The lawyer and blogger and tweeter who has exposed many a scandal in the last year or so had one of his stories published under his real name in the English Spectator magazine in April.
So in that respect it wasn’t hard to find out who he is. His real name had been known to many anyway, and we knew that he had worked in corporate finance in London because he had often written about aspects of his working and professional life.
Thus he was perfectly placed to analyse the financial aspects of the Three Waters legislation, and the high risk profile the new Water Services Entities will assume.
But Business Desk, owned by New Zealand Herald publisher NZME, set out to do a hit job on Phillip Crump yesterday. Maybe they’re just jealous that their investigative and analytical skills have been severely shown up by Mr Crump in his Substack writings, and more recently with his revelations on Twitter or X.
Among the lines in the article on Phillip Crump yesterday was this. “Crump, as Cranmer, has asserted that iwi gain special capacity to require the proposed new water entities to act on any statement they make about Te Mana o Te Wai, the underlying concept that the legislation seeks to protect. This has become a widely held misinterpretation of the legislation among its critics.”
Just how can the Business Desk writers of this article, Daniel Dunkley and Patrick Smellie, use the phrase “widely held misinterpretation of the legislation” ?
The actual law says this in Section 141: “A response to a Te Mana o Te Wai statement for water services must include a plan that sets out how the water services entity intends to give effect to Te Mana o Te Wai.”
If that’s not iwi, who are the only ones able to make Te Mana o Te Wai statements, not gaining special capacity to require the entities to act on any statement, then I don’t know what is. After all, what does “give effect to “ mean?
It means you must do it.
Therefore Phillip Crump’s interpretation is not a widely held “misinterpretation” at all. But then NZME is the recipient of more than 7 million dollars from the Public Interest Journalism Fund, the PIJF.
The conditions of that funding are that recipients must “actively promote the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
Having a lawyer point out the obvious advantage of iwi over the rest of us in the Water Services Entities Act is not in keeping with conditions of getting lots of PIJF money from the government.
Hence Business Desk are guilty of misinterpretation themselves.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced
Thus he was perfectly placed to analyse the financial aspects of the Three Waters legislation, and the high risk profile the new Water Services Entities will assume.
But Business Desk, owned by New Zealand Herald publisher NZME, set out to do a hit job on Phillip Crump yesterday. Maybe they’re just jealous that their investigative and analytical skills have been severely shown up by Mr Crump in his Substack writings, and more recently with his revelations on Twitter or X.
Among the lines in the article on Phillip Crump yesterday was this. “Crump, as Cranmer, has asserted that iwi gain special capacity to require the proposed new water entities to act on any statement they make about Te Mana o Te Wai, the underlying concept that the legislation seeks to protect. This has become a widely held misinterpretation of the legislation among its critics.”
Just how can the Business Desk writers of this article, Daniel Dunkley and Patrick Smellie, use the phrase “widely held misinterpretation of the legislation” ?
The actual law says this in Section 141: “A response to a Te Mana o Te Wai statement for water services must include a plan that sets out how the water services entity intends to give effect to Te Mana o Te Wai.”
If that’s not iwi, who are the only ones able to make Te Mana o Te Wai statements, not gaining special capacity to require the entities to act on any statement, then I don’t know what is. After all, what does “give effect to “ mean?
It means you must do it.
Therefore Phillip Crump’s interpretation is not a widely held “misinterpretation” at all. But then NZME is the recipient of more than 7 million dollars from the Public Interest Journalism Fund, the PIJF.
The conditions of that funding are that recipients must “actively promote the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
Having a lawyer point out the obvious advantage of iwi over the rest of us in the Water Services Entities Act is not in keeping with conditions of getting lots of PIJF money from the government.
Hence Business Desk are guilty of misinterpretation themselves.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced
6 comments:
Should a complaint to the Media Council be made?
Oh, that's right they play the same game.
'Cranmer' is right and the Herald writers are wrong.
Do they ever lie in bed at night awake and wonder why their words are no longer respected?
NZME? Now isn't this the organisation that published paid "editorial" content without disclosing the content was sponsored!
I support TRUTH tellers and despise LIARS, especially those funded by hard working tax payers sweat equity.
NZME has zero credibility.
But it will be delusional to the end - and the brainwashed will believe them.
Be very afraid for NZ's future.
I think this story pretty much sums up NZ media and the Labour governments stich up. An unpaid blogger, who happens to do a better job than the highly respected journalists of NZ Herald, needs to be cut down to size. Lest he show us all up.
Unfortunately the said journalists are making even bigger fools of themselves defending the indefensible.
Keep going Mr Crump we all enjoy your thoughtful input.
Democracy becomes very shaky when the msm, including RNZ, is as biassed and mis representative as it is in NZ at present and as has been now for years. It is only by wading around websites and being selective that anyone can now gain a reasonably balanced view. Only a tiny fraction of the total population do that on an open minded basis. I doubt if one person in 500 had a clear grasp of the PIJF conditons. Assuming 1 in 500 know what the PIJF is/was. There is a long list of questions I would like to run past random public to determine the degree of understanding on many matters.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.