Written By: - Date published: 11:55 am, June 7th, 2009 - 103 comments
Categories: corruption, crime, john key, national/act government, richard worth, sexism -
Tags:
On Q+A this morning, Phil Goff was asked by Paul Holmes for more detail on why John Key wasn’t surprised when he took the sexual harassment complaint against Richard Worth to him.
According to Goff, Key said that he had been aware of rumours of similar activity by Worth and that was one reason why he had not been made Speaker.
That’s quite an astounding admission from Key (and not just that he would give away such info to the opposition). Key announced the decision that Lockwood Smith would be Speaker and Richard Worth Internal Affairs Minister on November 17. The decisions not to make Worth Speaker (he was one of four candidates) and make him a minister were, to state the obvious, made before Worth was appointed as minister. Which means Key knew about ‘rumours’ of him sexually harassing women before he was a minister.
Now, Worth was offering the woman who has complained of sexual harassment jobs that he could appoint as Minister of Internal Affairs. So that must have been after he was appointed minister. Key can’t have been aware of rumours about Worth’s behaviours towards her when he chose not to make Worth Speaker. The rumours must have concerned other women.
Key must have considered the rumours credible, seriously inappropriate and more than mere unfaithfulness to his wife, rather an abuse of power, to constitute ruling out Worth as Speaker because of them.
There is now also a very serious question over Key’s negligence in the events that have led to the investigation of Worth for a sexual offence. Key knew Worth was misusing his power as an MP and a minister to take advantage of women sexually. He knew about it in November, before the alleged sexual assault took place in March.
If Key had acted when he should of by removing Worth from the position of power he was using to exploit women, the alleged sexual assault (in which Worth used his power as minister) might have been avoided.
This is not about whether Key should have known the behaviour might get worse. It’s about whether if he had acted as he should have when he should have by not appointing Worth or removing his portfolios on the basis of information relating to other misdeeds by Worth he might have helped prevent worse events in the future.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Pascal’s Bookie “I’m still unsure as to what Key has to lose from meeting her.”
I think perhaps the major issue here is setting a precedent. The precedent shouldn’t be set so that anyone with some sort of half-baked grievance should be able to meet the PM (of what ever party happens to be in power).
A case in point. Recently, we had the case of the two people who assaulted John Key at Waitangi wanting to have a meeting with him. This too was declined, I think for similar reasons.
By ensuring a process that enables the womans case to be evaluated first to establish there is a case before speaking to the PM protects the status of the office. Key is quite willing to meet the woman, so long as she can show she has a compelling case. This is probably as it should be IMO.
“some sort of half-baked grievance”
Key all but called her a liar, and insinuated that she was making it all up. Key made this public. She did not seek any publicity about this, the publicity has come entirely from Key blabbing about it, which naturally, and rightly, had the press asking Goff about it.
So the “half-baked grievance” is entirely of the PM’s making. Perhaps we shouldn’t set a precedent for PM’s to get away with that sort of thing.
Sorry, didn’t mean to suggest that the claimants story is half-baked. Just trying to make the point that the threshold should be high and go through appropriate channels for meeting the PM re grievances.
I guess we could debate all day about whether the PM should give her direct access immediately or not. However, it seems that is unlikely to happen. So, taking that as given, what do you think the complainant should now do? I think her own credibility is being undermined every time Key effectively says “put up or shut up”. So I think it is in her best interests to go through the perscribed channels.
Sorry, didn’t mean to suggest that the claimants story is half-baked.
I didn’t take it that way, so no need to apologise. I was just pointing out that the general case of ‘random people popping up out of the woodwork with half Baked grievances against a PM’ does not apply in this specific case.
In this case the complainant has a legitimate grievance, (played out in public), against the PM based on the way he has handled her complaint against one of his ministers.
Just trying to make the point that the threshold should be high and go through appropriate channels for meeting the PM re grievances.
Fair enough. I think that due to the PM’s own actions, that threshold has arguably been met.
I guess we could debate all day about whether the PM should give her direct access immediately or not.
Well we have been
. However, it seems that is unlikely to happen. So, taking that as given,…
Aah. The good old passive voice. It is unlikely to happen, because Key chooses it not to happen. There is no other reason for it not to happen. So seeing the political question is Key’s handling of the issue and how it reflects on him as a PM, this point is the point of debate, I hardly seem likely to take it as a given. But nice try.
…what do you think the complainant should now do?
That, as been mentioned to you before I believe, is entirely up to her. She is a private citizen under no obligations, in difficult circumstances. She owes no one anything, and should do whatever she feels comfortable with. She has made her complaint. Worth promised an affidavit and court cases in response. It will be interesting to see if Key holds him to the former, seeing that promise was what stopped the initial investigation dead in it’s tracks.
I think her own credibility is being undermined every time Key effectively says “put up or shut up’.
Nonsense. Her credibility with you started near zero to start off with. Your first reaction was that she was obviously leading Worth on, and you have played around with variations on the theme ever since. At every point it has seemed clear that she wants this to remain as private as possible. That is entirely understandable and her prerogative. For me when ‘Key says put up or shut up’ the thing that comes into question is Key. This is because he is demanding that she ‘put up’ under non ideal conditions.
Key seems to be edging toward the ‘put up or shut position’, where the ‘putting up’ will have to be done in public. Because that will be her only option if Mr ‘Take Worth at His Promise of an Oath’ decides her evidence is not enough for a meeting.
Given that she doesn’t want it to become public, and there is no reason for it be so, I hope I am wrong about him forcing her into that position. Because I really don’t think that’s the sort of PM we deserve. And it is absolutely less than what natural justice would say this complainant deserves.
So I think it is in her best interests to go through the perscribed channels.
Well the channels are only ‘prescribed’ by Key, for whatever reason, so again, nice use of the passive voice. A slightly threatening passive voice too I might add.
Why wouldn’t it be in her best interests for Key to try and get at the truth of the matter, rather than playing games? Games that coincidentally shield him from the inadequacy of his initial investigation becoming public. Funny that.
Another reason I would want to see the texts first is that it would give me an opportunity to consider the content so I could ask any relevant questions of the complainant at the time of the interview.
I listened to the full interview that Key gave at the press conference last night. He was grilled for 25 minutes over the Worth issue. Actually, I think he handled it quite well. Certainly a different impression than the couple of soundbites on the news.
He said he had a written statement from Worth on the issue. So, at the moment there is one written statement versus another. Worth has admitted sending some texts but denys any were lewd. So, both sides agrees texts were sent, so it becomes important that evidence of the lewd ones are produced to contradict Worth.
According to the Herald article today, the woman has the one about swimming. Key has said one text would be enough to get Worth kicked out of caucus. So producing this one should be enough.
I do wonder if the reason for the delay from the complainants side is not so much to do with the wishes of the complainant but more to do with Labour trying to get political mileage out of this.
I do wonder if Labour are overplaying this though. My wife, who is very non-political, just rolls her eyes back whenever she hears Goff going on about this issue now. I think there are probably more relevant issues that Labour could be pushing at the moment, rather than what is now turning into a bit of a sideshow.
Two points – why should the complainant trust that Key will do anything if she gives his CoS a message – he did nothing with her original complaint, backed down on a meeting and continually questions her honesty. Why would she believe him when he says he will meet her if the texts pass some mysterious test he has now set?
My train of thought in that situation would be “Key has lied, changed his story and not believed me from day one. If I hand over these texts, he will say ‘not good enough’ and I will have no chance to tell my side of the story in private. There is no way I am handing over these texts without being able to explain my side of the story – and this is what I was promised in the first place”.
Key is calling Goff a liar – can not blame him for making clear his view of events. Labour is not ‘pushing’ the story at all, it is being dragged along by the media. You pointed out that Key endured 25 minutes of questioning about it – I would not say that Key is ‘pushing’ the story either (dragging it out though – can’t argue that he is not doing that).
Check out the tetchy Key and his “Tranzrail eyes” at the Beehive press conference this afternoon (on both One and Three news tonight). He’s still digging away.
Admitting to the media that he had heard rumours before about Worth … oops.
From Scoop website:
“Today’s post cabinet presser saw more than 25 minutes of inquiry into the Richard Worth saga. Key refused to pin point exactly why he stood Worth down, continuing to say only that the MP’s actions were not those “befitting a minister’.
Key explained that … ”
But I couldn’t be bothered to read the rest, because “Explaining is Losing”, in the words of … John Key.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0906/S00080.htm
Does Goff have a tape of his conversation with Key
Anyone who has a spare half hour (and you’ll need it!) should listen to the link I posted above, and hear our PM trying to cope with the media.
It happens to be about Richard Worth, which in the greater scheme of things isn’t that important, but if that’s how he copes with a minor problem, God help us all in a real crisis.
He’s just hopeless.
“Does Goff have a tape of his conversation with Key”
Yes he does… ah no it was erased by mistake.
He has an email though… damn lost that too
recently hand written note anyone??
If you had bothered listening to the press conference you would know that Goff’s notes are genuine.
Better keep your fingers in your ears.
Right so Goff has “genuine notes” does he. So his interpretation has not come into play at then – it’s all word for word?
You are having a fecking laugh now aren’t you?
Who is advising Key on this? The longer the stand-off with the complainant goes on the longer this drags out, the more incompetant Key looks whilst at the same time dragging out the Worth issue.
This in the same week as an important by-election.
My advice- meet the woman look at the texts, apologise for the distress, leave it for the National Party to do the rest.
Then he only has to go through the Mount Albert post mortem and then put out the Super City fire which is threatening to consume his own party in Auckland, by having a good think about what the select committee gives him.
One of the things that came out of today’s press conference is that Richard Worth admitted (to Key’s chief of staff) that he had sent texts to the woman – though of course he did not admit to inappropriate ones.
So there is no longer any doubt about that fact.
I think Key has grounds for scepticism, not so much because of the woman’s story, but more to do with how Labour have dealt with it. I have already pointed out a number of inconsistencies. In the interview last night, Key made the point (not disputed by Goff as far as I know) that Goff told him in the phone call in May that the reason for the call is that the woman wanted the attention to stop. However, according to the womans own statement, the attention had stopped in February, three months earlier. This raises reasonable questions about why Goff would see any need to contact Key at all, especially since Goff is now making a political issue of it.
Key has already taken action against Worth. I have no doubt he would take any opportunity to expell him from the caucus. This would lance an unpleasant boil for National at the moment.
As I said to you above, your assessment of Key is unlikely to be an accurate one, or he would not be putting barriers in the way of meeting someone who might be able to provide the very opportunity you profess he seeks, despite possible scepticism. I wonder why he is shying away from his chance to have that scepticism validated or rejected.
The complainant has much more solid grounds for scepticism – a pity that our PM can’t be the better person here and make an effort. The time saved in press conferences alone would more than make up for the time a meeting takes, and he would be able to honour a commitment – not a small thing when you consider the scope of his ‘investigation’ of the story originally.
Actually, Key has not taken action against Worth. Worth resigned, then Key gave him a fortnight’s holiday to ‘think about his future’, which is code for get the hell out of the spotlight. Key has also said that if Worth needs more time then he will likely extend the leave period. Hardly punitive, eh?
Hardly action against Worth, more inaction in favour of Worth. His failure to meet with the woman whose plight Goff raised shows just what a lightweight Key is and how desperate he is not to have actually do something about Worth. And, in the meantime, the issue keeps rolling along while our PM Lite works on his thousand yard stare.