About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

August 17, 2014 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 17 August 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment253

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (253)

Login to comment or vote

dad4justice

“I complained to DPF about Rowan’s comment”

I detest a NARK! I will never speak to you again. Your type make me feel nauseous.
2 10
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 7:51pm
Nostradamus

I have to admit that Mark Mitchell isn’t a name that means much to me. Looking at National’s website, he’s down towards the bottom of the list of MPs. Can someone tell me what, if anything, has he achieved in national politics? Why would someone want to break into his office and hack into his emails?
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 7:54pm
Nookin

Nostradamus
That was either a really smart move or a skilful foundation for a wager. A fiver he reneges.
5 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 7:55pm
Pete George

Why would someone want to break into his office and hack into his emails?

Cam Slater is a fan boy of Mitchell’s (who has been critical of Dotcom). So Slater is joining dots a bit like Hager.
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:01pm
mikenmild

big bruv
‘the self styled greatest sports team in the world’
You keep saying this but I can’t find any quote that backs it up.
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:01pm
big bruv

“I detest a NARK! I will never speak to you again”

You lucky, lucky bastard!

I get the impression that those around old D4J must have to walk on egg shells. Clearly he find it hard to control his emotions, he also displays classic narcissistic traits. No doubt he is completely convinced the world revolves around him.
7 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:01pm
Nookin

Nostradamus
Mark Mitchell was supposedly at a function when he overheard Dotcom vow and declare that he would destroy the government. He was called to give evidence in the Banks case. Much of his evidence was suppressed. Dotcom denied the allegations.
7 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:02pm
Nookin

Not so fast BB. My wager immediately got a down tick. It could only have come from Dad expressing his anger and frustration at the inevitable conclusion that he will succumb
7 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:04pm
Nostradamus

D4J:

I will never speak to you again.

I see, so you’ll never speak to me again, because I complained to DPF about a comment alleging bestiality and paedophilia? Well, if that’s the sort of comment that you think is acceptable, D4J, then you live by a very interesting moral code indeed. Frankly, I don’t think DPF wants to get dragged (as a third party) into defamation proceedings over comments like that. I respect DPF for the time and effort he puts into his blog, so I’m doing him a favour – I couldn’t give a fuck about you and your creepy stalking obsessions, D4J, quite frankly.

Nookin:

A fiver he reneges.

You should ask D4J for tips – he’s apparently very successful when it comes to one-way gambling bets!

Thanks for the information about Mitchell’s involvement in the Banks case – I wasn’t aware of that. Presumably he was some kind of character witness?
6 4
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:05pm
dad4justice

“You lucky, lucky bastard!”

And the only thing I will ever ask you bigot blouse is, can you post the threatening and sexually implicit emails I have allegedly sent you, so we can let the readers on here know who is a pathological liar and who is an honest bloke on the receiving end of a long malicious smear campaign. Thank you, this has gone on long enough. Post them and I leave here. If you can’t then you leave. It’s as simple as that.
2 8
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:06pm
Judith

Oh God, I’ve been hacked ….

…off with the way things (politics) are going in this country for quite some time.

(Just keeping up with the lasted trends in ‘lookee at me’ politics!) 🙂
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:09pm
Nookin

Mark Mitchell

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/4810730/In-the-line-of-duty

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10085321/Kim-Dotcom-vowed-to-destroy-Banks-and-Key
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:11pm
nasska

When asked, “What’s your favourite mythical creature?”…….

…..the answer has to be, “Those happy women in Tampax adverts.”
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:11pm
Judith

@ Nostradamus (3,063 comments) says:
August 17th, 2014 at 7:31 pm

You need to know the history behind that comment Nostradamus.

Muggins, using a different name on another site, tried to justify evidence given where a witness stated one of the girls involved had told the witness, the father had shown her how to insert fingers into her private parts. Muggins went on a tirade trying to show how it would have been completely above board a father showing his daughter how to do that.

If was not an off the cuff remark by Rowan, there was a lot of history behind it.
3 6
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:14pm
Johnboy

You haven’t been hacked Judith darling. They’re just called wrinkles. Stop looking in the mirror you poor old bag! 🙂
8 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:16pm
Nookin

This is what Mitchell said about Dotcom in Parliament

“http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/speeches/50HansS_20140416_00000862/mitchell-mark-general-debate
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:20pm
Judith

@ Nookin (3,110 comments) says:
August 17th, 2014 at 8:11 pm

Kim Dotcom vows to destroy Banks and Key, and both of them have demonstrated they feel the same way.

Damned if I can understand the difference (apart from the fact that one should definitely not be in the country) – however, people vowing to destroy others that disagree with them, isn’t exactly a rare occurrence – isn’t that exactly what Slater is trying to do to KDC as well?
1 7
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:21pm
Nostradamus

Judith:

Ok – fair enough. I know nothing about that history, obviously, or which Kiwiblog commentators have been involved in that history.

My reason for taking further action – and, whatever D4J might think, at least I’m open about it – was because I’ve observed that DPF has given out squillions of demerits on Bain threads, such as this one, including to Muggins and Rowan for very similar personalised comments.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:24pm
Judith

@ Nostradamus (3,064 comments) says:
August 17th, 2014 at 8:24 pm

Yes, it gets very heated and without knowing the history, the comment would seem a bit too much.

Personally things were so much better when one could slap the other with a glove and fight it out at dawn with swords. I wonder why they changed that tradition – seemed like a much more efficient method ! 😛
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:26pm
Nostradamus

Nookin:

That’s an extraordinary statement:

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) : I stand in this House today to make a statement. Late last year my family had been at a property in my electorate where my stepson had been testing his rally car in preparation for competing in his father’s memorial rally. Later that evening my wife, Peggy, and I attended a barbecue at the same property. While there I was confronted by Mr Kim Dotcom, who was also a guest. I can only describe the conversation as chilling. Direct threats were made by Mr Dotcom towards our Prime Minister. He stated that he could and would destroy the Prime Minister and that he already had members of our Parliament working with him to achieve this. We left immediately.
…
I did not believe Mr Dotcom’s claims that members of our New Zealand Parliament were actively collaborating with him. A good Opposition’s job is to challenge the Government, to ensure that the Ministers remain laser-focused on their portfolios, to challenge policy ideas, and to present an alternative Government. I watched in amazement as it became apparent that members of Parliament were collaborating with Mr Dotcom at his mansion in Coatesville.
…
I have now had time to reflect on the abusive behaviour of Mr Dotcom at the function I attended in my electorate last year. The violence of the threats towards our Prime Minister has not left me. Today I felt that it was important to place these matters on the record in this House. I believe that the people of this country are beginning to question the real motives of Mr Dotcom. From my own experience, he is a man who uses threats and intimidation on people to get what he wants. I wait to see the next instruction or order given from the Dotcom mansion to members of this House. Thank you.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:28pm
Nookin

Just in case anybody was struck by the sincerity of Mr Hager in denying that Dotcom was his source, here is an extract from an article that he wrote on leaking and the lengths to which leakers and journalists need to go in order to ensure that sources cannot be traced. Whether Dotcom was the source, directly or indirectly or was in any way party to or an influential actor in the unlawful taking of information remains to be seen. What cannot possibly be avoided is the conclusion that whoever it is, there will be a very intricate shield of deniability. The link to the article is at the end.

“Passing on the information safely

As secrecy has grown, so too have systems within organisations to try to keep the secrets in. But even in the most security obsessed organisation, common sense will help you to leak information safely.

Obviously you should not meet a journalist in the café next to your work or in their newsroom. Once you trust them, meeting at your or their home may be simplest, or in an out-of-the-way café. The wide availability of photocopiers in the last 20 years has made it much easier to leak papers. Usually it is not a good idea to leak original papers – go for ‘sharing’ rather than ‘stealing’ (unless you have copies of papers that no one in the organisation knows you have). The best option may be to take some papers away from work during lunch or overnight and copy them at a library or copy shop. Because of scratches on the glass, photocopiers sometimes leave little marks that could allow the leaked document to be traced back to your office photocopier. If you do photocopy at work, remember to take out the original when you finish. (This is by far the most frequent slip made by nervous people copying at the office!)

You may want to take identifying marks off documents, such as fax marks or e-mail details at the top or bottom or pages and handwritten notes and underlining. Often, though, this information can be important for verifying the authenticity of the document or revealing the date it was sent or received. It is best to remove this information only when essential or after it has been viewed.

If the document is a numbered copy, remove the numbers from every page. The simplest thing may be to copy the papers quickly first, then later take off all the marks and photocopy them again. Be aware that fingerprints can be detected on paper. If in doubt, allow the journalist (and maybe their editor) to view the documents, write down what they want to use and maybe photograph a page as an illustration – but on the understanding that they then give the papers back to you without taking copies. If you are the source, you have a right to control how the information is used.

Never give away your only copy of any document. No matter how important a document may be, sometimes material gets lost. Always try to keep a back-up copy in a safe location. Sometimes it may be worth ensuring that copies are distributed widely.

Speaking from experience, if you take these precautions then, when the information comes out in the news, it is very hard for the source ever to be traced. We have been involved in many leaks, large and small, and the people who provided the information have always remained anonymous. Of course you should be very careful and, at the time of the publicity, mentally prepared so that you do not give away your role. But there is no need to feel paranoid. Information leaks happen quite often. The organisations concerned may go through the motions of a ‘witch hunt’ to prove to their superiors they are serious about security, but then things settle down again. Remember all the famous leakers in history who have helped their countries and got away with it.” (http://www.nickyhager.info/a-brief-guide-to-leaking/)
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:33pm
big bruv

D4J

You have said you are never coming back before. Apart from your two year absence (just where were you?) you cannot help but stick around this place stalking me and others.

Oh, have you given Richie his car back yet?
4 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:38pm
dad4justice

And the only thing I will ever ask you bigot blouse is, can you post the threatening and sexually implicit emails I have allegedly sent you, so we can let the readers on here know who is a pathological liar and who is an honest bloke on the receiving end of a long malicious smear campaign. Thank you, this has gone on long enough. Post them and I leave here. If you can’t then you leave. It’s as simple as that.

Come on Graham come clean, you owe it to the kiwiblog community.
2 5
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:42pm
Nookin

Here is another interesting snippet from the article to which I referred in my previous post.

It seems that it is perfectly in order for a leaker to point a journalist in the right direction for the purposes of making an Official information request.

Unfortunately, that rule only seems to apply to people in employment who are betraying the trust and confidence of a National Government employer or to members of left-wing parties.

For some reason, it cannot apply, by definition, to a National Party minister who, assuming the allegations to be correct, simply pointed a blogger/journalist in the right direction in order to establish that the leader of the opposition may well be telling porkies. I have some difficulty reconciling the principles here. There seems to me to be a degree of selectivity about the application of the principle.

The principle of disclosure seemed to work perfectly well when said MP (albeit at the time in a different capacity) disclosed certain briefing notes for the purposes of establishing that a National leader of the opposition might be telling porkies.

Is a theme starting to emerge here?
.
Here is the quote:

“Sometimes just suggesting some questions that should be asked and who should be quizzed about a topic is sufficiently useful information. If you are wary of leaking documents, simply suggesting what file should be sought from government agencies under the Official Information Act can be useful.”
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:44pm
jcuk

Nostra … there was a tank for sale in working condition, low milage, apart from the gun on TradeMe last week 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:49pm
Nookin

Judith says
“… isn’t that exactly what Slater is trying to do to KDC as well?”

Nookin says

Absolutely. The difference is that Slater is being pilloried and Dotcom is buying his way into government with squillions of illicitly earned dollars and the blessing of the Greens and Labour. Oh, and I wouldn’t have Slater as a figurehead in a political party, either.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 8:58pm
Nostradamus

Big Bruv:

you [D4J] cannot help but stick around this place stalking me and others.

Ah well, if D4J spends all of his time stalking people on Kiwiblog, then perhaps the local community will feel safe. So, in a funny kind of way, you’re performing a worthwhile public service. You’re welcome to D4J – I don’t particularly enjoy being the focus of his creepy stalking obsessions, but at least I’ll never have to meet him in person (unless I visit Christchurch).

jcuk:

Seriously? Did the ad say what happened to the gun?
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 9:01pm
Judith

Nookin (3,113 comments) says:
August 17th, 2014 at 8:44 pm

For some reason, it cannot apply, by definition, to a National Party minister who, assuming the allegations to be correct, simply pointed a blogger/journalist in the right direction in order to establish that the leader of the opposition may well be telling porkies. I have some difficulty reconciling the principles here. There seems to me to be a degree of selectivity about the application of the principle.

But what about when that minister points a blogger in the right direction in order to apply for an OIA that allows the blogger to capture a document that he would have no way of knowing it existed otherwise, that would allow him to attack a member of the community (not an MP) – How would that be? Right or wrong?
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 9:01pm
Judith

@ Nookin (3,114 comments) says:
August 17th, 2014 at 8:58 pm

Money or dirt – they are both attempting to buy something that should not be ‘for sale’.
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 9:04pm
stigie

Could Bruv and D4J kiss and make up or could that be a cockup ?…just askin !~
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 9:18pm
Nostradamus

Stigie:

If it’s a cock-up you’re looking for, then Hagley Park (in Christchurch) is apparently the place to be – not sure how Big Bruv would feel about that though!
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 9:19pm
Nookin

Judith

“Personally things were so much better when one could slap the other with a glove and fight it out at dawn with swords. I wonder why they changed that tradition – seemed like a much more efficient method !”

We have something similar. The theory is that if A shits in B’s nest then B can shit in A’s nest. It’s called gotcha politics but seems to be going out of favour. Maybe bitch-slapping will be revived.

Your 8.44 post.

Not enough info and so I cant present an argument except in the abstract.

Disclosure/leaking is prima facie improper unless the discloser/leaker has the authority to make the disclosure. See Helen Clark’s comment that as Prime Minister, she cannot, by definition, leak.

Breach of authority or breach of confidence can be justified in order to prevent wrong-doing. We immediately have conflicting interests and incongruent values. We either have to create a balance or find a transcending value. This value is “the public interest”.

Usually, leaking or disclosures are considered in the context of government members or civil servants. However the principle is not restricted solely to government. The Protected Disclosure Act applies to the private sector as well, by way of example.

A civil servant may well be justified in breaching confidence by disclosing information pertaining to somebody not in government. I set out the parameters in a post responding to one of your comments on the “jerk” thread.

Rationalising issues in this way, and responding to your proposition:
1. If the minister had the authority to release the information, then no question of illegality could arise.
2. The minister’s motives may well be assessed by those standing in judgement of the minister (the public in this case) and the minister stands to be assessed anywhere on a continuum starting at gratuitous vindictiveness at one end and the performance of an obligatory obligation of disclosure in the public interest at the other end. This is a moral call in the absence of any illegality.

In the case where a private individual is involved, there would obviously have to be some questions as to the public interest in the particular case. I am not convinced that there should be a higher standard. The same standard should apply but I am conscious that MPs do not seem to attract the same protection as private individuals in the skirmish of politics (esp defamation cases).

3. If the minister did not, in the ordinary course of events, have the authority to make the disclosure (e.g., it was not her portfolio) then surely exactly the same principles apply to that minister as apply to the persons that Mr Hager recognises as deserving protection in the public interest? There cannot be any difference. If the public interest requires disclosure then why does it matter whether the discloser is an MP or minister and a non-government person is the subject of the disclosure?

The major problem is defining what is or is not in the public interest. As I understand the position, however, the allegation against Collins (if that is to whom you are referring) relates to the suggestion by her that Slater make a specific OIR to the SIS concerning briefing notes for the then leader of the opposition. If that is the case, then she cannot possibly be criticised for doing so if that same leader of the opposition, at a time that he was a member of the government, used his position as a minister to make disclosures for exactly the same purpose as did Collins.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 9:38pm
Nookin

I guess this will make Laila more at home, given her aversion to bulk and pendulity.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2014/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503581&objectid=11310028
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 9:47pm
Nostalgia-NZ

I think you’re absolutely wrong Nookin on the discloser/leaker argument. Compliance to the BORA will precede any ‘precedent’ of what another Minister in another Government may have done by way of disclosure or leaks. In some ways that is why I look forward to the DB JR, set, as it is, to spell out Ministerial precedence compared to that a citizen’s rights under TBORA. It may not be DB’s interest for the JR to proceed compared to a settlement, but it’s surely important for TBORA to be analysed by The Courts to confirm or reject that Executive power is unbridled and not subject to the Law.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 10:10pm
Nookin

Which particular section in BORA are you looking at? Surely not freedom of expression? I cannot dee how the Act fits into the argument. You are right when you say that what a minister once did is not necessarily determinative of the public interest.it is however a reasonable guide. The main point is that you cannot apply the same principle to substantially the same facts and come up with a different argument without an explanation.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 10:27pm
goldnkiwi

Brave woman that Louise Nicholas!!
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 10:43pm
Judith

@ nookin
My question was not referring to anything in hagers book but in fact a situation where a minister gave details to a blogger directing them to alter the wording of an oia request so they could capture a document that the blooger had no knowledge of, nor had any way of knowing it existed unless told by that minister. In order to make that knowledge known to the public due to the propriety rules of their position the minister had to make sure someone asked for the exact right details in their request. Something no one could do without having knowledge of what they were seeking.
1 6
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 10:48pm
Nostalgia-NZ

You just need to consider privacy, due process and fairness Nookin to see how the BORA applies when a Minister makes any decision – especially to leak details of a ’cause’ they may feel strongly about. A Minister has a temporary role, the Law and Executive Power do not.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 10:51pm
Gulag1917

No, Muslims are not taking over the world
The global Muslim population is projected to grow at a slower pace than it did during the previous two decades
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/11/islam-population
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 10:56pm
goldnkiwi

Judith (8,155 comments) says:

August 17th, 2014 at 10:48 pm

Caps lock broken? Sounds like some other OIA requests I can think of having been sought by you ‘Judith’.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 11:05pm
Judith

On my tablet golden. Hard to use without a keyboard especially for someone that is used to using an ordinary keyboard for more than forty years. Nice to see that the most important things in your little world are typing mistakes I make. Of all the things you could contribute to a public form, that is all you can come up with. Says a lot about your life, doesn’t it?
3 5
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 11:12pm
UrbanNeocolonialist

Louise Nicolas’s. Horrible story, but timing of documentary is obvious politicing by those campaigning to try to elevate “rape culture” into an election issue.
4 5
Log in to Reply
Report
August 17, 2014 11:30pm
Left Right and Centre

All Blacks vs Wallabies was boring forgettable rubbish.

Prime / Sky commentators – boring old fart hand-wringing deathly serious humourless humdrum dumb-bum numb-cum nincompoop cretins. Ian Smith – fuckin hell. Justin Marshall struggling away with the English lingo – give me a break. Mr Party Man Grant Fox ? Sheesh. Deathly stone faced grave toned gravy train wowsers – is it a rugby game or a funeral ? Is it life or death ? Is it a serious defcon four emergency ?

It’s in no way enjoyable. Need Martin Devlin or CGW crew to do it. Straight bat straight-laced lily white pure as the driven snow pollyanna commentary for kindy kids – fa-a-a-a-ark that shee-ite matey-po-tat-ey. I should’ve mixed it half and half with Hauraki or something. Especially when the game aint happening – need some comic relief. Not a hope in hell from those bozos. Are they told to be dull as dishwater ? How would they really call it if given an unfettered green light ? Where do I get these cool words from like unfettered ? I didn’t even know I *knew* that fucking word ffs.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 6:08am
Nookin

Nostalgia
BORA is not an all-embracing spiritual mantra. Before you can invoke it, you need to point to a particular section.
Judith, if a staff member wenr about that process Hager would feel well pleased. It is exactly what he is advocating in the passage I mentioned. Create deniability, destroy the links. Protect the source. The public interest transcends. You cannot have it both ways. If the information should be out there, you cannot complain that the trigger was a minister and not an employee or opposition member. Once a principle is in place it applies across the board. Hager cannot have i any oher way. The fact that he is ring to apply different rules to different people simply illusrates his hypocrisy.

Your real argument is where, on the continuum, we pass the point that the public interest demands disclosure. Journalists do not make that assessment if there is a story in it. As an indication, Goff was wrong to release the MFAT notes because he was intercepting communications between the leader of the opposition and a foreign state. It was cheap, political point scoring. Whoever released the Kitteridge report was wrong. It was coming out anyway and the only reason for the least appears to be some personal gratification. Person A was wrong to release the MFAT reforms and Goff was wrong to make use of them. They did not come within the parameters of protected disclosures. The state service is obliged to serve the government of the day and not impose its own will. So, you will see that I think a leaker and a journalist have a higher barrier to climb before a leak or disclosure can be justified.

Back to your proposition. If we are talking SIS briefing notes, most people know that the leader of the opposition is briefed. Its not hard to find that out. So, if the leader of the opposition is making demonstably false statements for the sole purpose of blackening the name of the goverment, is a minister wrong to suggest to a blogger “i suggest you ask for certain briefing notes”?
Is it fair that a person stands condemned because another MP, someone in a special position, is not telling the truth? Especially where that special position would, in the mind of the public, give the MP inside information? If it is not fair, the the dishonest behaiviour of the MP and the consequential unfairness justify the leak? To some extend this is hypothetical because it it hard to decide who is telling the truth, here — goff or the SIS fellow — but you catch the drift.
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 6:29am
Nostalgia-NZ

S27 Nookin. It’s far from Natural Justice for the Executive to enter into an agreement with a petitioner along certain lines, then to not only change the ‘agreement’ but to deliberately undermine the process by publicly attempting to discredit both the petitioner and the agent working to investigate and report on the petition. Remembering that the applicant can not be responsible for a report that he or she is not writing. Not only that, it’s not due process or Natural Justice to promote a media campaign against both the investigator and the applicant, with, in the case of the applicant, not informing them of the ‘work’ being done behind the scenes or just basically ensuring that all parties are kept informed. Collins whipped up a storm against Binnie and DB without informing either party fairly, in fact deliberately keeping it secret. The result was a ‘fresh’ scratching the surface report which concluded that Binnie, had he used the novel processes argued by a Lawyer – of less experience, that he may still have reached the same conclusions.

Collins stands accused of spreading and leaking dirt on political opponents, however here we see an example of her doing it to a member of the public, the victim of a Miscarriage of Justice according to our highest Court of the time. At the same time relegating an international Jurist, sought for the role because of his credentials, as some kind of enemy of his pay master. How does that work?
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 7:36am
Nookin

Nost.
This thread has nothing to do with Bain and I have no intention of going there except to say this:
Section 27 is all about rights recognised by law. Bain has no right to compensation. If he did he would have taken this to court years ago. This whole problem arises because there are no rights — only cabinet discretion based on on vague criteria and which do not, overtly, create any rights or obligations.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 7:59am
Judith

Nookin (3,120 comments) says:
August 18th, 2014 at 6:29 am

But the information wasn’t ‘out there’, therefore it wasn’t public. Nor was it in the public’s best interest to know it, unless the government had a particular reason for not wanting to make a decision on a controversial matter before the election – knowing full well that the inevitable decision, would influence how some chose to vote. If it is deemed necessary to stir the public up, so that matters are stalled, until after the election, I guess you could roughly say that was in the ‘public’s interests’ but then that could only apply if you believed it was in the public’s interest to re-elect the current government – good luck with using that excuse in a court!

It becomes a problem for the minister when exposing information is against the remit of their role and statements they had made regarding not releasing information to the public – therefore, it becomes very handy to be able to pass selective information on to someone who will make it public in a very biased manner, the problem of course being, how does that ‘someone’ get to know what they have to ask for, when they don’t know the information exists?

Read between the lines nookin and get ready to kiss the ministers butt goodbye!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 8:11am
Judith

@ Nookin (3,121 comments) says:
August 18th, 2014 at 7:59 am

Whether there is a right to compensation or not has nothing to do with this. The issue is that the government can not, and could not afford to make a decision regarding that compensation before the election. To do so would certainly lose them votes, as anything they did, either way, would upset a reasonably split electorate. No matter what they do, it will be fought over afterwards, and it will be big and controversial – and have the ability to dominate at least some of the pre-election dialogue.

Therefore the government, and especially the minister involved, had to do everything they could, to either make an immediate decision, which was attempted back in December 2012 (far enough from the election to enable the controversy to die down) however, when that became too difficult to do, they had to find some way of ensuring that the matter was NOT decided before the election.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 8:18am
Nookin

Judith
You are talking in riddles and referring to issues that have no bearing on my argument. I was comparing Collins’ position in the context of an allegation that she may have pointed Slater in a particular direction to counter what Goff was saying about Israeli tourists. I made that quite clear. If you are talking something else then spell it out. Before doing so, read my posts. It is manifestly clear that in my view those arguing that disclosure should be made in the public interest have a higher burden to bear to justify their position than appears to have been accepted in the past. My view is equally strong that if you apply one standard to one sector then you apply that same standard to any other. Unlike Mr Hager.

Stop shifting the goal posts and putting words in my mouth.

I said that I was not going to debate Bain. It is irrelevant to the proposition that BORA applies to leaking. Nost introduced Bain to illustrate that I was wrong. His argument is based on non sequiters.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 8:39am
Judith

@ Nookin (3,122 comments) says:
August 18th, 2014 at 8:39 am
Best we leave it here, I was using my example because it is a ‘pure’ one, it is not tainted like Hager’s because the material was sourced legally. I mentioned it because it supports Hager’s argument, and it cannot be argued, as you have done that it was in the public’s best interest to know, because the Minister had, herself declared that the information would not be released publicly, because it was not in the public’s best interest to know it.

but never mind, we will leave it there, because I’m not prepared to give exact details on here, they are being dealt with by the appropriate people.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 8:44am
flipper

The debate between Nookin and Judith /Nos-NZ can be broken into several sections, all disparate. But let’s concentrate on two.

Anyone who suggests that Minsters have never, at one extreme, leaked by handing either an original or a copy of a Cabinet paper, or a Cabinet Minute, while at the other, giving someone a nudge, is away with the fairies.

Ergo, what J Collins (or any Minister other than the Prime Minister) may, or may not, have done with C Slater over the SIS briefing of Goffie, was nothing more than a nudge and a wink – perhaps derived from Cabinet chatter. That was just domestic politics, but at a somewhat lower level than Goff’s use of MFAT documents against D Brash, and his use of MFAT leaks against McCully.

On the other hand, her behaviour over Binnie was absolutely disgraceful, and deserving of the utmost condemnation. It caused New Zealand jurists considerable international embarrassment. It may well have caused Mrs Fletcher considerable unease when she sat with other Privy Council Law Lords to consider Lundy.

Let us not equate one with the other. But let us also not forget that by heeding self-interested advice from the New Zealand CR/Police industrial complex (that also includes Fisher and his ilk), Collins brought New Zealand’s legal fraternity, and the reputation of our Governmental processes, into disrepute.

The DB claim process was put in place by Simon Power, with full Cabinet approval. It was accepted by DB et al in good faith, and on the understanding that DB (and his team) would not contest the umpire’s decision. Binnie J. was selected by Power on advice from the MoJ. He was not selected by DB’s team.

Collins’ actions in subverting a Cabinet approved process (which she probably personally opposed, and spoke against) to resolve the compensation issue in a civilised (well, relatively) manner, may yet prove to be her undoing.

More than a year ago, The Outside The Beltway Group, included this in their analysis of the Bain/Binnie/Collins conundrum:

*** ”
Judith Collins sought to “play in the bigs”. But she and her advisors have been shown to be “babes in the wood”, to use an NZ expression.
They probably, almost certainly, thought they could brow-beat Justice Binnie, as they might a New Zealand Q.C., or judicial figure. But they did NOT see the 5000 ton freight train roaring down the tracks at 85 mph. The tame Dunedin academics, and Wellington bureaucrats, supporting [manipulating or capturing] her, along with poor Robert Fisher, were all taken-aback when Ian Binnie counter-attacked, as North American judges and attorneys are want to do – especially when they know that they have been unjustly “dissed” by an overly clever lawmaker.
They did not realise that the Hon Justice Ian Binnie, a former Minister in a nation of 30+ million, and a former Justice on that nation’s Supreme Court, with more than 40 years’ experience as a litigator, and quite accustomed to “playing in the bigs”, would never be intimidated by “an Auckland tax lawyer”, and her naive advisors. Only a fool would not have anticipated a counter-battery.
“If Justice Binnie had played by Collins’ rules he would have buried her under a “pile-up”, as he did Fisher. Politely, of course. But he was kind, well sort of. Mrs Collins, unfortunately for her, was simply echoing her bureaucrats. Not a good idea when “playing in the bigs” with 2500 lb. Rhinos [with apologies to Ian Binnie] !
– a North American perspective from JD, Attorney at Law, King City,, OR., (OTB 3) USofA. ”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 9:09am
Nookin

Thanks Flipper. I agree that the spat between Collins and Binnie was unseemly and I imagine she wishes she had gone about it a different way. Put that aside, the legal considerations have yet to be determined and I am reluctant to get into any sort of debate because it will only be at a superficial, albeit principled, level. I did comment on BORA’s application. I would be very surprised if Bain gets home on that score. I believe Reed will have other arrows in his quiver. For now, I have to earn a crust.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 9:29am
goldnkiwi

UrbanNeocolonialist (189 comments) says:

August 17th, 2014 at 11:30 pm

lol I see political conspiracies in lots of things but truly I didn’t while watching that. It was just so sad and I believe that many women could echo some of those feelings of helplessness. I do not think that we have a rape culture but I do wonder sometimes regarding the nurturing that mothers do or don’t do with their sons. Some men have no ’empathy’? with women and are reduced to their animal selves (we do not have to scratch too deep in respects of violence too) yet it is women that even today primarily do the child rearing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2014 3:33pm

More comments:

‹
1
2
3

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Prizes for voting?

The donation disclosure limit »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Barry Soper: The h?koi was M?ori Party's crowning glory
Breaking Views
Sowell says
Hompaddock
Seymour’s opponents need better arguments
Point of Order
Continuous Process Improvement
No Minister
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
Popuphobia’s Javier Milei Problem
Utopia
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d