Collins resigns from cabinet

Judith Collins has resigned from cabinet but will continue to campaign for re-election in the  Papakura electorate which she holds with a solid majority.

Ms Collins resignation from cabinet followed the emergence of an email from Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater to PR operative Carrick Graham and others.

The email implies that after (then) SFO boss Adam Feeley briefed Ms Collins, information was leake to Mr Slater then, via Mr Graham, was passed on to the subject of an SFO investigation.

Prime Minister John Key said he had accepted the resignation of Ms Collins followed the receipt of new information that raises allegations about Ms Collins’ conduct as a Minister.

“The relationship between a Minister and their Chief Executive is vital, and goes right to the heart of a trusted, effective government,” Mr Key said.

“This new information suggests Ms Collins may have been engaged in discussions with a blogger in 2011 aimed at undermining the then Director of the Serious Fraud Office. Ms Collins was the Minister responsible for the SFO at the time.

Mr Key released an email which had been recently been provided to his office (see below).

“I have spoken with Ms Collins about the matters in the email, and she strongly denies any suggestion of inappropriate behaviour on her part,” he said. . .

Ms Collins released a statement at midday saying, “A new allegation has come to light from an email conversation from 2011 between Cameron Slater and others suggesting I was undermining the then Director of the Serious Fraud Office,” she said in a statement.

“I was not party to this email or discussion and have only today been made aware of it.

“I strongly denied the claim and any suggestion of inappropriate behaviour.

“I am restrained in clearing my name while I am still a Minister inside Cabinet and I believe the right thing to do is to resign as a Minister so I am able to clear my name.

“I have asked the Prime Minister for an Inquiry into these serious allegations so that my name can be cleared. I will, of course, cooperate with any Inquiry.” . . .

What someone says about someone else, in an email or anywhere else, is only hearsay and not proof of wrong-doing by them.

But the allegations are serious enough to justify an inquiry and it is appropriate that she resigns from cabinet while it is carried out.



82 Responses to Collins resigns from cabinet

  1. The Minister of Justice in the John Key-led National Government?
    The Minister in whom Mr Key had 100% confidence, despite continual revelations of wrong-doing?


  2. Andrei says:

    There is nothing to gloat about here Господин Гийон, nothing at all.

    And if you think your sorrowful Green Party will gain from this – well that shows how bereft of honor and decency both you and your wretched party of circus freaks really are.


  3. That’s right, Andrei – Judith Collins’ corruption breaks out all over, and you say, GREENS! GREENS!
    You beauty.


  4. [Deleted – gratuitous links to your own blog count as spam]


  5. Getting tetchy there, Ele?
    Problems at HQ?


  6. JC says:

    Hmm, the email released by Key shows Slater working with four journalists from at least the Herald and NBI to bring down Adam Feeley the SFO director.

    Somehow I think the public will more approve than disapprove such actions to control corruption in the SFO.

    [edited to avoid risk of defamation]


  7. Obvious question: why does the smearing of Feeley result in loss of PMs confidence, but not the smearing of Pleasants? Inquiry needed.


  8. And why is the case against Judith Collins enough to warrant her resignation, while John Key, subject to no less serious allegations, sails serenely on?


  9. RBG says:

    JC you are clutching at straws if you believe ‘the public’ will approve of the Minister in charge of the SFO (or anyone else) dealing with any suspected corruption by involving Whaleoil. There are official procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct involving public servants, these do NOT include smearing the public servant on a blog as happened to Simon Pleasant and Adam Feeley.


  10. Andrei says:

    RGB you are clutching at straws if you believe ‘the public’ will approve of stolen correspondence being selectively leaked to advance political agendas.

    That is utterly repugnant behaviour by utterly repugnant people.

    In any case I have yet to see anything actually written by, the now ex, cabinet minister that implicates her in any skullduggery.

    It’s all innuendo and spin thus far as far as I can see


  11. RBG says:

    If you haven’t read Hager’s book then you won’t really understand what other members of the public are talking about Andrei, so I’m not suprised you haven’t seen anything. Relying on the mainstream media to inform you on this issue (when they are part of the problem) is naive.


  12. It’s important, RBG, for people like Andrei to remain uninformed. Following the details of the destruction of the John Key-mislead National Party would be un-endurably painful for those who believe he was Heaven-sent.
    Seems he came from elsewhere.


  13. RBG says:

    Andrei, you appear to be misinformed about the source of the email that resulted in the resignation of Judith Collins- it did NOT come from the hacked emails sent to Nicky Hager.

    From today’s Sunday Star-Times story on the events that precipitated Judith Collins’ resignation:

    Knowing Fairfax was investigating the hacked emails, it is believed Odgers (known by the blog name Cactus Kate) went through her own emails and found some that could be seen as implicating Collins. This correspondence then found its way to a Beehive staffer on Friday.

    “I take it you found the smoking gun,” Odgers said in an email to Fairfax shortly before Collins resigned. She declined to comment further yesterday.

    In fact, Fairfax did not have that particular incriminating email, and the hacker known as Rawshark said yesterday he did not have it either. “That email wasn’t leaked by me, I had nothing to do with it,” said Rawshark, who was also the source for Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics.

    Andrei says “That is utterly repugnant behaviour by utterly repugnant people”- yeah well, this is an own goal by the right.


  14. bennettleton says:

    I wouldn’t get to sanctimonious about the role of elected officials in investigative processes Guyton that may come back to bite one day.


  15. TraceyS says:

    RBG – you just don’t seem to get it! There is a big difference between the behaviour of someone who legitimately holds an email forwarding it and that of a third party stealing the emails of another and releasing them.

    If the act of forwarding an email is wrong then I’d imagine that you, I, and pretty much everyone would be guilty of that. But have you ever, by any means, stolen another’s emails and passed them on without authorisation?

    I have no idea whether Andrei has read the book or not, but I have, and concur with Andrei’s comment:

    “In any case I have yet to see anything actually written by, the now ex, cabinet minister that implicates her in any skullduggery.”

    Robert, Mr High-and-Mighty, once again, I challenge you to release your full email correspondence to show that you have never privately said a negative word about a constituent or a staff member. If you won’t take up the challenge, why not?

    If you think you should have a choice in the matter, why do you think this? After all, I’m guessing that some might consider it in the public interest to see what you have written.

    I won’t hold my breath.


  16. Tracey, your “challenge” is a farce. I’m not the Minister of Justice in the John Key-mislead Government, I haven’t repeatedly mislead the public, the Prime Minister and the media, nor have I threatened them, nor have I been in deep e-conversation with New Zealand’s most corrupt blogger, nor have I been caught out doing deals with Chinese border control officials, nor have I been found using my position to boost my husband’s business and so on and so on. My emails would be of no interest to any one at all. Your call for them to be made public is an attempt to bore people to death. You assume, as do others of your persuasion, that every one is as corrupt as those you support. They are not. I am not.


  17. RBG says:

    It appears TraceyS that you dismiss the validity of all information that is not openly made public by the sender or recipient. On that basis all information obtained by the SIS, GCSB and police could not be used. I mentioned the Pentagon papers last week, while the information was released illegally by a whistleblower, the importance of the information (which showed the US public were being lied to about the Vietnam war) meant that its release was in the public interest. Hager’s book contains information about the way the New Zealand public has been mislead by right wing politicians and bloggers, most people think that it is a good thing we now know that. You are clearly in the camp that wishes it was all still secret and that unsubstantiated smears (such as lies about $100,000 bottles of wine) were still being made about the opposition.


  18. Tracey – your people have betrayed you. That I’ve been telling you this all along will be irritating you immensely, but that shouldn’t stop you from fronting up to the reality of the situation. You’ve been mislead to a frightening degree. You have, believe it or not, my sympathy.


  19. TraceyS says:

    You are reading too much into what I wrote RGB. None of the information has “validity” as proof of a misdeed until it is proven. Until that time it can be neither dismissed nor accepted as the truth.

    So that’s the camp I am in. The one that reserves judgement.

    Your attempt to pigeonhole me is pathetic.


  20. JC says:

    This is the danger of stealing emails and hoicking them off to the public without getting all sides of the story.

    The State Services Commissioner has an entirely fifferent take on Collins’ relationship with Feeley:

    “I am therefore extremely concerned by an allegation that a Minister has associated with third parties to discuss influencing my assessment of a public service chief executive. If true, this would be wholly unacceptable.”

    Mr Rennie said he told the Prime Minister’s Office that Ms Collins had a positive view of Mr Feeley’s performance through her time as Minister responsible for the Serious Fraud Office.

    The Commission had reviewed its documentation and sought the recollections of staff responsible for the SFO portfolio at the time, he said.

    Mr Rennie said earlier in 2011, Ms Collins had raised with him the appropriateness of Mr Feeley’s consumption of a bottle of champagne following a media inquiry.

    “It was appropriate that she spoke to me about this matter and my view on the matter was released publicly at the time.

    “Any campaign to undermine my confidence in Adam Feeley’s performance was entirely ineffective and unsuccessful.”

    In other words the email from Slater along with the active support of the media did not jibe with the Commissioner’s recollection of the positive relationship viz Collins and Feeley, nor with a review of the Commissions’ documentation or with the recollections of its staff.

    Dirty politics indeed.



  21. RBG says:

    Gee I must have missed your calls for an investigation into the issues raised by Hager’s book to find out the facts. You pigeonhole yourself quite succesfully without my help TraceyS.


  22. TraceyS says:

    Why would I? Collins herself has asked for an enquiry.

    Are you reserving judgement, RGB, or have you made up your mind already?


  23. RBG says:

    You say you have read the book TraceyS, if you were a National party member concerned about fair processes for candidate selection, a reasonable person would expect you to ask for an inquiry into the allegations made about the Rodney electorate and whether such practices have happened elsewhere in the party. Have you? Do you want to know IF the Prime Minister,or people in his office, were involved in the release of SIS documents to Cameron Slater? Having read the book, what questions have you asked to find out whether the allegations are true or not?


  24. TraceyS says:

    You did not answer my question.


  25. RBG says:

    I think that the emails sent to Nicky Hager are genuine (and stolen). Dame Anne Salmond wrote an op-ed in the Herald that is worth reading. You haven’t answered my questions.


  26. TraceyS says:

    You still haven’t answered my question which was:

    “Are you reserving judgement…or have you made up your mind already?”

    To clarify, I did not mean to ask whether you thought the emails were stolen (but thank you – we agree on that), or whether you think they are genuine or not. It may surprise you that I am not terribly concerned with what you “think” RGB.

    More to my interest is what you know. You know if you have made up your mind that the information contained in the book is proof of wrongdoing – or not. That is one thing you definitely know.

    You see this whole sorry saga focuses on what various people “think” they know rather than on what is actually known – Anne Salmond’s op-ed included.

    So I challenge you, RBG, to go back through the book and write a list of all the facts you find. Every time you catch yourself making an assumption, filling a gap, joining dots with your own thoughts, or thinking “it must be”, do not write that down as a fact because it simply isn’t.

    It is very important that you do this. In calling for an enquiry you will want to be sure that the enquiry is into the facts and not into Nicky Hager’s or anyone else’s thoughts on matters. Certainly you wouldn’t want an enquiry into the hacker’s thoughts! That would be playing with fire.


  27. TraceyS says:

    Robert – let me just check your answers to my questions because unlike RGB, I think you did answer them (one of them at least).

    Q: “If you won’t take up the challenge [to release your own emails in the public interest], why not?”

    A: Because they are boring.

    Q: “If you think you should have a choice in the matter, why do you think this?”

    A: (You don’t really answer this but it is implied that you consider you should have a choice in order to protect people from being bored.)

    Lame. You may not be the Minister of Justice but you are locally an important figure and your views and associations will be of great interest to those whom you locally represent.


  28. Tracey – you are asking/demanding that I release my personal emails to the public – why???????????????????????
    Have you lost touch with reality?


  29. RBG says:

    “It may surprise you that I am not terribly concerned with what you “think” RGB”.

    I know that I have read a book that raises many issues which should be investigated further.

    I know from your previous comments on issues like climate change that you question anyone’s ability to ‘know’ anything and that you play with words to avoid discussing issues.

    I think there should be a wide ranging inquiry into the issues raised by the Dirty Politics book and then more would become known.

    I have lent the book to someone else and will not be doing the challenge you set.

    I know that much of what it written in blogs like this one and Whaleoil, is not fact either, but it has never stopped Homepaddock posting on stuff like non existing $100,000 bottles of wine.

    I surmise that you don’t want a full investigation into these issues.


  30. Mr E says:

    Robert explains that his communications are boring. With this, I can agree.


  31. Mr E says:

    “I know that I have read a book that raises many issues which should be investigated further.”

    followed by this

    “I think there should be a wide ranging inquiry into the issues raised by the Dirty Politics book and then more would become known. ”

    Do you know issues should be investigated or just think?


  32. No one from the blue team wants a full enquiry, RBG. It would destroy their party and their heroes. It’s unthinkable. Key acted “because of a hacked email’. but won’t even bother to consider the many other incriminating emails reproduced in the book, ‘because they are hacked’. The extent to which people here have to disconnect with reality to accept that cynical manoeuvre is marked. Yet they are doing it.


  33. Mr E says:

    “No releases of my discussions with Green or NZ First MPs”
    Cam Slater.

    To be frank, I don’t wonder what the Green emails would expose. I’m not even curious. In my opinion to want the exposure of these, supports an illegal act.

    It is the same reason why I won’t buy or read the book. Nor pay heed to it’s allegations. To do so supports apparent illegal activity.

    The fact that so many are running around celebrating the books contents without holding the Author in contempt is disgraceful in my opinion.

    I do wonder though – if Green party members are so convinced that Collins has committed offences, if they are will resign their Green party memberships if they are proven to be wrong? They claim to be principled. How about they hold themselves accountable for support of the books contents.


  34. Hold the email thief to account? Refuse to use the email because it was stolen?
    Did Key refuse to read the stolen email that he used as the ‘reason’ for Collins departure?
    Did he denounce the person who obtained, illegally, the email that sent Collins to pack her bag?
    Did he decide to ignore it because it had been hacked from Slaters email account?
    No, Mr E. He used it without a qualm. You must think Key very duplicitous to do that, given that he gave ‘hacked’ and ‘stolen’ as the reasons for not reading the emails in the book.
    You must be terribly torn when you see the leader of the National Party acting that way. Hypocrisy at its most obvious. Matches yours. I’ve not read a comment from you decrying that email or Key’s behaviour in using it. Curious.


  35. The emails in the book are verbatim. They are real. They indicate appalling behaviour by people belong to, working for and representing the National Party. Refusing to assess them is just wilful blindness, hoping it will all go away, hiding from reality. It’s the only refuge for those who cannot bear to know the truth. Very sad.


  36. Mr E says:

    The Prime Minister is a Politician – a public servant. He has a requirement to respond to opinions, despite the source of those opinions.

    I thought you would understand that point being a Councillor, as it is your job to consider peoples opinions, the context of them and the nature with which they have been formed. Or do you not do that. Are you predetermined? When farmers say they want education not regulation, do you ignore it?

    I am annoyed at the apparent breach of Cams privacy in the exposure of an email though, yes.


  37. Mr E says:

    If the emails are real – if they are stolen, buying the book, openly supporting the biased direction with which they are used, is likely to be supporting a criminal act.

    Very sad.


  38. JC says:

    “I’ve not read a comment from you decrying that email or Key’s behaviour in using it.”

    The person identified by the media who gave the email to Key was the legal owner of that email and entitled to do what she wanted with it.



  39. Mr E – you’ve entirely missed the discussion that describes ‘the greater good/the public good’ and ‘in the public’s interest’. Hager is entirely confident that the law allows for the release of material illegally obtained, that is of such value to the public that it deserves to be released. His lawyer advised him just that way. You will deny such a system, no doubt, but it operates in democratic societies like ours where whistleblowers take great risks for the sake of their fellow citizens. Watergate is the classic example. Wikileaks another. Hager has revealed the dirty behaviour of the John Key-led National Government and the country owes him a vote of thanks. Read around, see how many other New Zealanders, from grass-roots people like myself, to professional commentators. lawyers and others schooled in such matters, say the same thing. Those emails, that behaviour had to be exposed. people like you pretend to turn away from the material ‘because it was stolen’, but yours is a method of self=denial only. You must maintain your myths ofKey and his crew, or your world will collapse. It’s not an admirable thing to do, nor is it something you should be proud of. Fingers in your ears and nya nya nya, can’t hear you isn’t very…grown-up, is it.


  40. JC – really? Slater has lodged a complaint against Key’s exposing of the email conversation with the Privacy Commission. He doesn’t seem to think it’s okay. In any case, you don’t know who gave the email. You have no real knowledge at all.


  41. Mr E – “if the emails are real”?

    Denialist. You are deluded to think that they are not.


  42. TraceyS says:

    ^ Yes JC, that appears to be true. But Robert is so wound up he just can’t determine fact from opinion.

    I know something. It bothers me that someone I know well could write about me and bang – guilty!

    It bothers me that a rogue person who believes they are acting in the public interest (whether they are or not) could hack into my email just to find out whether or not they might be right.


  43. TraceyS says:

    Robert Guyton at 11:25am

    “…you are asking/demanding that I release my personal emails to the public – why?”

    I believe it to be in the public interest.

    You do not? Cameron Slater probably didn’t either.


  44. ploughboy says:

    rbg and robert do you think that an enquiry into the actions of phil goff should be held.


  45. Tracey – you claim @2:57 that you believe the release of my private emails tot be in the public interest. That’s a very strong call. Please tell me/us why you believe that and what leads you to believe that.
    As an aside, Nicky Hager read the emails from Slater, Collins, Ede, Lusk, and so on, then made his decision that it was in the public interest to publish them.
    Have you been reading mine? Is that why you are so insistent that they be released into the public domain?
    Your call sounds quite unhinged, but now that you’ve made it, please back it up. You have implied that there is something in my emails that the public should be made aware of. Do you sense that you are getting into dangerous territory here? I don’t think you have the self-awareness to manage this discussion.


  46. JC says:


    I was careful to reference the media for my comment.

    Both Hager and Rawshark (the hacker) have denied the email was part of the hack and the media have stated that Cathy Odgers was the one who gave Key the email.

    Slater has laid a complaint, not against Odgers, but against Key for making the email public.



  47. Mr E says:

    Denialist. You are deluded to think that they are not.

    I’ve seen no evidence to suggest they are true. – Your Denialist claim is wrong.

    It seems to me Robert is advocating for the legalisation of private spy enterprise. Strangely enough public spying is not appropriate in the eyes of the left.


  48. “I’ve seen no evidence to suggest they are true.”
    Well, you won’t have, Mr E. You’ve not read them, have you. Or so you say. You must close your eyes when the newspaper opens in front of you, or when you scan the inter web, or when the 6 o’clock news comes on, and in fact, that’s not to hard to accept. John Key knows they are true. Cameron Slater knows they are true. Judith Collins knows they are true. Everyone involved knows they are true, but Mr E, he doesn’t get it, won’t see it, won’t look, can’t bear the pain.
    Consider this, Mr E. If the emails weren’t true, those named as the authors would be suing Nicky Hager left, right and centre. But none are, Mr E. None. Not one.
    You live in a cosy little world of denial, Mr E. At least you have Tracey to keep you company.
    Btw , it’s almost impossible for me to discuss these issues with any zest, as all of my comments are trapped in ‘moderation’ for sometimes several hours. This means it’s extra difficult for me to counter your wrong-headedness and wilful blindness, but even so, it’s quite easy. When you deny the obvious, you make it very, very easy to expose your lack of intellectual honesty.


  49. Mr E says:

    My position is quite simple. When those guilty of illegal activity are punished, and it is true that illegal activities can no longer be used for a political smear campaign, I’ll read what I need.

    It is very likely that illegal behaviours are supporting political agendas. You might think it is ok for illegal activities to support politics, but I don’t. So I’ll not read anything into these emails.

    You can, if you wish democracy to become perverse. That’s up to you. But call that for what I see it as, disgusting behaviour.


  50. RBG says:

    Mr E, TraceyS ‘knows’ about things and according to her I’m really only allowed to say I ‘think’ things. She doesn’t care what I think, but she does seem to like to have the last word, so she will usually respond to tell me that she knows what I think is wrong.


  51. Mr E says:

    You are in moderation. Moan, cry, whinge, grizzle, do what you want, but I think you only have yourself to blame for that one, with your off topic rants painting you as guilty of trolling.
    Ele warned you more than enough in my eyes, with reasonable explanations. I think Ele has been very kind to only put you in moderation, relative to apparent blocking actions that other bloggers have taken.


  52. The disgusting behaviour, Mr E, is that of Collins, Key and their horrid crew. If you are unaware of what they have said, as revealed in their emails to each other, you are in no position to discuss the present political storm. Keeping yourself pure until the hacker is punished for hacking Slater’s emails is a weak ploy by you to avoid facing the reality of a rotten Government. You are doing it because you are unable to cope with what has been exposed. That’s your choice. Perhaps you’d be better on another thread where you have some knowledge of the material. You remind me of Key when he claimed not to have read John Banks’ police file. That turned out well, didn’t it.
    Wilful blindness. Personal choice but living in ignorance is not something I subscribe to. Good luck with it.


  53. I haven’t complained about being in moderation, nor have I blamed anyone. I’ve just noted that it’s more difficult too have a discussion. That said, I’m having no trouble exposing the gaping holes in your argument, especially given your admission that you daren’t even aware of the details of the matter. I’m wondering if you’ve strayed into the wrong thread. There must be something safe and fluffy for you to opine about. Ele does some very soft posts on things like, ‘the kind of teddy-bear you are’, that sort of thing. Search one out and enjoy yourself there.


  54. Mr E says:

    You sound like you are squirming RBG.
    The simple question is if you know that Collins is guilty of the allegations made.
    If you don’t know, and simply speculating on circumstantial evidence, you might be wrong.
    I grew up being taught innocent until proven guilty. Shoot now and laugh about is not very kind. I doubt you will find many people to support that attitude. Maybe a few on the left, seemingly.


  55. RBG says:

    Most of you here deny there is a need for an inquiry, because you claim Hager’s book in itself does not provide convincing evidence of guilt. Of course Hager’s book alone is not enough evidence, THAT IS WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE AN COMPLETE INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGATIONS. Then we will KNOW the facts. Denying the need to investigate this shows you are scared of what will be revealed about the tactics of teamKey.


  56. RBG says:

    Mr E, you are being ridiculous, of course the public don’t yet ‘know’ whether or not Judith Collins is guilty, or Jason Ede and others in the book. The difference between you, TraceyS, JC and me (and Robert Guyton) is that you lot are saying there is no need to bother finding out. If you had confidence that John Key had nothing to do with facilitating the release of SIS documents to Cameron Slater, then you wouldn’t be scared of a full inquiry. Same deal regarding Collins, Slater and moving prisoners. This is not the same as TraceyS demanding that Robert Guyton release his emails online, an equivalent request would be that Guyton release them to Hager and see if Hager could find a story of public interest in them.


  57. TraceyS says:

    Robert Guyton at 3:59 pm: It is good to see that you clearly do not condone the deeds of the hacker who presumably had NOT read the emails before he hacked them and then, without the permission of anyone concerned, shared them with Nicky Hagar. I absolutely agree with you on that.

    And no, of course I have not read your emails! There is enough posted here and on your blog to indicate that you do not always communicate positively and respectfully, even in public.


  58. Thank you, RBG. Oasis of reason in a desert of knee-jerkery.


  59. TraceyS says:

    RBG – no one here has said “there is no need to bother finding out”. Not to my recollection. Don’t suppose you could turn up a direct quote could you?

    And I have only asked Robert if he would be prepared to go public with his own emails. And quite clearly he would not – and rightly so too! But gosh almighty look at how long it took him to get around to saying “no”.

    I thought it was a rather simple and innocent question really.


  60. RBG says:

    Ok TraceyS, playing your usual games with semantics I see. Do you think that the allegations raised in Hager’s book should be investigated? If not, why not?


  61. JC says:

    “Do you think that the allegations raised in Hager’s book should be investigated? If not, why not?”

    Definitely not. Because only portions relating to National have been released. An inquiry covering *all* the emails while an abuse of privacy is the only way to get a fair assessment of how we should view the situation.

    I do think, and I’m sure you will agree that its in the public interest to know the extent of dirty politics practiced by the Greens and other parties.



  62. Tracey – you are talking nonsense. You did not ” only ask(ed) Robert if he would be prepared to go public with his own emails”, what you said was,
    “I challenge you to release your full email correspondence…”
    And that’s quite a different thing altogether.
    Would I be comfortable “going public with my emails”, yes, I’d have no fears at all. But releasing my full email correspondence, simply because you demanded it, is an utter nonsense and your demanding it shows you are in some sort of dis-connected state of mind. What are you thinking???
    Slater/Key/Collins and co’s emails are certainly of interest to the public, as they reveal a deep corruption in many levels of the National Party and New Zealanders deserve to know that their Government has people in it acting in a corrupt manner. It’s something that shouldn’t be kept secret. That’s why Nicky Hager’s lawyer advised him to go ahead and publish the book. It’s a public service Mr Hager has performed. You and Mr E can wheedle as much as you like about hacking, but that changes nothing. Hager doesn’t do things carelessly. He explored the ramifications before he acted and acted in the knowledge that he won’t be prosecuted.


  63. JC’s belief that the emails from National Party MPs, staff, supporters and adherents shouldn’t be investigated because other parties have emails, is deluded rubbish and is an attempt to cover-up and suppress the truth, which is, there is considerable corrupt behaviour shown by those emails.
    The Government has been caught out because of the discovery and publication of the emails. CHECK TO SEE IF THEY DESCRIBE A PROBLEM FOR NEW ZEALAND.
    How hard is that?
    If there’s nothing in the emails to be worried about, sweet.


  64. But you know there is.


  65. Mr E says:

    I don’t think it is my place to encourage or discourage an investigation.
    I consider that position to be entirely up to the National party.

    It seems apparent that a significant crime is being used in attempt to influence NZs politics. Either National thinks an investigation will exonerate or they tolerate such things.


  66. TraceyS says:

    RGB, what are the allegations again?


  67. RBG says:

    TraceyS- grow up


  68. Andrei says:

    Hey guys and girls chill you’re all going round in circles – Time for karaoke?


  69. TraceyS says:

    “He explored the ramifications before he acted and acted in the knowledge that he won’t be prosecuted.”

    And one of the ramifications in the bigger picture here is the implication that it is OK to steal from someone as long as it is in the public interest to do so.

    That’s been my point here all along, Robert, while you got all flustered thinking that I had any real interest in your emails.


  70. Tracey, you have confused yourself. Nicky Hager didn’t steal the emails, they were given to him to read. I’m not condoning the hacking of emails. I’m saying that when they were revealed to be of such importance to democracy as they are proving to be, they should have been published.
    You have missed the point of the exercise.
    Given that you are so appalled by the theft of Cameron Slater’s emails by Rawshark, you’ll be equally outraged by the actions of Cameron Slater and Jason Ede (Key’s man, remember) in downloading all of those personal files (credit card details etc) from the Labour Party computers – yes?


  71. Tracey – to sum up; the heart of the matter is that “These allegations that Key appears to want to avoid addressing are of the most serious kind. They are accusations about the use and abuse of power in our government.”
    Is that what you are avoiding by refusing to look at/think about/discuss – accusations of the use and abuse of power in our government’?
    Who should address those accusations? Key does everything he can to avoid and extinguish discussion about this – why do you think that is?
    If the emails are fake, forged, wrong, whatever, it would be very, very easy to show that and clear up the accusations. But Mr Key does not dare even acknowledge the charges, because he knows the game is up, his regime has been exposed and it’s rotten to the core.
    Tracey, you must at least sense that this is what has happened. Or are you deeply in denial?


  72. Mr E says:

    “If the emails are fake, forged, wrong, whatever,”


    “Denialist. You are deluded to think that they are not.”


  73. TraceyS says:

    Robert, until the hacker is identified nobody knows who stole the emails. Not even you. No one can be either blamed, or cleared.

    You seem to miss the simplest of facts.


  74. ploughboy says:

    robert if you are outraged about key/collins you must then be outraged by phil goff lying about being briefed by SIS and then forcing the directer (tucker) into delaying the release of the documents that proved that he was.


  75. Mr E says:

    Does anyone else get a bad taste in their mouth when they consider the sanctimony of Guyton and his ilk?

    Robert Guyton is a blogger. His brother inlaw is Green List MP David Kennedy, also a blogger – known here as BSprout.

    Dave regularly contributes to a number of blogs. Including that of Robert Guyton.

    Robert Guyton, is a Councillor (politician) and has in the past used his blog to attack a number of others including his Council team mate and chair Ali Timms.

    Roberts blog catch phrase is “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” Justice Brandeis

    Yet here we find ourselves, in a discussion about politicians talking to bloggers.


  76. robertguyton says:

    “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” Justice Brandeis

    That you miss the obvious implications of what Justice Brandeis said, astonishes me, Mr E.
    Nicky Hager provided the publicity, the sun and electric light that has begun the remedying of the disease that is rotting the heart of the National Party and our New Zealand society.
    Your attempt to equate my brother-in-law talking to me, with the Prime Minister talking with attack-blogger Cameron Slater is hilarious and ludicrous. Dave hasn’t encouraged me to dig muck on his opponents in order to discredit them, nor has he gloated publically over having his top drawer filled with ‘dirt;’ on his opponents, nor has he fudged answers as to his relationship with me, as Key is now trying to do with Slater, whom he now caklls ‘the blogger’. There’s a world of difference between the two ‘parties’, Mr E – the Key/Slater combo is dirty, dirty, dirty, while Dave and I are clean and Green.
    Over all, your personal attack on me typifies the Right-wing approach to debate – ad hominem attacks are par for the (golf) course and reveal the shallowness of your argument. Attack Hager, attack me, attack the messenger – you are so predictable, mister e, no mystery at all.


  77. jabba says:

    I can see why bOb wants to keep this going .. the Gweens announced another crazy policy today and the Gween elves are on distraction duty.


  78. Mr E says:

    Attack you? all I have done is point out the facts.
    If you’re feeling bad, or recognise connections that you don’t like, I think you only have yourself to blame.


  79. TraceyS says:

    Robert, I’d like to ask you a question: How do you know, unequivocally, that Nicky Hager’s role was limited to shining the light?

    We have only his word.


  80. robertguyton says:

    Tracey – he is widely recognised as being a man of his word. If you can show evidence to the contrary, please post it.
    You won’t, ‘cos you can’t.
    Is John Key widely recognised as being a man of his word? If you’d like me to post evidence to demonstrate that he is not, I’d be delighted to do so. How about you chew on, “I will not raise GST” while I’m away at the Fed Farmers’ candidates’ meeting tonight. I’ll read your effort when I get back.


  81. RBG says:

    Here we go again TraceyS. Some information has come into the public arena and a lot of people want to know more about it, so there have been many calls for investigations and inquiries. You appear to reject the need to investigate this information BECAUSE we don’t know all the details and we don’t yet know what is true or not. If we listened to you we would never know more. Your reasoning is an intellectual dead end.


  82. TraceyS says:

    The answer to your question, Robert, is yes according to some 50-67% of New Zealanders.,_2014#Preferred_Prime_Minister

    (while there check the column on the far right)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: