spinofflive
leerosslusk

PoliticsOctober 19, 2018

‘I am just motivated to cut throats’: meet Jami Lee-Ross’s political mastermind

leerosslusk

Last night RNZ reported that a woman alleging bullying by rogue National MP Jami-Lee Ross said she had received threatening phone calls from Simon Lusk. Ross himself had earlier confirmed that he was taking advice from the shadowy political operative. But who is he, and where have we heard that name before?

When private security contractor Mark Mitchell returned cashed-up from Iraq with an interest in politics, he engaged the one operative in New Zealand whose tactics were as militant: Simon Lusk. Where campaigns in New Zealand have long been run under a facade of civility and fair play, Lusk believes politics is a “brutal and Darwinian” sport in which money and professionalism win above all. It’s cheaper to destroy your rivals than to negotiate with them is his credo. In his one-man crusade against Simon Bridges, Jami-Lee Ross has apparently had at least one person in his corner: a political strategist who thinks best “with a gun in hand and dogs under control” (his profile on The Wild explains that “during the difficult months of April & September when fishing and upland is not possible, Simon shoots deer for the freezer and rabbits and hares off the roof of his Isuzu D-Max”) is the perfect ally. After all, they’ve worked together before. 

Lusk is a keen student of international politics, and his pioneering of the sort of media smears most notably employed by Republicans in the United States was the backbone of Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics. In the 2014 book, Hager revealed Lusk’s attempts to move New Zealand politics to the right through media manipulation and merciless attacks on opponents within and without the party. Lusk had a long term goal of influencing the party right down to candidate training, Hager said. 

As Mitchell’s 2011 campaign for the safe National seat in Rodney heated up, posts began to appear on the rightwing Whale Oil blog questioning the other National candidates on everything from their religious beliefs to their connections to the apartheid movement. Published under Cameron Slater’s byline, the posts were in fact ghost authored by Simon Lusk, Hager revealed. National Party leadership warned Mitchell off working with the operative, but messages from the time released in Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics shed light on the brand of politics Lusk was perfecting, where even opposition within your own party can be taken out.

“I’m pretty pissed about their attitude,” Cameron Slater said.

“I am not,” replied Lusk. “I am just motivated to cut throats. Unfortunately the biggest buzz I get is when I wreck someone, only done it three times, but I was on a massive high.”

And Lusk appeared to have a powerful ally within the party – MP for Botany Jami-Lee Ross. In January of that year Lusk had helped secure Ross’s selection to run for National in the Botany by-election, winning out over Slater’s friend Aaron Bhatnagar. The win provided Lusk with a power base in Auckland, and a direct connection to a key National liaison with the affluent Chinese community.

Simon Lusk has an eye for spotting and promoting political talent, not all of whom are as rightwing as Jami-Lee Ross: even Sam Johnson, who led the Student Volunteer Army in the Christchurch recovery, was identified in Dirty Politics as someone Lusk considered a “client”. In the final stages of the Rodney race he helped to secure a gushing profile of Mitchell in the Sunday Star Times. With cash provided by Lusk, Slater even manipulated Vic Uni’s iPredict service to show favourability to Mitchell. 

New Zealand politics are amateurish, Lusk says, and cash can achieve everything from campaign victory to the removal of rival MPs – a service he offers on his website.  “Avoid building a sense of community,” he tells local government candidates in his book Winning Local Government Campaigns. “This means taxing locals to fund Leftie projects”.

Lusk emphasises the importance of money above all, and believes National’s dominance under John Key can be attributed in huge part to their superior fundraising abilities. Jami-Lee Ross became a crucial component of this machine, collecting donations that Simon Bridges would later use to fund, among other things, attack ads on the Labour Party.  

Since the release of Dirty Politics Lusk had been largely out of the spotlight. But as Ross went on the attack over the last week, pre-empting a removal attempt by Simon Bridges and drawing out the misery by drip feeding the media, both journalists and politicians alike sensed the fingerprints of Simon Lusk. Simon Bridges alleges the pair have been meeting for months. Ross says he hasn’t paid Lusk since 2011. But in the world of political influence, payment in cash is not always the end goal.

And Lusk’s attacks aren’t exclusively reserved for political opponents. Last night on RNZ a woman alleging severe bullying and manipulation said she had received a threatening phone call from Ross on a burner phone. He was speaking in “dark tones with a severe voice”, RNZ reported, and told the woman that she was throwing her career away and they were “at war”. The woman said she felt extremely frightened. She said she also received another call, this one from from Simon Lusk. She was offered political advancement and support as long as she unwaveringly backed Ross, she told RNZ. She said it felt like blackmail.

“Support Jami-Lee Ross and good things will come to you,” the message was. “Don’t, and they will not.”

That may just apply to politicians too. Jami-Lee Ross has indicated he will stand as an independent in Botany. With his fundraising abilities, and Simon Lusk working behind the scenes, it may be that the shift to the right seen internationally is on its way here too.

Keep going!
Chloë Swarbrick (Photo: Tim Onnes)
Chloë Swarbrick (Photo: Tim Onnes)

PoliticsOctober 19, 2018

How New Zealand got hooked on moral panic over drug laws

Chloë Swarbrick (Photo: Tim Onnes)
Chloë Swarbrick (Photo: Tim Onnes)

A new bill to increase the penalty for drug supply and distribution has passed its second reading in parliament. Green MP Chloë Swarbrick looks back on a decade of harmful drug laws. 

We are at a crossroads on drug policy in New Zealand. There is a real risk we take a backward step, further entrenching a deeply broken system that increases harm in our communities.

This week National Party MP Simeon Brown’s Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill passed its Second Reading with the support of New Zealand First. The bill would increase the penalties for possessing with intention to supply (a problematic yet typical machination of archaic drug law itself, reversing the burden of proof), supplying and selling psychoactive substances from two years to eight years. New Zealand First have signalled their intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to increase the penalties further, from eight years to 14 years.

As many MPs in their speeches made clear, people are dying. We must do something. The Greens believe that “something” must actually work. We cannot in good faith apply the same approach that got us into this mess in the first place. Politicians, as representatives of the people of New Zealand, have a responsibility to use the decades of evidence and advice they’ve received to genuinely reduce drug harm.

We’ve been operating against the evidence for a very long time. The centrepiece of New Zealand drug law is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – a carbon copy of the UK’s Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Its premise is that any use of the listed drugs is a misuse, and therefore carries penalties.

By way of contrast, in 2001 Portugal became the first country in the world to decriminalise all drugs, massively increasing funding available for mental health, drug abuse and addiction services. They have now racked up 17 years of quantitative and qualitative evidence to demonstrate that while they’re obviously not a utopia, all harmful statistics associated to drugs (such as overdose deaths and problematic use) have decreased substantially.

Yet, Portugal remains an outlier in its successful, bold move; for politicians throughout the rest of the world, maintaining prohibition and ratcheting up penalties remains the preferred policy option. This is a costly mistake.

EIT Ruatoria with folks in their Hemp Course (Image: Tim Onnes)

In the early 2010s, New Zealand began seeing the proliferation of a new breed of substances. Following 2007’s ‘ban’ of party drug benzylpiperazine (BZP), savvy minds turned to concocting a raft of new psychoactive products which flooded onto the market faster than legislators could legislate their prohibition in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

2011 saw the Law Commission produce their 408-page comprehensive report on the efficacy of (or, as the case became, lack thereof) the decades-old Misuse of Drugs Act. Their first recommendation was to repeal and replace the Act with something that was administered by the Ministry of Health (as opposed to the Ministry of Justice), explicitly focussed on reducing drug harm. They proposed a new regulatory model for emerging psychoactive substances.

In the two years following, New Zealand continued to see growth of synthetic substances, with parliament in 2013 moving to unanimously pass the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. At the time, it was heralded internationally as a model to regulate drugs and their potential harm. But that optimism quickly waned.

The 2013 Act included temporary licencing provisions for substances that had not been shown to be harmful. The introduction of regulations, such as purchasing age and location of sale restrictions, ironically meant that whilst the products were removed from their ubiquitous place on dairy counters, the “problem” became opaque for the first time, as queues of users of these drugs appeared outside of adult-restricted retailers.

Responding to moral panic from communities evidently alarmed by the prevalence of these users, Parliament of the day indulged in political expediency to see knee-jerk revocation of temporary licences. They did so in a 2014 Amendment presented in the form of an intractable combination for the Greens, amalgamating it with clarity around bans on animal testing. Former Green MP and Health spokesperson, Kevin Hague, attempted to negotiate a split of the Bill, because of our strong support for a ban on animal testing and strong opposition to the revocation of temporary licences. The National Government refused.

In May of 2014, 14 Green MPs were the only politicians in New Zealand’s parliament who did not vote for the Amendment imposing a blanket ban on all psychoactive substances, ripping away regulation and forcing the market underground.

Kevin issued this warning in the legislation’s final reading:

“Prohibition takes supply out of the hands of regulated, controlled retailers and instead puts that supply into the hands of criminal gangs or other illicit suppliers. Unfortunately, what that means is that the drug dealer on the street in the alleyway behind the shop at Naenae and the drug dealer in the tinny house are not subject to those same controls. Those people supplying the demand that will not go away as a result of this bill tonight will not be checking people for their ID or for proof of age. We should expect that supply to people under age will increase as a result of this bill. Those people will not be making a distinction between those products that are low risk and those products that are high risk.

“We should expect that the supply of products that are high risk will increase as a result of this bill. Those people, those illicit drug dealers, will, in addition to having a range of psychoactive substances—those currently legal and those currently illegal—have, in another pocket, other drugs like methamphetamine. So the product of this bill will be that the demand, which will not go away as a result of this bill, will also be met by the increased supply of currently illicit drugs. We are going to be seeing a significant increase in harm.”

EIT Ruatoria with folks in their Hemp Course (Image: Tim Onnes)

Kevin, unfortunately, was right. We have seen an explosion of illegal synthetics, and we have seen their harm increase as the chemicals get nastier and concoctions cheaper to throw together.

West Auckland synthetic user Tammara, interviewed by Vice Media earlier this year – four years after the repeal of interim licences – put it best when she said, “You get all these people addicted, like actually f**king addicted, and then just take it away and make it illegal? Of course it’s gonna go underground, and people are gonna start making sh*t that is harmful.”

An added complex layer is that the dealers of this cheap and nasty drug are often also its users; it’s not yet controlled by the gangs because it’s not yet as lucrative as the likes of methamphetamine. Moira Lawler, CEO of Lifewise, responsible for rolling out the ‘Housing First’ model endorsed by politicians across the aisle, recalls: “Synthetics are really cheap. We’ve had one of our whanau arrested and charged with dealing and one of the things the police said that really stuck with me was that their unit was full of coins. You don’t make your fortune dealing synthetics. It’s a small-change drug. But people use it because it’s all they can afford.”

Communities around our country have lost loved sons and daughters to the synthetics crisis, but according to Coroner’s Reports, far more common is the death of country’s homeless and our jobless – our most vulnerable, and most often overlooked.

In 2017, when media reported that at least seven people had died from synthetic usage, former Prime Minister Bill English said it was an issue of personal responsibility, denying government action was needed. That death toll rose to 25 in 2017. So far in 2018, the Chief Coroner has reported they’re investigating 40-45 deaths associated to synthetic usage.

Thankfully, we’ve moved beyond the scapegoat of ‘personal responsibility’. Far, far too often, I’ve heard the term invoked to abdicate political responsibility. We now have political consensus that ‘something’ must be done. But how on Earth could politicians responsibly come to the conclusion that the same thinking and actions that got us into this awful mess will produce anything other than worse outcomes?

Submitting on Brown’s Bill, specialised academics Shore & Whariki Research Centre put forward the evidence and “experience from overseas that increasing penalties for drug trafficking increases conviction and prison numbers while only having a minimal impact on drug prices and availability.”

Calls to be “hard on crime” are hollow and meaningless in the face of these deaths, unless the aim is purely to lock more people up without making a dent in demand, and therefore supply, and therefore, suffering. Such has been the political modus operandi for a long time now. The War on Drugs sounds good, and it’s the easy and straightforward ‘something’, but we know it will not work. It will not save lives. It will multiply misery.

Drugs are defined as “a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.” This is important to note because we regulate a large number of drugs in society, such as caffeine, sugar, and the deadliest known drug in the world: alcohol.

The thing about drug harm reduction is that it recognises drugs, and particularly our responses to those drugs, can cause harm. Of course it’d be easier if people didn’t take drugs. But nowhere in the world has eradicated drugs, regardless of the penalties they carry.

So we’ve got to operate in reality. These drugs exist. We’ve got to take them out of the shadows. We’ve got to regulate to reduce harm.

Regulations are often conflated with ‘chaos’, hedonism and increases in access. What such moral panic fails to recognise is that we presently have chaos; access for any and all in a dangerous black market that isn’t monitoring substance safety, providing health information or education, or checking ID. Regulation tempers affordability and access, and allows us the ability to intervene in problematic drug use and dependence.

People are unnecessarily dying, and those people are among our most vulnerable. Harsher penalties will not reduce drug demand – and therefore, supply – because they don’t target the drivers of drug use. If we’re genuinely set on saving people’s lives, we’ll be housing the homeless, reducing inequality, investing in mental health, drug abuse and addiction services, and taking substances out of the hands of profit-driven organisations – gangs and corporations alike.

There’s a short-lived high in filling up prison cells when the come-down means waking up to greater suffering.

Politics