The Budget led the bulletins this week long before its scheduled release because of that leak. Some pundits praised Simon Bridges' strategy while others criticised breaking an important embargo solely for party political gain. But how did the media judge the public interest in this story?
National leader Simon Bridges talks to media about the Treasury Budget information leak. Photo: RNZ / Dom Thomas
When National leader Simon Bridges revealed the leaked information on Tuesday it was done with the media in mind.
Press gallery reporters were alerted by the party and its social media team was filming them filming Simon Bridges and putting it all on Facebook as he handed out the information.
And soundbites about “tanks, not teeth and teachers” and “more Winston than wellbeing” were duly reported in the news.
When startled press gallery reporters asked how he got the closely guarded documents, Simon Bridges answered in terms he thought they’d understand.
“I’m not going to say how I got that information just as I wouldn’t expect a journalist to do so,” he told them.
Simon Bridges knows what it feels like to be the subject of frenzied coverage sparked by the leaking of information that was just days away from being officially released.
Last year, Newshub dined out Simon Bridges spending on travel leaked two days before their scheduled publication.
The way it was reported played into the hands of opponents who didn't support his leadership, but he will hardly be able to complain in the future about about embargo-busting leaks to the media.
Acquiring and distributing details of the Budget is a bigger deal than his travel spending.
There were big claims and counter-claims between the government and opposition about lying and hacking, all heavily reported.
But political reporters were making hyped-up claims of their own.
The leak was widely reported to have “overshadowed” the Budget . . . two days before The Budget actually happened.
On Wednesday morning, RNZ declared it “a career-ending stand-off” between Finance Minister and the Opposition leader - but didn’t say why. Both men remain in their jobs so far.
On Newshub at 6, Newshub political editor Tova O’Brien called it “the Simon Bridges smackdown” - making it sound like televised pro-wrestling rather than televised New Zealand politics
“National has completely utterly derailed the Budget,” she told viewers breathlessly.
But the Budget did actually take place as planned on Thursday.
Simon Bridges was certainly trying to upstage the Budget with the timing of his revelations.
On The Project on Wednesday, shortly after he said sternly that politics was not a game, Simon Bridges said he wouldn’t say where he got the information from until a set-piece press conference the next morning.
On The Project they didn’t seem to mind, thanking him for his time and wishing him well for the next day.
Some in the media even gave Simon Bridges credit for the drip-feeding strategy.
On Tuesday, Stuff’s political editor Stacey Kirk called it “an impeccably timed political hit.”
“It's the stuff of nightmares for finance ministers, but it's class A oppositional work,“ she wrote.
Not everyone in the media agreed.
“Instead of being the bigger man and helping with our national security, he’s more content to say this is Winston’s Budget and Grant Robertson is a liar,” Newstalk ZB’s Andrew Dickens told his listeners on Wednesday.
Plenty of his callers agreed.
One wondered whether the media were part of the problem too.
“Could you please explain why NZME, Newstalk ZB, RNZ, Stuff and many others have all broadcast and published the figures knowing they should not be in the public domain?" one caller asked.
Once Bridges put them there it was impossible for media to ignore them of course but on Budget day, RNZ political editor Jane Patterson said there was no public interest in releasing the leaked details of the Budget early.
“We didn’t even know if it was accurate so we couldn’t put that to the test in terms of what we are looking at. The only motivation for this was to embarrass the government and cause a massive distraction ahead of the budget,“ she said.
"They’re still looking to make a political capital out of this just hours before we go into the budget lock-up. I don’t know how this is going to look to the public in terms of taking what is a serious day - with serious money and policy - seriously,” she said.
There, Jane Patterson was talking about whether the political games and claims would rebound the politicians on them if the public disapproved.
But the same applies to the media when they know politicians are trying to make political capital.
On Wednesday, pundit Chris Trotter said Simon Bridges had made a fool of himself and should quit as leader.
The following day, he apologised to Mr Bridges for “going off half-cocked”.
Newsroom’s Bernard Hickey was also checking himself once the Budget was out.
“I was just as caught up as the next political reporter in the drama of ‘he said, he said’ and who was right and wrong, and who should resign,” said Mr Hickey, who writes about economics, business and politics from the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
“Everyone should take a chill pill, stop jumping to conclusions for a quick political hit and instead think beyond the beltway to the real world and long term concerns of citizens,” he said.
The first step to a Wellbeing media?