The Roy dossier

Have read through in detail the so called Roy Dossier, of 82 pages.

While it is designed to hurt Rodney Hide, I actually think that it reflects more poorly on its author. Incidentally the author is not necessarily Heather Roy, but more likely a former staff member of hers.

The first thing that strikes me is the massive sense of entitlement, as if ACT being in Parliament was all due to Heather. An extract:

In the 2005 -2008 Parliament, I maintained what I could of respectability for the Party through Rodney’s journey of reinvention.

News flash. Rodney won Epsom with a massive majority. He also increased the party vote from 2 MPs to 5 MPs. That was not due to the Deputy Leader’s so called maintenance of respectability.

The whole way through, it has this tone. Heather’s advisers have obviously convinced that she is ACT’s salvation.

I must, as an Associate Minister, have the ability to discuss issues freely and frankly with my primary Minister. The contents of the paper are entirely consistent with the ACT National Security Policy from the 2008 election which had sign-off from the policy committee.

But who decides it is consistent? That is the job of caucus, not the Minister or her aides solely.

Rodney sent me a text message asking for a copy of the Defence Document. I contacted Wayne Mapp to discuss this with him. I explained that the document was wanted because Rodney wanted to use it against me and that the ‘need to know’ provision in the security manual did not apply to him. I reminded him it was a draft intended for him only. He said it was my document and it was up to me. I said I was not going to give Rodney a copy

At this point I would have sacked Heather on the spot. This document was not sort sort of highly classified document, using top secret information. It was in fact authored by Heather (or her advisor), and her refusal to give her leader a copy is the most politically stupid thing I’ve seen since, well Chris Carter’s anonymous letters to the press gallery.

I then sent Rodney a text message in reply to his claim that he had discussed this with the Minister of Defence, informing him that it was a classified document and that I wouldn’t be giving it to him.

Again – I would have sacked her at that stage. What the hell was she thinking, or was she being advised. The sole reason Heather was Associate Minister of Defence is because Rodney Hide won Epsom, and is the party leader of ACT. Ministers are expected to consult their parties on what they do. I’ve never heard of a Minister refusing to share a document (that they authored) with a party leader.

There is a covering email that this document was sent with as an attachment (Enclosure 12). It is from my Advisor to his counterpart in the Mapp Office and the Deputy Secretary of Defence – the latter to whom feedback was asked to be directed. It states that in the event of having little time to scrutinise the paper he has made suggested changes but has not had time to run them past his Minister and, given the timeline for submission, he felt that he had no other choice and takes responsibility for this.

Rodney Hide states that my Advisor should not be making statements on ACT party positions. The comments made are all consistent with the ACT National Security policy for the 2008 election signed off by the policy committee and the email cover sheet covers off responsibility for comments.

So an unelected staff member is determining positions, and the party leader is not even able to see a copy. You get to see why there was a problem. The references to consistency with party election policy are a red herring as election policy tends to be very wide, and that doesn’t remove the need for approval for more specific positions.

After two very confrontational meetings with Rodney Hide in his office (both were called at very short notice with no indication of what they were about) and after discussion at a meeting with the Party President, I decided that I would not meet with the Leader alone.

I’m almost lost for words. The arrogance in that statement.

I was concerned he would take the paper away and copy it, which is why I said he could read it in my office, but not take it away. It is a classified document and he does not meet the security regulation ‘need to know’ criterion. His purpose for wanting the document was to use it in a witchhunt
against me.

Again the sense of importance and entitlement is staggering. Can you imagine a junior Minister telling her party leader he does not meet “need to know” because she unilaterally has decided she disapproves of his purposes for wanting it. And again this was not a secret or top secret document. It was merely restricted, and in fact authored by Heather or her advisor.

Makes it appear as though Rodney is afraid of Heather’s ability and ambition regarding leadership and so feels the need to remove her before she becomes too powerful.

Again, what were they smoking? The entire document reeks of this conceit.

Raises ser ious doubt s about John’ s judgement in challenging for Deputy role before Natural justice had occurred. Unlikely he would be taken as a serious future leader or ministerial option after that.

This part is hilarious. She thought she would stay on as a Minister if not Deputy, and is trying to scare Boscawen off.

Some Board members and highly placed list candidates may
publicly resign.

The only board member who resigned (later withdrawn) was in response to the lies in this dossier, not due to Heather’s sacking.

A Special General Meeting could be called by 20% of the membership causing further unhelpful media scrutiny.

You think you’re so highly reHgarded that 20% of the members will call an SGM to protest your sacking? After reading this dossier, they won’t manage 2%.

The Greens will likely offer a ‘make-up’ deal with National in an attempt to step into ACT’s support party space.

Ha ha ha ha ha. What fine political analysis.

I write this post again with sadness. But the “dossier” is so awful, I just can’t not point out that it in facts proves that Heather had to be sacked.