Image: Archi Banal

PoliticsJune 2, 2023

Exclusive: Wayne Brown forwarded councillors emails that called them ‘dip shits’

Contributing writer

Image: Archi Banal

Wayne Brown called most of his councillors ‘financially illiterate’ during a press conference yesterday morning. He then went back to the office and sent them emails from constituents who called them ‘dip shits’.

Auckland mayor Wayne Brown spent a good portion of Thursday morning berating his councillors. In an 8.30am press conference at Auckland Transport’s Viaduct headquarters, he said most of the city’s top elected representatives were “financially illiterate”. Christine Fletcher, Mike Lee, Wayne Walker, and John Watson were singled out by name for signing a low-rates pledge by the Ratepayers Alliance, then refusing to back his plan to mitigate rates rises by selling airport shares.

The Spinoff can reveal that Brown returned to his office that afternoon and sent similarly-themed correspondence to councillors directly, this time through the medium of constituent emails.

At 4.46pm, he sent councillors a one-line email saying “On behalf of Mayor Wayne Brown, please find attached – Emails received today – Feedback on Mayoral Proposal for Auckland Council’s Annual Budget 2023-24.” The accompanying PDF was a compendium of annoyed and occasionally abusive missives, almost all of them from people condemning hold-out councillors and backing the Brown budget.

“Can l ask which of the dip shits councillors are against the sale of the airport. Shame you can’t kick there ass as that’s where there brains are. Keep up your good work Mayor Brown. Regards Jim,” said one.

An email from Jim to mayor Wayne Brown (Image: Supplied)

Other correspondents were slightly more reserved in their language, though still vehemently in favour of the mayor and his plans. “I have been watching your battle with the entrenched management of the Auckland council, and you seem to be winning. To get rid of the airport shares which are highly inflated ,like everything in New Zealand ,would be a coup for you, and a great part to take down the cities deficit,” said Stephen.

“The next round of champagne & smoked salmon is on me!” said Roger. “Keep doing what you are doing ‐ Auckland needs you now more than ever!”

The collection also included feedback from Wellingtonians, Hamiltonians and Cantabrians. Wellington mayor Tory Whanau caught some stray sexist vitriol in one of the out-of-town emails. “I only wish Wellington could have a right‐wing mayor instead of a lightweight greenie who loves handbags, and we’re stuck with Grant Robertson MP who squanders money wholesale.

“Keep up the good work and your attacks on the left‐wing media ‐ they are drongos,” said John.

An email from John to mayor Wayne Brown (Image: Supplied)

John wasn’t alone in praising Brown for his antagonistic posture toward the media. “I am no longer an Aucklander but if I was I would have certainly voted for you. This latest nonsense about cherry picking reporters is too funny,” said Jennifer from Canterbury.

Jennifer was one of three women included in the collection of 18 emails. One of the female correspondents, Wendy from Hamilton, finished her email with the Latin phrase “illegitimi non carborundum”, which translates to “don’t let the bastards bring you down”.

Not every writer was so positive about the mayor. Gordon was concerned to read about his decision to exclude media from that morning’s press conference. “I hate to have to say it, but if you can’t handle the heat maybe it’s time for you to re-consider as to whether you’re the right person to lead our great city,” he said.

Several councillors also appear to be taking a dim view of the mayor’s actions. In a reply-all email, North Shore councillor Richard Hills asked why he and his colleagues had been sent the collection. “Several of these emails aren’t from people who live in Auckland. Some are well-known trolls. One of them is calling councillors ‘dip shits’ and abusing other elected officials,” he said. “Some of us are trying to get to a good outcome here and we’ve got hundreds of our own emails and messages to respond to already.”

The Spinoff understands at least one other councillor also replied to Brown’s email asking why they’d been sent the correspondence. Several councillors have been critical of the mayor’s bullish, sometimes highly confrontational approach through the budget process. One – Alf Filipaina – recently accused him of “blackmail” over the way he’s tried to make continued funding for community initiatives contingent on voting to sell airport shares.

As things stand, Brown doesn’t have the votes to sell those shares or pass his preferred version of the council’s annual budget.

But he does appear to have the majority support of his email correspondents.

‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’

Toby Manhire
— Editor-at-large

Keep going!

Jan Tinetti (Image design: Tina Tiller)

PoliticsJune 2, 2023

Jan Tinetti and the privileges committee, explained

Edward Willis

Guest writer

Jan Tinetti (Image design: Tina Tiller)

Why is she in trouble, and what could happen if she’s found in contempt?

Scorn and entitlement. Or, at least, contempt and privilege. In the strange world where constitutional law and politics intersect, people are bad at naming things. Parliament has “privileges”, and even a whole committee specially devoted to considering them. And politicians (not to mention the rest of us, if we have any dealings with parliament) risk being found in “contempt” if those privileges are breached. But these words don’t exactly mean what we commonly understand them to mean in this context. The scorn you might feel for a particular politician doesn’t mean they will be found in contempt.

For the first time in a while, these issues are in the news. The last time an MP was referred to the privileges committee was in 2008, when NZ First leader Winston Peters failed to disclose a large donation from billionaire Owen Glenn. The committee recommended that parliament censure him.

Winston Peters with his ‘no’ sign, used repeatedly at a press conference when facing questions about a $100,000 donation from expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn in February 2008.

This time, it’s Labour’s Jan Tinetti, the minister of education. In February, in her role as minister, Tinetti was subject to questioning by the parliamentary opposition about the timing of a release of school attendance data. When an opposition member asks a question of a minister in this forum, the minister’s response is made to the House of Representatives.

Except, back in February, Tinetti didn’t directly answer the question. Instead, the minister made a statement to the effect that release of the school attendance data wasn’t her responsibility. The minister said releasing the data was a matter for the Ministry of Education that did not have input from the minister’s office. National MP Erica Stanford challenged Tinetti further on the point, at which point Tinetti informed the House that she could “categorically tell that member that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the data, I have no say over that”.

Strong words. But those claims that Tinetti made back in February were incorrect. Not a great look – a minister not understanding what they are responsible for – but probably a minor matter in the scheme of parliamentary politics. Tinetti’s staff apparently informed the minister of her mistake that same day. Good learning moment, now we can move on. Except we can’t. From this point the minister knows that she has provided incorrect information not only to Stanford (who asked the question), but to the entire House of Representatives. The House has been misled, and Tinetti knows this.

‘The Speaker takes these matters seriously. Very seriously.’ Speaker of the House Adrian Rurawhe (Photo: NZ Parliament)

The matter is becoming more of a big deal, but again it’s not really any drama if you know what to do. Politicians give incorrect information to the House sometimes. The important thing is that when the mistake is realised, the responsible person appears before the House again to correct the record. Ideally at the first available opportunity.

Tinetti failed to do that. The minister let her incorrect statement sit on the record uncorrected until early May, when the Speaker of the House sent the minister a letter pointing out what needed to be done. The Speaker is responsible for the rules and reputation of the House, and so takes these matters seriously. Very seriously.

The long delay before Tinetti corrected the record concerned the Speaker so much that he referred the matter to the privileges committee. That committee, made up of representatives from different political parties, decides if the special rights and powers that allow the House to operate properly and hold the government to account – which we call “privileges” – have been breached.

Now that the matter has been referred to the privileges committee, what next? The committee takes on the role of Benoit Blanc for this stage of the story, inquiring into the matter, asking questions of Tinetti and others to established exactly what happened and why, and determining whether Tinetti’s actions in this case amount to “contempt”. Contempt in this context is really a serious act of disrespect or disobedience towards the House as an institution. Contempt can include breaches of privilege, but it is broader than this. As the House needs accurate information from ministers to hold the government properly to account, leaving an incorrect statement uncorrected could amount to contempt.

But circumstances matter too. Tinetti claims that she did not know about the need to correct the record, and she did so as soon as she was informed that she needed to by the Speaker. But that only suggests a wider set of questions. How could no-one in the minister’s office know of the requirement? Why did no-one in government – another minister, for example – help Tinetti understand her obligations? The scope of the inquiry is up to the committee, but as far as parliamentary matters go this is serious and should be looked at closely. Our Benoit Blanc needs to peel back all the layers of this onion, for the audience (us, the public) as well as those involved.

If a finding of contempt is made, what next? The committee can recommend a punishment be imposed on anyone found in contempt. The whole House then decides, by way of majority vote, whether to impose that punishment. Possible punishments include formal censure by the House, requiring an apology, or a fine of up to $1,000. Technically jail time is on the cards in contempt matters, but that is so unlikely it almost doesn’t bear mentioning.

Or nothing. It is possible that nothing will happen. Tinetti might not be found in contempt because the facts don’t bear out that claim, or because the privileges committee is made up of politicians who might not agree on findings and recommendations. This is a risk as there is a 4-4 split on the committee between government and opposition members. In the event of a tie the official position is that no findings or recommendations have been reached. So nothing happens.

But whatever the formal parliamentary outcome, it is important to remember that processes like this are subject to public scrutiny. We all get to make up our minds about how we hold ministers and politicians accountable. Privilege and contempt may be technical matters for others to determine, but whether we consider that our representatives have displayed a misplaced sense of entitlement or deserve our scorn rather than support is something we all get to decide for ourselves. That’s our system of democracy, and what the concepts of privilege and contempt are ultimately trying to protect.