“My foolish actions 26 years ago”

Written By: - Date published: 3:03 pm, September 24th, 2010 - 35 comments
Categories: act - Tags: ,

I see Hide and Garrett are trying a new spin today.

Here’s Garrett:

“As a result of my foolish actions 26 years ago I now have other battles to face.”

And Hide:

“I’ve spoken to MPs from across the House and they are sitting there scratching, wondering what they do need to reveal about their past.

“I think a lot of people have things in their past that they can be embarrassed and ashamed by.”

Let’s nip this in the bud straight away. It was only in 2002 that Garrett was convicted of assault in Tonga, and only in 2005 that he decided to lie about it in court in order to escape a further conviction for identity theft and seek permanent name suppression. He then lied to the New Zealand public for two years, hiding both crimes while preaching hypocrisy until he was finally exposed by a leak from a political rival.

There’s no passing this off as youthful indiscretions and skeletons in closets. It wasn’t Garrett’s “foolish actions 26 years ago” that sealed his fate, it was the confirmation that even to this day he is still a liar, a criminal and the worst kind of hypocrite.

Update: Turns out that Garrett’s replacement, Hilary Calvert, is the landlord of a brothel. Nothing illegal about that of course but some will question the morality of creaming a profit off prostitution given that most women don’t find themselves in that line of work by choice. Just another salacious story ACT didn’t need.

35 comments on ““My foolish actions 26 years ago” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BLiP 1
    24 September 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Even worse, I heard on National Radio Garrett saying the reason he was going is because of machinations in the ACT Party!! That was a few days ago and he’s playing the “contrite” card now but, obviously, he’s got no idea what disgust he’s caused and appears quite incapable of rehabilitation.

    I believe that Garret was “youthful” when he stole a dead toddler’s identity at age 26 – his entire emotional development appears to have ceased when he was about two.

  2. Rex Widerstrom 2
    24 September 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Contrition requires empathy. Empathy requires one not be a psychopath.

    Personally I think the Tongan thing is a nonsense and he was dealt with unfairly by the police, who seem to act as the clean-up squad for Garrett’s assailant, who allegedly has a history of sleazy advances to attached women.

    But that’s the point – having had a raw deal at the hands of a “justice” system, Garrett refuses to contemplate the possibility that anyone else might have.

    I can see how someone who’s never left the confines of Karori or Remuera might believe that anyone arrested (unless for a bit of harmless white collar fraud) is both inevitably guilty and due much harsher punishment than they receive.

    But to have lived the life Garrett has evidently lived, to have swapped stories with working people who’ve surely had negative experiences of their own with the forces of law and order, and to become what Garrett became… that speaks of a truly perverse, self-loathing, dangerous mind.

  3. Irascible 3
    24 September 2010 at 3:38 pm

    Hide’s reaction in announcing that he’s wondering what other skeletons are in MPs closets is but another example of deflection spin. Hide desperately wants the spot light off the “dark forces” in ACT and in particular himself as Mr “Honourable” Perkluster so is attempting to involve other MPs in his problems.
    What Hide doesn’t realise is that it has been him and ACT who have been campaigning and presenting themselves as being lily-white, purer than pure on the issues on which they have been hung out to dry. Eventually hypocrisy catches up on those who cast the first stones as Hide, Garrett and co have been doing ever since Hide won Epsom with the willing assistance of the National Party.

  4. appleboy 4
    24 September 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Re Hide’s spin that ‘well i wonder what other MP’s have got hidden”. Well Wodney, your deflection won’t work. Identity theft of a dead baby has a category all to itself. Nothing will compare to the lies and hypocrisy Garrett and Hide have come unstuck over.

  5. ianmac 5
    24 September 2010 at 4:24 pm

    There are apparently other documents of other misdemeanors floating around. They are so far unsubstatiated but watch this space.
    Is Dipton Bill’s using a “legal” loophole for personal gain amounting to tens of thousands any better/worse than the “legal” loophole afforded to Garrett?

  6. infused 6
    24 September 2010 at 5:28 pm

    I find your link to the brothel story quite distasteful. Who really cares what she does? Like you said, it’s not illegal.

    • The Voice of Reason 6.1
      24 September 2010 at 6:49 pm

      I’m glad the link is there. It’s just confirms she’s a Douglasite, and clearly considers that money and morality are unconnected conceptually. I’ve got a lazy fiver if anybody wants to start a sweepstake on the day Rodders gets rolled. Won’t be long now.

    • BLiP 6.2
      24 September 2010 at 8:16 pm

      From the link:

      She said some of her investment properties also housed finance companies and to some, their reputation was just as questionable as massage parlours.

      Well, she got that right.

    • jcuknz 6.3
      25 September 2010 at 11:27 am

      It is not distasteful but a rather pathetic attempt at muck raking .. forgetting that prostitution is legal in New Zealand and women in brothels are in safer working conditions than those who ply the streets … so it is a plus factor that Ms Calvert is prepared for her property to be used for this purpose.

  7. rosy 7
    24 September 2010 at 5:29 pm

    They just don’t get it – The offence might have been committed 26 years ago, and if he owned up to it then we would have had 26 years to decide if we could live with that in a politician, or not. Personally I don’t need any time at all to decide that for a complete hypocrite parliament is the wrong place to be. And hilary calvert wracking her brains to see what skeletons she might have in her closet, but owning the land a brothel is not worth mentioning? It doesn’t bother me, but she should be letting some of those hypocritical conservative types who might otherwise vote for Act in on it right away to give them time to decide if it’s important. Jeez, is it that hard to work out?

  8. rainman 8
    24 September 2010 at 6:56 pm

    Dunno, to me Garrett’s problem isn’t so much the identity theft – I can actually write that off to poor judgement – but the rank hypocrisy over name suppression, punishment and lack of forgiveness. The inconsistency between private Garrett and public Garrett is what did him in.

    Calvert is at least consistent, I’d say – if she was pushing a socially conservative line and landlording a brothel that would be a problem. But if she’s making money doing nothing illegal I’m sure she sees no problem. To be honest, neither do I in this case.

  9. Jim Nald 9
    24 September 2010 at 8:51 pm

    ‘foolish’? hello, it’s criminal

  10. anonymous 10
    24 September 2010 at 9:55 pm

    Sorry, which political party legalised prostitution?

    • The Voice of Reason 10.1
      24 September 2010 at 11:28 pm

      The laws were liberalised to regulate an otherwise uncontrolled and often criminal industry and to offer some protection to the workers. That’s a world away from taking a share of the profits.

      • Logie97 10.1.1
        25 September 2010 at 2:04 am

        When asked today if there were any other skeletons in her closet, Calvert said she had no criminal convictions.

        “I was going to get a check done of the Wanganui (police) computer to check that that is the answer, but I’m fully confident you won’t be finding anything in my past.”

        When are we going to get answers from this current bunch of politicians that indicate a clear knowledge of their own past? The implication is that they have had many brushes with the law and they cannot remember if they might have come out on the wrong side on some occasions. Joyce made a similar comment recently in response to a similar question. Me thinks they have sailed a bit close to the wind at times…

        • felix 10.1.1.1
          25 September 2010 at 2:51 am

          Yep, and it’s worth noting that you only lose track of this kind of thing after experiencing a fair bit of it, by which I mean that when people have only had one or two brushes with the law they tend to remember the details very, very well.

          It speaks volumes that these MPs can’t do the same.

          • Mac1 10.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2010 at 10:38 am

            The simpler answer is that they can answer but don’t want to answer at the moment.

            For whatever reason………..

    • gobsmacked 10.2
      25 September 2010 at 10:18 am

      Sorry, which political party legalised prostitution?

      The ACT MPs who voted for it, on a conscience vote. It wouldn’t have passed without them. Check the record.

  11. Zeebop 11
    25 September 2010 at 8:02 am

    What I get is that for 21 years Garrett had access to a false identity, and that he and Hide have wised to the distortion that saying he had a youth transgessor helps restore faith that i.) that this is obvious the best thing they can find to say, ii.) people in NZ can’t subtract 2010 – 2005 (five years ago he got done for passport crime) yet 26 years ago he did the crime, iii.) and that Hide is next because pretty much everyone knows Three Strikes is on the books and Garrett put it there.
    All we have to do is call it Garretts law and everyone will feel a bit queasy.

  12. Zarchoff 12
    25 September 2010 at 10:01 am

    “The laws were liberalised to regulate an otherwise uncontrolled and often criminal industry and to offer some protection to the workers. That’s a world away from taking a share of the profits.”

    So the fact that the Labour Govt legalised it and then took a share of the profits in GST and taxation is OK?

    • gobsmacked 12.1
      25 September 2010 at 10:32 am

      The Labour government didn’t legalise it.

      It was a conscience vote. There were National and ACT MPs who supported it. There were Labour MPs who opposed it.

      It passed by one vote.

      • jcuknz 12.1.1
        25 September 2010 at 11:31 am

        Credit to the Labour Government of the day for permitting it to be a free vote and common sense won out. Common sense is not the prerogative of ACT

      • Treetop 12.1.2
        25 September 2010 at 2:52 pm

        The Prostitution Reform Bill was 60 to 59. There was one abstention.

      • Rubberlegs 12.1.3
        25 September 2010 at 9:20 pm

        thats something that should be Well Remembered, by all…………………..

    • BLiP 12.2
      25 September 2010 at 6:59 pm

      So the fact that the Labour Govt legalised it and then took a share of the profits in GST and taxation is OK?

      Its worse that the latest ACT MP is personally ad directly profiting from prostitution, she’s done nothing to improve the lot of sex workers – OTOH those that voted for the legislation improved working conditions.

  13. gobsmacked 13
    25 September 2010 at 10:48 am

    Meanwhile, new ACT MP Hilary Calvert has difficulty recalling her foolish actions … and makes herself look unbelievably foolish today:

    From an interview in the Otago Daily Times:

    “Q When did you first stand for Parliament?

    A I think it was, and I’m going to have to go and have a look at some of these things… I think it was probably, it might have been 2002. It might have been 1999 but I think it was probably 2002. It would have been Dunedin North.”

    So let’s get this straight … you can’t remember standing as a candidate in a general election? Seriously?

    Are you sure you want to go up to Wellington to be an MP? Will you be able to remember the way to the airport?

  14. Jim Nald 14
    25 September 2010 at 2:59 pm

    ACT: Hide garretts, then calverts … you heard it here first

    *calverts (verb) = for definition, watch this space

Links to post