It’s difficult to understand how senior members of a party could be told by a prospective candidate that he had been through court for identity fraud without ascertaining all the facts.
But when Rodney Hide was interviewed by Mary Wilson on Checkpoint last night he said he hadn’t known the details of David Garrett’s case.
This reflects very poorly on the party and its selection processes.
It’s even more difficult to understand how a man who had been on the wrong side of the law himself couldn’t understand the need to be open about it before entering parliament when he wanted to take such a hard line on crime.
Garrett may have been discharged without conviction in a court of law. But his failure to disclose the full details of his past before he was elected make him guilty of hypocrisy in the court of public opinion which has zero tolerance for the h word .
P.S. goNZo Freakpower has dug up a photo of an Act campaign billboard.
You believed Hide?
How quaint!
Robert, if he was lying then it was an even bigger error of judgement.
The real problem is that Garrett lied to the court by not revealing his earlier conviction – if he had he may not have gotten discharged at all.
I wonder if because the other one was in another jurisdiction – Tonga – it wouldn’t be relevant in a case in N.Z.?
However, even if that is technically right it’s ethically wrong.
Hide used the ‘new revelation’ as an excuse to escape the trap he was in. Not truthful, not transparent.
Not fooled.
Robert Guyton
Well spotted, its not rocket science is it?
Hide must go or Act is dead in the water.
Kia ora Robert,
The smartest thing I have heard from you on this blog. Great- .
Na Richard