Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search

 


Dr Don Brash Explains Himself To National Radio

The Morning After The Weekend Of Publication Of The Hollow Men
Dr Don Brash Explains Himself To National Radio


Radio New Zealand Audio Links Compiled By Alastair Thompson
Transcripts By Rosalea Barker

This morning out-going National Party Leader Dr Don Brash made himself available for two interviews on National Radio, explaining his views on reading Nicky Hager's Book Hollow Men: A Study In The Politics Of Deception .

Reaction to the book's publication dominated this morning's National Radio broadcasts.

In the first interview with Sean Plunket on Morning Report Dr Brash indicated he was considering taking legal action over the book, though he had not yet sought advice from a lawyer. In the later, longer, interview with Kathryn Ryan on Nine-to-Noon he responded in more detail to allegations made in the book.

Following his discussion with Sean Plunket, Morning Report co-host Geoff Robinson team spoke to Labour Party Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen about Dr Brash's response.

The following are rush transcripts of these interviews prepared for Scoop by Stateside with Rosalea columnist Rosalea Barker.

JUMP TO:

SEE ALSO RELATED SCOOP REPORTS:

LISTEN TO RELATED RNZ INTERVIEWS:

**********

LISTEN: Don Brash Nine-To-Noon Interview With Radio New Zealand's Kathryn Ryan.

KATHRYN RYAN:
I want now to cross to an interview with Dr Brash. I spoke to him just before we came on air this morning. He, of course, is battling off the allegations in Nicky Hager's book, which is now published and I think probably about to hit bookstores today. I began by asking Dr Brash what content in the book he says he believes is untrue.

DON BRASH:
There are so many I can't possibly deal with it even in the Nine to Noon programme, Kathryn. But let me give some examples. He claims very strongly that both John Key and I received an email letter from the Exclusive Brethren in May, 2005, detailing their election planning, or campaign, or whatever the word is. John Key denies ever having got that email, and I certainly deny it. Not only not having got that; I deny getting THAT email, and indeed I didn't get any emails at all from the Exclusive Brethren before or after the election. I've never had one. In fact, I'd assumed that they didn't use email.

Now, since the election--just about three months back--I was shown a hard copy of an email sent to me by the Exclusive Brethren in August '05 to my national.org.nz email address, which I normally don't see at all. Apparently, an email did come to that address. I didn't see it then. I didn't see it, as I say, till nearly a year after the election.

KATHRYN RYAN:
You see, here's the other problem though. This particular email talks about a substantial campaign, about a million dollars being spent, about seven flyers being sent out--

DON BRASH:
Apparently.

KATHRYN RYAN:
--and it's difficult, you see, to accept that both you and John never received this email and somehow were never made aware of it, when other emails indicate quite a bit of discussion amongst your senior staff. Another email says, "That advertising in the paper today is your Brethren friends." When you add in other evidence in the book, it does become extremely difficult to believe you were not aware of the extent of the campaign they were undertaking.

DON BRASH:
Look, I've never hidden the fact that my first contact with them was in 2004. I met two members of the sect at the Whangarei Airport. I can't give you an exact date, but it was long before the election. During the election year itself, I probably met with them two or three times. Once in Auckland, I clearly recall, and twice—conceivably even three times-- in Wellington at my office.

Now, I don't include the contacts which Hager does include, namely occasional bumping into people at public meetings.

KATHRYN RYAN:
On the email, just on the email evidence that he has. Here's some: your staff members are telling you that this advertisement was "your Brethren friends"; you had recent communications referring to "our/your campaign"; you have a communication, as we said, that refers to the spending of a million dollar campaign. It is very, very difficult, as Nicky Hager argues, to believe that you were not aware of it. You've admitted that you knew about the $350,000 Defence campaign.

DON BRASH:
Hold on a second. Let me respond to some of those points. "Your Brethren friends" is a satirical, ironic comment by [my assistant] Bryan Sinclair.

KATHRYN RYAN:
Clearly. Clearly. But it indicates there were discussions among you and a level of awareness among you.

DON BRASH:
What I'm saying to you is: The Brethren were very persistent in trying to contact me. No question about that at all. I think the reference is to an anti-Civil Union Bill campaign. Is that right?

KATHRYN RYAN:
I can't confirm that on the spot.

DON BRASH:
Okay. I think that's what it was about. Or it may have been the Defence ad. I knew about the Defence ad; they'd shown it to me months and months ahead of the election. I thought, frankly, it was a totally unrealistic ad. I didn't want the National Party associated with it at all. They were calling for Defence spending of 5 percent of GDP, which in my view is just away with the fairies.

Now, they showed me that ad proudly as if this would please me. It didn't please me at all. I was very pleased, indeed, therefore when they eventually admitted it was them. I was worried that people might think it was the National Party.

KATHRYN RYAN:
I'm not surprised you were pleased to see you were dissociated with this ad. But, you see, all of this adds up to a level of awareness about the Brethren and the Brethren's intentions that perhaps does not match with what you said during the campaign.

DON BRASH:
The second charge you made a moment ago, with reference to "our/your election campaign" -- that was in an email which, as I said to you, I didn't ever get. That's the point I'm making to you. This is why I regard the book as such an outrageous distortion of reality. I've admitted freely that I'd met with the Brethren several times pre-election. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing criminal about that.

The key issue about my credibility was: Did I know that the anti-Green pamphlet which Rod Donald thrust under my nose in early September was done by the Brethren? I didn't. He asked me, "Did National produce it?" I said, No. He said, "Who did?" I said, "I have no idea." And I didn't.

KATHRYN RYAN:
And as questioning unfolded during that election campaign, you ended up saying that you suspected they might have been behind it.

DON BRASH:
Well, later in the week, they put their hand up and said, "This was us."

KATHRYN RYAN:
When you were questioned about your response on that first day, you said, "I suspected they might be, but I did not know."

DON BRASH:
I didn't know. The key issue was: I did not knowingly mislead the New Zealand public on that issue. And I maintain that, and I'll maintain it to the day I die.

KATHRYN RYAN:
One other chapter which carries some considerable allegations is the extent to which you knew who some of your major donors were, when you said in the election campaign, "I don't know." Email conversation in this book suggests that you would have had a very good idea who your major donors were.

DON BRASH:
Who some of the major donors were, certainly. Because some of them are personal friends. How much they gave, I still don't know. I notice that Roderick Deane for example is quoted in this morning's Herald as saying, "I've never given a cent to any political party in my life." Now, I wouldn't have known that. This, in the book, is someone who was almost certainly a major donor.

KATHRYN RYAN:
Again, the email traffic suggests that there was pretty open discussion among your staff about donors and potential donors; that you personally had meetings and luncheons; you made phone calls to people who were intending to make major donations. Could there have been a more upfront answer to questions about who your major donors were during the election campaign?

DON BRASH:
I did not know how much they contributed or whether they contributed. That's the key point I'm making to you. Alan Gibbs, let's take him as an example. I've known him since we were both six. I've known him all my life. He indicated to me he was very keen to be supportive. How much he gave, I still don't know to this day.

KATHRYN RYAN:
Perhaps the other issue that will come under a lot of scrutiny is that National has attacked Labour very effectively and relentlessly this year over its election spending. Yet, this book would indicate that National went to a considerable degree to, at the very least, exploit loopholes in the law, and push boundaries over its own election fundraising and spending.

DON BRASH:
No, Kathryn. I disagree with that completely. There was only one party found to have broken the law on election spending and that was Labour. Third-party endorsements, which you can say the Exclusive Brethren were doing, but they never mentioned National in their ads, and we were very careful to make sure they didn't—in fact we said, “Go to the Chief Electoral Officer and make sure you don't break the law” -- third-party endorsement is not new and not illegal in New Zealand politics. The Unions do it all the time.

KATHRYN RYAN:
You made the distinction about whether or not the law was broken, and at that point, that is correct. The only finding by authorities that the law has been broken, is against Labour. But this book shows you working very closely with the racing industry to get pro-National messages in the--

DON BRASH:
… What the book shows is that the racing industry was very angry with the Labour Party's tax proposals. As I recall, they campaigned aggressively, pointing out the fact that it had promised to fix the tax around the racing industry in 2002 but never did so.

KATHRYN RYAN:
Did National slip these lines, either to the racing industry or to the Brethren, such as lines that a change for government would be useful in advertising because it would help support your own campaign?

DON BRASH:
I didn't ever do that. Whether any of my colleagues suggested it, I've no idea. But the advertisements were absolutely clear in the law. The racing industry, frankly, would have been as happy with a NZ First government as a National government.

KATHRYN RYAN:
Would suggesting advertising lines to a third-party campaigner come close to a level of involvement that might be very close to endorsing their campaign?

DON BRASH:
I don't know the law well enough to answer that legal question, Kathryn. But the key point is they did not ever say -- to my knowledge -- Vote National, or Vote NZ First.

KATHRYN RYAN:
That is the National Party Leader, sorry, the former National Party Leader as of today, Dr Don Brash.

**********

LISTEN: Don Brash Morning Report Interview With Radio New Zealand's Sean PLUNKET.

SEAN PLUNKET:
As we've been reporting, National's leadership race--or lack-of-leadership race, as some might say--comes at a time, the same time as the release of Nicky Hager's book The Hollow Men. A book which makes serious allegations about the financial backing of the party, Don Brash's leadership team, and relationships between the party and the Exclusive Brethren church. One of the key contentions in Nicky Hager's book is that Don Brash was well aware of the Exclusive Brethren's anti-government campaign in the run-up to the election. In particular, it says he knew of the attack pamphlets distributed by the sect. Dr Brash has repeatedly denied that, making these comments during last year's election campaign:

"I was told that they were proposing to campaign against the government. I have not seen the pamphlets. I still have not read the pamphlets."

"I accept that, if there's been any confusion at all, I certainly want to apologise for it."

"There was no conspiracy. There's no National Party involvement in these pamphlets--none whatsoever--but we are keen to have any support we can get to get rid of this lousy government."

He reiterated that stance last week:

"I was told about the pamphlets at the August '05 meeting. To the best of my recollection."

Dr Brash joins us now. Good morning. Welcome to the programme.

DON BRASH:
Good morning, Sean.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Dr Brash, before we move on to the issues raised by the book, in the light of what appears to be the resolution of your replacement and Bill English’s appointment as Deputy and Finance Spokesperson, has that caused you to reconsider or to make further decisions about your political future in the National Party?

DON BRASH:
Oh, no, it hasn't. I think if that's the outcome of today's caucus meeting--and it looks certainly as if that will be the case--it will be a very good outcome indeed. A team of very competent, experienced people, well qualified to take National into the election in 2008.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Finance was not a portfolio you wished for?

DON BRASH:
Oh, it's one of the portfolios I think I could have done effectively, but I absolutely respect the Leader's right to make that allocation to Bill English.

SEAN PLUNKET:
All right. Onto the book, then. You got a copy, I understand, what, Friday?

DON BRASH:
I got a copy of the printer's proof, minus all the footnotes and notes to it on Friday night, and I read most of it yesterday.

SEAN PLUNKET:
What do you think of it?

DON BRASH:
Well, I think there are an awful lot of things in it which are factually wrong and a lot of things which are totally misinterpretations of what actually happened. And let me—since we were talking about the Exclusive Brethren a moment ago--talk about that one particular issue. The book alleges that I received an email letter in May, 2005, indicating the Brethren's election plans. I didn't ever get an email from the Brethren before the election. I've never had an email from the Brethren since the election, though I have seen a hard-copy printout of one sent to me in August, '05, at my national.org email address. I didn't ever receive that on my computer.

SEAN PLUNKET:
You did receive though in February--Monday, February 14th, I think--an email from Richard Long which said your electorate secretary had turned down a meeting with the Brethren which you had responded to positively after a personal approach, or direct approach from them.

DON BRASH:
That's quite right. I normally take it for granted that a Member of Parliament will see any legitimate group who wants to talk to him or her. When people contact me to say, "Can we talk to you?" I normally try to say, Yes.

Now, the Brethren were particularly persistent and quite frequently I found myself otherwise engaged and didn't see them. But I’ve frequently acknowledged that my first contact with them was in '04, when I met two members of the sect at Whangarei airport, and I had two or three meetings with them again, pre-election.

SEAN PLUNKET:
That's a lot different from the line you were giving during the election campaign, Dr Brash, which was: "I think I may have met them."

DON BRASH:
No, no. I didn't ever say that. The whole issue blew up because Rod Donald confronted me on a street in Rotorua about an anti-Green pamphlet, and said very aggressively, "Did National produce this?" I said, "We did not." He said, "Who did?" I said, "I haven't the faintest idea." And that was true; I didn't know. Later in the week, the Exclusive Brethren put their hand up and said, "It was us who did it," and I said the following day, they had met with me in August and they had said they were going to produce some anti-government pamphlets. I didn't connect the anti-government pamphlets with the anti-Green pamphlet which Rod Donald showed me on Monday.

SEAN PLUNKET:
And you were out of the loop as far as the party hierarchy's interaction with the Brethren was, and their discussion of a previous pamphlet and advertising campaign?

DON BRASH:
I was.

SEAN PLUNKET: You're telling us you were--

DON BRASH:
One second. You said "previous advertising campaign"--I was aware of the fact that they ran an anti-- I'm sorry, a pro-Defence spending ad earlier in the year. It wasn't about voting National; it was simply saying New Zealand ain't spending enough on Defence and we should be spending 5 percent of GDP.

SEAN PLUNKET: If it wasn't such an issue, what was Richard Long doing, writing for you media training lines?

DON BRASH:
Every time I met the media, Richard Long suggested this is best way of dealing with it crisply. One of the difficulties I had as leader was I wanted to--

SEAN PLUNKET:
Why was he pre-warned that you had to deal with this? Why was there such a heads up and concern about this issue if there was nothing in it?

DON BRASH:
I haven't the faintest idea of the particular case you're talking about. As I say, it was normal standard operating practice that when I was having a media interview, Richard would say, "Look, I think this is the best way to handle this particular issue. As crisply as you can."

But, Sean, the key issue is: Did I knowingly mislead the New Zealand public about the anti-Green pamphlet which Rod Donald waved in my face in September? The answer is No. And the Hager book does nothing to discredit that view.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Are you prepared to accept the other, I guess, picture that is painted in the book, and that is that you were brought to the leadership by a fairly powerful group of quite--in terms of the NZ political spectrum--right-wing political operatives? Including people who used to be closely associated with the ACT Party, including people like Roger Douglas, and there was quite a campaign to repackage you more towards the centre of politics in order to advance the National Party's and your political aims?

DON BRASH:
I absolutely accept that some of the people who backed my leadership bid in '03 were people who are to the right of New Zealand politics. No question about that at all. Did they have an influence on the caucus vote? I very much doubt it. I very much doubt it.

And the book contends that I made a speech to that caucus meeting, talking about how voting for Don Brash as leader would get the National Party some funding. I made no speech--none whatsoever--at that caucus meeting. There were no speeches. We went straight into the caucus meeting and Bill English said, "We won't have any speeches. We know each other." We went straight to a vote.

So that is a total fabrication. Did I prepare a speech to give? Yes, I did. It was never, ever used. And you can ask any member of the caucus for confirmation of that fact. Now, when we went into the election, we obviously had a whole series of policies which were, by definition, hammered out across a caucus of, then, 27 people. And that's what you'd expect in a political party.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Dr Brash, despite your contention last week, isn't it the truth that no matter whether or not the activities outlined in this book are contestable, legal, or illegal, it was going to be pretty hard to stay on as Leader after this thing was published?

DON BRASH:
I profoundly hope that was not the case, Sean, because, as I say, there’s an awful lot of absolute utter unmitigated garbage in the book.

SEAN PLUNKET:
One can presume, then, that you'll be taking action over that?

DON BRASH:
I may well be. I may well be.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Are you considering legal action over the book?

DON BRASH:
I am considering it, though I haven't yet spoken to any lawyers at all.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Isn't that going to be a rather rich irony, given that you jumped through legal hoops so the thing could be published?

DON BRASH:
Well, absolutely! It's important that anyone who wants to make a critical remark about politicians is able to do so in New Zealand. We're a free society. That's what--I made every effort last week to ensure the book could be published. The book I was aiming to injunct was not Nicky Hager's book at all. Turns out there wasn't such a book.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Do you wish you had kept the injunction on now?

DON BRASH:
No, no. No. Nicky Hager's got a right to be heard. I just think a lot of the stuff he's saying is unmitigated garbage.

SEAN PLUNKET:
And would you take--and you are considering legal action over that?

DON BRASH:
As I say, I don't want to jump that one too quickly. Politicians have to have a fairly thick skin, but what I want to get across very clearly is that there is a lot of total -- I'm trying to think of the right polite word for Radio New Zealand --

SEAN PLUNKET:
I think we can all conjure that in our minds.

BRASH: -- I'm thinking of, and I do not -- I certainly hope my caucus will not have been influenced unduly by a bad book. I made a decision to resign before the book came out -- before I was even aware of the book, in fact -- and decided against deferring the announcement on Thursday because, frankly, there's never a right time.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Dr Brash, are you going to stay in politics really, do you think?

DON BRASH:
That depends very much on the new Leader, what he--it looks clearly now that it is a "he"--wants me to do.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Thank you for joining us. That is Dr Don Brash, technically still the Leader of the National Party until the caucus meeting today, which will replace him with John Key and Bill English as Deputy.

**********

LISTEN: Morning Report Follow Up Interview of Michael Cullen With Radio New Zealand's Sean PLUNKET and Geoff Robinson.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
Don Brash says he is looking at legal action over allegations made in Nicky Hager's book The Hollow Men. The book makes serious allegations about the financial backing of the party, Don Brash's leadership team, and the relationship between the party and the Exclusive Brethren. But Don Brash told us the book is wrong and he's asking his lawyers to look at it.

DON BRASH:
There's an awful lot of absolute, utter, unmitigated garbage in the book.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Are you considering legal action over the book?

DON BRASH:
I am considering legal action. I haven't yet spoken to any lawyers at all.

SEAN PLUNKET:
Do you wish you had kept the injunction on now?

DON BRASH:
No, no. No, Nicky Hager's got a right to be heard. I just said a lot of the stuff he is saying is unmitigated garbage.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
The Labour Party Deputy Leader, Michael Cullen, joins us now. Good morning Dr Cullen.

MICHAEL CULLEN:
Good morning, Geoff.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
Now, one of the things you've said as a result of looking at the book, is you asked the Auditor General to look at National Party spending, the financial arrangements between the Exclusive Brethren and the National Party. Under what sort of legislation would you do that?

MICHAEL CULLEN:
We'll be raising a number of questions, and we'll make final decisions about what to do with those as we look through the book a little bit further today and over the rest of this week. I think the real issues are around the use of Parliamentary Services’ funding, and whether there are matters the Auditor General missed in his initial inquiry.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
That would be something that you've already dealt with by passing the retrospective legislation.

MICHAEL CULLEN:
Yes, that doesn't affect, of course, the issue of paying back money which the Auditor General would have found was improperly spent in his original inquiry. After all, we validated legislation -- the Labour Party is paying back over $800,000 of spending even though we believe we did nothing wrong. You'll remember National went on and on about corruption and hypocrisy. It's pretty clear where the hypocrisy now lies in this respect.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
There is a statutory limitation on election spending--

MICHAEL CULLEN:
That's right.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
--and that’s done.

MICHAEL CULLEN:
That’s right. In terms of the election spending issues under the Electoral Act, then National has got out of matters because the time has elapsed. But of course that doesn't remove the political stain, and the real issues here are around how much Mr Key knew--and, perhaps less likely, Mr English knew. Plus the most important issue is the clear deception around policies and the fact that major donors were clearly expecting certain policy delivery while National was denying that those issues like privatisation were its policies in the public arena.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
And that's what you'd ask the Auditor General to investigate?

MICHAEL CULLEN:
That will be a matter for the Auditor General. I think that's a matter for us to continue hammering home for the next two years, and the real political problem they're going to face is -- clearly, if they’ve got lots of money coming in, that money's coming in at a price. Because those kinds of donors do demand a price in terms of policy. So if Mr Key is going to project himself as a centrist, then he's going to be a lot poorer than Dr Brash was as leader of the last election. But, of course, to be fair Mr Key can fund it all himself.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
Do you think you're going to have a tougher job in Parliament with Mr Key and Mr English against you as opposed to Dr Brash and Gerry Brownlee?

MICHAEL CULLEN:
Well, the two of them are our fifth leader and seventh deputy leader for the last ten years, so there'll certainly be a honeymoon period. But in the end, I don't think that Mr Key is going to shape up in the longer term. In our view, National Party has replaced the hollow man with the shallow man, and our job will be to make that clear over the next couple of years.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
Do you think that the Hager book dramatically changes the face of NZ politics, or do you believe that it's just a collection of speculation that makes National look bad?

MICHAEL CULLEN:
There's a fair amount of documentary evidence in there which National Party has got to give much more convincing answers too. They have so far largely just attacked Mr Hager at a personal level. But most of that's not going to be a huge surprise. We were saying before the election that National had a secret policy agenda. I think Mr Hager's book simply lends weight to that proposition.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
But he doesn't have the killer blow, though, does he?

MICHAEL CULLEN:
I think he has a fair number of killer blows. There's an awful lot of correspondence in there, not least of which, going forward, is clearly the tension between Mr English and many of those who've been backing Mr Key. Mr Key and Mr English clearly don't like each other at all….

GEOFF ROBINSON:
Come on its in your interests to say that. Do you actually have evidence of that?

MICHAEL CULLEN:
Oh, it's absolutely clear! Mr Key's been undermining.. that is Mr English has been trying to undermine Mr Key for the last few months. There's an awful lot of wiping down of the walls appearing at the moment.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
So you would advise Mr Key to watch his back, would you?

MICHAEL CULLEN:
Don't forget last time Mr English was number two, he very quickly tried to become number one, so if I was Mr Key, I'd keep facing towards Mr English very, very carefully indeed.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
As perhaps Helen Clark has faced Michael Cullen very carefully early on?

MICHAEL CULLEN:
In fact, I wouldn't try to replace Helen as leader. That's one of the great myths of politics. In 1996, we changed the deputy leadership and we've worked incredibly closely together ever since then. I don't believe the relation between Key and English is of that sort at all. Helen and I had always worked closely together over many, many years.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
Are you expecting Dr Brash to get a good front-line position, front-bench position, eventually?

MICHAEL CULLEN:
I think Mr Key will be wanting Dr Brash to go back to his orchard and not to be around the place. Look, their strategy is to try and pretend that all the problems are those associated with Dr Brash, and everybody else has clean hands. We don't find that a credible proposition.

GEOFF ROBINSON:
Thanks for joining us today. Labour Party Deputy Leader, Michael Cullen.

****ENDS****

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>

ALSO:

Buildup:

Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>

ALSO:

Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>

ALSO:


Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news