 2 March 2009.

8 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 29 January 2011.

9 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 29 January 2011.

10 A few months later Lusk commented, ‘michael bassett who is very smart on these things said he reckons JLR can make leader.’ Slater said, ‘Only if we train him properly.’ That’s the thing, Lusk replied, ‘he doesn’t have the friendliness needed, and has made a good number of mistakes i would have stopped already.’ Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 7 April 2011. Another time Lusk said, ‘I am going to tell JLR to make sure he never gets in the way when me and you are after someone, because he will be splattered in blood and gore.’ Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 28 February 2011.

11 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 29 January 2011.

12 Cameron Slater, ‘Botany Selection Process Winners and Losers’, Whale Oil blog, 30 January 2011.

13 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 29 January 2011. The full Slater message was: ‘Just got a PIN from Crusher “Loved the utu post … I have to wonder about just what sort of mate Aaron is to JLR. i wd be seriously annoyed especially with those nasty little digs. Frankly i wd be out for total destruction of Aaron if i was JLR. But then again I’ve learnt to give is better than to receive.”’

14 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 29 January 2011.

15 Ibid.

16 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 30 January 2011.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Cameron Slater, ‘Followup on Rodney selection’, Whale Oil blog, 17 February 2011.

20 Cameron Slater, ‘Rodney selection skulduggery update’, Whale Oil blog, 18 February 2011.

21 Ibid.

22 Cameron Slater, ‘Rodney selection skulduggery update’, Whale Oil blog, 19 February 2011.

23 Cameron Slater, ‘Rodney skulduggery recap’, Whale Oil blog, 20 February 2011.

24 Cameron Slater, ‘Knowing me, knowing you – Cehill Pienaar – part 2’, Whale Oil blog, 20 February 2011.

25 ‘Claims christian right after Rodney’, Dominion Post, 21 February 2011.

26 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 21 February 2011. Lusk also asked Slater, ‘Can you tell hooton that mark is a good option etc, he will be asked about it on red radio [Radio New Zealand] tomorrow.’ Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 20 February 2011.

27 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 21 February 2011.

28 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 20 February 2011.

29 Cameron Slater, ‘A thought for Rodney electorate’, Whale Oil blog, 22 February 2011.

30 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 25 February 2011.

31 Cameron Slater, ‘Scott Simpson now favourite in Rodney’, Whale Oil blog, 23 February 2011.

32 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 24 February 2011.

33 Cameron Slater, ‘Rodney first Meet the Candidates Meeting’, Whale Oil blog, 24 February 2011.

34 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 24 February 2011. Slater replied, ‘The people of Rodney will now stab scott just because of that, and fucking good job too.’

35 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 24 February 2011.

36 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 28 February 2011.

37 Cameron Slater, ‘Muckraking in Rodney’, Whale Oil blog, 28 February 2011.

38 A Whale Oil post said ‘Long time friend of Whaleoil, Scott Simpson, has decided to leave the race where he was considered the front-runner, abandoning his supporters to run in Coromandel. As this post hits the internet he will be speaking in Te Aroha trying to convince the good folk of Coromandel that he really loved them all along.’ Cameron Slater, ‘Rodney skulduggery update’, Whale Oil blog, 5 April 2011.

39 Cameron Slater, ‘Rodney skulduggery update’, Whale Oil blog, 5 April 2011; Cameron Slater, ‘Rodney skulduggery update’, Whale Oil blog, 26 April 2011.

40 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 1 March 2011.

41 Cameron Slater, ‘National Party selections roundup’, Whale Oil blog, 22 March 2011.

42 ‘In the line of duty’, Sunday Star-Times, 27 March 2011.

43 Further down the article, Mitchell said defensively: ‘The mercenary term gets me every time. Yes, these guys have a certain skill-set. They know how to handle a gun, but most of them will never discharge one. The term is used completely out of context, especially by the Labour government, who were very tough on guys who served their country for years and were presented with an opportunity to use their skills to provide financial security for their families, as politicians do once their political careers are over. And let’s not forget, these guys are working with legitimate governments who are our partners and friends. I’m not a mercenary. I’m a businessman. I was the CEO of a highly successful international business. When we sold Threat Management Group last year it had a staff of 3000 and an annual turnover of $130 million.’

44 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Simon Lusk, 29 March 2011.

45 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 28 March 2011.

46 Cameron Slater, ‘Rodney skulduggery update’, Whale Oil blog, 26 April 2011.

47 Cameron Slater, ‘Rodney selection winners and losers’, Whale Oil blog, 26 April 2011.

48 Mark Mitchell, Hansard, Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, e.g. Third Reading, 7 August 2013; Corrections Amendment Bill – Second Reading, 12 February 2013; and Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Bill – In Committee, 27 March 2013.

49 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 5 March 2011.

50 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 9 March 2011.

51 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 1 March 2011.

52 Orca Social Media relations, invoice to SJ Lusk and Associates, ‘For social media management’, 25 November 2011; Orca Social Media relations, invoice to SJ Lusk and Associates, ‘For social media management’, 21 March 2012.

53 Cameron Slater, ‘Palmerston North selection update’, Whale Oil blog, 27 February 2011.

54 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 9 March 2011.

55 Simon Lusk, personal website on ‘Strategy, Campaign Management and Political Career Planning’, www.simonlusk.co.nz, downloaded 12 June 2014.

56 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 15 March 2011.

57 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 4 March 2011.

58 Simon Lusk, ‘FW: Harman Why the Lusk papers were leaked to us’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 2 June 2013.

CHAPTER 6: El Rushbo of Aotearoa

1 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 24 November 2011.

2 Cameron Slater, ‘Is ACT Rooted?’, Whale Oil blog, 16 April 2011.

3 Cameron Slater, ‘Are ACT Rooted II?’, Whale Oil blog, 17 April 2011.

4 Cameron Slater, ‘Brash making a move?’, Whale Oil blog, 23 April 2011.

5 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 24 April 2011.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 26 April 2011.

10 Cameron Slater, ‘Custer’s Last Stand’, Whale Oil blog, 26 April 2011.

11 Ibid.

12 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 26 April 2011. Lusk continued: ‘From now on we are deeply principled and supporting [ACT Party MP] heather roy just in case she wants to pay us.’

13 Cameron Slater, ‘Hide has the numbers, but not the dollars or the votes’, Whale Oil blog, 26 April 2011.

14 One of the major themes in The Hollow Men was that Don Brash had been encouraged to stand for National and then helped through his National Party leadership coup by people from the ACT Party, not the National Party. Some of the sources for that book were motivated by their belief that Brash’s leadership had been like a takeover of the leadership by the ACT Party. Thus it was interesting but not too great a surprise when Brash reappeared some years as the ACT Party leader.

15 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 5 May 2011.

16 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Jordan Williams, 21 March 2012.

17 Nicky Hager, ‘Why John Key wants to change the electoral system’, Otago Daily Times, 10 June 2008, www.nickyhager.info/why-john-key-wants-to-change-the-electoral-system/.

18 Anthony Hubbard, ‘Right has MMP in its sights’, Sunday Star-Times, 29 June 2011.

19 Vote for Change website, 23 July 2011 version retrieved using the Internet archive, www.archive.org.

20 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 3 July 2011.

21 Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 3 July 2011.

22 Ibid. The next day Jordan Williams wrote that the media were ‘starting to climb into National’. Slater replied ‘Hehe, I’ve fed Bomber nicely.’ Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 4 July 2011.

23 Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 4 July 2011.

24 Lusk and Slater made all the important decisions, while Williams referred to himself as a ‘novice’. Early on in the campaign, for instance, Lusk wrote to Slater, ‘Cam, we need to go ahead with the web site for the Anti MMP campaign, we need to talk at some stage today, are you free about 1.30?’ Slater replied, ‘Yes … i know, free anytime today. You need to complete the logo survey.’ Lusk said, ‘Yes i need to do a whole lot of things. I’ll make a list and send an agenda for our call.’ Slater said ‘OK, cool.’ Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 18 May 2011. Lusk’s fundraising appears to have targeted Business Roundtable-type donors. For instance, Lusk asked Slater one day, ‘Who is the helicopter guy? i might have to go down to see him next week, prefer not to but there are a few donors down there.’ Slater replied, ‘Bill Day’, a Wellington businessman who had been vice-chair of the Business Roundtable. Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 17 May 2011.

25 When Slater set up the Vote for Change website, they discussed only three e-mail addresses: cam@voteforchange.co.nz, jordan@voteforchange.co.nz and supporters@voteforchange.co.nz, which went to Simon Lusk. Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Jordan Williams, 27 June 2011. Slater grumbled about how much of the work he had to do. One day Jordan Williams wrote to him, ‘We need more comments on the page.’ Slater replied, ‘I can’t do everything. i made the suggestion that we put up several posts a day. i’ve been doing the images, one per day … also added some links, but there really needs to be a plan to frame the argument.’ Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 16 July 2011.

26 New Zealand Herald writer John Armstrong wrote ‘Put up or shut up. The new anti-MMP lobby group, Vote for Change, does not deserve to be taken seriously until it answers this question: change to what, exactly?’ John Armstrong, New Zealand Herald, 29 June 2011.

27 Cameron Slater, miscellaneous posts about MMP, Whale Oil blog, 2011.

28 Vote for Change website.

29 Judith Collins, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 27 August 2011.

30 Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 3 February 2011.

31 Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 31 August 2011.

32 Ibid.

33 Slater and Williams watched with irritation as political scientist Jon Johansson described Key’s remarks as ‘unwise and manipulative’. Jon Johansson, quoted by Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 15 November 2011. Slater said: ‘Jon Johansson is a cock.’ Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Jordan Williams, 15 November 2011.

34 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Jordan Williams, 23 August 2011.

35 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to ACT Party associate, 18 November 2011.

36 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to ACT Party associate, 19 August 2011.

37 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 16 October 2011.

38 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Jordan Williams, 13 August 2011.

39 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Peter Smith, 21 and 22 April 2011.

40 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Aaron Bhatnagar, 24 November 2011.

41 National Party friend, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 12 September 2011.

42 Jonathan Marshall, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 14 November 2011.

43 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Aaron Bhatnagar, 24 November 2011.

44 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from ACT Party associate, 26 June 2011.

CHAPTER 7: Cash for Comment

1 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Jonathan Marshall, 29 November 2011.

2 Cameron Slater, ‘Outstanding amounts’, e-mail to Jordan Williams, 17 December 2012.

3 $3,000 per month advertising revenue is a 2013 figure.

4 Jason Reitman, Thank You for Smoking screenplay, 7 September 2004.

5 Ibid.

6 David Fisher, ‘Blogger argues for media protection’, New Zealand Herald, 22 June 2014.

7 Carrick Graham, ‘KR hit – Confirmed: Doug Sellman Gone Mad’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 26 February 2014.

8 Cameron Slater, ‘Confirmed: Doug Sellman Gone Mad’, Whale Oil blog, 27 February 2014.

9 Shabnam Dastgheib, ‘Drunks steal sanitiser for alcohol hit’, Fairfax Media, 23 February 2014.

10 Ibid., Doug Sellman.

11 Cameron Slater, ‘Confirmed: Doug Sellman Gone Mad’, Whale Oil blog, 27 February 2014.

12 Hamish Rutherford, ‘Plain pack tobacco fight heats up’, Fairfax Media, 14 April 2014.

13 Carrick Graham, Official Information Act requests to the Ministry of Health, 20 April 2012 to 12 December 2013.

14 Confidential source.

15 ‘Naylor’, comment on Cameron Slater, ‘Confirmed: Doug Sellman Gone Mad’, Whale Oil blog, 27 February 2014.

16 Anthony Hubbard, ‘A burning issue’, Sunday Star-Times, 13 September 2009.

17 Cameron Slater, ‘Exclusive: Te Reo Marama and Maori smoking –Troughing 101’, Whale Oil blog, 3 November 2009.

18 Rodney Hide, Questions for Oral Answer, Hansard, 9 October 2003.

19 Heather Roy and Ken Shirley, Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill – Referral to Health Committee, Procedure, In Committee, Hansard, 15 October 2003.

20 Peter Dunne, Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill – Referral to Health Committee, Procedure, In Committee, Hansard, 15 October 2003.

21 ‘Naylor’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 24 September 2009. Other comments on Te Reo Marama and Ministry of Health funding from November 2009 and March 2010.

22 Confidential source.

23 Confidential source.

24 Carrick Graham as ‘Naylor’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 28 February 2011.

25 Carrick Graham as ‘Naylor’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 28 July 2010.

26 Carrick Graham as ‘Lion King’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 4 July 2013.

27 Nicky Hager, The Hollow Men, Craig Potton Publishing, Nelson, 2006, p. 218.

28 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 11 February 2011. Carrick Graham was having contact with various tobacco companies through the New Zealand Association of Convenience Stores. In February 2014, for instance, he wrote to Cameron Slater seeking his ideas for someone to become corporate affairs manager for Imperial Tobacco New Zealand. ‘Cam, Imperial Tobacco is all over the show,’ he wrote. ‘Cathy has chucked in the towel.’ Carrick Graham, ‘Fwd: Know anyone interested in working for us?’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 9 February 2014.

29 Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 24 June 2013.

30 For instance, in 2006 MP Matt Robson said in an e-mail newsletter that the liquor and tobacco industries’ support for Mr Dunne ‘always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests.’ Dunne objected and complained to Parliament’s privileges committee, which required Robson to apologise to him. ‘Robson to apologise to Dunne’, Radio New Zealand Newswire, 13 February 2007.

31 In November 2010, for instance, she spoke on Television New Zealand against plans for banning cigarette displays and requiring plain packaging. These were an ‘overly punitive measure that will introduce significant costs to the supply chain’. ‘Retailers upset over tobacco changes’, One News, 5 November 2010.

32 The Doug Sellman Whale Oil posts were: ‘Tony Ryall now facing “food addiction” pressure’, 30 October 2013; ‘Ryall really needs to rein in health nutters’, 5 November 2013; ‘Doug Sellman links Parliamentary Services to ecstasy dealers’, 12 November 2013; ‘The troughers very merry Christmas’, 11 December 2013; ‘Merry Christmas Wowser’, 12 December 2013; and ‘Pissed in charge of an execution squad’, 24 December 2013. The comments were: Carrick Graham, comment as Lion King, 12 November 2013; and Carrick Graham, comment as Naylor, 12 November 2013.

33 Cameron Slater also wrote directly to Katherine Rich. On 7 January 2014 he wrote to her, Carrick Graham and Cathy Odgers, drawing their attention to the environment group Generation Zero and suggesting that Food and Grocery Council members be discouraged from supporting it. ‘Loads of FGC sponsors of this crowd,’ he wrote. ‘Bunch of leftie meddlers, involving themselves in Auckland transport and in elections. If I was the sponsors I’d be very careful about associating with these guys.’ Cameron Slater, ‘Generation Zero’, e-mail to Carrick Graham, Katherine Rich and Cathy Odgers, 7 January 2014.

34 On Fonterra membership: New Zealand Food and Grocery Council, submission to the Commerce Commission on milk pricing, 13 September 2011.

35 Carrick Graham, ‘KR – Fonterra Post (first thing in the morning)’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 13 January 2014.

36 Cameron Slater, ‘Calm Down, move On’, Whale Oil blog, 14 January 2014.

37 Carrick Graham, ‘Monday hit #2 KR’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 13 January 2014.

38 Cameron Slater, ‘The World is coming to an End?’, Whale Oil blog, 14 January 2014.

39 ‘Class action against Cola companies’ advertisement, New Zealand Herald, 20 and 21 January 2014.

40 Carrick Graham, ‘KR Hit – TF #1’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 21 January 2014.

41 Ibid.

42 Carrick Graham, ‘KR hit #2 TF’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 21 January 2014.

43 Katherine Rich, ‘FW: NZ Herald Classified Ad: “Class Action Against Cola Companies”’, e-mail to Carrick Graham, 21 January 2014.

44 Carrick Graham as ‘Naylor’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 22 January 2014.

45 Carrick Graham, ‘KR hit #3 TF’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 21 January 2014.

46 Carrick Graham, ‘Sugar’, e-mails to and from Cameron Slater, 21 January 2014.

47 Cameron Slater, ‘Sucking on the Taxpayers’ Tit Ctd [Continued]’, Whale Oil blog, 6 August 2012–11 October 2012. The official information request was Carrick Graham, ‘OIA Request’, e-mail to the Ministry of Health, 24 July 2012. A further information request in 2013 on Fonterra’s botulism contamination incident asked detailed questions relating to infant formula. Carrick Graham, ‘OIA Request’, e-mail to the Ministry of Health, 16 September 2013.

48 The other corporate campaign run for Katherine Rich in January–February 2014 using the Whale Oil blog began with an e-mail from Carrick Graham to Slater on 23 January 2014 headed ‘KR hit for today – Urgent’. Headed ‘Why is Countdown acting like the Godfather?’ Graham’s post said, ‘The tipline has started humming with some nasty rumours about Countdown.’ It said Countdown was contacting its New Zealand suppliers and pressuring them to ‘pay up or else’ if they wanted to have their business. Cameron Slater, ‘Why is Countdown acting like the Godfather?’, Whale Oil blog, 24 January 2014. This was probably a genuine concern for the Food and Grocery Council’s members, although you can never be sure in corporate PR wars. They tried stirring up the issue on the Whale Oil blog and then three weeks later it seems may have got a Labour Party MP, Shane Jones, to front the issue for them in Parliament. Jones did not say whether he had been put up to it by the industry lobby group.

49 Cameron Slater, Whale Oil blog, ‘RDTs targeting kids in government crosshairs’, 3 September 2013; ‘Shameless RTD promotion, 28 August 2013; ‘RTD makers pushing booze at kids in government crosshairs still’, 24 September 2013; ‘Bans pending for cheeky RTDs’, 23 December 2013; ‘Disgrace to us all?’ 12 January 2014.

50 Carrick Graham, ‘IL Hit’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 9 January 2014.

51 Carrick Graham as ‘Naylor’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 27 August 2013.

52 Carrick Graham as ‘Lion King’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 8 January 2014.

53 Carrick Graham as ‘Naylor’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 28 August 2013.

54 Carrick Graham, ‘Matt/Carrick Catch Up RTD project’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 9 January 2014.

55 A private meeting occurred a month later between Graham, Slater and Simon Lusk as well, on some other scheme. Simon Lusk, ‘Meeting’, e-mail to Carrick Graham and Cameron Slater, 26 February 2014. Lusk was also open to corporate work. After dramatic Greenpeace–iwi protests about deep-sea drilling off New Zealand’s East Coast, for instance, he said to Slater, ‘Feed me any info you can about the greens protests, i am trying to get CJ [National MP Chris James Tremain] to find someone to pay me for working out what is going to happen in the future … I can’t do [it] without your contacts so there will be a revenue split there.’ Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 4 November 2011. Another time Lusk was ‘trying to sort out a big mining project’ on the West Coast. Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 11 April 2011.

56 Carrick Graham, ‘December hits coin’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 9 January 2014.

57 Cameron Slater, ‘Re: Potential work (as per last week)’, e-mail to Jordan Williams, 24 January 2011.

58 Ibid.

CHAPTER 8: Chaos and Mayhem Limited

1 Damien Grant, ‘It’s time to stop port rot’, New Zealand Herald, 1 January 2012.

2 Cathy Odgers, ‘PoA’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 1 January 2012.

3 Cameron Slater, ‘PoA’, e-mail to Cathy Odgers, 1 January 2012.

4 Cathy Odgers, ‘PoA’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 1 January 2012.

5 Cameron Slater, ‘PoA’, e-mail to Cathy Odgers, 1 January 2012.

6 Cathy Odgers, ‘POA’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 1 January 2012. Odgers sometimes used a separate e-mail for this type of work: aynrandconsulting@gmail.com

7 A Whale Oil commenter named ‘The Owl’ wrote regularly on detailed matters such as the legal issues and the maritime union’s financial accounts, apparently part of the POA campaign as well.

8 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Peter Smith, 12 March 2012.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Peter Smith, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 14 March 2012.

13 Peter Smith, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 15 March 2012. Cameron Slater also discussed union policy via Facebook on 7 May 2011:

Peter Smith: did National ever cut off the ‘educational funding’ for unions?

Cameron Slater: not yet

Peter Smith: dumb c**ts

Cameron Slater: but I am helping Jami-lee Ross to draft a Private Members Bill to cut off unions money

Peter Smith: that should have been the day one priority in 2008

Cameron Slater: make it illegal for payroll deduction for union fees

Peter Smith: strangle the unions and strangle Labour, two birds with one stone …

Cameron Slater: I’ll get him to add in the educational funding cuts too … and then make it so they have to ask for their dues and the amount will get even smaller

Peter Smith: fuck the unions and Labour are even more fucked.

14 David Fisher, ‘Ports and bloggers colluded: strategist’, New Zealand Herald, 1 June 2013.

15 Cameron Slater, ‘Oh noes … I attack unions’, Whale Oil blog, 1 June 2013.

16 When another blogger speculated that Cameron Slater might have been paid $10,000 for an operation like this, Slater responded sarcastically: ‘There is no way I’d do what I am doing for $10,000 as a fixed fee, for something like the Ports of Auckland I’d probably do it for $20,000 after a discount for the sheer fun of union bashing.’ James Henderson, ‘Port’s paid propagandist says cut workers’ pay’, The Standard blog, 11 January 2012.

17 Sweeney Vesty documents.

18 Confidential source.

19 Cathy Odgers, ‘Hager’, e-mail to David Farrar, Cameron Slater and Matthew Hooton, 5 April 2013.

20 Cameron Slater, ‘Hager’, e-mail to Cathy Odgers, 6 April 2013.

21 ‘Patrick Lee-Lo Archive’, Whale Oil blog, 2012–2014.

22 Carrick Graham as ‘Lion King’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 8 May 2013. There were dozens of Lion King comments in this vein about the BSC.

23 Carrick Graham as ‘Naylor’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 28 August 2013.

24 Carrick Graham, ‘Rule 67 – Conflict with Government Procurement Rules’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 20 January 2014.

25 Carrick Graham, ‘Rule 67 – Conflict with Government Procurement Rules’, undated. The document properties note that it was authored by ‘cgraham’.

26 Ibid.

27 Fred, comment on Whale Oil blog, 18 December 2012.

28 Fred, comment on Whale Oil blog, 8 February 2013.

29 Fred, comment on Whale Oil blog, 13 February 2013.

30 Fred, comment on Whale Oil blog, 25 May 2013.

31 Barney, comment on Whale Oil blog, 21 August 2013.

32 Barney, comment on Whale Oil blog, 28 August 2013.

33 Barney, comment on Whale Oil blog, 30 September 2013.

34 The same man also sent at least one personal donation to Cameron Slater in the midst of the campaign. Cameron Slater, ‘Grant McLauchlan donation received’, NZD 500, grant@crest.co.nz, 21 January 2014.

35 Grant McLauchlan said in a March 2014 press release that ‘A move by the New Zealand Government to abolish the Principles for the Property Service Industry [the BSC-union agreement] would certainly be welcomed by many companies seeking to tender for government contracts and expand their businesses.’ Grant McLauchlan, ‘CrestClean calls for NZ “Repeal Day”’, news release, 26 March 2014.

36 Cameron Slater, ‘Simon Bridges mans up – Kicks cartels like BSC to touch’, Whale Oil blog, 29 May 2014.

37 Carrick Graham as ‘Lion King’, comment on Whale Oil blog, 29 May 2014.

38 For instance, ‘I love to clean’, Whale Oil blog, downloaded 30 June 2014, and ‘CrestClean franchise info’, Whale Oil blog, downloaded 15 July 2014.

39 Donna Chisholm, ‘Private school/Public scandal’, Metro, January 2013. This article provided the clue about Carrick Graham’s role.

40 Cameron Slater, comment on ‘You read it here first’, Whale Oil blog, 4 November 2012.

41 Carrick Graham, ‘Nestlé Strategic Communications 2013–2014’, December 2013.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 Keybridge Communications website, ‘Opinion Media’, downloaded 25 June 2014.

45 Sam Ryan, ‘Re: TPP project’, e-mail to Carrick Graham, 26 February 2014.

46 Carrick Graham, ‘FW: TPP project’, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 26 February 2014.

CHAPTER 9: The Many Hats of David Farrar

1 David Farrar, ‘Farewell Drinks’, e-mail to National MPs et al., 16 March 2004.

2 David Farrar, ‘Curia’s 10th birthday’, Kiwiblog, 31 March 2014.

3 Participant list, Young Leaders’ Forum, International Democratic Union, Punta Gorda, 23–25 January 2004.

4 ‘Young Leaders’ Forum 2004’, International Democratic Union, Punta Gorda, 23–25 January 2004.

5 Soren Dayton, ‘Blogging in American Politics, Lessons and structure’, International Democratic Union Young Leaders meetings, Ottawa 2007.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Farrar, ‘Curia’s 10th birthday.

10 Ibid.

11 Jason Ede, emails to and from Cameron Slater, 2 September 2013.

12 David Farrar, ‘Who is promising what’, Kiwiblog blog, 2 September 2013.

13 Political consultant Simon Lusk also had contact with Ede. Lusk organised an invitation-only weekend in March 2012 for rapport building between ‘professional back-room people on both sides of the spectrum’. He promised hunting and fishing (‘Cam and I can provide plenty of varmint guns’), and a loose political agenda for discussion. He invited only four people from the right of politics: Farrar, Slater, himself and Ede. The left-leaning invitees were John Pagani, Stuart Nash and Conor Roberts. Simon Lusk, ‘Invite for Weekend 24th and 25th of March’, e-mail to Cameron Slater et al., 27 February 2012.

14 Cameron Slater, ‘Labour leadership scrap exposing divisions’, Whale Oil blog post, 3 September 2013.

15 David Farrar, ‘Labour leadership fight – porkbarrel promises scorecard update’, National Business Review, 10 September 2013.

16 ACT Party, The Letter, 28 April 2014.

17 Confidential source.

18 Ibid. The phoning lists were generated by integrating electoral rolls with telephone books. The employee said about one in 10 people called agreed to take part. Later the polling moved to two days per week: Monday and Tuesday.

19 Confidential source.

20 Ibid.

21 The questions were:

Q60: In 2007 Parliament passed a law that removes a defence of reasonable force for parents who smack a child to correct their behaviour, but states the police have discretion not to prosecute if they consider the offence was inconsequential. Do you think the anti-smacking law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law?

Q61: If a political party promised that amending the law to allow light correctional smacking was a non-negotiable policy at the next election, would that make you more likely to vote for them, or less likely, or make no difference to your likely vote?

Q62: How likely do you think it will be that Parliament someday could pass a law to allow group marriage between three of four people?

Q63: Do you personally think the law should allow three or more people to marry each other?

Q65: Do you think that young people should be taught that the gender of a person is not fixed, and can be changed through gender change surgery and hormone treatment if a person wants it? (Curia Market Research, ‘Questions for NZ poll – 28 April to 29 April 2014’.)

22 Curia Market Research, ‘Questions for Taupo Canvass May/June 2014’.

23 New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, press release, 30 October 2013.

24 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 19 July 2013.

25 David Farrar, ‘New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union launches, calls for “armchair auditors”’, National Business Review, 30 October 2013.

26 Matthew Elliott, Successful Issue Based Campaigns PowerPoint presentation, International Democratic Union meeting, 2013.

27 Auckland City Council, spreadsheet of Local Government Meetings and Official Information Act requests concerning Len Brown from October 2013 to March 2014.

28 New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union website, downloaded 4 May 2014.

29 Fairfax Media, ‘Ratepayers’ Report’, downloaded 2 July 2014.

30 Jordan Williams, writing as Cameron Slater, ‘David Clark’s comment not just dumb, also wrong’, Whale Oil blog, 27 December 2013.

31 Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 27 December 2013.

32 David Farrar, ‘Disclosure Statement’, Kiwiblog, downloaded 27 June 2014.

33 Ibid.

CHAPTER 10: Sex Scandal

1 As described in Chapter 2, Lusk wrote to Slater that he was ‘thinking seriously about trying to get someone to fund’ a strong campaign for the Auckland mayoralty, ‘building a war chest and a stack of candidates … I want to fuck up the left at local body as well as central … Just let it sleep for a while,’ he said, ‘I need to get the money first and the first pitch is to engage me and you: me for strategy, you for defining Len.’ Simon Lusk, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 30 January 2011.

2 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 4 March 2011. Slater said he told the Labour Party campaign organiser, Conor Roberts, to ‘get used to it, I’ll be setting the scene a whole lot more this year’.

3 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 24 November 2011.

4 Stephen Cook, ‘Len Brown’s Town Hall to downfall’, Whale Oil blog, 15 October 2013.

5 Ibid.

6 Lincoln Tan, Bernard Orsman and Jared Savage, ‘Chuang: I felt pressured to reveal Brown affair’, New Zealand Herald, 17 October 2013.

7 Ibid.

8 Lincoln Tan, ‘Brown’s ex-mistress: I feel used’, New Zealand Herald, 17 October 2013.

9 Tan, Orsman and Savage, ‘Chuang …’.

10 Sharon Stewart, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 9 June 2013.

11 Cameron Slater, Facebook wall, Slater and Luigi Wewege became friends on 31 January 2012.

12 Tan, Orsman and Savage, ‘Chuang …’.

13 ‘The colourful life and times of Luigi Wewege’, New Zealand Herald, 25 October 2013.

14 Jared Savage, ‘Palino’s man cut from global list’, New Zealand Herald, 25 October 2013.

15 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 6 October 2013. The article was called ‘The Triumph Of The Ratfuckers’, www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/donald-segretti-ratfking-100413.

16 Cameron Slater, ‘Have you ever thought of a rates decrease Len … ever?’, Whale Oil blog, 7 October 2013.

17 Matthew Backhouse, ‘Blogger denies plot to unseat Brown’, New Zealand Herald, 19 October 2013.

18 Bernard Orsman and Lincoln Tan, ‘Palino met with Brown’s lover’, New Zealand Herald, 19 October 2013.

19 Ibid.

20 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Aaron Bhatnagar, 15 October 2013.

21 Sharon Stewart, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 15 October 2013.

22 Aaron Bhatnagar, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 15 October 2013.

23 Soren Dayton, ‘Blogging in American Politics, Lessons and Structure’, International Democratic Union Young Leaders meetings, Ottawa 2007.

24 Michael Cummings, ‘Editorial: Rubicon crossed in affair coverage’, Manawatu Standard, 24 October 2013.

25 David Farrar, ‘Lengate gets murkier’, Kiwiblog blog, 17 October 2013.

26 Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 18 October 2013.

27 Carrick Graham, commenting as Lion King, Whale Oil blog, 20 October 2013.

28 Hamish Price, Facebook commentary, 21 October 2013. The porn film story appeared in Tony Wall, ‘Reporter offers Chuang porn star role’, Fairfax Media, 20 October 2013.

29 Price, Facebook commentary, 21 October 2013.

30 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to ex-prostitute friend, 16 August 2010.

31 Ex-prostitute friend, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 16 August 2010.

32 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to a friend, 31 October 2012.

33 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from ex-prostitute friend, 16 March 2012.

34 Cameron Slater did not like a National Cabinet minister and sought out sexual gossip about him just for the fun of it. A National Party friend told him about a woman working in the minister’s office who did not seem to have any obvious job. ‘She is a six foot blond,’ he said. Slater was instantly interested. ‘Because she is [his] regular root?’ he asked. ‘Unknown,’ the friend replied, ‘to me.’ National Party friend, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 4 March 2012.

35 Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 28 March 2012.

36 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Aaron Bhatnagar, 27 September 2013.

37 Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 24 March 2012.

38 Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 30 March 2012.

39 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from ex-prostitute friend, 19 June 2011. Slater also asked her to help get donations for his work on Whale Oil. ‘Oh good morning,’ she wrote one day, ‘I am going round to a quite a few brothels next week and seeing some people in higher places that you would be pleased I am visiting. Have you got a vote for whale oil T shirt in bubby size that you can organise, I thought it would be a hoot :))’ Slater replied, ‘Not a bubby one … but need some donations … those higher places might like to contribute wink wink.’ His friend asked him to send his bank account number, which Slater sent through shortly after. Ex-prostitute friend, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 18 September 2010.

40 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from ex-prostitute friend, 27 July 2011.

41 On the subject of attitudes to women, Slater had a conversation with a friend that began: ‘Some green taliban bitch is moaning on the phone to me about my post about the asset sales, i told her to fuck off.’ The friend said, ‘Agreed,’ and that he had ‘a valentines poem for you to give the mrs’. This went ‘Roses are Red, Violence makes you black and blue, Give me a blow job or guess which one’s for you.’ (Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from friend, 13 February 2013.) Similarly, Jordan Williams offered to write a post for Whale Oil comparing National and Labour women. Slater said, ‘Heh, yeah’, and published it the next day under his own name (Jordan Williams, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 22 April 2012). The thesis of this pathetic blog post, the point of which was more sexual innuendo against a favourite Labour MP target, was that, contrary to the ‘theory that Labour Party women are dud roots’, it could be that ‘larger ugly ladies’ put more effort into sex than their ‘slimline bimbo sisters … Could [the MP] be onto something?’ And so on, with a graph to illustrate the idea (Jordan Williams writing as Cameron Slater, ‘Red Rooster: Could Labour be recruiting fugly [fucking ugly] women on purpose?’, Whale Oil blog, 23 April 2012).

42 Private information.

43 The affair and his subsequent hardship were discussed in the news media, e.g. Kathryn Powley, ‘Blogger’s affair revealed in court’, New Zealand Herald, 17 June 2012 and Jonathan Milne, ‘In bed with the bloggers’, New Zealand Herald, 23 February 2014.

44 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from ex-prostitute friend, 23 October 2013.

45 Stephen Cook, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 2 November 2013.

46 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from ex-prostitute friend, 18 November 2013.

47 Ibid.

48 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from ex-prostitute friend, 19 December 2013.

49 Jonathan Marshall, Facebook messaging to and from Cameron Slater, 21 December 2013.

50 Aaron Smithson, ‘2013 ESET NetGuide Awards Full Results’, NetGuide, 20 February 2014.

51 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Russell Beaumont, 20 February 2014.

52 Cameron Slater, ‘Canon Media Awards 2014 acceptance speech’, Whale Oil blog, 9 May 2014.

53 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to friend, 30 June 2012.

54 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Russell Beaumont, 10 February 2014.

55 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to National Party friend, 12 September 2011.

CHAPTER 11: John Key and a Member of the Public

1 Cameron Slater, ‘EXCLUSIVE The Internet Party strategy revealed’, Whale Oil blog, 15 January 2014.

2 Cameron Slater, ‘I’m putting Kim Dotcom on a diet’, Whale Oil blog, 15 January 2014.

3 Ibid.

4 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Aaron Bhatnagar, 23 January 2014.

5 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to Russell Beaumont, 30 January 2014.

6 Rachel Glucina, ‘The Diary: League legend tackles Maori action movie’, New Zealand Herald, 7 February 2014.

7 Cameron Slater, ‘Don Brash, Russel Norman and now Winston Peters, who hasn’t been to sit on Dotcom’s lap?’, Whale Oil blog, 11 February 2014.

8 Cameron Slater, ‘Banks, Brash, and now Norman, which politicians haven’t had secret meetings with Dotcom?’, Whale Oil blog, 24 January 2014.

9 Ibid.

10 Winston Peters and John Key, ‘Questions for Written Answer’, Hansard, 12 February 2014.

11 ‘Peters coy on Dotcom visits’, Taranaki Daily News, 13 February 2014.

12 David Farrar, ‘Would Labour and the Greens over-rule the court for Kim Dotcom?’ and ‘The persuasive Dotcom’, Kiwiblog blog, 11 and 14 February 2014.

13 Barry Soper and Felix Marwick, ‘Winston Peters visited Dotcom Mansion’, Newstalk ZB, 13 February 2014.

14 Michael Fox, ‘Key links tip-off to Whale Oil blogger’, Nelson Mail, 15 February 2014.

15 Clair Trevett, ‘PM hints tip-off came from Cameron Slater’, New Zealand Herald, 15 February 2014.

16 Ibid. Slater’s selected contact list at the beginning of 2014 showed some of his closest friends and political associates. First there were all the people seen in the previous chapters: Cathy Odgers, Carrick Graham, David Farrar, Jordan Williams, Jason Ede, Simon Lusk, a couple of journalists and his blogger friends and helpers. Then there were John Key and Judith Collins; Mark Mitchell and Jami-Lee Ross, the MPs he and Lusk helped in the Rodney and Botany selections; MP Maurice Williamson (see Chapter 12); Tony Lentino, who funded Slater to establish a new online news organisation to be launched in the lead-up to the 2014 election; Wayne Tempero, former employee of Kim Dotcom; and more (private source).

17 Brook Sabin, ‘Dotcom buys Mein Kampf copy signed by Hitler’, 3 News, 26 March 2014.

18 Ibid.

19 Cameron Slater, ‘Kim Dotcom: owns rare copy of Mein Kampf, a Nazi flag and loves Adolf Hitler’, Whale Oil blog, 26 March 2014.

20 Ibid.

21 Rachel Glucina, ‘The Diary: Former friend speaks out on life with Dotcom’, 28 March 2014.

22 Rebecca Wright, ‘Former employee to Dotcom: Stay clear of politics’, 3 News, 27 March 2014.

23 The ‘starred’ contact list of 32 people was in the Slater papers.

24 Private source.

25 Cameron Slater, ‘Who is Ian McDougall’, Whale Oil blog, 2 April 2014.

26 Ibid.

27 Jason Ede, e-mail to Cameron Slater, 19 September 2013.

28 Cameron Slater, ‘Nigel No Mates?’, Whale Oil blog, 14 May 2014.

29 Cameron Slater, ‘Under a Labour Government, the ordinary decent working people of New Zealand will spell “raffle” any way they like’, Whale Oil blog, 3 April 2014.

30 Cameron Slater, ‘Did David Cunliffe wet his pants?’, Whale Oil blog, 18 March 2014.

31 During the election year there were Cartoons of the Day by ‘SonovaMin’, apparently a former newspaper cartoonist named Bill Paynter. Another important contributor to the blog was Pete Belt.

32 Soren Dayton, ‘Blogging in American Politics, Lessons and Structure’, International Democratic Union Young Leaders meetings, Ottawa 2007.

33 Cameron Slater, ‘Cunliffe caught in another mistruth’, Whale Oil blog, 29 April 2014.

34 Ibid.

CHAPTER 12: The Smiling Assassin

1 Audrey Young, ‘Williamson’s “significant error of judgment”’, New Zealand Herald, 1 May 2014.

2 David Cunliffe, stand-up press conference, 17 June 2014.

3 David Cunliffe and unidentified reporter, stand-up press conference, 18 June 2014.

4 Jared Savage, ‘David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid’, New Zealand Herald, 18 June 2014 and John Armstrong, ‘Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order’, New Zealand Herald, 18 June 2014.

5 Andrea Vance and Michael Fox, ‘David Cunliffe advocated for Donghua Liu’, Fairfax Media, 18 June 2014.

6 Ibid.

7 Jared Savage, ‘Government MPs’ letters to Liu kept secret’, New Zealand Herald, 20 June 2014.

8 David Cunliffe, ‘RE: Donghua Liu’, letter to New Zealand Immigration Service, 11 April 2003.

9 Danyl McLauchlan, ‘Entities’, Dim-Post blog, 18 June 2014.

10 Barnsley Bill, commenting on ‘June polls’, Dim-Post blog, 17 June 2014.

11 Private source.

12 Confidential source.

13 Bill English, General Debate, Hansard, 18 June 2014.

14 Michael Woodhouse, General Debate, Hansard, 18 June 2014.

15 Tony Ryall, General Debate, Hansard, 18 June 2014.

16 Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Russell Beaumont, 30 January 2014.

AFTERWORD

1 ‘Whale Oil Beef Hooked’, TVNZ Seven Sharp, 22 July 2014.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 The Treasury, Vote Parliamentary Services, 2013; and Vote Internal Affairs for Ministerial Services, 2013.

INDEX

Page references refer to the hard-copy edition.

Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) 51, 52, 53, 54

ACT Party 46n, 56, 68–70, 70n, 74, 75, 113–14, 119

Adams, Amy 48–9

Adern, Jacinda 46

alcohol companies 78, 79, 83–4, 86–7

Ansell, John 16, 16n, 17

anti-gay comments 26

anti-MMP campaign 23–4, 68, 71–4, 72n, 73n, 75, 83, 119

anti-public health professionals 79, 80–2, 83–6, 95–6

anti-union campaigns 89–95, 91n

apparent hacking of Cameron Slater’s computer 12–13, 133

Aranyi, Peter 44

Armitage, Richard 21

attacks on David Cunliffe 126–7, 128–32

attacks on journalists 125

attacks on Kim Dotcom and Internet Party 135

Nazi smears 124–5

strategy paper leaked 120

Winston Peters visiting 121–3

attacks on third parties 23–4, 25, 70–1, 73, 120–5

attitudes to women 115–16, 115n

Auckland National Party 23, 46, 57–65, 78

Bailey, Ira 41, 42

Bainimarama, Commodore 17

Banks, John 24

Barnsley Bill see Russell Beaumont

Barry, Maggie 57

Bassett, Michael 22n, 57n

Beaumont, Russell 117, 121, 131, 133

‘Below the line’ communications 95–6

Belt, Pete 126n

Bennett, Paula 41–2

Bhatnagar, Aaron 20, 27, 29–31, 29n, 32, 33, 36, 39, 51n, 54, 57, 75–6, 103, 107, 109–10, 111, 114, 120–1

blog comments 13–14, 25–6, 25n, 50–1, 79, 81–2, 83–4, 86, 86–7, 93, 94

Blogmobile 17, 17n

blogs as political tools, theory 16, 17, 55, 80, 99–100, 111, 118, 126, 137

Boag, Michelle 51, 52, 53, 54, 64

Boscawen, John 46, 113–14

Bradbury, Martyn (Bomber) 72, 72n, 74

Brash, Don 10–11, 21, 68, 69, 70, 70n, 71, 74, 82

Brestapo 85–6

Bridges, Simon 93, 94, 95

British American Tobacco 78, 80

Brown, Len 11, 22n, 24, 25, 46, 107–13, 117

Brown, Russell 117

Bryant, Nick 50, 50n

Building Service Contractors 92–5

Bush, George senior 18–19

Cactus Kate see Cathy Odgers

Canon Media Awards 117

Carruthers, Grant 43

Carter Holt Harvey 91

cash for comment work 77–96,

alcohol industry 78, 79, 83–4

‘below the line’ communications 95–6

Building Service Contractors 92–5

Coca-Cola 84–5

deep-sea oil drilling 87n

Fonterra (contamination and infant formula) 84, 85–6

marriage dispute 95

Ports of Auckland 89–91

tobacco industry 79–82

Chaos and Mayhem 30, 57, 89–96

Cheng, Derek 70

Christchurch earthquake 26–27, 66, 73–4, 82

Chuang, Bevan 107–11, 112–13

Clark, David 104

Clark, Helen 20, 22n, 38

Clifton, Jane 43–4

Clinton, Hillary 20

Coatsworth, Moira 35

Coca-Cola 84–5

Coddington, Deborah 46

Collins, Judith 13, 20, 20n, 23, 45–54, 46n, 56, 57, 57n, 67, 93, 119, 134

comments about colleagues 23, 46

comments about MPs 45–6, 47–8, 48n

contact with Cameron Slater 23, 45–54

Double Rule 46–7, 51

leaked Pullar e-mail affair 51–4, 114

leaking about public servant 50

leaking ACC information 52, 54

on MMP 73

providing information for Whale Oil blog 46–50

unconcerned about police leak 46

utu 23

commentators 105, 135–6

Congreve, William 69

Conservative Party 103

Cook, Stephen 107, 113, 116

Cooke, Tony 50

Cosgrove, Clayton 45

Countdown 86n

Crest Commercial Cleaning 94, 95, 119

Crosby Textor 11, 28

Cullen, Michael 20

Cummings, Michael 111

Cunliffe, David 48, 126, 128–32

Cunliffe–Liu scandal 128–32

Curia Market Research 98, 101–2, 105

Day, Bill 72n

Dayton, Soren 99–100

demoralisation as a tactic, 75, 132, 136

Dim-Post, 130

distraction as a tactic, 34, 36

Dominion Breweries (DB) 87

Dotcom, Kim 120–5, 135

Dukakis, Michael 18

Dunne, Peter 81, 83

Ede, Jason 13, 14, 20–2, 41–3, 59–60, 100n, 125–6, 132

career 21

contacts with Cameron Slater 20–2, 22n, 31–5, 41–3, 125

information provided to David Farrar 100–11

Labour Party website operation 31–5

nearly caught inside Labour computer system 35

office location 35

secretive 28–9, 29n

tip off about Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 42

tip off about Ministry of Social Development 41

working for Don Brash 21

El Rushbo 75

election funding 17, 55, 82, 136

Electoral Finance Act (EFA) 17

Elliott, Matthew 103

English, Bill 49, 129, 131

ESET NetGuide Web Awards 117

Exclusive Brethren 17, 18, 18n, 21

Facilitate Communications 80, 87

Falkenstein, Tony 85

Family First 102, 102n

Farrar, David 13, 14, 17, 17n, 19, 20, 20n, 21, 24, 31, 35, 39, 43–4, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 86, 91, 98–106, 100n, 112, 115, 118, 122, 126, 137

background 98–9

canvassing work for National 102

chief pollster for National 98–9, 101–2

conflict of interest declaration 105–6

information provided by Jason Ede 100–11

New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union role 102–5

‘the keeper of the dirt’ 114

use as media commentator 105

Finlayson, Chris 62

Fisher, David 53, 54

Fisher, Steve 91

Flatt, Chris 35

Fletcher, Jonathan 66

Fonterra 84, 85–6

Food and Grocery Council 83–6

Free Speech Coalition 17, 17n, 71

Garner, Duncan 114

Glenn, Owen 19

Glucina, Rachel 19, 21, 121, 123, 124–5

Goff, Phil 22, 32, 34, 37–8, 39, 40, 41

SIS–Goff briefing hit, 37–41

Goodfellow, Peter 29,

Graham, Carrick 13, 78–88, 92–7, 112, 113

alcohol industry 78, 79, 83–4

‘below the line’ communications 95–6

Building Service Contractors 92–5

Coca-Cola 84–5

document for prospective clients 95–6

Fonterra (contamination and infant formula) 84, 85–6

marriage dispute 95

tobacco industry 79–83, 83n

writing under pseudonyms 79, 81–2, 83–4, 86, 86–7, 93

Graham, Doug 78, 82

Green Party 25, 41, 121

Greenpeace 25, 87n

Groser, Tim 62

Hall, Judd 12

Hapeta, Leonie 55

Harawira, Hone 82, 135

Harvey, Bob 72

Health Promotion Council 84

Hide, Rodney 67, 68–70, 81, 110

Highet, Allan 112

Hodgson, Pete 49

Hooton, Matthew 17, 39, 61n, 81, 91–2

Hosking, Mike 135

Hotchin, Mark 87–8

Hubbard, Dick 29

Impey, Brent 91

‘Independent’ campaigns tactic 17, 23–4, 71, 102–4

Independent Liquor 86–7

International Democratic Union (IDU) 99, 103, 126

Internet Mana Party 120

iPredict 54, 64

Israeli backpackers 37

Iwi/Kiwi billboards 16

Johnson, Sam 66

Joyce, Steven 23

Kaye, Nikki 19, 46

Kelly, Helen 32, 94

Key, John 10–11, 14, 17n, 28–9, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 53, 71, 74, 101, 119, 122–3, 125, 129, 132–3, 136

attack coordinator Jason Ede 13, 14, 20–2, 31–5, 41–3, 59–60, 100–11, 125–6

contact with Cameron Slater 122–3, 123n, 132–3, 134

Mr Nice Guy relaxed image 10, 16, 28, 132, 135

Keybridge Communications 96–7

Kiely, Peter 60

Kim Jong-Il 17

Kiwiblog 20, 34, 35, 43, 71, 86, 98, 100, 112, 122

Labour Party 13, 19, 29–36, 40, 74–5, 126

Labour Party database hit 29–36, 72

Jason Ede role 31–5

motives 30–1, 33–4, 36

Leaked Pullar e-mail affair 51–4

Lee-Lo, Patrick 92, 93, 94, 95

Len Brown attack 107–13

Limbaugh, Rush 75

Lion King, Carrick Graham pseudonym

Liu, Donghua 128, 130, 131

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) 112

Lotu-Iiga, Sam 56, 61,

Lusk, Simon 13, 17n, 18–19, 18n, 22–4, 32, 54, 55–6, 57n, 83, 87n, 100n, 107, 114, 132

anti-MMP campaign 71–4, 72n, 83

‘Building a Fiscally Conservative Majority’ 55n

National candidate selection work 55, 56–67, 61n, 125

professionalising politics 56, 57

Rodney Hide blackmail 68–70, 70n

strategy ideas 18–19, 55–66

Mallard, Trevor 32, 47–8, 48n, 49, 74

Mao, Chairman 17

Mardikian, Alex 124–5

Maritime Union of New Zealand 89, 90

Marriage Equality Bill 56, 65

Marshall, Jonathan 22n, 53, 69, 75, 77, 114, 117

McCully, Murray 61

McDougall, Ian 125

McLauchlan, Danyl 130

McLauchlan, Grant 94–5, 94n, 95n, 119

writing under pseudonyms 94

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) 42

Ministry of Health 80, 81, 95

Ministry of Social Development 41

Mitchell, Mark 57–65, 63n, 66

Mold, Fran 75

Muldoon, Robert 10, 11

Mustang Gentleman’s Club 116

National Party

candidate selection manipulation 55–66

David Farrar work for 98, 100–1, 102, 105–6

link to Kiwiblog 99

role in Labour database hit 28, 31

Naylor, Nick 77–8, 80, 82, 88

negative campaigning 18–19

Nestlé 96–7

New Zealand Herald editors 114

New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union (NZTU) 102–5

Jordan Williams writing for Whale Oil blog 104–5, 115n

use by news media 104

used against Len Brown 104, 112

news media problems and solutions 135–6, 137

Ng, Keith 42

Nixon, Richard 43

Norman, Russel 121

Norway massacre 37

Nuzum, Anna 101

Odgers, Cathy 20, 22–3, 29n, 43, 86, 89, 91–2

e-mail about Nicky Hager 91–2

Ports of Auckland 89–91

Official Information Act (OIA) 38–9, 40, 41, 42, 80–1, 129, 130, 132

strengthening 136

op-ed service 96–7

Pagani, John 35, 113

Palino, John 108, 110, 119

Paynter, Bill 126n

Pearson, Richard 90

Peters, Winston 17n, 23–4, 24n, 25, 70–1, 73, 121–3

Pienaar, Cehill 60–1

Pleasants, Simon 49–51

political ethics 137–8

political participation 132, 136–7

Ports of Auckland 89–91, 119

Power, Simon 46, 46n

Price, Hamish 54, 57, 112–13

privacy 13

Pullar, Bronwyn 51, 52, 53, 54

Pullar e-mail leak 51–4, 114

ratfucking 52, 110

ready-to-drink (RTD) pre-mixed spirits 86

Republican Party 99, 126, 132

Rich, Katherine 83–6, 83n, 84n, 86n, 119

Robinson, Brent 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64–5

Rodney selection contest 57–65

Ross, Jami-Lee 21, 56–7, 57n, 61, 91n

Roy, Heather 70n, 113

Rugby World Cup 47–8

Ryall, Tony 131

Ryan, Sam 96–7

Security Intelligence Service (SIS) 37–8, 39, 40, 41

Segretti, Donald 110

Sellman, Doug 79, 83–4, 86

Service and Food Workers Union 92

sex-related smears as a political tool 11, 19, 68–70, 107–18, 114n

Shanks, Katrina 72

Shirtcliffe, Peter 73

Simpson, Scott 58, 61–2, 63, 63n, 65

SIS–Goff briefing hit 37–41

Slater, Cameron 11–12, 14, 16, 17, 17n, 19, 20, 20n, 21, 22–4, 22n, 24n, 70–1, 70n, 74–5, 77, 78, 79, 83, 91–2, 97, 100, 107, 112, 115n, 132, 137

anti-MMP campaign 71–4, 72n, 73n

arranging for prisoner to be moved between prisons 46, 46n

attack on Len Brown 22n, 107–13

attack on Simon Pleasants 49–51, 51n

attacks on David Cunliffe 126–7, 128–32

attacks on Kim Dotcom 120–5

attitude to media 118

best blog awards 2014 117

bounty list 25

Building Service Contractors 92–5

church 26

claiming to be a journalist 79

contact list 123n, 134

contact with Judith Collins 45–54

digging dirt on Len Brown 116–17

income 57, 66, 77, 78, 87–8, 89, 91n

Labour Party database hit 29–36

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 42

Ministry of Social Development 41

National candidate selection work 57–67, 61n

number one blog triumph 75–6

on Christchurch earthquake 26–7

Ports of Auckland campaign 89–91, 91n

Pullar e-mail leak 51–4

ratfucking is proper politics 110

Rodney Hide blackmail 68–70

rules of politics 24

sex-related smears 22n, 113–17

SIS–Goff briefing hit 37–41

undeclared commercial work on blog 77–88

Slater, John 51n, 56, 108, 109, 111, 113

Smith, Lockwood 57

Smith, Peter (pseudonym) 20, 27, 34, 36, 38–9, 75, 76, 90–1, 91n

Stewart, Sharon 109, 111

Stuart, Tony 50

Student Volunteer Army 66

Sweeney Vesty 91

T&T Consulting 81

Talbot, David 32, 34

Tamihere, John 22n

tax havens 91–2

Taxpayers’ Alliance (UK) 103

Taylor, Kevin 20, 21

Taylor, Sue 81

Te Reo Marama 81

Tempero, Wayne 125

Temple, Philip 73

Textor, Mark 28

Thank You for Smoking (film) 77–8, 82

The Hollow Men (book) 10–11, 14–15, 56, 70n, 82, 132

The Standard blog 34

Till, Francis 20

tobacco industry 77–8, 79–83, 83n, 88, 97

Tolley, Anne 42

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 97

Tucker, Warren 38, 39, 40

Turia, Tariana 82

two-track strategy 16, 18–19

United States political strategies 18–19, 43, 52, 55

Upston, Louise 56, 102

Urewera police raids 46

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC) 19, 19n

Victoria University of Wellington 64

Vote for Change 24, 71–4

Wegege, Luigi 108–9, 111

West Coast ‘feral’ comments 12, 53, 132–3

Whale Oil blog 11–12, 22, 24–7, 71, 126

blog formula 27

comments 25–6, 25n

denial of service attack on 12

Williams, Andrew 25

Williams, Jordan 13, 54, 69, 70–1, 75, 77, 83, 87, 115n

anti-MMP campaign 71–4, 72n, 73n

digging dirt on Len Brown 104, 110, 112

New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union role 102–5

proposes and assisting sex-related attacks on Labour MPs 114–15

role in Rodney Hide blackmail 69

trying to film Winston Peters 70–1

writing for Whale Oil blog 104–5, 115n

Williams, Larry 39

Williamson, Maurice 128

Willie Horton advertisement 18–19

Wilson, Matt 87

Women’s Health Action 85

Woodhouse, Michael 129, 131

Woods, Michael 22

Young Nationals 101, 115

Table of Contents

Praise for Nicky Hager

About Nicky Hager

Dedication

Title page

Imprint page

Contents

Acknowledgements

Preface

Chapter 1: The Rise of the Bloggers

Chapter 2: The PM's Black Ops Man

Chapter 3: Straight from the Beehive

Chapter 4: The Crusher and the Attack Dog

Chapter 5: Simon Lusk's Plan

Chapter 6: El Rushbo of Aotearoa

Chapter 7: Cash for Comment

Chapter 8: Chaos and Mayhem Limited

Chapter 9: The Many Hats of David Farrar

Chapter 10: Sex Scandal

Chapter 11: John Key and a Member of the Public

Chapter 12: The Smiling Assassin

Afterword

Endnotes

Index