Jim Farmer said criticism of Mr Liddell’s judgment by Prime Minister Helen Clark and her deputy, Michael Cullen, was wrong and unwarranted.
Mr Liddell’s evidence was uncovered in the SFO investigation and showed that Mr Peters had a $40,000 debt paid for him by the Spencer Trust, contradicting his version that he paid it himself.
Dr Farmer said Mr Liddell had a simple choice: whether it was responsible to “sit on” relevant information, or to hand it over.
And Labour wanted the information supressed, because it reveals that Peters broke the Cabinet Manual and Register of Interests even more blatantly than in the Owen Glenn case.
“He has obviously taken a responsible decision. It is very defensible on its merits and it doesn’t warrant attack from politicians, particularly personal attacks in the form of saying he has poor judgment.”
Dr Farmer may not understand that for Clark and Cullen, a public servant exercises poor judgement if they do not act in the best interests of the Labour Party, as opposed to acting in the public interest. You see they have convinced themselves that nothing is more important for the public good than them remaining in power, so anything that may damage that is automatically poor judgement by the public servant involved.
Dr Farmer said there was no formal requirement for Mr Liddell to consult Crown Law and he had “no idea” why Helen Clark and Dr Cullen were suggesting this.
“In carrying out the investigative duties, the SFO and the director are intended to be independent and operate without influence from anyone,” he said.
“Running off to Crown Law or the Solicitor-General to get advice – or approval, if that’s what Dr Cullen is suggesting – doesn’t seem to be obvious or even right.”
Indeed. And in fact a growing number of Government Departments no longer even use Crown Law for their legal advice or representation in court.Tags: Helen Clark, Jim Farmer, Michael Cullen, Privileges Committee, SFO, Winston First