The Curious Case of Andrew Ketels | New Zealand Political Investigation

A Curious Case

Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub Andrew Ketels Jenna Lynch Winston Peters Newshub

The Curious Case

of Andrew Ketels

By Kæstur Hákarl, Thursday 20 August 2020

(Updated Friday 21 August 2020).

First, there was 'The Hollow Men'. Then, there was 'Dirty Politics'. The leak of Winston Peters' superannuation details before the 2017 election was the next instalment. As this investigation uncovers, in Parliament is a clique of obsessed political staffers and journalists with a common goal. Its ringleader is little-known politico, Andrew Ketels.

While the Act Party soars in the polls, National has not responded to scathing attacks from David Seymour’s Senior Advisor, Andrew Ketels. Why?

Here is a list of the positions held by Andrew Ketels:

Private Secretary to Minister of Immigration, Kate Wilkinson (March 2012 - Jan 2013)
Private Secretary to Minister of Immigration, Nikki Kaye (Jan 2013 - May 2014)
Ministerial Advisor to Maggie Barry (November 2015 - January 2017)
Ministerial Advisor to Louise Upston (January 2017 - October 2017)
Senior Advisor to David Seymour (November 2017 - Present)

Source: Linkedin

Ketels got a job working in the Beehive in a John Key/Bill English government. Yet, he believes this:

New Zealand’s real problems are not identity politics, no matter what the left may think. They are that the welfare state has failed. Too many kids don’t get educated. Too many working aged adults are on welfare. Too many are in jail because there is too much crime and they’re never rehabilitated. Housing has gone from a commodity to a ponzi scheme. Our productivity growth is anaemic. With government’s and councils’ approach to regulation, it’s amazing anyone still does anything. – Andrew Ketels

Source: Ele Ludermann’s Homepaddock blog

So, a former immigration officer-turned ministerial advisor working for a former banker-turned Prime Minister who opened the immigration gates to fuel a housing crisis said this. Ketels then called it a ponzi scheme. O... K...

Ketels joined the Twittersphere straight after the 2017 election and first tweeted on 7 November 2017, shortly after starting his job with David Seymour:

Source: Twitter

Ketels then launched attacks against National Party leaders John Key, Bill English, Todd Muller, Simon Bridges and Judith Collins. He doesn’t seem phased attacking National’s MP based in Epsom, Paul Goldsmith, either. He is particularly savage against National MPs Dan Bidois, Jacqui Dean, David Bennett, Michael Woodhouse, Mark Mitchell and Simeon Brown. (Ketels has since deleted his Twitter account. The highlighted links are those we've archived.)

Source: Twitter

What is most curious is that Ketels attacks his former bosses Maggie Barry, Nikki Kaye and Kate Wilkinson, but not Louise Upston. Also absent is any criticism of Anne Tolley or Paula Bennett.

With friends like Andrew Ketels, who needs enemies? He’s attacked the Nats more than he’s attacked Winston Peters!

...or has he?

With friends like these...

Is Andrew Ketels as obnoxious, arrogant and outspoken than his tweets? To survive this long in politics he must have friends, right?

Well, let’s first look at who he communicates with the most online. There was initially a bit of sucking up to the boss, and vice versa. Louis Houlbrooke was David Seymour’s Press Secretary until Ketels started working in Seymour’s office. Now, Louis is the Campaign Manager for the New Zealand Taxpayer’s Union. Ketels sends a lot of traffic Louis’ way, and vice versa:

With friends like these...

Source: Twitter

The Taxpayers' Union would be perfect for Ketels as they claimed to have 'attacked National more than any other party.' Jordan Williams even has a career obsessed with attacking Winston Peters. But, then again, wouldn't it be better if someone else fights your battles while you remain unscathed? Isn't it much more fun to be in the cut-and-thrust of Parliament? The MBA can wait.

Let’s delve back a bit. To get anywhere, you need friends to have your back. Of particular interest, Ketels' workbuddies and mates include the following:

(Note: this image is a collage of several search results from Andrew Ketels' Facebook page.)

Source: Facebook

Ashley Murchison was Anne Tolley’s private press secretary. Ashley is engaged to Paula Bennett’s former press secretary, James Meager. While completing her PhD at Otago University in political advertising, she was a close colleague of political commentator, Dr Bryce Edwards. While working for Tolley, she and her partner were close friends with Newshub’s Lloyd Burr and Newshub’s Dave Gooselink:

(James Meager, Ashley Murchison, and Dave Gooselink.)

Source: Facebook

Note the interesting comment by Lloyd Burr that Meager is a Nat, Murchison is a Labour supporter (sorry, Maori Party supporter) and Gooselink is an Act supporter. Despite that admission, Murchison scored a job in National's Parliamentary Office as a policy, research and communications assistant.

Cameron Oldfield was raised in Tauranga and was Simon Bridge’s intern between March and November 2011. Oh look, here he is in Parliament:

Source: Facebook

Winston Peters was Tauranga's Member of Parliament between 1984 and 2005 - first as a National Party candidate and then New Zealand First since 1993. During the 2005 and 2008 elections, Simon Bridges was instrumental in helping Bob Clarkson and then his own campaign to end Winston Peters' reign as Tauranga MP. It goes without saying that the Tauranga branch of the National Party was obsessed with destroying Winston Peters' political career.

Oldfield's CV says that he is Director of Sister Cities New Zealand since June 2011. Other than that, a pretty bland CV, wouldn't you think?

Source: Linkedin

Strangely, there is no mention of Oldfield on the Sister Cities website. There is no mention of Cameron Oldfield in their newsletters after November 2013? How come? What else is missing from Oldfield's CV?

Interestingly, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union have campaigned against how much councils have spent on sister city liaisons.

Ketels has several connections with right-leaning politicos and media. He regularly shares information but rarely gets any acknowledgment. He makes many comments on David Farrar’s feed, but not so many are reciprocated. The same goes for Newsroom editor, Tim Murphy, and vice versa. The same can be said about Chris Bishop.

Jordan Williams has a similar relationship with Ketels, although all tweets before 29 July 2020 have been deleted. Why? What happened before then?

On 22 July 2020 in the House, Winston Peters accused Rachel Morton and David Seymour of leaking his superannuation overpayment to the media. He noted that the way his personal information was leaked had the haphazard modus operandi like an Act Party hit-job.

Source: Parliament On Demand

Chris Bishop was careful with his words in his rebuttal. After David Seymour returned from his office, National gave Seymour a speaking slot to rebutt the accusations.

The reaction was immediate. Rachel Morton categorically denied the accusations. She has not tweeted since. Jordan Williams also denied any involvement, and since deleted the tweet along with all his tweets before that date.

The mother of all scandals

The Winston Peters’ superannuation leak started with a tweet from Newsroom editor, Tim Murphy:

The mother of all scandals

Source: Twitter

According to an affidavit from Tim Murphy, that tweet was for an "audience of one": Paddy Gower. Paddy Gower was the Newshub Political Editor and under a lot of stress. During previous elections, he broke the stories that perk-busted Rodney Hide and the ‘Teapot Tapes’ affair. This time, Tim Murphy was told that Paddy was sitting on a story that he would not break. Why?

The way Paddy Gower went about breaking the story was to find another source. He got Lloyd Burr to ring Winston Peters and record the conversation:

Source: Newshub

Trying to trick Winston Peters into an admission, Peters refused to give any comment.

Peters, realising that the media were trying to make a story out of something that was not newsworthy, later provided a press statement confirming that an overpayment had been paid back:

Some media contacts have called to alert me about a possible story about superannuation.

From what I can glean it is about the following:

In early 2010 I applied for superannuation, in the company of my partner, and in the presence of a senior official at the Ministry of Social Development.

In July of this year, I was astonished to receive a letter from the ministry to advise there was an error in my superannuation allowance and a request that I meet with them.

I immediately contacted and met the area manager of MSD.

It was unclear on both sides how the error had occurred leading to a small fortnightly overpayment.

Suffice to say, we agreed there had been an error.

Within 24 hours the error and overpayment had been corrected by me.

I subsequently received a letter from the area manager thanking me for my prompt attention and confirming that the matter was concluded to the Ministry's satisfaction.

I am grateful to the ministry for their courtesy and the professional and understanding way they handled this error.

Like the ministry I believed the matter had been put to rest.

Gower then got together Lloyd Burr and Jenna Lynch for a Facebook Live:

Source: Newshub

Check out the body language of the three. The body language changes suddenly when Lloyd Burr utters the phrase, "Winston Peters is the champion of the pension." Well, that point gives away the motivations of each of the three. But what is more telling is the body language before that point.

Gower is eager and dominant. Burr is cautious and nervous. Both form a defensive barrier of Lynch. Lynch stares at the floor and her long gazes reveal anxiety. Leaning back demonstrates a lack of connection. Her words are spoken very nervously and defensively. Lynch displays cues that she does not want to be there. Why?

The most interesting passage between Paddy Gower and Jenna Lynch:

Paddy Gower: Now let's just talk a bit about how the story came into Newshub, because Jenna Lynch actually got the tip and that's how we started to follow things up. Now, Jenna, what, what happened?

Jenna Lynch: Yeah, well, what, I was contacted by... a... source... who said that Winston Peters had been overpaid his pension. Umm... few more details he sort of gave... but, essentially it… it stacks up with the same story that, since 2010, Winston Peters, aah, had been getting an overpayment in his pension and it had… it had to do… umm, sorry, and it had been fixed, aah, this year, he was paying back, aah, money to MSD. We tried a number of ways to corroborate that, umm, information, umm, finally with Lloyd going to Winston Peters, umm, and we couldn't quite get, get quite enough to go with, could we?

So, Jenna Lynch received the leak from a man. It wasn’t leaked to Lloyd Burr by a female. They also tried to 'corroborate' before going to Winston Peters?

Most junior political journalists would be thrilled to get, what veteran editor Tim Murphy describes as, the ‘mother of all scandals.’ Not Jenna Lynch. She’s noticeably very nervous. Even Paddy Gower and Lloyd Burr are visibly worried about her and even finish many of her sentences. Despite her big scoop, all the news articles relating to the leak are credited to Lloyd Burr, Patrick Gower and Breanna Barraclough. Why?

Bill English clearly disassociated himself from the leak. He said it was wrong to breach someone’s privacy, especially someone with a high profile. He said that it would have been better if his ministers hadn't been told. Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett admitted to knowing about the overpayment under the ‘no surprises policy’ but maintain that they did not leak it to the media.

Here are two excerpts from Barry Soper’s evidence:

Q. Now on the 27th of August Mr Peters issued a press statement which you’ll find at page 130 of the light green volume.

A. I see it.

Q. Do you recollect receiving that press statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that the first that you were aware of this issue of overpayment between MSD and Mr Peters?

A. No, it’s not.

Q. When were you first aware of it?

A. It was brought to my attention prior to this that – and under the strictest of confidence that there had been a – well not a breach but a pension overpayment to Winston Peters. And as I said, it was I the strictest of confidence that I was given this information. I subsequently attempted to establish the veracity of the claim that had been made to me and was unable to do so. And on the afternoon, the Sunday afternoon, I remember that Bill English was launching his campaign here in Auckland and I received a telephone call from a number that I knew, and I suspected that it was probably in relation to this. And then of course that evening Winston Peters put out this press statement.

So, Soper was rung “from a number that [he] knew”, hours before Winston Peters issued a press release at 7:04pm, Sunday 27 August 2017. By then, Newshub was determined to break the story first. It sounds more like Soper was contacted by a colleague trying to control the damage rather than by the actual leaker. Still, Soper indicated where the leak came from:

Q. Are you prepared to name the sources?

A. No.

Q. Are you prepared to indicate if it was someone involved in the political world?

A. It was somebody involved in the political world, yes.

Q. The National Party?

A. Well I think I've been on record as saying, and written columns about where I believe that the leak came from.

Q. So we can just draw our inferences from that?

A. Yes.

In other words, the leaker was a rogue element in the Beehive with a credible and established connection with Newshub’s most junior political reporter, Jenna Lynch.

Tolley's Folly

Barry Soper agreed that Anne Tolley should never have been told of Winston Peters' overpayment, making the following observation:

"Knowing how the Beehive operates and knowing what a cesspit of gossip it is, particularly when Winston Peters has a bullseye on his back, that's beyond comprehension."

Anne Tolley realised this when cross examined:

Q. Well, I'm going to put it to you this way. You knew the seriousness because it was Mr Peters, didn’t you?

A. That's right.

Q. And what you've done is continue to expand the number of people who know about the issue, and you also know that the more people who know it, the greater the chance it would leak, correct?

A. Yes.

Let's first look at the order that Winston Peters' overpayment circulated, starting with evidence given by Antony Harvey:

Q. Will you tell His Honour your full name and your occupation, please?

A. Yes, [Antony Harvey], and I'm director of the office of the Deputy Secretary at the Ministry of Education.

Q. Now in 2017, who were you working for?

A. Minister Anne Tolley.

Q. And what was your role working for her?

A. I was ministerial adviser.

Q. And are you a professional civil servant?

A. Yes.

Q. Now on the 31st of July 2017, there was a briefing by Mr Boyle of the Ministry of Social Development with Minister Tolley. Can you tell His Honour what occurred after Mr Boyle had left from that briefing?

A. Yes, after the meeting, the Minister called me into her office to have a discussion about the activities and the action points that had arisen from the weekly agency meeting, and as part of the discussion informed me that the issue raised by Mr Boyle had been Mr Peters’ superannuation overpayment, and the fact that the issue had been remedied.

Q. Can you recollect the detail that she told you of that issue with Mr Peters?

A. No, just that the issue had been disclosed, that there was an overpayment, the issue had then been remedied, and that was it.

Q. Was there a discussion as to the amount?

A. No.

So far, it checks out. He rose from a case manager to manager at the Ministry of Development and then worked in the Beehive for Anne Tolley as a private secretary then ministerial advisor between March 2015 and November 2017. Doesn't explain why he felt he needed name suppression. Maybe this does:

Q. Did you have conversations with any other persons working in Minister Tolley’s office?

A. Yes, about three and a half, four weeks later, as part of a wider discussion in relation to superannuation. Again, behind closed doors. I advised, or I informed my ministerial adviser, my colleague, who worked for me.

Q. Who was that?

A. A gentleman by the name of [Cameron Oldfield].

Q. When you were interviewed by Mr Jong from Internal Affairs, did you recollect who you’d had discussions with?

A. Initially, I believed it was just with the press secretary, but it was later pointed out that I'd also mentioned it to my adviser as well.

Q. Now what was the purpose that you understood you were advising the press secretary?

A. To ensure that as an office, and as an office staff, we were able to provide the best advice and support for the Minister, so it was important to know what, basically what topics were underway at the moment, what things could come to light that would cause media attention, and what the decisions being sought were and the priorities for the day.

Q. Now after the issue went public, which is the 27th of August, were you involved in the response by the Minister?

A. No.

There's a lot to unwrap there.

So, 3-4 weeks later, Harvey told his ministerial advisor, Cameron Oldfield? That would be 22-29 August 2017.

Just a minute. Cameron Oldfield makes no mention of ever being a ministerial advisor on his CV. Why? Why did he seek name suppression? Why wasn't he called to give evidence?

Let's try to complete Cameron Oldfield's CV:

Ministerial Secretary (Energy and Resources), Office of Simon Bridges (before 3 May 2013 to at least 10 June 2013)
Private Secretary, Simon Bridges (before and after 2 October 2015)
Ministerial Advisor, Anne Tolley (before and after 22-29 August 2017)
Principal Advisor Ministerial Services, Department of Corrections (before 31 August 2018 to at least 27 September 2019)

What did Anne Tolley have to say about that?

Q. So if you were told it includes a privacy matter of a prominent citizen and an issue over payments of a pension to them, you would have still accepted the briefing?

A. I wasn’t told that.

Q. No, I'm asking you if you were told that, would you accept the briefing?

A. You’re asking me to speculate, it would depend on the circumstances.

Q. Well you were happy to speculate a moment ago with your answers, so –

A. I didn’t, I wasn’t happy to speculate.

Q. Well, you said quite clearly that – we’ll leave it. It was made very clear to you in the briefing that this was for you only, wasn’t it?

A. Yes.

Q. So do you accept that by bringing in your staffer, you actually breached that understanding that the Ministry used based on giving you the briefing?

A. No, because I had made it clear to Mr Boyle that I would seek some advice on whether I wanted a written briefing, so he knew that I would ask advice, and [Antony Harvey] was my senior adviser.

Q. So he knew that at the end of the briefing you were going to talk with other people?

A. But he also knew that he could rely on my knowledge of the fact that this was confidential information, and I would keep it confidential.

Q. But you agree, don’t you, that the more times you tell people a secret, exponentially the risk of it leaking grows?

A. The office on a regular basis handled very sensitive information about private individuals, and I had no reason to not trust my staff.

Q. What I'm putting to you is that, with some individuals if they make a slip-up, there’s not necessarily going to be the consequence we had here, but if a slip-up was made, then the impact on Mr Peters in the election was going to be huge, do you agree or disagree with that?

A. Which is why I made it very clear to [Antony Harvey] that the information was absolutely confidential between him and me.

So, Anne Tolley wasn't happy with Antony Harvey telling Cameron Oldfield. Why not Cameron Oldfield? Didn't she trust him? Anyone else?

Q. Can you come up with any reason why the junior press secretary should have been told?

A. No. It was expressly against my instructions.

Interesting. Let's look at Ashley Murchison's evidence. Brian Henry didn't ask her who else she'd told about Winston Peters' overpayment. Instead, he asked:

Q. Now in 2017, were you working in the office of Minister Anne Tolley?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And what was your role there?
A. I was the private secretary media.
Q. Were you the only media secretary in the office?
A. No, there was also a press secretary.
Q. Who was that?
A. Kirsty Taylor-Doig.
Q. Now by the 31st of July, how long had you been in the job?
A. Would have been coming up about eight or so months.
Q. We’ve just heard evidence from maybe your colleague [Antony Harvey] , can you recollect him coming to talk to you about the plaintiff, Winston Peters?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you able to recollect the date?
A. It was either an evening or a morning, I believe that is 31st of July or 1st of August, I can’t remember the specific dates without the documents.
Q. Now prior to being appointed to this job in the Minister’s office, where had you been working before then?
A. I’d been working as policy research and comms adviser in Parliament.
Q. And for which party were you working?
A. I was working for two MPs, Brett Hudson and Nuk Korako.
Q. And they’re both National Party MPs?
A. That’s correct.

Q. Now can you recollect the discussion that you had with [Antony Harvey] somewhere around the 31st of July, 1st August?

A. Not in details but he’s basically just given me a very high-level overview that there had been an issue with payments.

Q. What was your reaction when he told you?

A. I guess I was surprised by the information.

Q. Can you elaborate on that?

A. I guess just in terms of it was an interesting piece of information that was largely it.

Q. And why did you think he was telling you?

A. I guess in the course of my job often I’ll receive a lot of information should something end up being, you know, making its way to the media or should the Minister get stopped and approached for comment. So it’s just sort of a heads-up.

Q. Did you have any thought as to the appropriateness of the Minister’s office knowing this information on Mr Peters?

A. Not particularly, I guess I knew it was operational information, that it was private information, that was basically the extent of the thought that I gave to it.

Q. But when you say, “Operational,” you meaning it was an actual hands-on decision of the Ministry affecting how much money he was paid?

A. It was more just a matter that the Minister wouldn’t comment on necessarily.

Q. Well did you consider it something that should ever get into the media?

A. No.

Q. Well, were you asked to do anything with the information by [Antony Harvey] ?

A. No.

Q. As a press secretary, is there anything you could see that you could do with that information?

A. No, it would be just if I was, if the Minister had been approached for comment at some point, then you would have to consider how you would respond.

Q. And thinking about it, how would the Minister respond, based on your experience of the office at that stage?

A. Refer it to the Ministry for comment.

Q. Would that be a response which was, “No comment,” by the Minister?

A. It would be that it’s an operational matter, yes.

So, Murchison and Taylor-Doig also knew. The 'no surprises' information was something that was an 'operational matter' that the minister couldn't comment on. Why was the minister told then?

Tolley's Folly

Now would be a good time to mention that the date that Ashley Murchison gave evidence was 4 November 2019. At that time, Murchison and Oldfield both worked in the same office at the Department of Corrections. During the transition following the election, Louise Upston might no longer be Minister of Corrections but quite a few of Anne Tolley's staff started working there. Did Andrew Ketels provide a reference? Oh well, at least they are outside the Parliamentary complex, right?

The Crown seeking name suppression for Harvey and Oldfield was pointless. Publicly available information easily identified them and the two have since remained in the public sector in similar positions and since been promoted, but with less ministerial contact.

Did anyone else know, Tolley?

Q. And you were aware that Matthew McLay had been given a private briefing on this by the MSD?

A. I wasn’t aware until I saw the information for this trial.

Q. Do you have any view on the appropriateness of someone from the MSD coming to brief Mr McLay on a matter such as this?

A. No.

Q. Well you’d have to agree it’s inappropriate, wouldn’t you?

A. I have no opinion on it.

Q. Well I’m asking you, is it inappropriate?

A. I don’t know the circumstances under which he was briefed.

Q. Well you employed Matthew McLay?

A. No I didn’t, he was working in my office, he was employed by MSD.

Q. He was part of your office team?

A. Yes, the secondees from the agency form a link between the Minister’s Office and the department, it’s an unenviable job at times because they’re pulled both ways. But he was not under my control, he was under the control of MSD.

Matt McLay was the National Manager Housing in the Ministry of Social Development. What's his position got to do with superannuation? And you're saying that staff go back and forth from working in the Beehive and the department? That means that the staff would have contacts in both places.

So, what type of people made up Anne Tolley's staff?

Q. And do you agree that there are party staffers and by party staffers, I mean people who are National Party, Labour Party, New Zealand First, who work in Government offices, moving around Parliament all the time?

A. Yes and as a Minister you expect that your press secretaries will have ongoing relationships with the media.

Q. What I’m coming to, is how many people in your office were National Party activists, as against civil servants?

A. That’s a question I never asked.

Q. But you had quite a big staff didn’t you?

A. Well I had four Ministerial Services staff, sorry six, an SPS and a receptionist added to the four that have been already mentioned.

Q. But you can also have on Ministerial and Parliamentary staff, people that are party activists who have got a job working inside your offices?

A. I didn’t have anyone who was paid by anyone other than Ministerial Services or secondees from the agencies.

Q. And Mr Eagleson, he had a staff as well didn’t he?

A. In the Prime Minister’s Office?

Q. Yes?

A. Yes.

Q. And did that include a mixture of professional civil servants and party workers who were working in jobs?

A. I’m not familiar with, I’m not particularly familiar with staff and I can’t remember, when I was a Minister of a big portfolio took me all my time to keep up with my staff.

Thanks for that information. Now everyone can connect the dots to identify the two people with name suppression.

So, let's recount. How many people did Tolley tell?

Q. But in the meantime you told how many people?

A. I told – well as I've said, I told my chief adviser.

Q. So that’s Antony?

A. Yep. The Chief of Staff.

Q. The Chief of Staff.

A. The Prime Minister. My husband.

Q. So hang on. Antony and the Chief of Staff, are they different people?

A. Yes, so –

Q. Who’s the Chief of Staff?

A. Wayne Eagleson. The Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, told him –

Q. And who else did you tell?

A. I told my husband, and I told my sister, but I didn’t give my sister any details.

Q. And we know that Antony went round informing the office of the issue?

A. The DIA investigation found that none of them had leaked the information.

Q. Let’s not worry about that, let’s worry about how far this information started to spread. Was Antony acting against your express instructions?

A. He was.

Anne Tolley's husband and sister too? You have to hear it to believe it:

(The relevant passage starts at the 1 minute point.)

Source: Youtube

That begs the question, Tolley:

Q. Just want to come back to a general proposition. Do you agree with the general proposition that when you disperse highly incendiary information like this, when it goes to someone that may normally be very trustworthy, but they get tired, a little bit cranky, maybe a little bit intoxicated and it just comes out?

A. Well then they wouldn’t be that trustworthy.

Q. But you see you did that, so you’re saying you’re not trustworthy?

A. I wasn’t in that circumstance, I regret it.

In the end, the Department of Internal Affairs investigated 41 Ministerial Services staff.

Paula Bennett, in her capacity as State Services Minister was also briefed. Her staff included Rachel Morton and James Meager. Bennett also told Steven Joyce and Bill English, who both thought that the information would backfire if leaked.

Rachel Morton was Paula Bennett’s Press Secretary. Morton was David Seymour’s on-again-off-again partner. During the month of the leak, the Herald ran this article, titled ‘Act leader David Seymour hoping Rachel Morton 'the one'. She would have needed to be told by someone else and then told someone else to contact Jenna Lynch.

Rachel remained a senior press secretary for the National leader until switching to work for Act just before Winston Peters accused her of being involved with the leak of his superannuation details:

The $18,000 question

(Source: LinkedIn)

This is what Anne Tolley had to say about David Seymour:

Q. You know Mr David Seymour, the ACT leader?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, he came out in the media after this went public with the line, “The timing of Winston Peters’ admission makes him look shifty.” Now you agree, don’t you, that that’s not someone saying, “Oh it’s a mistake, let’s get over it.” Political opponents grab onto these things to try and drive their campaigns forward, don’t they?
A. Not many people listen to Mr David Seymour, with respect. That’s why he’s only one MP in Parliament.
Q. We’re not in Parliament now. But you get my point, political opponents will distort something that’s totally innocent if they can.
A. But the truth always triumphs, and the truth was, it had been sorted, it was a mistake, it'd been remedied, and it died away in the media. There was nothing to keep it going.
Q. But it didn’t die away for the next two/three weeks, when the voters went to the polls, it died away after the election, didn’t it?
A. I don't know. Honestly, I didn’t follow it. I was focused on my campaign.

Ouch! You can't say that about David. David's part of the family!

David Seymour certainly relished the story about the leak, was very reactionary, but well prepared for how the story progressed. Originally, he focused on the material leaked, then suggesting that an investigation be conducted, then returned to ridiculing Winston Peters.

When aware of the scale of the insubordination amongst her staff, Anne Tolley went on the defensive:

Q. You can't rule out the possibility that some of the people that you told made a mistake and leaked this information to someone, can you?

A. I can rule out definitely that my husband and my sister did not. I am absolutely confident that the Chief of Staff did not. I was disappointed to find that my senior adviser had told other staff, but I am absolutely confident that they did not leak to the media. In fact, they couldn't have, because they didn’t have the information that was leaked to the media.

"The information"? Please elaborate:

Q. But you just can't rule out that mistakes could have been made?

A. Well I can only trust the DIA investigation, which found, trawled through all their phone calls, all their media, and found no evidence that they had made those calls on that particular day.

Q. Now see I'm not talking about making the call. Can we get this quite clear, the person who made the call, I suggest to you we can infer was doing something maliciously in the full knowledge of trying to create a false story, do you agree?

A. I agree with that, and had, and that person had all the facts. My staff didn’t have the facts. [Antony Harvey] did not know the amount. I didn’t know the exact amount, and I didn’t tell Mr Eagleson the amount, so those people couldn't have given that information to the media, or to anyone else who gave it to the media.

Q. But you accept that you don’t remember being told the amount, but you accept you were, correct?

A. I accept from, Mr Boyle’s evidence was that he gave me an approximate amount. But I did not pass that on. I'm confident of that.

Q. And the approximate amount was $18,000?

A. It was around $18,000, I think, from memory. I can't remember.

A. That’s right but they didn’t, none of those people had the information that was passed onto the media.

Anne Tolley slipped the leak to her sister and husband. She then told staff who told others. How can we trust that she never mentioned the amount to anyone?

So, who knew the exact amount?

The $18,000 question

According to evidence, from a timeframe perspective, here is the first time that the $18,000 was calculated. Here is Debbie May Raines, who was the National Manager of the National Fraud Investigation Unit at the Ministry of Social Development under cross examination, who investigated the privacy leak rather than Winston Peters' overpayment:

Q. And when you started your inquiries, you quite properly set out excluding people who didn’t have the full story, and you gave us one of the examples, persons who calculated the amount due. If we go to page 75 of that bundle, we see that this is Kirk Te Awhe sending an email to one of the teams. And I’m not going to name the person involved, but that’s a senior member on the accounting side of MSD, isn’t it?
A. Well they’re two people I know.
Q. Well I’ll just deal with the – we know that Kirk Te Awhe, it’s who he’s sending it to, the name there, is that a senior member in the accounting side of MSD?
A. She’s a senior member in an advisory capacity in MSD.
Q. Now with this email, if we go over the page, now the attachments 76 and 77, they don’t identify Mr Peters, do they?
A. No.
Q. So when you’re making your inquiry, you were quite happy to exclude this person, because all the information that we saw in that note from the media, was never in her possession?
A. Correct.

Excluding people who didn't have 'all' the information? What if several people who had different pieces of the information knew each other? The cross examination continued:

Q. I’m just following through your logic. The next phase in the investigation is when Meredith Nugent interviews Mr Peters, and we know that was on the 26th of July 2017. I’d like you to go and have a look at the document at page 105. This is an email forwarded by Meredith Nugent to Jan Trotman and sets out the amount of the overpayment, do you see that?
A. Mhm.
Q. From your inquiries, is this the first date when all four of those factors in the media minute, came together?
A. I haven’t seen these documents before, I don’t know.
Q. So were you able to determine in your investigation when was the first time anybody had all of that information put together?
A. I relied on advice from people who had been involved in the investigation in managing the process for this, providing me with people and what role they had had in being involved with in terms of their activity with the case.
Q. And is it the position that all of those people who gave you the advice to rely on, actually had their name on the list of the 41 odd staff members that you had to investigate?
A. From my recollection, yes.

Would it be possible to track those who had pieces of the puzzle?

Q. And do you agree that if someone set out deliberately to do this, they would use all of their knowledge to try to leave no footprint behind?

A. I'm sure that’s correct.

Q. And do you agree that the group or persons who you found to have had access to all of this information would be capable of avoiding leaving footprints for you to find?

A. I don't know the answer to that.

Q. Well you would understand that, for example, a verbal conversation can never be tracked?

A. That's correct.

Q. And there’s been suggestions the use of a burner phone to make the call can never be tracked?

A. That's correct

Q. Now, you've told us about Jesse Nichols and Matt McLay. Was Jesse Nichols in your group of 41?

A. Yes, he was.

So, even though phones and emails were investigated, conversations in ordinary life weren't part of the investigation? How was Jesse Nichols told?

Q. How did Jesse Nichols come to have this information about Mr Peters?

A. He was – can I just look at my statement to get his role? He was Director of the Office of the Deputy Chief Executive, Service Delivery at the time. In that role, he would have been responsible for managing situations like this, among other things.

Q. So when you first interviewed him, he didn’t tell you about Mr McLay, is that where we head to?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that action of telling Mr McLay was actually a breach of confidence from the Department, wasn’t it?

A. I don’t agree with that.

Q. So his explanation was he just forgot?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. But do we get to the point that this information was held in a confined group inside the Ministry, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And was also provided to two Ministers of the Crown, correct?

A. That’s what I've been told.

Q. Do we get to the point that this is a very small group, and one of them must be the source at the top of the chain of the release to the media?

Q. Do you need the question again?

A. Yes, please.

Q. Do we get to the position where there was a group of people that you had identified in MSD who had the information that was leaked to the media, together with the two Ministers, and that one of that collective group had to be the source of the information going down whatever chain it did, to the media?

A. Possibly.

Q. Well, if it didn’t come from that group, which is MSD staff and the two Ministers, where could it have come from?

A. I guess to speculate, somebody could have heard a conversation, they could have picked up a piece of paper off a printer. So while there’s a good possibility that it was from within that group, there’s also a possibility that someone else has accessed that information.

Q. That you’d agree with me that, that information on the printer or overheard, had to come from someone in that specific group?

A. Be initiated by them, yes, potentially.

Q. Just one question, Ms Raines. At the beginning of my learned friend’s questions, he talked to you about excluding from your investigation, those on the list of that didn’t have the full story. Just to clarify, were they excluded from your inquiries altogether or how were they treated?

A. So they weren’t excluded, they just weren’t face-to-face interviewed. They were asked to complete a statement to say that they had dealt with information that they had appropriately.

So, they weren't interviewed? Instead, they provided a statement saying that they behaved appropriately? That's not an investigation, that's a whitewash! A gloating Newsroom even provided advice on 'how to escape the net' of the investigation.

I'm curious. How easy would it have been to put together pieces of the puzzle? Let's just look at how close knit the people mentioned are:

(Note: this image is a collage of several search results from Andrew Ketels' Facebook page.)

Source: Facebook

Kirk's wife, Debbie, was a private secretary at the Ministry of Social Development at the time of the leak. Look at his other friends. What this demonstrates is not who the leaker was but how easy it is for people who move in the same circles could have pieced the $18,000 superannuation overpayment amount with the name Winston Peters.

The timeframe for the superannuation overpayment discovery was:

13 June 2017 - Jan Trotman applied for superannuation;
13 July 2017 - Ministry of Social Development mails a letter to Winston Peters to confirm his relationship status;
24 July 2017 - Winston Peters received the 13 July 2017 letter;
25 July 2017 - a meeting was booked with Ministry of Social Development at Elleslie;
26 July 2017, 9:30am - meeting resolved relationship status error and overpayment of $17,936 repaid;
31 July 2017 - Brendan Boyle briefed Anne Tolley of Winston Peters' overpayment;
31 July 2017 - Harvey told Ashley Murchison;
1 August 2017 - Peter Hughes briefed Paula Bennett;
3 August 2017 - Ministry of Social Development sent letter to Winston Peters acknowledging receipt of repayment and resolution of overpayment issue.
22-29 August 2017 - Antony Harvey told Cameron Oldfield; and
23 August 2017 - in total, 41 Ministerial Services staff know about Winston Peters' overpayment.

Note who was told of the overpayment before the 3 August 2017 letter from MSD to Winston Peters confirming receipt of the repayment and resolution to the overpayment error. Many people weren't aware that the full repayment had been made, only that the matter had been resolved.

Someone either had all the pieces or put together the pieces through interaction with colleagues. Someone had the motivation and opportunity to share it with the media or someone who knew how to get it to the media.

Here is what Anne Tolley said under cross examination:

Q. What we’re talking about is the steps where it gets to this person who made the call, and what I'm saying is that, if someone made a mistake, tired, whatever, then this is how the stories get into the beltway media around Parliament?
A. That’s right but they didn’t, none of those people had the information that was passed onto the media.
Q. I just want to talk about the beltway media around Parliament, do you agree that the media around Parliament is what you’d call very aggressive?
A. Yes.
Q. Neutral?
A. Yes.
Q. And that the hunt for leads in stories is a very intense business to them?
A. Yes.

Neutral? With this in mind, when was the first time that Anne Tolley's office was approached by media about the story? Here's Ashley Murchison's evidence under cross examination:

Q. If we go to page 54, that’s an email dated the 28th of August, so this is after the issue of Mr Peters’ had gone public. Can you tell His Honour what was being done inside Ms Tolley’s office at that stage?
A. So on looking at that email it would have been that just some talking points were prepared, should anyone be approached for comment on the matter, so as per that it refers to the fact that it’s operational and can’t provide details because of privacy.
Q. Now if you go to page 62 of that bundle, so it’s volume 2, page 62, this is the same day but now it’s later in the day. Who is the author of the lower email?
A. So you’re referring to the reporter?
Q. Yes.
A. Anusha Bradley.
Q. And this is an enquiry seeking comment by the Minister?
A. Mhm.
Q. And is the email above by Kirsty Taylor-Doig, who was one of your team, the response that was sent?
A. So again the response says that it’s an operational matter so it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment.
Q. This is seeking approval from the Minister for the line to be sent to the media isn’t it?
A. Yes, as per standard practice.
Q. And was that line actually used?
A. Without seeing the email that was sent I would have to assume that would have been the case or some variation thereof.
Q. But that it is typical of the responses that you’d –
A. Yes.
Q. And if we go to page 67, again this is a query by the media?
A. Mhm.
Q. And are you actually doing the response to this one?
A. Yes I would have been working with Kirsty, so I just would have picked that up, yes.
Q. Now the question or the first question is, was the Minister of Social Development alerted to the error under no surprises, to that question there two-thirds down the page?
A. Mhm.
Q. And is your response to the Minister just above “Byline Jenna Lynch”?
A. Yes.
Q. And was the response, “Yes,” but was published to the media?
A. Yes, so I responded to that.

So the first time Tolley's office was approached by media was the day after the story broke by Radio New Zealand journalist, Anusha Bradley? Seriously? What about Lloyd Burr or Jenna Lynch?

Under oath, Jenna Lynch was cross-examined by Winston Peters’ lawyer, Brian Henry. Jenna was noticeably uncomfortable in the stand:

Q. On the 23rd of August, did you receive an anonymous phone call, who made, provided some information to you about the plaintiff Winston Peters?

A. Yes.

Q. If you go to the green bundle in the pile there in front of you, go to page 126. Are they notes you made of this phone call?

A. Yes.

Q. Now can you recollect if the person making the call identified themselves?

A. I can recollect, and no they didn’t.

Q. They didn’t. And they didn’t ask you to in any way protect their identity?

A. I don't recall the exact conversation.

Q. But did they ask you to protect their identity?

A. It was an anonymous source.

Q. Can you remember whether you thought the voice was male or female?

A. I'm not willing to give any information that might reveal the identity of the source.

Q. Well, you haven't been asked to protect the source, so I'm asking you, was it male or female?

A. It was a confidential source, and based on the protections in section 68 of the Evidence Act, I'm not willing to disclose that.

Q. But they didn’t ask you to protect them as a source, did they?

A. It was clear in my mind that there was an understanding of anonymity.

Q. Yes, but they did not ask you to protect them, did they?

A. I don’t recollect clearly.

Q. So you don’t recollect if it’s male or female?

A. That’s not what I said.

Q. What did you say?

A. I said I don’t recollect clearly whether they asked me.

Q. But they were not trusting you with their identity, were they?

Q. You made these notes at the time?

A. Yes.

Q. Refreshing your memory from those notes, what did the anonymous person say to you?

A. They outlined that Winston Peters had been overpaid superannuation. They explained that it had been discovered when his partner applied for superannuation, that there was a large repayment to the tune of around $18,000.

Q. And what did they say about the nature of his receiving this overpayment?

A. Sorry, can you repeat that question?

Q. What did they say to you about the intention of Mr Peters in receiving this payment?

A. I don’t clearly recollect.

Q. Well, if you look at your notes, five down, what have you recorded there?

A. It says, “Over paid super,” five down.

Q. And the one below?

A. That note says, “Lying, applied as a single.”

Q. And were those the words communicated to you?

A. The phone call was over two years ago, and I don’t have a clear recollection of the phone call.

Q. But that is a note you made as you were talking to them?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you've made a note, “100% certain.” Why did you make that note?

A. Again, the phone call was more than two years ago. I don’t recollect.

Compared to the Facebook Live broadcast, there's a lot to reconcile:

In the Facebook Live clip, there's no mention of $18,000:

[-4:58]

Lloyd Burr: And we don’t know how much it was because, because the source who rang you tell how much it was?

Jenna Lynch: Ummmm… (shakes head and looks down.)

Paddy Gower: We don’t want to give that away at this stage, actually.

Jenna Lynch: (Laughs and tries to say something but is interrupted.)

Lloyd Burr: It’s not small, is it?

Paddy Gower: Well, it won’t…

Jenna Lynch/Paddy Gower: Seven years of an overpayment nothing isn't going to be small, is it?

Again, Paddy Gower completed another of Jenna Lynch's sentences. Is Jenna recollecting something that happened to her or what she was told to say?

So, if Jenna Lynch knew what the amount was, why didn't she say it? Was she concerned that it wasn't the correct amount or that it would identify her source?

And the notes? Were they really written at the time of the 'phone call' or simply to throw inquirers off the scent?

It is important to note that Lynch said, "he was paying back, ahh, money to MSD." By the time the ministerial briefings had occurred, MSD had not processed receiving Winston Peters' repayment of $17,936. That is an important distinction between what MSD staff knew and what other Ministerial Services staff knew.

So, when was the first mention of $18,000?

Source: Newsroom

That story was published at 7am and linked to as early as 8:41am and 8:58am by Stuff on Monday 28 August 2017. Newshub also mentioned Newsroom's exposé. Duncan Garner, mentioned the amount on The AM Show to Winston Peters live much earlier than that time:

Source: Newshub

So, despite Tim Murphy saying that he could not run the story until substantiated, he ran the story and mentioned the $18,000 amount anyway?

As Winston Peters left that interview, Lloyd Burr ambushed him:

Source: Newshub

So, Lloyd Burr tried to obtain private information about Winston Peters, claiming his source was the IRD and then retracted that claim? Why did he claim his source was the IRD? Was that a red herring?

Winston Peters and Lloyd Burr have a very abrasive relationship. Using false information to obtain accurate information is unethical and sanctionable. What other dubious things has he done for this story?

Winston Peters said that Lloyd Burr was the third person to ring him. Who were the others?

Melanie Reid was confident enough to mention the $18,000 amount. Compare Jenna Lynch's timeline with Reid's:

Q. Did they make any comments about having spoken to any other media?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. That they’d talked to TV New Zealand and to Newshub at TV3.

Q. Is there any way you can date when that phone call occurred?

A. Not right here, right now but I could if I had time to.

Q. Did you speak to Mr Murphy immediately after the phone call?

A. No.

Q. Was it sometime after?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you estimate how long after the phone call it was before you spoke to Mr Murphy?

A. It was the next day.

Q. Mr Murphy has sworn an affidavit saying it was Saturday 26 August 2017, does that help you work out the date?

A. I’m sure that will be correct.

Someone really wanted to get the story run on One News and Newshub and was prepared to use Newsroom to apply pressure. They gave Newsroom enough to run the story. Newshub, however, went to a lot of effort to break the story first. But why Newsroom?

Source: Twitter

Tim Murphy isn't shy about his bias against Winston Peters. Murphy had been a journalist since 1982 and risen through the ranks at the New Zealand Herald to Editor-in-Chief, before being shafted by Rick Neville and Shayne Currie in April 2015. He joined forces with also recently-shafted Mediaworks Head of News Mark Jennings in May 2016 to form Newsroom. Murphy's contacts within the National Party exposed the attempted cover-up of Todd Barclay's activities and Jian Yang's spy connections. As Newsroom made most of its revenue selling its stories to other news publications, the pressure could be applied in all the right areas.

The main pressure was applied to Murphy's mate, Paddy Gower, who is a former Herald reporter with 17 years experience, to run a story from a junior reporter with less than 5 years experience.

The explanation given by Tim Murphy in his affidavit does not reconcile with his actions or track record. Comparing the affidavit with Jenna Lynch's notes, Melanie Reid had the same set of facts as Jenna Lynch, said Newsroom wouldn't run the story without substantiating the story, coaxed Paddy Gower to break the story but Newsroom ran the story with the $18,000 figure anyway. Wouldn't someone like Tim Murphy want to try to get to corroborate the story first and break the story? Why coax Paddy Gower? Melanie Reid said she didn't recognise the voice of the caller. Did Tim Murphy think that Paddy Gower would be able to corroborate the story?

Fuelling Melanie Reid's coverage was David Farrar's Kiwiblog posts, which tried to maintain focus on the leaked information, rather than the leaker:

28 August 2017 'MSD must explain'
29 August 2017 'So who altered the form?
30 August 2017 'The letter Winston would have received seven times'

So, it was Jenna Lynch's story. What's she up to?

Source: Twitter

Linking to other journo's stories? Lynch has put out over 7364 tweets, yet only puts out these tweets during the period of her biggest scoop of her career? Looks like Jenna is trying to keep her head down.

Even Lloyd Burr tried to turn the attention away from how Newshub got the information to how the ministers got the information:

Source: Newshub

There was only a small group of journalists trying to keep the story going, creating new angles with each news cycle. Google it for yourself.

The whole story started with the leaker trying to create a new angle to a fading story. Here is how the ‘source’ raised ‘concerns’ about 'hypocrisy' to Melanie Reid:

Q. Did they express any concern about the public sector apparatus in the treatment of another politician, by that apparatus?

A. I was left with a concern following the phone call that there was an issue.

Q. Do you recall what that issue was?

A. There was a concern that it seemed unfair that a Green Party member had stood down over non-payments.

Q. Was that Green Party member Metiria Turei?

A. Yes.

So, we have a person ‘linked to the National Party’ (according to Soper) who tried to link the reasons for a Green MP’s resignation (benefit fraud) with Winston Peters’ overpayment (which was a resolved administrative error.) As Soper answered under oath:

Q. Now just talking again generally from your experience in the media, what effect do you think this information of MSD’s being leaked has had to Mr Peters’ reputation?

A. Well in my view now, and it was then, that clearly this information being made public was to me done deliberately to damage his election prospects. In fact, a month after, very close to the election, Bill English gave a speech saying, “Cut out the middleman.” And to me, I could see from my experience in politics that this was an attempt by Winston Peters’ political opponents to damage his credibility and to do what Bill English obviously wanted, and that was to cut out the middleman, and that is New Zealand First.

Soper had 50 years experience as a political reporter and he called the leak 'ill conceived'. Winston Peters entered national politics in 1975. Peter Dunne entered Parliament in 1984. Here is his observation:

Source: Twitter

The way the leak and news story were handled displayed all the hallmarks of inexperience and overzealous political sculp-hunting ambition.

Was the strategy of the leaker to 'cut out the middleman' so that National would form a government with parties besides New Zealand First? In the 2008 election, New Zealand First achieved 4.07%, which put them out of Parliament and put National in a position to form a government with other minor parties.

Was the strategy to give Act a stronger position to form a government with National? New Zealand First has previously ruled out dealing with Act.

Whatever the strategy, it seems to have backfired. In the election, New Zealand First received 7.2% of the vote, down 1.46% on the previous election. National received 44.45%, down 2.59% on the previous election. Only New Zealand First was in a position to choose who to form a government with.

Motivation and opportunity

So, let’s draw a timeline:

Jenna Lynch received the tip-off on Wednesday 23 August 2017;
One News was tipped off before 25 August 2017;
Melanie Reid was aware on Friday 25 August 2017;
Tim Murphy was aware on Saturday 26 August 2017 and tweeted at 1:16pm;
Lloyd Burr recorded a phone conversation with Winston Peters at 5pm Saturday 26 August 2017;
Barry Soper was phoned on Sunday 27 August 2017 during a Bill English event during the afternoon;
Winston Peters released the press release at 7:04pm on Sunday 27 August 2017;
Paddy Gower, Lloyd Burr, and Jenna Lynch recorded a Facebook Live event shortly after;
Advanced voting started on 11 September 2017; and
The election date was 23 September 2017.

Melanie Reid was told by their 'source' that he’d spoken to One News and Newshub, yet hadn’t run the story. Why?

The 'source' referenced Metiria Turei. Why?

First, let's look at Metiria Turei. Metiria Turei publicly admitted to electoral fraud and benefit fraud. Winston Peters' overpayment of his superannuation was put down to a mistake and the overpayment was quickly settled. The leaker, however, stressed that Winston Peters 'lied' and said the amount overpaid was large. Newshub ran this angle, along with the line that Winston is the 'King of the Pension.'

Did the leaker try to make the connection between Meteria Turei and Winston Peters due to this?

Motivation and opportunity

Source: Wikipedia

So, Metiria Turei made her admission while Newshub's Reid Research were conducting their poll. Combined with Jacinda Ardern becoming leader of the Labour Party, the Greens plummeted from as high as 15% to as low as 4.3% within a fortnight.

But, just a minute. Tolley and her office were aware of the overpayment on 31 July 2017. Why did the leaker let only One News and Newshub know about the information apparently on 23 August 2017 and then tell selected other journalists during the weekend of the 26-27 August 2017? Could this be why?

Source: Wikipedia

As they say in politics, 'Timing is everything.' During their polling period, Newshub focused primarily on the leaked material. One News, however, moved the focus to the leaker:

Source: One News

One News released their Colmar Brunton poll on Thursday 31 August 2017. The poll, as Political Editor Corin Dann describes, "takes in all the twists and turns":

Source: One News

Corin Dann also made the very relevant point that the poll was before the final month of the campaign when the election coverage focuses on the two main parties.

Paddy Gower released the results of Newshub's Reid Research poll on Sunday 3 September 2017, a week before advance voting commenced. Check out how he refers to Winston Peters:

Source: Newshub

Paddy Gower really has a chip on his shoulder for Winston Peters, huh?

Politics follows a monthly cycle where events, releases and leaks are co-ordinated around the polling periods and the order that they are broadcast or published. Some politicos are leaked the polls:

Source: Twitter (cached)

And what was encouraging, Jordan?

Source: One News

Is the 'cut out the middleman' strategy still in play?

Surely, there couldn't be collaboration between pollsters, politicos and the media?

But One News and Newshub initially didn't run the story so the leaker told other journalists what One News and Newshub were withholding. Did One News and Newshub take a moral stand or was there some other reason?

One News political reporter Katie Bradford (and daughter of former Green MP, Sue Bradford)

and Newshub political reporter Jenna Lynch

Source: Instagram

So, between 23 August 2017 (when Jenna Lynch claimed to have received the leak) and 26 August 2017 (when Newsroom were contacted) did Jenna Lynch have any opportunity to share her scoop with BFF, Katie Bradford?

Source: Twitter

If Katie Bradford sat on the story, why? The Metiria Turei benefit fraud admission and resignation halved the Greens' support in the polls. Why shouldn't Winston Peters suffer the same fate? Was she protecting someone?

Jenna said that she was leaked the details ‘over the phone’ but wouldn’t confirm the gender of the caller. Why?

Could this be why?

Source: Instagram

Oh look, Jenna Lynch’s partner of four years is none other than Andrew Ketels. Yup, they're the ultimate political power couple who love a scandal:

Source: Instagram

And 11 days after giving evidence in the Peters v Bennett hearing, Ketels made an 'honest woman' out of Lynch by proposing to her:

1/4

Source: Instagram 1, Instagram 2

Ketels and Lynch are even on Newshub’s social football team, named ‘Foothub’. Here they are:

Source: Facebook

Awww, Ketels and Lynch even named their Yorkiepoo puppy Winston, born on 17 July 2017, and gave him his own Instagram page:

Source: Instagram

And while Ketels was glowing with his new fiancé, where was his mind at?

Source: Twitter

Ketels is on a holiday and can't switch off. He's obsessed with Winston Peters:

Source: Twitter

How dare Winston Peters pick on the media like that. Just a minute, where did that photo come from?

Source: Newshub

Lloyd Burr can't help himself either. I wonder what they discuss when they get together socially?

Yet Jenna Lynch thinks everyone is obsessed with Winston Peters. Maybe it's just her clique:

Source: Twitter

When Winston Peters accused Rachel Morton of being the leaker, Lynch didn’t make any comment. Andrew Ketels, however, couldn’t help himself:

Source: Twitter

Was it a 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy'? It appears to be much simpler than that.

Occam's razor is the principle that, of two explanations that account for all the facts, the simpler one is more likely to be correct. Rachel Morton may have told David Seymour but Seymour knew the risks. Seymour's judgment isn't clouded by obsession. Looking at how Jenna Lynch behaved - and the company that she keeps - what’s the more logical conclusion?

With so much circumstantial evidence, let's eliminate one scenario:

What if the leaker did not have any relationship with any journalist or did not work in Parliament?

Would the journalists have run the story?
How could the journalists authenticate the information?
Who did they know who could readily confirm the facts of the story to make them "100% certain"?
If the leaked information was fake - and the journalists were intent on running the story - would their contacts have warned them?

Jordan Williams retweeted Ketel’s tweet and then deleted it. He also tweeted that a NZ First staffer thought that the accusations had foundation. Again, these tweets and all tweets before that date, which mostly attacked Winston Peters, were deleted. But, don’t worry, we cached them. Here they are:

Jordan is weary of the courts, settling out of court and apologising to Colin Craig. Winston Peters mentioned that Gower, Burr and Lynch were scared that “they’d burnt their source.” Were they more concerned that there were too many paths to the real leaker?

So too was Tim Murphy weary about court action. Despite his snarky public comments, his new venture couldn't sustain a costly and prolonged legal fight or the embarrassment of needing to reveal his sources. Instead, he provided an affidavit diverting attention towards Paddy Gower.

In the fallout to this saga:

Paddy Gower had a mental breakdown and was reassigned to a roaming correspondents role;
Lloyd Burr scored the European correspondent’s job;
Jenna Lynch was overlooked for promotion; and
Tova O’Brien returned from her European correspondent stint and given the political editor’s role.

But it is who remains unscathed by this sordid saga that has many within National circles stewing. Of the many factions within National's Parliamentary Office, the most resentment is between the 'True Blue' staffers and the dirty politicking right-wing neoliberals who have infiltrated the party since 2005.

To recap, when Act was imploding between 2002 and 2005, Don Brash and The Hollow Men helped National bounce back from the 2002 election disaster. Many Act staffers found themselves out of the job on 2005 election night but found work with National. In 2011, Act imploded again and another exodus happened. It was between 2011 and 2014 that Dirty Politics surfaced.

In the build up to the 2017 election, Bill English tried to keep National's nose clean. Many within National blamed the leaker and his clique for putting National into Opposition. As a result, many lost their jobs and scrambled for lifeboat jobs.

Paula Bennett and Anne Tolley retired following the 2020 election. Bill English and Steven Joyce already retired. So did Maggie Barry, Nikki Kaye and Nathan Guy. Several younger and liberal National MPs resigned, retired or were expelled after leaking private information or for inappropriate conduct.

Many know who the leaker is and want to throw ‘him’ under the bus. The problem with such a scenario is that it will be gifting Winston Peters a huge favour ahead of an election - and obviously with his court case's appeal.

Meanwhile, Newshub and their commentators continue to write Winston Peters off but give Act a soft ride. Seeing Act performing well in the polls while their positions are threatened, many National list MPs would prefer if Goldsmith won Epsom in order to euthanize Act. In such a scenario, there won't be any lifeboats for any Act staffers.

The 'Thorndon Bubble' is a hotbed of ship-hopping, bed-swapping, plotting and quid-pro-quo between politicians, staffers, officials and media. Civil servants releasing such politically damaging information into that environment couldn't end well. As Barry Sopers answered:

Q. Now after the media release by Mr Peters, it became apparent that two cabinet ministers had been briefed by the civil service in respect of this issue. Have you got any comment on how that publicity impacted on the events leading to the election?

A. Well it was my view that under the no surprises policy, for the public service to release information, such damaging information as this, it really didn’t have any bearing on either Paula Bennett or Anne Tolley’s portfolios, but simply was damaging information about a political opponent. I felt that for them not to know that, that’s the public service, not to know that, they must have been living in a bubble, and probably weren’t aware that an election was about to be held.

Have we seen the end of it?

Winston Peters was right to take court action. While he tried to pin blame on Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett, he did not need to prove who the leaker was. He only needed to prove that those who held personal information owed a duty to keep it private, that there was a breach of that duty and that damage resulted. Justice Venning recognised:

There was a deliberate breach of Winston Peters' privacy with the intention of publicly embarrassing him and causing him harm.
The person(s) who provided the information to the media did so deliberately and it seems, at least in relation to dealing with Newshub, did so maliciously and with intent to damage Mr Peters’ reputation by referring to him as “lying” when he applied for NZS as single.
Mr Peters had a reasonable expectation that the details of the payment irregularity would be kept private and not disclosed to parties who did not have a genuine need to know about it or a proper interest in knowing about it. In particular, he had a reasonable expectation that the details of the payment irregularity would not be disclosed to the media.

Source: Radio NZ

The court action was brought by Winston Peters against Brendan Boyle, Peter Hughes, Anne Tolley, Paula Bennett and the Attorney General. Brendan Boyle breached his duty by briefing Anne Tolley. Anne Tolley, knowing that she shouldn't have been told, breached that duty by telling others. Similarly, Peter Hughes shouldn't have briefed Paula Bennett and she shouldn't have told others.

Despite these conclusions, Justice Venning reached a decision against Winston Peters.

The Peters v Bennett case has been appealed. Despite claiming that Venning was wrong, proving that a journalist perjured themselves is grounds for an appeal. That's a good place to start.

Justice Venning was then demoted, regardless of how they worded it. Before the appeal has been heard, Justice Venning then made a decision awarding costs of $320,000 against Peters.

Justice Venning is no stranger to controversy. His tenure on the bench is riddled with conflicts of interest and bias:

"Nicknamed “G-man”; an obvious play on Justice Venning’s first name but also reflective of the judge’s tendency to put the interests of the State bureaucracy ahead of the law and open justice. One well placed barrister, who has appeared before the judge often, characterises Justice Venning’s conflicting attributes aptly, “He hasn’t met a law yet that he couldn’t breach with a smile on his face.”

"He is also prone to instil personal bias into proceedings by setting subtle traps for counsel. Fearless promoter of Crown interests, Justice Venning has changed dramatically in the years since his appointment. In his early years he was very cognizant of appearing to be fair from the bench. Justice Venning can be audacious in pursuit of personal interests which conflict with his judicial function. These conflicts of interest in cases over which Venning J has presided are unrivalled even for New Zealand."

"Some of Venning J’s judicial colleagues fear he is a loose cannon but feel powerless to challenge him because he knows to much of the courts’ dirty laundry and is considered smart and brazen enough to dish out the scandal if personally challenged."

Oh dear. At least there will be a different judge for the appeal.

At the heart of the the case is the scary reality that some journalists think that they can protect their informants who maliciously breach privacy. Effectively, it creates a class of people immune to the consequences of their actions.

Here is Section 68 of the Evidence Act 2006, which Jenna Lynch claimed to protect her from naming her source:

Have we seen the end of it?

Source: Parliamentary Counsel Office

Take a look at s68(2). This raises three questions:

If an informant is malicious and the journalist knew that the privacy breach was a malicious breach of privacy, wouldn't there be a public interest to identify the informant?
Wouldn't disclosure of a malicious informant's identity act as a deterrent for informants?
Wouldn't journalists be more careful in their duty of care to informants by ensuring that personal information was in the public interest?

There is precedent. In Hager v Attorney General [2015] NZHC 3268 (the 'Dirty Politics' case), Justice Clifford provides an extensive analysis of grounds where orders should be issued under s68(2) in paragraphs 68-116, citing the following New Zealand examples:

Where an informant to John Campbell stole medals from the Waiouru Army Museum

(Police v Campbell [2010] 1 NZLR 483 (HC));

Where personal information with little public interest was used maliciously by Cameron Slater

(Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221, [2014] 3 NZLR 835)

Ironically, Cameron Slater, who used information maliciously in the Blomfield case, asked the police to search Nicky Hager's house for the source of material relating to his 'Dirty Politics' activities. Justice Clifford found that there was public interest in Slater's activities and therefore the search warrant was unlawful.

Even Nicky Hager's lawyers submitted that there was a distinction between malicious leaking of information with and without a public interest.

Newshub's lawyers must have been mindful of John Campbell needing to disclose the identity of one of the war medal thieves. They must have thought whether there was any public interest in Winston Peters' private matters with a government agency. Is that why they sat on the story? Were they worried about the rippling consequences of the informant being exposed? And who dreamt up the 'King of Pensions'/'Champion of the Pension' justification?

In Peters v Bennett, the judge clearly decided that Winston Peters' superannuation overpayment and repayment was a very private matter that was not in the public interest to be disclosed. To avoid doubt, here are Justice Vennings' exact words:

[114] Mr Gray referred to the case of AAA v Associated Newspapers Limited. In that case, the claim for invasion of privacy was brought on behalf of a young girl after journalists had published articles and covertly taken photographs of her. The articles speculated her father was a prominent elected politician. While accepting the information as to the girl’s paternity was private to her, the High Court of England and Wales considered there was a proper public interest in the professional and private life of the supposed father and the alleged recklessness of his behaviour in conducting extramarital affairs.34 That behaviour was relevant to his professional and personal character and fitness for public office.35 As such, the articles did not constitute an actionable breach of his privacy.36 The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court judgment. In relation to the publication of the involvement of the father, the Court noted:

… The core information in the story, namely that the father had an adulterous affair with the mother, deceiving both his wife and the mother’s partner and that the claimant, born about 9 months later, was likely to be the father’s child, was a public interest matter which the electorate was entitled to know when considering his fitness for high public office.

[115] There is, however, nothing of that element in the present case. The fact that Mr Peters contributed to a mistake in completing the application form and, at worst, did not pay sufficient attention to detail of the form and correspondence from the MSD, can have no realistic impact on his character or fitness for public office. Mr Peters’ profile does not, of itself, support the disclosure of the payment irregularity to the media and importantly, nor do the circumstances which gave rise to the payment irregularity. It would be quite different if the investigation had revealed Mr Peters had set out to defraud the MSD but that is not the case.

[116] It is also relevant that Mr Peters, perhaps unusually for a politician with a high public profile, has always sought to protect his privacy and personal life. I accept Mr Peters keeps his private life separate from his political life as much as he is able to. He is entitled to do so.

[117] In summary, on the first point, I accept that Mr Peters had a reasonable expectation that the details of the payment irregularity would not be disclosed to parties who did not have a genuine need to know about it or a proper interest in knowing about it, and certainly had a reasonable expectation that the payment irregularity would not be disclosed to the media.

But, in paragraph 76 of the decision, it states:

[76] None of the journalists, including Mr Soper, were prepared to disclose their sources. They invoked the protection of s 68(1) Evidence Act. I was not asked to make an order under s 68(2) and was not in any event, provided with evidence to satisfy me that the criteria in that subsection were satisfied.

Why didn't Winston Peters' lawyers apply to make an order under s68(2)? More importantly, why didn't, as part of the MSD investigation, Crown Law apply to the court to identify the informant?

And doesn't Justice Venning contradict himself by saying that the criteria of s68(2) wouldn't be satisfied in paragraph 76 when in paragraphs 115-117 he says the criteria are met?

What possible public interest could be outweighed by any adverse effect to the malicious informant? If ever there were grounds to seek the disclosure of an informant, surely this case could bring an end to such 'Dirty Politics' in this country?

Cheat Sheet

So, have you got all that?

Let's summarize:

Jenna Lynch and her partner, National Party staffer Andrew Ketels, are obsessed with Winston Peters;
Jenna Lynch and Andrew Ketels are friends with several Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett staffers who were briefed about Winston Peters' superannuation payment before it was repaid;
Anne Tolley was pissed off that her staffer Cameron Oldfield (friends of Lynch and Ketels) was briefed about Winston Peters' superannuation payment before it was repaid;
Jenna Lynch said that a 'reliable source' (which she described as a 'he') tipped her off about the overpayment but not that it was repaid;
Jenna Lynch was reluctant to break the story;
Someone really wanted the story to break during the period that 1News and Newshub were conducting their final political polling before advance voting commenced for the general election;
That someone contacted Tim Murphy's Newsroom to bait Paddy Gower to break the story, mentioning the effect that Metiria Turei's scandal had on Greens' polling;
Bill English was furious that the story broke;
Following the election, Winston Peters held the balance of power and chose to form a government with Labour, despite National polling higher than Labour;
Andrew Ketels left working for National for a job as Act's 'Strategic Advisor', releasing a barrage of tweets attacking the National Party;
Cameron Oldfield (and the official who briefed him) were the only people who applied for name suppression;
Jenna Lynch then lied under oath that, among other things, that her source was a man; and
The judge contradicted himself by saying that, despite the malicious privacy breach meeting all the legal requirements for the source of the leaker to be revealed, Lynch didn't need to.

Aftermath

[Updated on 1 October 2022]

Following the 2017 election:

National went into self-destruction mode;
Andrew Ketels rubbed it in;
Act was polling at less than 1%;
Bill English resigned as leader;
Simon Bridge emerged as the new leader;
On 12 March 2019 Jami Lee Ross went into self-destruction mode, making allegations against Simon Bridges of being a party to fraudulent donations by Chinese to the National Party;
On 29 January 2020 the SFO instead laid charges against Ross and three others who didn't hold positions in the National Party (at the time);
On 22 May 2020, Todd Muller then staged a successful leadership coup;
On 14 July 2020, Todd Muller had a mental breakdown and resigned as National Leader;
On the same day, Judith Collins was voted as the new National Party Leader;
Act's polling plunged to 3.3%;
Andrew Ketels launched a barrage of attacks against Judith Collins;
The NZ Taxpayer Union received a large increase in donations, surging from $155,965.18 in 2017 to $831,848.22 in 2020;
The NZ Taxpayer Union launched campaigns to attack Winston Peters; and
By July 2020, Act's polling doubled to over 6%.

Winston Peters' 22 July 2020 speech under Parliamentary privilege triggered a chain reaction of events. Here is a list in order of what happened next:

The Press Gallery and Taxpayers' Union turned on New Zealand First, barraging bulletins with negative stories.
In late September 2020, the Serious Fraud Office announced that they would be laying charges against two persons as a result of their investigation into the NZ First Foundation. Being announced so close to a general election, Winston Peters described the actions of the SFO as "politically motivated."
On 17 October 2020, the general election was held.
- NZ First polled 2.6% of the party vote (down 4.6% from the 2017 election) and failed to reach the 5% party vote threshold so didn't achieve any Members of Parliament.
- Act polled 7.59% (up 7.08%). Act went from one Member of Parliament to 10.
- National polled the second worst election result in its history - the worst under MMP.
- Christopher Luxon was elected as Member of Parliament for Botany - Jami Lee Ross' former seat.
Following the election, Andrew Ketels was promoted to Chief of Staff.
Rachel Morton took a 6-month break from working for Act, only to return as their new Director of Communications.
Jenna Lynch was promoted to Newshub Political Editor in January 2022. On 15 May 2022, she and Andrew Ketels announced the arrival of their first child. In a puff piece was this priceless gem -

Jenna tried to keep this in mind when her journalistic integrity was called into question recently, when she was accused of political bias in a Twitter stoush due to Andrew's job. She says it's absurd to suggest the man she loves can control her career, her reporting and her poll results.

Former NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft (and former Mediaworks/Newshub newsreader) returned to Mediaworks as a political commentator. She then gave Jenna Lynch the scoop that she'd quit the NZ First Party. She then gave Newsroom political editor Jo Moir an exclusive interview saying that she'd joined the Labour Party.
Christopher Luxon became the leader of the National Party on 30 November 2021.
Anne Tolley retired from Parliament before the 2020 election. On 9 February 2021, the government sacked the elected members of the Tauranga City Council and Tolley was appointed a Crown Commission to oversee all of Tauranga City Council's governance responsibilities. Tolley was appointed Commission Chair.
Paula Bennett retired from Parliament before the 2020 election. Following her appointment as 'Strategic Advisor' to Bayleys Real Estate, she raised over $2.3m in large donations for the National Party (mostly from property developers) and built up her public profile hosting real estate and celebrity TV shows.
James Meager moved to South Canterbury in May 2022. On 18 September 2022, he was announced as the National Party's candidate for Rangitata. He immediately set about deleting 7202 tweets from his Twitter history.
Between 7 June and 22 July 2022, a High Court judge heard the trial of two accused of defrauding the NZ First Foundation. On 22 July, the two were acquitted of all charges and given permanent name suppression.
On 25 July 2022, the trial involving the alleged fraudulent donation to the National Party was held together with others alleged to have made fraudulent donations to the Labour Party. The trial commenced after the NZ First Foundation trial despite those in the National Party donation case being charged months 9 months before the two NZ First Foundation accused.
On 18 August 2022, the Crown appealed the Court's decision to acquit the two accused in the NZ First Foundation case.
On 5 October 2022, Jami Lee Ross was acquitted along with all the National Party and Labour Party officials. The three Chinese donors, however, were found guilty.
Newsroom co-editor Tim Murphy married Newshub correspondent Amanda Gillies in January 2023 after a long engagement.
Anne Tolley became chair of Transparency International New Zealand. I shit you not!

Cheat Sheet

Afermath