It is amazing to see how the leak a few days early of Simon Bridges’ expenses has become such a big and persistent story.
Newshub (Tova O’Brien) kicked the story off, framing it as a big scandal of overspending. But it has become more a scandal of leaks, and now of why the Speaker Trevor Mallard suddenly called of a planned inquiry, why he involved Jacinda Ardern, and why Bridges and National are being so persistent in pushing for a resolution.
Last Friday O’Brien became strangely indignant that RNZ gave the story new legs, ironically citing concern over the welfare of the leaker her provided her with the story she broke, but Newshub have now given the story another nudge (but via Jenna Lynch): Simon Bridges still unconvinced expenses leaker is a National MP
The National party will launch its own secret internal investigation into who leaked Simon Bridges travel expenses.
On Friday, Speaker Trevor Mallard ditched his inquiry, telling National it was an internal matter for them to sort out.
Even though most signs point to the leaker being a National MP, Mr Bridges still isn’t convinced.
Newshub must know who the leaker is. O’Brien must know at least. They quote Bridges:
“I will do my best and the National Party is united in doing its best to get to the bottom of who the leaker is”
The text – which was sent days earlier to Mr Bridges, Mr Mallard and Newshub – asked for the inquiry to be abandoned, citing ongoing mental health issues.
The leaker’s text provided three specific details of closed-door National Party caucus meetings, yet Mr Bridges remains stuck on the idea the leaker came from outside his party.
“It may not be a National MP or a National Party staffer,” he says.
That doesn’t sound “stuck on the idea the leaker came from outside his party”.
Ardern: “This is a matter for the National Party”.
Bridges: “Well why, on what evidence, on what basis does she say that?”
A fair question. Why does Ardern know with certainty it’s a matter for only the National Party?
Newshub: “Despite the leaker’s text providing specific details of closed door National Party caucus meetings, Bridges isn’t convinced.
Newshub displayed what looks like a mock up of the start of the text message:
That is curiously worded and vague. Newshub do not give further details would that indicate the knowledge claimed proves they are a member of the National caucus. Jenna Lynch on National’s inquity:
“Because it will be internal, even if the Nats do find the person responsible they may choose to keep that a secret, so we may never learn the identity of the leaker…unless of course, someone was to leak that.”
An odd closing statement. ‘We’ the public may never find out who the leaker was, but ‘we’ the Newshub (or at least O’Brien’) must know who it is.
And questions are being asked about what Mallard and Ardern know about the identity of the leaker too.
NZH: Jacinda Ardern admits speaking to Trevor Mallard about leak inquiry but says it was perfectly innocent
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has confirmed she spoke to Speaker Trevor Mallard last Friday before he announced the cancellation of the inquiry into leaked travel expenses but says their conversation was to advise her of his decision.
“It was not a dialogue,” her spokesman said. “She did not have any input into the decision.”
She did not know who the leaker was and she did not have any conversation with the Speaker about who it might be, the spokesman said.
So she must have based her statements like “This is a matter for the National Party” on what Mallard told her.
National leader Simon Bridges, who also received the text, has suggested Mallard was influenced by Ardern’s public comments when she said it was an internal matter for National and should be dealt with sensitively.
Shadow leader of the House Gerry Brownlee said today there had been no need for Mallard to advise the Prime Minister of his decision to cancel the inquiry.
“On what basis did he do that?”
Mallard had said he believed the leak came from National and the Prime Minister had said it should be dealt with sensitively, said Brownlee.
“On what basis do they make that statement? Do they know? And are they simply not telling us because of some commitments around parliamentary security and diplomatic protection security.”
Brownlee said if Mallard knew who the person was who leaked the document and sent the texts, he should tell National.
“He has made it very clear that his concerns are about the well-being of the individual concerned and we would share that concern and want to do something about it.”
“Most MPs are pretty incensed that the Speaker has gone out and effectively pointed the finger at our caucus and made a couple of pretty serious accusations – one of extreme disloyalty and another of a problematic mental illness.”
The police have been in contact with the leaker, but won’t give further details:
“We reiterate our comment from Friday that Police will not be disclosing any information about the identity of the individual for privacy reasons”.
“We also reiterate that Police assessed the information supplied [by Simon Bridges about the text] as a mental health issue requiring an immediate response.
“It is not subject to other investigative steps. We are not going to discuss any matters regarding specific steps taken regarding the welfare of the individual. “
I’m not sure it’s clear how the police found out the leaker’s identity, as it has been claimed the contact was made via an anonymous phone. Were they able to track the source to a specific office in Parliament? A specific residence in Wellington? or somewhere else?
Timeline (NZH):
August 13 – Newshub publish story based on Simon Bridges’ leaked expenses.
August 15 – Speaker Mallard agrees to hold inquiry.
August 16 – Bridges, Mallard and Newshub receive anonymous text message allegedly from National MP pleading for inquiry to be called off on mental health grounds.
August 17 – Bridges talks to mental health experts and tells police about text on advice.
August 19 – Police tell Bridges they have identified and contacted texter (won’t name them) and that the person is getting support.
August 23 – Mallard names Michael Heron QC to conduct inquiry.
August 24 – RNZ reveals texts were sent previous week to Bridges and Mallard; Ardern and others comment publicly.
August 24 – Mallard cancels inquiry.
The day the text was sent was a Thursday. Parliament wasn’t sitting so MPs may or may not have been at Parliament.
How did the police find out who the leaker was.
Were the three texts identical? Did Bridges or Mallard tell the police who it was? Or did they identify themselves only to O’Brien and she told them?
Last Friday:
But also:
O’Brien has said she was sent the same text message:
I was sent the same text message Simon Bridges and Trevor Mallard were sent last week by the leaker of Bridges’ expenses.
The leaker’s message was simple, in their words:
“There is no security breach in the parliament or problem to be fixed in the system.”
“Just say you know there is no security breach”.
They shared anecdotes from National Party caucus meetings that only National Party MPs would know in an attempt to prove that they’re an MP, and that the leak shouldn’t be dealt with at a Parliamentary level overseen by a Queen’s Counsel or High Court judge.
But Bridges and other National MPs say they are not convinced it proves it was a National MP.
Newshub chose not to report on the text message after we received it last Thursday. I held grave concerns for my source’s safety and wellbeing.
I would like to make it clear that when I was leaked Simon Bridges’ expenses I was completely unaware of my source’s history of mental health issues.
With some details of the text having been cherry picked, leaked and then discussed by Simon Bridges we have made the decision to release other elements to balance and include our source’s voice.
She refers to both “my source” and “our source”. She at least must know who it was – and as a journalist should protect the identity of her source.
But can she be sure the person who sent the text was her source? Did she verify it with them perhaps?
More importantly given the current state of this saga, does Mallard know who it is? It would appear so given his apparent confidence that it’s only an internal National Party problem now. So did he get a different text?
And why is Bridges and National so driven to keep this story alive and identify the leaker?
If there is a National MP with serious mental health issues, and/or who has said their life was at risk if the inquiry continued (effectively blackmailing Mallard), this is surely a concern of parliament and therefore of the Speaker.
The way things are now, if it is a National MP, then National have a major problem. It would mean they have an MP with serious mental health issues and/or threatened the Speaker.
And they have someone in their caucus who has leaked relatively trivial information to attack their leader. That makes things very awkward for Bridges and National, knowing that whatever caucus says could be leaked again. No wonder they want to identify the leaker.
UPDATE (Tuesday pm):