NRT: What is the Prime Minister trying to hide?

Written By: - Date published: 3:27 pm, June 23rd, 2015 - 20 comments
Categories: john key, Media - Tags: , , , , ,

no-right-turn-256Reposted from No Right Turn.

Last month, I highlighted a very dubious OIA response from the Prime Minister’s office regarding his contacts with journalist Rachel Glucina, who had just outed and smeared the victim of his pony-tail pulling. Following that post, I sent an OIA request of my own, seeking to learn:

whether the Prime Minister or his office holds information on contacts with Rachel Glucina about the pony-tail pulling incident;

whether the Prime Minister or his office holds information on contacts with Rachel Glucina about the pony-tail pulling victim

Last night I received the response: more of the same stonewalling. According to the Prime Minister’s office, “the position I have outlined in responding to a request on the FYI website regarding the releasing of any details of communications from the Prime Minister or the media team to Rachel Glucina still stands”. The request was refused under section 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(ba)(i). The problem? They can’t actually do that. The request was very specifically a request for information concerning existence of certain information. And as section 10 of the OIA makes clear, the grounds for refusal are extremely limited. Neither of the cited grounds is a legal reason for refusal under section 10. Naturally, I’ve complained to the Ombudsman, so maybe I’ll have a response in three years. But I’m left wondering: what is the Prime Minister trying to hide? Would it kill him to say “yes” to either of those questions? And if he’s so ashamed of his contact with Rachel Glucina that he is blatantly ignoring the law to avoid admitting it, maybe he shouldn’t have contacted her in the first place?

20 comments on “NRT: What is the Prime Minister trying to hide? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ianmac 1
    23 June 2015 at 3:37 pm

    The stonewalling suggests that they really do have info on contacts. As usual the plan is to ride out any flurry of conjecture until the case fades away.

  2. dukeofurl 2
    23 June 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Im a bit confused by the post.

    The reasons for declining are under Section 9, but the Section 10 refers to 9(2b)- which is different to 9(2ba)

    Doesnt this give the reason he is stonewalling;

    “protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information—
    (i)
    would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied;

    In other words Key and Glucina are in constant gossips to each other, and hes not going to give that away.

  3. Anne 3
    23 June 2015 at 4:11 pm

    Anyone with any integrity who watched Q.T. today would have been appalled at Key’s behaviour when confronted with Andrew Little’s questions on Auckland’s housing crisis. Key raised the matter of the Saudi sheep cabinet papers and repeatedly accused Labour of lying about their knowledge of the deal despite the papers having proven it to be a lie. He wound up by once again accusing Goff of being a liar – left Annette King out this time no doubt because she was there. He then (iirc) accused Labour as being the “Party of liars”. None of it had anything to do with the question asked of course.

    This constant lying tactic of Key’s has now gone beyond a joke and can no longer be ignored. Little has to come out in front of the microphones and blatantly call him out for being a “serial liar”. Threaten to sue him for slander – anything – and if Key threatens it back laugh in his face.

    He’s succeeding in having his (and his mates’) behavioural traits projected on to Labour. The Rachel Glucina affair is closely entwined in all of this as she is clearly doing dirty work for him behind the scenes. She is the new Slater where JK is concerned. The go to… black ops. operator inside the media.

    They suit each other well don’t they!

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      23 June 2015 at 8:34 pm

      This constant lying tactic of Key’s has now gone beyond a joke and can no longer be ignored. Little has to come out in front of the microphones and blatantly call him out for being a “serial liar”.

      Not just Little but every single MP and politician that we have that wants to bring to stop the corruption of our political system and bring respect back to the profession.

    • Save NZ 3.2
      23 June 2015 at 8:43 pm

      +100
      This constant lying tactic of Key’s has now gone beyond a joke and can no longer be ignored. Little has to come out in front of the microphones and blatantly call him out for being a “serial liar”. Threaten to sue him for slander – anything – and if Key threatens it back laugh in his face.

      Labour/Greens/NZ First has to do something, politicians must be held to account for serial lying. I’m for any court action on the constant lies to the public.

      In addition for Collins with all her conflicts of Interest and making money from her position to her husbands firms.

  4. Neil 4
    23 June 2015 at 5:27 pm

    I did not have a textual relationship with that woman, it all sounds like a repeat of when Key was asked about his contact with Cameron Slater, which we all know he lied about it.

  5. G C Cameron 5
    23 June 2015 at 8:25 pm

    John Key mired himself here. Alcohol diffidently played its part in PonytailGate. I’d advise him to read proverbs relating to kings/stewards. Especially Proverbs 31:4 …”it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink”.

    What struck me was even though his (assumed) intoxicated state caused his lack of self restraint, resulting in ‘ponytail pulling’ – as part of an apology it’s reported PM John Key gave the young woman involved bottles of wine.

    Our Prime Minister pulling a woman’s ponytails is not a good look and frankly ridiculous – assault at worse. I’m sure the young woman would have been nervous to be serving the Prime Minister, things clearly got out of hand and feelings hurt. Perhaps John Key’s feelings hurt too – his horseplay being taken wrong.

    Whatever the truth surrounding PonytailGate – PM John Key will hopefully think about his alcohol consumption. That young woman at one stage was probably honoured to be waiting on PM John Key’s table, instead she clearly felt abused.

    We all step over the line sometimes. John Key certainly exercises more self-control when compared to certain other world leaders. Just don’t apologise for drunken behaviour with alcohol – it makes ME wonder whether you’ve learnt anything.

  6. Weepus beard 6
    23 June 2015 at 10:13 pm

    Have you heard him speak? He may not be drunk all of the time, but he sure does sound drunk.

  7. G C Cameron 7
    23 June 2015 at 11:39 pm

    I don’t know if he was drunk, drinking or sober. I imagine that he would have been drinking. Even a glass of wine can impair decision making and lead to impulsive behaviour. It was reported he was a regular and felt comfortable at the establishment.

    He has his own private vintage/vineyard? He’s been snapped/recorded many times enjoying a glass of wine. Lets face it, alcohol is legal and promoted here in New Zealand. Not drinking is viewed as strange through popular culture’s eyes. Past National Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon (a diabetic) infamously announced a snap General Election while drunk.

    Winston Peters is known for liking a drink. The list isn’t short. PM John Key certainly has kept his wits about himself. He’s not known for his drinking, but he is known to drink. It is written that “…wine is a mocker…” – something to think about (we all have that friend). I think he just got mired here – it happens.

  8. Old Mickey 8
    24 June 2015 at 10:44 am

    I have long suspected that politicians dont answer questions as posed above, to give oxygen to those they think will make enough noise and thus cause a distraction from the real issues that they dont want discussed, or issues that the voting public will care about. The longer that the “John Key is the devil” and, “it’s all his fault” continues, the more time he has to focus on 2017 rather than other issues now.

    • Tracey 8.1
      24 June 2015 at 11:28 am

      I’m not sure what you are saying Old mickey?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1
        24 June 2015 at 11:35 am

        He’s pretending that the things Key says about his opponents were actually said by the opponents themselves.

        So when Key says “Devil Beast”, in Old Mickey’s feeble excuse for a memory, that becomes “Key is the devil”.

        Classic projection of his own gutter ethics and values onto everyone else.

      • Old Mickey 8.1.2
        24 June 2015 at 1:56 pm

        Hi Tracey,
        When NRT says above “Would it kill him to say “yes” to either of those questions? “, my view is that if he doesn’t just say yes, more conjecture will arise about what he hasnt said vs what he has said. While people ponder this non-issue, what arent people discussing or questioning? It’s not just this topic, but it seems so much energy gets focussed on issues that wont matter.

        • tracey 8.1.2.1
          24 June 2015 at 2:01 pm

          Thanks OM, so why do you think he doesn’t just say yes, and let it all move?

          • Old Mickey 8.1.2.1.1
            24 June 2015 at 4:46 pm

            I think to keep his opposition guessing and to keep his opposition focused on stuff that doens’t really matter or wont cost votes. I saw a list here recently of the issues that are facing JK and the Govt – it had a real scatter gun look to it, and none of it is sticking. The one that they are vulnerable on is lost in the noise because of a lack of cohesive opposition strategy – and by strategy, I mean more than saying the exact opposite of what the Govt is saying. Labour at the moment never starts a statement with “When we are in Govt, we would or would not do this because……”….all we get now is “that is bad because National have said it, or National are doing it”.

  9. Tracey 9
    24 June 2015 at 11:27 am

    I Have much experience of the DBH. If you (me) developed a reputation for wantin to look behind decision-making through OIA’s two things happened;

    1. they forced yo to go to the Ombudsmen which as Antony poijts out takes years;
    2. they sent a dept head and the chair of the Weathertight Tribual to request I stop making the requests due to them losing time through allocating staff to my request.

    I want to stress that every request was for information/reasons related to a client’s claim under the WHRS with a view to proving their case at the Weathertight Tribunal.

    The Pm’s response, to force it to the Ombudsmen suggests this practice is real and rife and a specific tactic used to stymie information release.