ajobbins:

And in this thread, there seems to be a fair bit of "I hate anything not right wing, so I don't care how true it is, I can't stand Labour so it doesn't matter". That to me seems like a very naive and willfully ignorant view, and you're basically saying that simply because of their position on the political spectrum, they can do no bad and can do whatever they like - as long as it isn't "left wing". I don't have any allegiance either way (left or right) and have voted both ways in recent years.

wasabi2k: IMO:
It's ugly - most people knew this stuff was happening now there is some evidence.

Slater is a scumbag, always has been, always will be. The less attention he gets the better. 

I think the content of the book was a massive letdown for a lot of the audience who were expecting SIS/Snowden info.

Will it change how I vote? Nope.

The timing also strikes me as aiming to maximise sales and publicity - not some noble intention to inform the public.

deadlyllama:

wasabi2k: IMO:
It's ugly - most people knew this stuff was happening now there is some evidence.

Slater is a scumbag, always has been, always will be. The less attention he gets the better. 

I think the content of the book was a massive letdown for a lot of the audience who were expecting SIS/Snowden info.

Will it change how I vote? Nope.

The timing also strikes me as aiming to maximise sales and publicity - not some noble intention to inform the public.

Political parties' conduct is always an election issue. It makes sense to make the information public before the election rather than immediately after.

And even if this sort of thing happening is not exactly news, proof of it is. It's the difference between harbouring suspicion and having proof that our leaders are being mendacious. I don't want to vote for someone I suspect of being two-faced. I won't vote for some I *know* is being two-faced.

networkn: If you think both parties aren't doing the same thing, you are dreaming.

ajobbins:

networkn: If you think both parties aren't doing the same thing, you are dreaming.

I'd be surprised if Labour was doing this (or certainly to this extent), because largely they seem to be asleep at the wheel and not doing very much at all.

The other point I will make is that, just because they both might be doing it, doesn't mean it's OK. This is, at best, conduct of moral question, or at worst, illegal. Regardless of who it is doing it, we should hold those who are elected to represent us to a higher standard than this. In my view, this type of conduct isn't acceptable and shouldn't be tolerated by ANY political party.

ajobbins: Obviously this has been widely reported in the media. What is everyones thoughts?

Damaging Revelations? Stuff we always suspected, but now have proof? Nicky Hager is a screaming left-wing conspiracy theorist? Yawn?

NZCrusader: Forgotten so soon? http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/696924/Labour-tries-to-dodge-bomb-fallout

I bet Labour does this, if not more.
This is when they are not unveiling expensive policies (handouts) in vote buying efforts.

NZCrusader: Nicky Hager = a guy trying to make a quick buck by throwing a few assumptions into a book.

ajobbins: 
 - Slater has also heavily defended the access of Labour party information that was unsecured, saying that because it was unsecured, he was entitled to take it and use it. My understanding of the law (which could be wrong) is that that isn't a defence, and that if he knew he wasn't supposed to have the information, taking it anyway could still be an offence.