spinofflive
Jami-Lee Ross outside the High Court in Auckland. Photo: Toby Manhire
Jami-Lee Ross outside the High Court in Auckland. Photo: Toby Manhire

PoliticsSeptember 8, 2022

Donations trial concludes with Jami-Lee Ross ‘kamikaze’ defence

Jami-Lee Ross outside the High Court in Auckland. Photo: Toby Manhire
Jami-Lee Ross outside the High Court in Auckland. Photo: Toby Manhire

The then-MP lied because he was determined to ‘bring Simon Bridges down’ and indifferent to the consequences owing to being ‘acutely unwell’, said Ross’s lawyer.

The Urban Dictionary was invoked in the Auckland High Court this morning, in defence of Jami-Lee Ross. While the word “kamikaze” might literally translate as “divine wind”, said the former National MP’s lawyer, Ron Mansfield QC, the online Urban Dictionary “describes kamikaze, by way of action, as ‘complete and utter disregard to logic or rational thinking’.”

This, he contended, was the more common understanding of the term, and one which captured the behaviour of his client when he launched an attack accusing his then party leader of corruption – a mindset, said Mansfield, that might equally be described as “burning Bridges”. 

Those explosive days, in which Ross accused Simon Bridges of complicity in a plan to divide up donations to avoid the need for declaration, set in motion police and Serious Fraud Office investigations that ultimately led to seven defendants facing criminal charges around what the crown describes as “sham donations”. The trial of seven defendants, in relation to three donations – two to the National Party and another to the Labour Party that is unlinked to Ross – concluded today, towards the end of the seventh of 10 available weeks. 

Ross’s was the last of the seven defence cases to close, and it differed from the others insofar as it rested on an argument that his admissions almost four years ago, in October 2018, “are unreliable”, said Mansfield. That was no 11th hour defence, he stressed, but had been Ross’s position for the duration of the SFO investigation. 

“It is unusual for any counsel to stand before the court and describe their client as someone who has lied,” he said, as Ross watched on impassively. “But I so do. And that is because it’s readily apparent that Mr Ross lied. The very statements that the SFO rely on against him can be described simply as lies.”

Among the evidence laid out during the trial was a text message to a constituency office administrator in March 2018, in which Ross bemoaned Bridges not rewarding him, as the “numbers guy” for his leadership challenge, by giving him the job he believed he had been promised – shadow leader of the house. “So I got fucked over pretty big time by a guy who thought I was a mate and helped a lot,” wrote Ross – who was ranked eighth in caucus by Bridges – at the time. 

When Bridges refused to budge from his decision, Ross wrote to him: “My head says suck it up. My heart says kamikaze. Head wins, I’ll suck it up.” That, said Mansfield, was “the first lie … because the head didn’t win. The heart won.”

Ross also acknowledged via his lawyer that his repeated denials that he was responsible for leaking Bridges’ travel expenses to Tova O’Brien, then of Newshub, were untrue. It was one of a “series of lies told by Mr Ross”.

The leaks prompted inquiries by both the speaker’s office and the National Party, with the former halted after text messages were sent to the speaker, Trevor Mallard, as well as Simon Bridges and media from someone claiming to be a National MP, asking for the probes to be ended for reasons of his mental health. The National inquiry found that Ross was highly likely to be the leaker. 

Jami-Lee Ross and Simon Bridges in parliament during happier times, last November. Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

Of the leaks, Ross “didn’t think it would go too far” and hoped only to “create media interest and be an embarrassment for Bridges”, providing a “distraction” from the leader’s tour of the country. When the inquiries were launched, that “frightened politically Mr Ross”, and “using a burner phone, he sent a message indicating that the individual within caucus who had released this information was suffering from poor mental health. There we have the truth being told, at least,” said Mansfield. The goal was to get both to “back off [their] investigations”.

When the National inquiry pointed the finger at Ross, the MP “went kamikaze”, his lawyer told the court. His mental health was such that he was “critically unwell”, rendering him indifferent to the consequences of his actions – a succession of lies, said Mansfield, which falsely accused both Bridges and Ross himself of committing fraud in relation to political donations.

‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’
Toby Manhire
— Editor-at-large

In levelling accusations – and self-incriminating – in 2018, Ross identified as the donor Yikun Zhang, the Chinese businessman who in recent weeks appeared in court on the charges brought by the SFO. That could be explained, argued Mansfield, because Ross had been aware of questions raised internally about Yikun Zhang donations, and that was what prompted him to wrap him into his “lie”. He further argued that “the complete absence of Mr Ross” in the communications captured by investigators in relation to the other defendants supported the contention that he was not involved “in any fraudulent scheme”.

Concluding his closing statement, Mansfield said: “When you look at the evidence, while at first glance it might appear that Mr Ross has achieved the own goal that people laugh and joke about, and have until this day done so in public and in private, in reality he wasn’t achieving an own goal, because, sadly the truth is more tragic. The tragic reality is that this man was desperate, and acutely unwell, and simply didn’t care what he said or the damage he caused for some.”

Justice Ian Gault, who is hearing the case alone, hopes to deliver a verdict by September 30.


Follow our politics podcast Gone By Lunchtime on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.

Keep going!
Image: Archi Banal
Image: Archi Banal

Local Elections 2022September 8, 2022

2022 elections, scored: how much competition is there for your vote?

Image: Archi Banal
Image: Archi Banal

Analysis by Policy.nz shows how contested council and mayoral elections are around the country.

The dismally low number of people throwing their proverbial hats into the ring for local elections is no new thing. But it has attracted more attention in the leadup to the 2022 vote than in recent elections, in large part owing to the spotlight on individuals with fringe views – who in some cases appear less than frank about their affiliations – seizing on the paltry quantum of candidates to gain a foothold in local democratic assemblies. 

One useful way to look at how contested elections are, and how they compare across different elections – whether mayoralties or the various forms of council – is to look at the candidate-to-seat ratio. So if there were two people running to be mayor, that would be 2:1. If there were eight candidates running for six places on council, that would be 4:3, and so on.

‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’
Toby Manhire
— Editor-at-large

From there we can assign what we’ll call a “competition score”, or comp score, in the interests of brevity. In the first example, the comp score would be 2. In the second example, it would be 1.25. The higher that score, the more contested the election is, the more options voters have, which – generally speaking – tends to enhance democracy.

Thanks to the collation, crunching and analysis efforts of Policy.nz (newscaster voice: your complete guide to the 2022 local elections), let’s look at some of those comp scores.

2.1 – Aotearoa

That’s the comp score across the country – or 2.117 if you’re hungry for more decimal places. There are 3,409 candidates in total competing for 1,610 seats across 583 elections. To look at it another way, 47.2% of all nominations will end in electoral success.

23 – Auckland mayoralty

The highest profile race, the most powerful role, and so no surprise that it’s the most contested election. With 23 candidates for the one position, the comp score is – let me just grab a calculator – 23. The next highest is a tie between the Christchurch and Dunedin mayoralty races: each is on a score of 11

7 – The most contested council contests

Voters in the Banks Peninsula and Riccarton wards of Christchurch have the richest pickings, with seven contenders for one seat each. In Buller, which fills two seats on the West Coast Regional Council, there are 11 candidates, offering a score of 5.5. As for city councils, the most competitive ward that returns more than one councillor is Paekawakawa/Southern in Welllington, where 10 people are standing for two seats, giving us a comp score (again, this is advanced mathematics) of 5

2.9 – Dunedin City Council

Dunedin’s council contest is notable as the election with the most candidates in total: 40 standing for 14  available seats. With 34 running for a dozen spots in Invercargill, the score is 2.8. The hands are up for the Manurewa local board in Auckland, meanwhile, with 29 people seeking eight seats, a score of 3.6, the highest for a board contest. The most competitive district council race is Whanganui, which scores 2.3.

1 or lower – The uncontested 

The Uncontested is not a new HBO drama, regrettably, but a term to describe those who are nominated for a seat and get it automatically, as the total number of seats is the same or higher than the total number of candidates (as explored here). There are 119 uncontested elections across the country, including 53 with just one candidate (that number includes seven mayoralties). In total, 238 people have won their seat uncontested. 

While there is a relationship between population size and turnout – generally speaking, the larger the population, the lower the turnout – no such obvious pattern is evident when it comes to the candidate-to-seat ratio. 

4.5 – Mayoral races

Mayoralties are the most contested of all local elections in 2022, with a comp score of 4.5, meaning that 22% of all candidates will gorge on the fruits of victory. (Arguably this number inflates the genuine contestability, given that a number of people join the mayoral race in pursuit of name recognition in support of a bid for a council spot.) 

The comp score across the country for city councils is 2.9. Regional councils and district councils: 2.1

1.6 – Community boards

Community boards are the least contested, on 1.6. Across Aotearoa, 864 candidates are running for 551 seats. That means that 64% of all people nominated for a community board will make it to the table. Another way of saying it: only about one in every three candidates won’t win a place on a community board.

For local boards, Auckland’s versions of community boards, it’s 2.5.   

2.1 – South Island

There’s little in it between the islands, with the South Island boasting slightly more contested elections – a comp score of 2.1 with 47% of candidates elected – while the North Island has a score a smidgen over 2, with 49% elected. Urban areas are more contested than rural – with scores of 2.7 and 1.9 respectively.

Nelson (3.2), Northland (3) and Gisborne (3) take the prizes for the most contested geographic areas; at the back end, the least contested parts of the country, are these: Hawke's Bay and Manawatū-Whanganui (both 1.7) and Chatham Islands (1.1).

3.4 – Hamilton

Let us hope it is the city of the future when it comes to electoral candidacy. When Policy.nz crunched the numbers comparing all elections within a city, region or district, Hamilton rocketed to the top, on 3.4 candidates per seat. Close behind: Whangārei (3.3), Nelson (3.2), Invercargill (3.1) and the Far North (3).

The least contested roll call: Central Otago and Manawatū on 1.3, Central Hawke’s Bay and Chatham Islands on 1.1, and the least contested of all, Stratford, at 1.08. If you’re standing in Stratford, and you don’t get elected, well, maybe the political life is not for you.

Read the full Policy.nz report here.


Follow our politics podcast Gone By Lunchtime on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.

But wait there's more!