Internet Party may contest again in 2017

Mana have officially taken steps to end their relationship with the Internet party – see Harawira on what he and Mana are up to – and Laila Harre is stepping down, so Dotcom’s party is partnerless and leaderless.

And Dotcom says he is broke.

But he said yesterday he “would not be surprised if the Internet Party has another go”, as reported in NZ Herald’s Dotcom’s lost Mana but Internet Party may ride again at 2017 election.

Internet Party founder Kim Dotcom says his party could still make another bid for election in 2017 despite its merger with the Mana Party coming to an end.

The Internet Party will soon be leaderless as Laila Harre plans to stand down and its main backer, Mr Dotcom, says he has run out of money fighting his extradition to the United States.

But the internet entrepreneur suggested yesterday the movement was still alive, saying he “would not be surprised if the Internet Party has another go” in 2017.

He did not want to comment further as he was focused on getting the US branch of his party up and running for the US elections in 2016. The US Internet Party will be backed and run by American citizens, but Mr Dotcom is likely to play some role.

He says he has no money but that may be just in New Zealand.

Financing a party in the US would have to be on a much bigger scale. Perhaps others will front up with the dollars but Dotcom hasn’t got a good campaign record – he has a reputation as a political wrecking ball.

It would be hard to see any political ambitions as anything other than an anti US Government publicity stunt – which was how his attempt to bring down the Prime Minister and government of New Zealand was seen.

If Dotcom survives financially and legally his chances in 2017 don’t look good. This year he tried to piggy back into power off the Mana Party and that failed.

It’s very unlikely any other party here would consider campaigning with him no matter how much money he offered.

Russel Norman and Winston Peters visited him last year to discuss options and saw the dangers. They will be even less interested now.

I don’t think Labour would risk going anywhere near Dotcom’s financial incentives.

Internet-Mana got 1.42 per cent of the party vote in the September 20 election and won no seats. Its chances hinged on Mr Harawira keeping his Te Tai Tokerau seat, which he lost to Labour’s Kelvin Davis.

Harawira will find it hard enough to beat Davis in 2017. Mana have been burnt badly by their Dotcom association so a repeat must be unlikely.

And Mana isn’t the only self inflicted victim.

Harre’s political credibility has been scorched. The Internet Party will find it very difficult to attract a high profile leader with political experience, especially if the money has dried up.

It’s a long way from 1.42% to the 5% threshold. Dotcom misjudged his political chances badly this year. He must see the odds of turning that resounding failure around are very slim.

I would be surprised if the Internet Party will be a serious contender in 2017.

Harawira on what he and Mana are up to

Patrick Gower interviewed Hone Harawira on The Nation on Saturday and asked him what he’d been up to. The answer was not very much since turning his back on politics after a disastrous election result.

Gower: What are you up to, what are you doing for a crust these days, what’s Hone Harawira been up to?

Harawira: Actually for the first couple of months absolutely nothing. Just hanging about home ah with the mokopunas, doing a bit of paddling, trying to get my health back.

He seemed to have struggled through the election campaign, perhaps that was to do with his health.

Ah, yeah and then a trip to South Africa, then the Nga Puhi claims.

Now starting to look at a couple of projects to get started in the New Year.

Gower: Sweet. And what about Mana itself, is Mana still alive?

Harawira: Yeah no we had a great week just a couple of weeks ago at Auckland University Marae. We had about seventy, eighty people come from all around the country from as far south as Dunedin, and everybody’s really focused on getting back to stuff in their communities, which is what I’m doing as well, and rebuilding from that level.

Gower: And what about Kim Dotcom, have you had a chance to catch up with Kim Dotcom?

Harawira: No actually, no we missed a chance ah last weekend, ah we’re trying to do it this weekend, probably catch up some time soon.

It sounds like he has just shrugged and turned away from Dotcom. That’s odd considering the huge cash provided and major alliance in the campaign.

Gower: You might pop out to Helensville after this?

Harawira: No I can’t, ah I’m going to be too busy after this. I’ve got um Newstalk ZB, I’ve got a kuruwhanau (?) to see, then I’ve got yo fly home.

Gower: Now we had Laila Harre on the program a little while ago, she said that…

Harawira: Where, here?

Gower: No on The Nation a couple of weeks ago. She said that the Internet Party completely mismanaged that last month of the campaign, do you agree with her?

Harawira: Oh look, those days are gone. Suffice to say from our point of view it was a shot worth taking, it didn’t come off, ah but Laila, wonderful person, ah a great political commentator, a woman of great principle.

Harre was widely criticised for her lack of principle in teaming up with Dotcom.

So, I missed the opportunity to be working with her but I wish her well whatever she’s going to be working on in the future.

Gower: And what about yourself, you’re still keen to come back to Parliament?

Harawira: Well a lot of people are keen for me to come back to Parliament, including some strangely enough right wing types. I think I just get a sense there needs to be somebody in there who’s going to be strong on the basic issues of poverty and homelessness, those sorts of things.

A curious non-personal response, as if he doesn’t make his own decisions. And while Harawira spoke strongly on poverty and homelessness he failed to work effectively with other parties in Parliament, something that’s essential to progress policies.

Gower: Will you have a crack against Kelvin Davis again in 2017?

Harawira: Oh if I have a crack it won’t be because I’m having a crack against Kelvin Davis, ah, it will be because I’m having a fight to support the rights of  te pani me te rawakore, the poor and the homeless.

Gower: And will it be with the Internet Party, will it be with Kim Dotcom, will you go with him again?

Harawira: Ah no, look we’ve just we’ve just ah formerly closed off that relationship, so I don’t think it’s, I don’t think it’s public yet but the letter’s just gone off to ah the Electoral Commission I think.

It sounds like someone else is managing the formal split and Harawira is a semi-interested spectator.

So that’s over, but ah certainly the relationship with some of the people we met in the Internet Party, that will continue.

Harre?

Gower: All right then, is there anything more on that split or is it just all over completely?

Harawira: Ah well you never know, ah you never say never, ah suffice to say though that right now it’s focussing on what’s happening at home, what’s happening with the mokopunas, what’s happening with the whanau.

We’ve got to rap this up Paddy.  Thank you very much.

As Harawira said that he walked away, shutting down the interview.

Just as he seems to have shut off and walked away from his political career.

It sounds like he’s over Parliament and while others have tried to to talk about him having a go at returning his heart isn’t in it at all.

He looked shattered on election night and it looks like he isn’t over it. He could possibly recover, and the next election is a long way away, but he and Mana really need to campaign right through the term.

Otherwise they are likely to fade away into political history, a movement that lost it’s mojo after an unsuccessful Parliamentary stint brought to a close after a disastrous decision to try and benefit from Dotcom’s millions.

End of year picks

It’s the time of year when politicians seem to start winding down (a couple of weeks before I can) and pundits applaud and award.

Patrick Gower’s Politician of the Year

POLITICIAN OF YEAR: JOHN KEY

In fact, Key went from the crème-de-la-crème to the crème-de-la-crap at times.

RUNNER-UP (OPPOSITION POLITICIAN): ANDREW LITTLE

He won the leadership thanks to the Union vote, but hey – who cares? This is about politics, it is about winning. Little used the tool that was available to him and he won the leadership.

RUNNER-UP (BACKBENCHER): KELVIN DAVIS

Kelvin Davis stood up to Kim Dotcom and stopped him. This included annihilating Hone Harawira’s political career in an upset victory in Te Tai Tokerau that few pundits expected.

RUNNER-UP (“POLITICAL NON-POLITICIAN”): A three-way tie

KIM DOTCOM

WHALE OIL

NICKY HAGER

Not sure that Hager deserves that, he failed with his primary aim and it’s yet to be seen whether the gains he achieves outweigh the losses.

Dotcom must be there simply for impact rather than success. But otherwise that looks a reasonable line up.

Duncan Garner’s picks are along similar lines to Gower’s.

WINNERS

1. JOHN KEY

For all the obvious reasons. He is still the PM and he is still widely popular according to the polls. He had the kitchen sink thrown at him and he almost won the election outright. He’ll have to watch it doesn’t go to his head.

2. ANDREW LITTLE

Couldn’t win a fight in a kindergarten but ends the year on top. His caucus didn’t want him, his party didn’t want him, his electorate didn’t want him. Yet he ends the year looking strong and competent as Labour’s new leader.

3. KELVIN DAVIS

He beat Hone Harawira and therefore beat Kim Dotcom – do I have to say anymore?

4. SUE BRADFORD

She knew Dotcom and Harawira were in an unholy alliance and she put her principles before it all. She called it right – she has values and principles that are beyond reproach whether you agree with her politics or not.

5. CAM SLATER – WHALEOIL.

Yes he’s a dirt-bag, muck-raking, scum-bag attack blogger, but he likes it that way. He doesn’t play by any rule book yet he’s been judged a journalist by the courts. Despite having his dirty laundry aired for the world to see he remains talked about, his blog gets more hits than ever, he breaks stories and the PM returns his texts. Oh and he wins mainstream media awards.

LOSERS

1. KIM DOTCOM

Threw millions at trying to rig an election, but the public weren’t fooled. He’s now fighting to stay out of jail. Rest my case.

2. HONE HARAWIRA

He picked the wrong rich friends. Should have stayed poor. At least he’d still be in Parliament. Woeful judgement.

3. LAILA HARRE

See above.

4. JUDITH COLLINS

Was on track to be the next National Party Leader – now she’s struggling to be heard from the backbenchers. Huge fall from grace. Career in tatters.

5. DAVID CUNLIFFE

Came across as a fake and then apologised for being a man. Do we have to say anything more? Awful defeat.

(Close mention: Grant Robertson, rejected twice as Labour’s future leader. That will hurt and in politics if winning if everything, Robertson has twice failed. Ouch. Still, he has huge chance to recover well.)

That’s a pretty good summary.

Dotcom to take on Hillary Clinton, apparently

Dotcom on Twitter today:

I’m not a pirate.
I’m not a fugitive.
I’m not a flight risk.

I’m your Internet Freedom fighter

AND

Hillary’s worst nightmare in 2016!

The Internet Party is coming to the United States in 2015. Stay tuned for our celebrity founders from the music, film and Internet industry.

The Internet Party US will be well funded and run by American citizens. I will help with Public Relations ;-)

So if he wants to be Clinton’s ‘worst nightmare’ he wants the Republicans to win in 2016?

Taking the piss. Or nuts.

Dotcom to remain on bail

Kim Dotcom has avoided having his bail revoked. This doesn’t surprise me, the case to put him back in jail seemed quite weak. It was claimed that his significant earnings since going on bail put him at greater risk. There was no evidence of any attempt or plan to flee.

An odd thing on his earnings though. Lat week he was claiming he was broke:

Kim Dotcom: ‘I’m officially broke right now’

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom says he is officially broke.

The German entrepreneur and failed politician has revealed this week that his three-year, $10 million legal fight against extradition to the US to face trial on an alleged conspiracy to commit the biggest-ever breach of copyright has seen him run out of cash.

“As of today, I don’t have a single share in Mega – it’s all held in trust by my wife and my five children.”

But today he was skiting about having earned more than Key since his address:

@KimDotcom

Fun Fact: I’ve created more wealth while on bail (restarting from zero in 2012) than John Key during his entire professional career ;-)

Must read: Kim Dotcom earned $40m while on bail, court hears

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/63702162/kim-dotcom-earned-40m-while-on-bail-court-hears

The Stuff report says:

Dotcom told the hearing he had earned $40 million since being on bail, mainly from the sales of shares in two new ventures – Baboom and Mega NZ.

Judge Dawson said Dotcom was candid in not being able to account for all the money but despite having the considerable sums he had not fled the country, even when his bail was sought to be revoked.

Dotcom’s lawyer Ron Mansfield said: “He’s had funds available, he’s still here, and there’s no evidence of any intention to flee our jurisdiction.”

He’s made oodles of dosh and had funds available but he can’t account for all the money and he’s broke.

It’s hard to make sense of that.

Amanda Banks succeeds in John’s appeal

The conviction against John Banks for filing an incorrect electoral return has been overturned by the court of appeal, largely due to the efforts of his wife Amanda to clear her own name.

NZ Herald reported Wife clears Banks’ name:

The Court of Appeal yesterday overturned former Act leader Mr Banks’ conviction for filing a false electoral return, charges which ended his parliamentary career.

A jubilant Mr Banks paid tribute to his wife who he said had been a hero for her part in clearing his name.

Amanda Banks’ “obsessive” detective work saw her husband John Banks’ electoral fraud conviction quashed yesterday and answered a High Court judge’s doubts over her honesty.

Mr Banks was convicted in the High Court this year after failing to disclose donations from Kim Dotcom to his Auckland Mayoralty campaign in 2010.

Crucially, the High Court’s Justice Edwin Wylie believed testimony given by Dotcom’s wife Mona over that of Mrs Banks about what was said at a lunch where both were present and at which Dotcom said donations were discussed.

Mr Banks’ appeal introduced affidavits from two US-based businessmen who he says were at that lunch. The pair – David Schaeffer and Jeffrey Karnes – both said donations were not discussed at that lunch.

The Court of Appeal’s Justices Ellen France, John Wild and Forrest Miller said that if the new evidence had been accepted in the High Court trial “it likely would have changed the outcome”. The Court of Appeal’s decision notes that Mrs Banks “was stung by the judge’s opinion of her reliability”.

“She became quite obsessed, as she puts it, with identifying the two Americans.

“She recalled that a transpacific communications cable had been discussed at the lunch and scoured news articles on the topic, eventually finding one which mentioned that Mr Dotcom had endorsed such a project and was trying to organise a group of investors to fund it.”

Mrs Banks’ research also identified the second businessman and Mr Banks’ lawyers contacted the two men and secured sworn affidavits from them.

The trial has taken a heavy toll on Banks – it wrecked is political career – and on both John and Amanda who say the pressure contributed significantly to their marriage breaking up.

The Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial – but say the new evidence would likely have overturned the outcome of the case.

The original trial judge put the credibility of Dotcom and his wife Mona ahead of the credibility of the Banks and this seems to be a major factor behind him finding Banks guilty – apparently incorrect or false claims swung the trial and the judge guessed incorrectly who wasn’t telling the truth.

A re-trial would add further hardship to Banks but he may think it could be worth it if it further clears his and his wife’s names.

This has been a major legal wrangle over the often fudgy world of political donations – it seems to have been driven by politically motivation – to take down the Government by removing Bank’s support from the last term coalition.

Bank’s resignation from Parliament was too late to cause major problems,

Dotcom went on to finance and set up a party with a main aim being to get John Key and National out of Government.

Politics is often a dirty game, and there’s some very dirty looking things swirling around this case.

How does signing off an electoral return after a failed campaign compare to bringing down the Government?

Laila Harre on The Nation

Laila Harre was interviewed by Patrick Gower on The Nation yesterday, Harre stepping down as Internet Party leader

Key points:

  • Stepping down as leader of the Internet Party
  • “I would love to be in parliament.”
  • The Internet Party “could be wound up”.
  • Continuing the merger with Mana “will be up to Mana”.
    “The agreement with Mana was always predicated on the assumption that we be in parliament.”
  • “We completely mismanaged the last month of the campaign.”
  • “…the media chose to focus on sideshows rather than to allow us to present ourselves in the way that we were presenting ourselves. 
  • “What I regret is actually the failure of the Left overall to get its act together in a strategic and tactical way during the election.”
  • “This was always going to be a very finely balanced election outcome. There was no way, no way, never in any polls that Labour and the Greens were going to get sufficient support to form a majority government. That meant we had to rescue progressive votes to.
  • “Labour ruled out just about every other party during the course of the election campaign, and I think that was a big mistake.”
  • On Labour – “They didn’t like us. They didn’t want us, but we were there and they needed to accept that reality.”
  • On Dotcom’s email fizzer – “I believe that Kim, given the opportunity to share everything about that email, would be able to defend his belief that it’s real. Look, I can’t answer that. I wasn’t directly involved…”
  • “What was there for me and for the kind of politics I represent, was the chance to change the government and to get a platform in parliament for some very new progressive ideas.”
  • “Where to from here? Well, for me, being outside parliament as a political party is not a game that I think is worth the candle. What I want to do, though, is continue to promote and connect with the kind of more radical, I guess, policies that we began to introduce into the election. And when I say radical, I don’t mean marginal. I mean radical in the sense of fundamentals. So I’m going on a journey in February with my sister. It’s called ‘Rethink the System’. We’ve got a website. Rethinkthesystem.org. We’re going on a sort of pilgrimage meets activism to connect with people over fundamental social change issues.”

Full interview:

Patrick Gower: Good morning. Good to see you after a while.

Laila Harre: Nice to be here.

Are you still here as leader of the Internet Party?

Yes, I am here as leader of the Internet Party, and at the moment I’m guiding the party through a review of the future. I’ve also made a personal decision that once that review is completed, I will step down from the leadership of the Internet party. All options are then open for whether or not the party continues as an electoral force or moves into some other formation and plays its part in politics in a different way.

So that will be by Christmas? You will step down by Christmas?

Uh… yes. The timeline at the moment is that we will be putting together a couple of options that members will engage on, will vote on and will take from there. I just wanted to make it clear to the members, from whom I’ve had tons of support, and there’s been a lot of good feedback to me personally from members, that continuing as a political party does not— they can’t make the assumption that I will continue in the leadership.

Sure.

I’ve made a firm decision about that.

It’s over; you’re out. What does this mean for your political career?

For me, it means that I’m no longer leading the Internet Party. Whether the Internet Party continues as an electoral party is up to the members. If it—

What about Laila Harre personally? Is this your political career over now?

Who knows? Look… (LAUGHS) rumours of my political career being over have circulated many times over the last, you know, 15 years.

Look, I would love to be in parliament. I would love to be articulating the kind of fundamental agenda and values that Internet-Mana promoted in the election campaign, and I’m not prepared to say never again to being personally at the front line. But I also saw emerging in our election campaign an incredible set of younger candidates.

And I feel a bit like a mother hen here. I want to enable them through my decision to step down to explore all their political options too rather than be trapped in this year’s political entity and this year’s political tactic, you might say — to explore their options more.

It may— it may be, by what you’ve said there, that the Internet party doesn’t continue as an electoral-type party.

That’s definitely one of the options that we’re actively canvassing with members.

It could become a lobby group or be wound up.

It could be wound up. It could— the capacity that we’ve built. Look, we’ve had massive engagement on our policy-development platforms, in our social media—

And the merger with Mana — that isn’t going to continue?

Well, I mean, that will be up to Mana and if the Internet Party continues as an electoral party, the Internet party. Um, the Mana Party are having their AGM in a couple of weeks’ time. The agreement with Mana was always predicated on the assumption that we be in parliament.

So, of course, all bets are off there, but there’s very strong goodwill. And again, for me personally, that was one of the strengths of what we did this year — was engaging our constituency with a kaupapa Maori party, which I think is critical to the future of New Zealand politics.

Let’s reflect on the campaign now, cos we know the story. Internet-Mana went from 2.3% on the 3News-Reid Research poll, higher than that on some other polls, then you started to crash. In the end, Hone Harawira didn’t make it; nobody did. What went wrong?

Um, well, what went wrong was that we completely mismanaged the last month of the campaign. We had amazing momentum before then. The road trip, I think, worked extremely well. What other party just went out there on the front line, engaged with such large audiences?

What was the mismanagement?

I think the kind of beginning of that, really, was Georgina Beyer’s attack on Kim Dotcom, which fed into what became a narrative of a rift and division, and it was one that we just couldn’t knock through the rest of the campaign. It became completely distracting from the release of policy, for instance. I mean, we launched a full employment policy that was second to none and did not get one minute of coverage on, you know, national news.

That’s because Kim Dotcom stood up and talked about hacking,…

Well…

…and Pam Corkery attacked the media on the same—

Well, no, it’s because the media chose to focus on sideshows rather than to allow us to present ourselves in the way that we were presenting ourselves. So, you know, the media made a decision to focus on Kim, and in a very negative way during that period.

The only way that we could have avoided that was to take him completely out of the picture. And of course then there would have been all the stories of ‘what’s happened to Kim Dotcom?’ And ‘has he been side-lined?’ And so on. So we’re kind of in the lose-lose position. Beyond us—

Do you have any regrets in all of this? Cos you must have.

I have absolutely no regrets about choosing to get involved in this project. Back in April— late April when I was first approached to consider the leadership, it was very very clear that Labour and the Greens were not going to make it over the line.

I was utterly committed to a change of government, and in order to change the government, we had to make sure every single progressive vote would count. For that to happen, Internet Party votes had to count. For the Internet Party votes to count, they had to do the deal with Mana. And for Mana to do that deal, they needed a leader that Mana had some confidence in.

Sure.

So I said yes. I put myself into that position, and I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. What I regret is actually the failure of the Left overall to get its act together in a strategic and tactical way during the election.

What do you mean by the failure of the Left overall?

Well, let’s go back to early April when the Greens and Labour pulled the plug on each other. At that time I was on the Green Party campaign committee. I felt that was a terrible error by both parties. I thought it was a major error by the Greens to leak the collapse of that discussion.

You’re saying that you were working inside there at the time and the Greens leaked…

I was on the campaign committee as a volunteer. I wasn’t working for the party, but when the Greens decided to leak the collapse of their discussions with Labour, I felt really concerned about what that meant for the election campaign, because what it meant was what I went through before the… around the 1996 and previous elections, that this was going to become a competition for votes on the Left rather than a cooperation of Left parties to change the government.

Here’s the counter argument, and you know it. Labour and the Greens put the failure of the Left at your feet.

Well, it’s very convenient.

They blame it on Internet-Mana. Andrew Little, all of the Labour leadership candidates all say being connected to Internet-Mana and to Kim Dotcom helped bring the Left down.

I think, actually, what brought, overall… I mean, this was always going to be a very— Can I just give you my view on this? This was always going to be a very finely balanced election outcome. There was no way, no way, never in any polls that Labour and the Greens were going to get sufficient support to form a majority government. That meant we had to rescue progressive votes to. To do that—

I understand all of this. But what also happened was National romped home. It wasn’t close. The Left got thrashed. You guys have been blamed for helping bring down the Left and at the same time there’s an argument that you pumped up the Right. People who were scared of Kim Dotcom. People were scared of Internet-Mana. People didn’t like to deal with Hone Harawira. Not only did you tear down the Left, there’s an argument that you helped John Key win by more.

Well, let’s look at some of the facts here. The Internet-Mana Party deal led to an increase in support for the combined two parties. The early part of our campaign, which Kim was very actively involved in in the road trip, saw a growth in support for Internet-Mana. It was at that point that the Right went fully on attack against Kim, and used Kim and the Internet Party-Mana agreement as the basis for an attack on the Left. At that point, Labour—

And it worked.

Yes, but why did it work? Because at that point Labour and the Greens had a choice. They could either join John Key’s narrative, or they could do the only thing that would have made it possible to get over the line, and that was to accept that putting together a majority in parliament, this time round, that did not have National as part of it was going to depend on working constructively with other parties. Labour ruled out just about every other party during the course of the election campaign, and I think that was a big mistake.

So in summary, those parties not supporting Internet-Mana, those parties trying to distance themselves from you, is to blame for your downfall. You’re blaming Labour—

No, I’m not blaming them for our downfall. What I’m saying is that I think they just played into the Right’s narrative about it. So they fed it. They made it more of a problem. And I think the key to politics is knowing and accepting the environment you’re operating in. They didn’t like us. They didn’t want us, but we were there and they needed to accept that reality.

Let’s talk about Kim Dotcom now. Are you still on his payroll?

No! Goodness, no.

Are you still in contact with him?

Yes. I’m periodically in contact with him.

How?

Mainly by text message. Kim is focussing on his legal issues, obviously. That’s the critical point.

Did you ever seek assurances from him that he was not involved in the hacking, that he was not connected to Rawshark?

I didn’t need to because he was absolutely upfront and direct about that, and I completely accept those assurances, and I also believe that John Key knew, and John Key said now that he knows who the hacker is. I think he knew who the hacker was, and he that he knew it wasn’t Kim Dotcom, and he kept feeding you guys.

Look, we had this conversation during the campaign where he had convinced you that he believed Kim Dotcom was the hacker. I think we now know that he knew right from the start that Kim Dotcom was not the hacker. That was just a complete red herring.

As for the moment of truth when Kim Dotcom failed to deliver. You know, the proof was apparently that email from Kevin Tsujihara. Warner Brothers says that that was a forgery. I mean, do you believe it was real?

I believe that Kim, given the opportunity to share everything about that email, would be able to defend his belief that it’s real. Look, I can’t answer that. I wasn’t directly involved in obtaining it or being involved in the process of—

Either Kim Dotcom’s forged it or Warner Brothers has made it up.

I absolutely don’t believe Kim Dotcom has forged it. I absolutely believe that Kim believes it’s real based on the evidence he has about its origins.

The $3.5 million. What happened to that? Who’s got control of it?

Well, that money’s been spent. I mean, let’s remember that that money was spent from pre the launch of the Internet Party in March and committed. I think we could have done a whole lot—

Was this it for you? The dream of a well-funded campaign — the chance of a lifetime. Is that what was there for you, and now maybe you regret it?

What was there for me and for the kind of politics I represent, was the chance to change the government and to get a platform in parliament for some very new progressive ideas. Look, I’ve walked off platforms in this election campaign where I was the only candidate—

And speaking of walking, where do you go from here?

…the only candidate promoting free tertiary education. You know, you had Labour and Green candidates saying user-pay tertiary education was a necessary evil. I reject that. Where to from here? Well, for me, being outside parliament as a political party is not a game that I think is worth the candle.

What I want to do, though, is continue to promote and connect with the kind of more radical, I guess, policies that we began to introduce into the election. And when I say radical, I don’t mean marginal. I mean radical in the sense of fundamentals. So I’m going on a journey in February with my sister. It’s called ‘Rethink the System’. We’ve got a website.

Rethinkthesystem.org

We’re going on a sort of pilgrimage meets activism to connect with people over fundamental social change issues.

Sounds like fun. Really sorry. We’re out of time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Source: Scoop

Laila Harré quitting Internet Party leadership

3 News report on Laila Harré’s comments about quitting the Internet Party – Laila Harre stepping down as Internet Party leader

“All options are then open for whether or not the party continues as an electoral force or moves into some other formation and plays its part in politics in a different way,” she told The Nation.

The party could be wound up, though if it decides to continue any on-going merger with Mana was not guaranteed.

Internet Mana had completely mismanaged the last month of the campaign, which began when Mana candidate Georgina Beyer publicly attacked Dotcom, Ms Harre said.

“[That] fed into what became a narrative of a rift and division and it was one that we couldn’t knock through the rest of the campaign. It became completely distracting from the release of policy.”

There was a good reason why there was a negative narrative.

The media had also focused on Dotcom on a negative way.

There was a good reason why Dotcom was focussed on in a negative way.

Ms Harre didn’t rule out a return to politics in the future.

“I would love to be in parliament. I would love to be articulating the kind of fundamental agenda and values that Internet Mana promoted.”

It’s hard to see any of the current parties wanting her as one of their MPs. Once political principles are compromised it can be very difficult undoing the damage.

She didn’t have any regrets about her involvement with Internet Mana.

“For me being outside parliament as a political party is not a game that I think is worth the candle.

“What I want to do though is continue to promote and connect with the kind of more radical policies that we began to introduce into the election.”

She has started a website with her sister, Rethinking the System, as part of that journey.

Harré’s announcement yesterday that she is stepping down from leadership.

Laila Harré to step down – member survey still open

I wanted you to know before the public that I will be stepping down from the leadership of the Internet Party at the completion of our current review.

As I said after the election, I am committed to guiding the Party through the review so that members have the final say on what the future looks like.

I thought it was important for you to know my own position before decisions are made. I can see from the survey results so far that you have appreciated me and my leadership – and I can tell you that it’s mutual. I am very proud of what our candidates, staff, active members, and on-line forum participants have created and achieved in just a few months. I really hope that you will all take part in the survey and decision-making process as it’s important to reach into the whole membership for your views.

The survey will close at midnight this Sunday 23 November.

Here is the link again: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/InternetPartyFutureMemberEma…

Thanks to those who have already responded to the survey on the future of the Internet Party.

If you haven’t please do. Whatever your opinion of the future we want to hear from you.

This survey is not a vote – it is intended to canvas all the options and engage members. One we have identified those options (nothing ruled in or out yet) members will make the decisions on the future.

Thanks for participating.

Laila Harré,
Internet Party Leader.

Dotcom response and legal speculation

There’s been a lot of discussion and speculation about the reasons behind Kim Dotcom losing his lawyers and soon after having his bail conditions tightened significantly pending a hearing next week that could put him back in prison.

NZ Herald reported in Court places tough limits on Dotcom’s movements:

The new conditions are in place only until next Monday, when Dotcom will appear for a bail hearing in the Auckland District Court.

Before the issue of bail, Judge Dawson gave Dotcom’s former lawyers – Queen’s Counsel Paul Davison and firm Simpson Grierson – leave to withdraw from the case.

The restrictions follow Crown lawyer Christine Gordon yesterday making an allegation that the Herald is not permitted to publish.

Dotcom has tweeted:

I have never breached my bail conditions & my compliance is exemplary. But without lawyers representing me the Govt just couldn’t resist.

He plays the “Government is against me” card, but there could be reasons other than complying with his bail conditions.

David Farrar implies a possible connection in The Dotcom legal team:

We also might get a decision at some stage soon in the John Banks appeal, where allegedly new witnesses have contradicted the evidence given by Dotcom.

A number of lawyers regularly contribute to discussions at Kiwiblog and they and others speculate in response.

David Garrett:

This truly is fascinating (and I have no inside knowledge). The most common reason for lawyers to get leave to withdraw is when the client is refusing – or is unable – to pay his bills. All the more interesting because Davison has no necessary connection with Simpson Grierson – like me Davison is a barrister who must have an instructing solicitor (Simpson Grierson in this case), but that instructing solicitor can be anyone…literally a sole practitioner from West Auckland could instruct Davison – so long as Davison is prepared to act for the client.

I somehow doubt Dotcom is unable to pay…another reason lawyers withdraw is when they find they have unintentionally misled the court because they have been told porkies by the client…as I say, I have no inside knowledge, but the fact that BOTH the instructing solicitors – to whom Dotcom will have paid hundreds of thousands in fees – AND the barrister have withdrawn smells very strongly of rat…even more so if SG have removed all reference to their former client…like any other big firm, Simply Gruesome are usually quite happy to be identified with a high profile (civil) client whose case presents novel and difficult issues…

Dotcom’s is the biggest copyright case this country has ever seen, or probably is ever likely to see…All very odd…

NB: Nothing in my comment should be construed as an allegation of wrongdoing by Dotcom, Simpson Grierson, its partners and staff, or Paul Davison QC

And…

I think the Herald website refers to “an allegation which cannot be published”…as someone above me said, curiouser and curiouser…Lawyers withdraw from cases all the time, but it is very rare for both the barrister and the instructing solicitors to withdraw at the same time…

Logic would suggest that this withdrawal is somehow connected to the tightening of Dotcom’s bail conditions…but as you say, that is just speculation…

Nookin:

One possibility is that the lawyers’ obligations to the court have been severely compromised by some inappropriate or improper action on the part of the client such that it is no longer tenable for them to continue acting. Curious that the issue arose contemporaneously with circumstances necessitating tightening up the bail conditions.

If this has happened and publication might prejudice the outcome of the extradition proceedings, it is appropriately suppressed. I can only surmise here, bearing in mind the fact that the extradition proceedings will be heard by a judge alone. I can understand suppression on these grounds of their was a jury but this is clearly not the case.

alex Masterly:

Nookin, I think that your first sentence is pretty much bang on target.

For the sake of completeness I note the CCC rules at clause 4.2.1 define good cause for termination of a retainer as including
– instructions requiring a lawyer to breach a professional obligation,
– inability of a client to pay a fee
– the client misleading the lawyer in a material respect,
– the client failing to provide instructions in a timely way.

David Garrett:

The rules are pretty clear: lawyers must not mislead the court, and cannot allow a client to do so. …which is one of the reasons lawyers usually never ask “Did you do it?” Because if the answer is “Yes, but my defence is I didn’t”, that limits the options for counsel…for example you cannot then put the client in the witness box knowing he would lie under cross examination.

If the lawyers became aware that a client was about to commit a crime then they are obliged – I think – (cant be bothered looking up the rules) to both withdraw and inform the police..

As I say, to have BOTH the instructing solicitors and the barrister withdrawing is most unusual…A colleague has suggested to me that one reason may be they think his case is hopeless, but I don’t believe that would be a valid reason to withdraw…it will come out…

Certainly some information has been put before the court which led to his bail conditions being considerably tightened…and as I have said, it would seem to be more than a coincidence that at the same time his lawyers both withdraw…

If he has a big enough speedboat he could get to Australia…or even further if he refuelled on some Pacific Island…

Scott1:

What sorts of things are included in “misleading in a material respect”?

David Garrett:

Scott: Oh: Things like “My total net worth is USD10 million” when in fact it’s double that; Claiming “I don’t have an account in Leichenstein” when in fact he does, and it’s got a shit load in it; claiming he wasn’t present at a crucial meeting where an illegal plan was discussed, and then a tape of the meeting comes to light establishing he was there; claiming a document is genuine when in fact it is a forgery…stuff like that.

Chris Diack:

Mr Dotcom is probably not paying his legal bills (and probably not paying many of his other bills either) That will be why SG want out. They continue to pay Paul Davidson QC and do legal work yet have probably received no payment recently. PD will stuggle to find an instructing solicitor that can back him like SG and of course they may well not get paid (so who would do it).

I doubt they were consulted over Mr Dotcom’s political donations ($4million) and so read about it in the newspapers. Would be galling if you are not being paid and being advised by the Client the money is short. More so now that it is clear that the strategy to get Parliamentary leverage did not work and has actually been detrimental to your clients interests. I suspect had SG been asked they probably would have advised against making such donations as counterproductive.

I doubt the Crown wanting to tighten the bail conditions has much to do with SG wanting out. Probably he has been breaking existing bail conditions (like using a copter). The allegation mentioned in the report is probably that the Crown has some evidence (maybe someone Mr Dotcom has spoken to or as a result of warranted surveillance) that he is considering doing a Smith. Wouldn’t be surprised if they produce a affidavit to that effect. That establishes the flight risk.

David Garrett:

Chris D: You reckon SG has been paying Davison’s bills with their own money?! I must say I find that hard to believe…but as instructing solicitors they have the responsibility of seeing that he is paid, so I suppose you might be right…

I am told Davison charges $1000 an hour for cases that he WANTS to do…if it’s something that doesn’t tickle his fancy I believe it is double that…Again, I have no inside knowledge…just scuttlebutt around the robing rooms…

Interesting fellow Davison…

We will find out more about this next Monday.

Dotcom plot thickens

New bail travel restrictions have been placed on Kim Dotcom, with a ban on travelling by helicopter or by boat at sea, and limiting his travel to within 80 kilometres of his Coatesville residence.

If that happened during the election campaign it would have been very controversial with political implications. However now it just raises eyebrows about what is going on behind the scenes.

This follows last week’s news that his longstanding lawyers including Paul Davison QC withdrawing from Dotcom’s case.

Stuff reports: Dotcom banned from choppers

Kim Dotcom will be back in court again next week for a hearing after new restrictions were placed on his bail today.

The temporary restrictions, imposed by Judge Nevin Dawson in the Auckland District Court, include banning the use of helicopters and boat or sea travel.

Dotcom was also banned from travelling more than 80 kilometres from his Coatesville mansion and ordered to report to police daily.

The new issues, which would be dealt with at next week’s court appearance, followed Judge Dawson’s decision to allow the internet mogul’s lawyers to withdraw from his case.

Dotcom, who was in court today, would not say why his long-standing lawyers at Simpson Grierson, including Paul Davison, QC, had decided to step down from his extradition case.

So a major legal representation setback followed by significant travel restrictions. There must be much more to this than has been reported.

And this will impact on Dotcom’s extradition case.

Dotcom’s United States lawyer Ira Rothken said Simpson Grierson’s withdrawal from the case posed a “difficult challenge”.

It was going to take a while to find a replacement law firm and for it to become familiar with the case, he said.

Judge Dawson granted leave to delay Dotcom’s extradition hearing further and the case is now scheduled to be heard in June.

Dotcom followed this with two tweets:

In the news: Travel conditions imposed on Dotcom + daily reporting to the police.

He links to Radio NZ: Travel conditions imposed on Dotcom

Kim Dotcom has been banned from using helicopters ahead of a Crown application to revoke bail.

So they want to revoke bail, which means Dotcom would go back into custody. There must be a reason for this change.

Dotcom also tweeted:

This year was a total disaster. I have taken many punches. But I won’t break. I will keep going through this hell for my kids. Count on it.

Part of the disaster was brought upon himself with his multi-million dollar exercise in political futility.

Dotcom’s US based lawyer also tweeted:

I just did an interview with Radio NZ on retaining new extradition defense counsel in NZ in the case

He links to: Dotcom searches for lawyers after NZ legal team quits

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 277 other followers