It’s about trust

Who do you believe?

Heather du Plessis-Allan says we must question the PM’s honesty:

. . .She told media yesterday: ”I was informed in the very beginning that the allegations made were not sexual.”

She told RNZ this morning that she found out yesterday.

“The first I’ve seen the complaints of that nature was when I read then.” Asked when that was, she said “When I saw them in the Spinoff.”

That is very hard to believe. This has been reported in the media for the last five weeks.

If you believe that yesterday was the first the Prime Minister heard of this, then you must believe that the Prime Minister of this country does not watch, read or listen to the news reported in this country.

That she for the last five weeks has missed every bulletin, newspaper and programme that mentioned the fact this guy is alleged to have committed a sexual crime. . .

And also believe she doesn’t have staff who monitor the media and make sure she knows what she needs to know.

 . . . You have to also believe that the Prime Minister didn’t ask what allegation was so serious that a staffer in her office stopped coming to work five weeks ago.

You also have to square it with this comment she made yesterday in her press conference”:

“A month ago I visited New Zealand [Labour Party] Council. Very seriously shared my view that they were not the appropriate place to undertake inquiries around concerning behaviour of members of the Labour Party. But particularly they are not the appropriate place to ever undertake an investigation into a sexual assault. And that would be their view too.”  

Why would she say to the Labour Party council that they were not the right people to investigate an alleged sex crime, if she didn’t know the allegations were of a sex crime?

Because she did. She did know.

On the 6th of August, one day after the story broke in the media, Mike Hosking raised it with her right here on this station.

He asked her: “How many people have quit your party as a result of this investigation into this bloke who may or may not have sexual assaulted someone?”

Her response was: “I’m going to be very careful answering that question Mike because this is an inquiry and work is still underway and it is still a party matter.”

Exactly when the Prime Minister knew is important for a bunch of reasons.

Did she fail in her duty of care to staffers and volunteers?  Was this supposed to be covered up? But mostly it’s important because this is now about her integrity

It’s becoming increasingly hard to believe her version of events, and possibly this is the first time that we’ve had reason to question Jacinda Ardern’s honesty.

It’s not just about her integrity, It’s about trust.

It’s about the trust the people making serious allegations, and they are still allegations, put in the Labour Party to deal with them properly, and that their trust was abused.

It’s about the trust we ought to be able to have that when questioned about serious matters the PM would tell the truth.

And because, if she genuinely believes she didn’t know, it’s about trust in her and her office’s competence.

Because if neither she nor her staff keep up with the media reports on serious matters, what else aren’t they doing?

In which case it’s also about the trust that we all should have in our Prime Minister, whether we like her or not, whether we voted for her or not, whether we support her or not, to do her job and to deal with serious issues properly.

4 Responses to It’s about trust

  1. Andrei says:

    J. Ardern is a woman who is completely out of her depth in her job – that’s all

    She was bought in to lead the Labour Party at the 11th hour in a “Hail Mary” pass when they were floundering during an election campaign but as a woman who epitomizes style over substance has struggled.

    And none of this is helped by the fact she is a first time mother of a young infant, who as we who are parents know demands and deserves her full attention

    She hasn’t got her finger on the pulse that’s all and that is why she has been blindsided by this would be my guess

  2. Murray Roxburgh says:

    Yesterday what passes for emphatic in her world where there is “no need to lie in Politics”, the woman claimed she acted over four weeks ago by appointing a Queens Counsel to investigate.
    A day later Wednesday, Spinoff the only source to actually seem capable of discovering the basic story reveals that it was well known back in June on the 11th. Now my mathematical abilities suggest to me, that was twelve weeks ago???

    Does Ms Ardern seriously expect any of her many critics to Ignore such manipulation of the facts in that she was “unaware” it was a “sexual” assault.
    Some might even struggle to accept, busy as she is as a young (ish) mum also running NZ Inc such a Grenade about to be lobbed might need quick smart response
    I have a bridge to sell anyone who would believe her office would not have people constantly scanning social media to enable protection to be commenced in short order to thwart any likely problems arising from the “managed” storyline. This has been prominent across the social media I access for a lot longer than her “Four weeks”.

    A person deemed so important as to be able to garner such protection suddenly absent for five weeks, come on, pull the other one.

    I have been around politics seriously as an interested party for well in excess of sixty years and I understand that occasionally being unaware is a Plausible Denial strategy but this cluster is well beyond that.
    They clearly learnt absolutely nothing following the Summer Camp fiasco some eighteen months ago as when the defence attempted to justify the indefensible for the closely connected to the senior Labour Hierarchy Perp in recent days after a plea bargain took sexual assault reduced to common assault, The lawyer then including the utterly “sexist” defence in mitigation that the victim “was up for it”?

    In such a toxic climate it is no wonder the latest victims were seduced into keeping the Police out of it and leaving it to the party to resolve things to what is now a cost far in excess of throwing the latest exposed slimeball under a bus.

    Sheesh one could not make this stuff up, it would be disregarded by McPhail and Gadsby, Yes Minister or Spitting Image as too far removed from real life in attempted Satire. Maybe Ripley might show interest.

  3. […] Prime Minister know, and when did she know it?  Then there was this one from Homepaddock – It’s about trust. As well there have been several articles in the broadcast and print media. For example Barry […]

  4. Tom Hunter says:

    If you would care to place your comments under my blog Op-Eds on NoMinister you are welcome.

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: