Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

37 comments on “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Observer (Tokoroa) 1

   3 September 2014 at 7:56 am

   Hi Bunji

   Somehow I have gained the impression that a New Zealand Prime Minister is not required to attend enquiries into mal practice.

   Is that true? Does it mean that a NZ Prime Minister cannot be impeached?

   Will this affect the SIS Enquiry to be undertaken by Cheryl Gwyn on the 11th of this month? She is requiring Mr Key’s staff to attend. Why not Mr Key, given that he sets the agenda, procedures and methods for his staff?

   Thanks for your assistance.
   • lprent 1.1

     3 September 2014 at 8:23 am

     She can’t force the head of her own department (John Key) to cooperate. That is what the legislation says.

     He could of course volunteer. But he doesn’t show any signs of being willing to do so does he?

     I guess we’ll have to have a change of government to find out how badly John Key has been muffing his security responsibilities.
     • Tracey 1.1.1

       3 September 2014 at 8:29 am

       Which is why he keeps saying he will appear if asked thus misleading NZers by letting them think he can be called and he is not because he has nothing to answer.

       also

       “Surely his and Judith Collins offices should be opened up ”

       on the nothing to hide nothing to fear system, Collins as a minimum must be offering all her IT devices and phone records to the police or anyone who can analyse them to clear her name. I mean that’s what you would do if you wanted to clear your name and had nothing to fear?

       And for those who say why should she, she has not been charged with anything, I say:

       She is a lawyer, former DP of Law Society, former Minister of Justice and Police, it is not about being charged it is about clearing her name, reclaiming her besmirched reputation, or at least that is what SHE says, so. C’Mon Judith, do the right thing, dont rely on lowest common denominator behaviour set by law, reach higher.

       cue laughter.
2. disturbed 2

   3 September 2014 at 8:28 am

   If John Key has nothing to hide why did he not answer Guyon’s questions?

   He is selective in his answers and for one who demands others answer his questions he thinks he is above this level.

   This is why this country needs a full royal Commission into this active black op’s dirty politics Key dismisses as “usual”

   Last nights debate was to see a dictator yelling not a positive debate, he is clearly out of control, and if those who condone his hate politics want to let it carry on as usual we will be heading for a dictatorship.

   Nixon was similar and paranoid when cornered as Key is, and Key’s continued threats of what he has against David Cunliffe or any others show that Key wishes to continue with hate and dirty politics as the only way to cling to power. Sign the petition and have Key investigated.

   So far almost 4 000 have signed the electronic petition. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Governor_General_of_New_Zealand_Investigate_all_the_allegations_of_corruption_in_the_National_government/sign/?aeArPbb
3. Observer (Tokoroa) 3

   3 September 2014 at 8:32 am

   Hi Lprent

   Many thanks for the clarification.

   Is it likely that Cheryl Gwyn would wish to endanger her position and power by being too inquisitive in her Enquiry?

   And what of her loyalty to her Minister ?
   • Tracey 3.1

     3 September 2014 at 8:46 am

     I know this wasnt addressed to me but if she were somehow demoted or moved out following a decision against the government, even if within twelve months it would be a bit obvious.

     I guess it depends on her contract and how long it is in place for (my guess is 3-5 years).
   • ianmac 3.2

     3 September 2014 at 10:07 am

     Cheryl Gwyn is conscientious about her work. She must get it right because who knows who will be in Government next month.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.3

     3 September 2014 at 11:39 am

     Her loyalty to her employer, NZ, should have her requesting Key’s presence to be questioned.
4. Observer (Tokoroa) 4

   3 September 2014 at 9:04 am

   Hello Tracey

   I appreciate your response. It is difficult to understand how true information can be gathered if the main player is not obliged to state his role in the event.

   if Cheryl Gwyn were sacked for being honest, would she have any redress? Or would she be treated as just another whistle blower?

   Why then, has she taken on this SIS enquiry?
   • Tracey 4.1

     3 September 2014 at 10:08 am

     Cos it’s her job, or if she doesn’t who will? I also wonder if she might find a way to broaden the Inquiry through questions posed rather than officially broadening it.

     She wouldn’t be sacked for being “honest”. They would pay her out of her contract BUT there would be political consequences. BUT their reasons wouldn’t be her non compliance with their wishes over the enquiry.

     It’s like trying to prove you were not given a job because you are female, or homosexual, very hard to prove because most employers who do that don’t couch it in those terms.

     I am hoping she delivers on the TOR and has a comment such as “during the course of the Inquiry other matters arose which, in my opinion, require further investigation.”

     Can we OIA the first draft (after the final has been released)?
5. brian 5

   3 September 2014 at 9:20 am

   Not about John Key but more about your headline. (Although I fully support a Royal Commission of Inquiry that will uncover all the Dirty politics, and remove all culprits such as Collins, Slater and probably Key)

   “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear” It’s often said, but it’s no longer true. Especially associated with an obnoxious Labour Party proposal to do away with “Innocent until proven guilty” for crimes of a sexual nature.

   Can somebody please tell me how an innocent man can “prove” his innocence in
   (a) A “he said, she said” case of consent, where there is no other corroborating evidence and
   (b) A “he said, she said” case where the accused claims he is the victim of a false allegation from a person that he had never met before.

   Labour Party policy wrongly assumes that every person who makes an allegation of a sexual crime is a “victim”. I agree that sexual crimes are vile, but so are policies that place greater emphasis on “raising conviction rates” than on caring about the safety of verdicts. Policy changes in this area need to be very mindful that a proportion of those accused in sexual crimes are the real victims. The seriousness of their plight should not be treated flippantly.
   • Tracey 5.1

     3 September 2014 at 10:11 am

     Ms Collins has cellphone, tablet (guessing) laptop, PC plus phone records all kinds of stuff she could put forward to prove she hasn’t been involved with any of the stuff she is accused of.

     Secondly, I am not talking about making a person charged with a crime prove themselves. I am talking about a person (Minister of Justice, Minister of POlice, Corrections, former DP of Law Society and Lawyer) who claims she is being smeared, for two years, that forgeries are being used against her and that it is wrong and unfair and she is hurt and wrongly tarnished her reputation and that she wants to “clear my name”.

     She has many tools available to her. Please don’t confuse my proposition with changing the criminal law notion of “innocent til proven guilty”

     please provide your source for the policy to do away with innocent until proven guilty for sexual offences and what proportion of sexual violation charges did the accused turn out to be the victim? While you are searching can you pull up the Stat for unreported sexual assaults?s.
     • brian 5.1.1

       3 September 2014 at 12:43 pm

       My apologies for my muddying the waters where what I said has been confused with the Collins situation. I was responding to your headline, and not your article.

       I would have been better, to avoid that unnecessary confusion, to have included my post in the “Open Mike” section
   • ianmac 5.2

     3 September 2014 at 10:12 am

     brian you have totally misunderstood the proposal about that. When all the other circumstances are exposed, only then there would be a case to believe the victim and the assailant would have to prove consent. At the moment more than 90% of complaints are dropped and this must be changed in favour of the victim.
   • Bill 5.3

     3 September 2014 at 10:53 am

     Well Brian, giving you the benefit of the doubt allows me to link to this. Go read.

     http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-party-policy-on-sexual-violence-a-closer-look/

     And don’t do the tr0lling shit again.
     • disturbed 5.3.1

       3 September 2014 at 11:52 am

       100% Bill. ++++++++++
     • brian 5.3.2

       3 September 2014 at 12:17 pm

       I am sorry if my post was considered trolling. (I’m also not so sure that you are providing me with any benefit of the doubt, when you also immediately pronounce me as a troll ~smile~ )

       I am genuinely concerned about this particular policy, amongst a generally robust and positive set of announced policies for Labour. The problem I have is a conflict between what has been announced as Official Labour Party policy and what has been reported by the Labour Party Law and Order spokesperson, Andrew Little, through the NZ Herald.

       When I wrote my contribution earlier today, I was basing my assertions on what I had read in the NZ Herald, 26 August

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11314130
       New Zealand Herald
       26 August 2014
       Election 2014: Laying down the law

       “Labour is promising to let the Law Commission finish its work on alternative trial mechanisms for sexual cases, which Ms Collins put on hold after she took over the portfolio from her more liberal predecessor Simon Power.
       Once the review was completed, Labour would consider several changes which improved the court experience for sexual assault victims. It would look at changing cross-examination rules to make sure victims were not “put on trial”. Specialist courts could be established which trained judges, lawyers and staff in the dynamics of sexual violence and dealing with victims. And the definition of consent could be amended so the burden of proof was shifted from the Crown to the accused. This provoked some public discomfort as critics felt it could impinge on a person’s right to be presumed innocent.”

       Following your comment, I have followed up on Labour website to discover what “official” policy may be.
       http://campaign.labour.org.nz/all_our_announced_policies
       “Reform the justice system to provide real justice to survivors while protecting the right to be presumed innocent. This includes providing specialist training”

       I am reassured by that policy, but still have remaining concerns with amendments that could happen, that have been reported in the NZ Herald

       It appears to me, as it does to the “critics” that the NZ Herald refer to, that such a change (shifting the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused) will impinge on a person’s right to be presumed innocent.
       • Tracey 5.3.2.1

         3 September 2014 at 12:47 pm

         The Herald also reported that NZ on Air had funding “kill the PM” but it turned out Farrar and his Tax Payers Union were wrong, again.

         The Herald is not a source for your Factual assertion that in sexual assault cases the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

         You only visited the Labour policy today, after your post, and yet are very concerned?

         “When I wrote my contribution earlier today, I was basing my assertions on what I had read in the NZ Herald, 26 August ”

         yet you wrote

         “Labour Party policy wrongly assumes that every person who makes an allegation of a sexual crime is a “victim””

         But you hadn’t actually read it.

         Hopefully you have learned a valuable lesson today.

         Thanks.
         • brian 5.3.2.1.1

           3 September 2014 at 1:04 pm

           Are you saying that what was reported in the NZ Herald is incorrect? If it was wrong, I would have expected there to be some rebuttal from the Labour Party.

           As it stands there is information on a Labour “Announced Policies” website that says one thing. And there are reported statements, unrefuted, in the NZ Herald, which appear to contradict the former.

           Most voters form opinions about the best home for their vote, based on media reports. I have an expectation that errors in a rag as large as the NZ Herald would be quickly plugged in an election campaign. If there is a valuable lesson to be learned, I suggest that should lie (in this case) with the Labour Party, and not myself.

           The contradiction remains.
           • mickysavage 5.3.2.1.1.1

             3 September 2014 at 1:15 pm

             Brian the policy is clear, let the Law Commission finish its work. You should not believe everything you read in the papers …
           • Tracey 5.3.2.1.1.2

             3 September 2014 at 1:20 pm

             brian

             I am saying you have provided no source (other than the Herald) for this

             “And the definition of consent could be amended so the burden of proof was shifted from the Crown to the accused.”

             IT is in quotation marks but are those yours or attributed to a particular Labour MP?

             It does not appear in the Labour party Policy (the full version which you did not read).

             So, I will politely ask again, please provide the source for the statement that the Labour party is going to shift the burden of proof to the accused.

             I dont purport to know what most voters base their vote on. Your faith in the herald is admirable if not, imo, ill conceived. I am not surprised to see you eschew the idea that you could learn a lesson about the difference between sources for fact and sources for opinions and well, no sources at all.
             • brian …

               3 September 2014 at 2:47 pm

               The quotation marks surround the quotation from the NZ Herald. Reference provided for full report.

               The NZ Herald was a news report, and not an opinion piece, showing the differences between the policies of all political parties. Reading the Herald article, it appears to have been sourced from Andrew Little, the party’s Law and Order spokesperson

               I’ll say again, that if that news report was wrong, I would have expected the Labour Party to have corrected the error, in a way that does reach the public, somehow.

               I see a serious contradiction. That will only be resolved by the Labour party either
               (a) Reporting any part of the report in the Herald article that is in error, or
               (b) Claiming that the NZ Herald report is consistent with their policy (in which case I would be even more concerned)

               You state that you do not see any contradiction. We are obviously talking past each other. I will leave you with any last word.
           • Tracey 5.3.2.1.1.3

             3 September 2014 at 1:30 pm

             no contradiction brian

             labour Police, in black and white (see below) states

             “amending the definition of consent in instances of sexual violation to ensure it does not impose an unfair burden on victims of violence””

             BUT the
             Herald mischeiviously changed it to

             ” And the definition of consent could be amended so the burden of proof was shifted from the Crown to the accused.”

             Read Hager’s book to understand how this might happen and all the refutation by Labour won’t change it.

             For the record a print copy of the Labour Party POlicy trumps the NZ Herald’s mis reporting of the same policy. Just cos you think that the herald is important and influences voters (which I am sure it does) does not miraculously make white it writes factual.

             For all you know Labour has refuted it and herald thought “Meh”
       • Tracey 5.3.2.2

         3 September 2014 at 12:52 pm

         “It appears to me, as it does to the “critics” that the NZ Herald refer to, that such a change (shifting the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused) will impinge on a person’s right to be presumed innocent.”

         It might, if Labour’s policy was to shift the burden of proof to the accused. I just can’t find it in their policy. Have you googled “concern tr##l”

         If you had then clicked “full policy” you would have seen, amongst other things

         “Reforming Criminal Justice
         Labour recognises that the response to violence requires action in the criminal justice system as well as in public health and education. This needs to be a considered response and as such we will allow the Law Commission to complete its review on alternative trial mechanisms, including the establishment of a specialist sexual violence court.

         Sexual Violence Reforms

         Labour will implement reforms to improve the criminal justice system’s approach towards sexual violence, in order to provide real justice to survivors whilst protecting the right to be presumed innocent. Labour will consider the following reforms following the Law Commission review on alternative trial mechanisms:
         •
         changes to ensure that victims are not put on trial, including to the “rape shield” and cross-examination rules.
         •
         allowing complainants to adopt alternative trial processes, such as a restorative process, for sexual offence cases.
         •
         the establishment of specialist sexual violence courts. This will include specialist training on the dynamics of violence for all judges and staff involved with the court, including counsel. There will also be specialist support agencies funded to support women through the process.
         •
         amending the definition of consent in instances of sexual violation to ensure it does not impose an unfair burden on victims of violence”
   • Delia 5.4

     3 September 2014 at 10:54 am

     When someone starts to micro manage an inquiry, it is only natural to start asking questions. A person who knows they are wholly in the right, moves over and lets an outside party take charge.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.4.1

       3 September 2014 at 11:43 am

       +1
   • Draco T Bastard 5.5

     3 September 2014 at 11:43 am

     Especially associated with an obnoxious Labour Party proposal to do away with “Innocent until proven guilty” for crimes of a sexual nature.

     Except that was never what Labour’s policy said.
     • Tracey 5.5.1

       3 September 2014 at 1:21 pm

       apparently that is labour’s fault, not brian’s. He has no obligation to become educated about something he says he feels so strongly about.
6. Sable 6

   3 September 2014 at 11:00 am

   Oh its a “full” government inquiry. The question is what is it “full” of?
   • brian 6.1

     3 September 2014 at 12:32 pm

     I was listening to Mai Chen (yesterday?) on National radio. She expressed an expectation that the terms of reference of such inquiries will normally include a clause at the end that will allow the inquiry to extend the scope, based on the evidence that they have received.

     I wait to see if that happens, as a second best alternative to following the recommendations of the Labour Party.

     I am also optimistic that following the election, that Winnie’s “bottom line” of a Royal Commission, will translate into a majority of the house demanding the same. Will the current “non Royal” inquiry be cancelled in favour of the Royal variety?
     • tricledrown 6.1.1

       3 September 2014 at 9:30 pm

       Winstons knighthood will derail any inquiry Sir Winston Peters high commissioner to London arise Winston!
7. Rick 7

   3 September 2014 at 1:02 pm

   Lest we forget, “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear” was one of the major slogans minted and used by the Nazis.
8. Richies McClaw 8

   3 September 2014 at 3:11 pm

   Guy pulled over in car, tinny spotted, full search and thorough investigation. Person steals a loaf of bread, full search and thorough investigation. Potential abuse of ministerial position to mislead the course of justice, in a case where half a billion dollars of grandma and grandpas money was lost, only a limited investigation needed.

   One law for all, yea right.
   • ianmac 8.1

     3 September 2014 at 9:20 pm

     Good point Richie. Like that strange fellow Bishop on the panel today who doesn’t really want anything to do with the Hager book and anyway it is a lot of boring stuff and not important. (like being stopped for going faster than the limit is much more important.)
9. Rich 9

   3 September 2014 at 11:13 pm

   At 1:27:32 in the debate last night Key says “we’re not a benign threat”.

   Huh?

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/10452464/Debate-a-more-even-playing-field
   • Murray Olsen 9.1

     4 September 2014 at 2:22 am

     I heard that one. He misuses a lot of words, but I don’t know what it might be a sign of.

Links to post

1. Latest news: Wednesday, 3 September | Dirty Politics: posted on 3 September 2014 at 11:27 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS