How long did Goff sit on complaint?
June 5th, 2009 at 7:02 am by David FarrarPhil Goff has been complaining about how long it took for John Key to investigate Richard Worth over the complaint that led to his suspension – he said a week was too long.
But it appears that he spent months sitting on an earlier complaint, before talking to the PM about it.
The Dom Post has a pdf of the statement from the married Labour Party activist. I should make clear that there is no criticism of her. In fact I think it is regrettable that she has been forced into making the statement. But the statement raises some questions of timing. It says there were 40 texts and 60 phone calls from 26 November 2008 to 23 February 2009.
These dates are very specific, and it is not clear if the communications stopped on 23 February 2009. If they did stop, then why was the matter referred to Phil Goff in May?
But you keep reading the statement, and it mentions going to Phil Goff earlier in the year. Now Goff did not approach John Key until 9 May 2009, yet he may have had the complaint as far back as 23 February – 75 days before the 9th of May.
The Herald has also worked out there was a delay:
But Mr Goff was questioned yesterday about his handling of the matter. He did not approach Mr Key until early May, some time after he had found out about the matter.
Asked why he waited so long to raise it, Mr Goff said he had several conversations with the woman and her husband and the matter had been embarrassing for them.
“It took the woman and her family some time to determine how best to deal with the matter that was obviously troubling to them.”
His main concern had been to protect the privacy of the woman and that was why he took the matter to Mr Key privately.
It took 75 days?
Also Goff got details wrong:
Mr Goff had said there was email evidence of Dr Worth’s communications, but yesterday said he was wrong and there were only texts.
As I have said previously, I thought Goff acted appropriately in raising the matter privately. And he kept the matter private when he got a response. Presumably the texts/calls had stopped – and that was the desired outcome.
But since then he has tried to be holier than thou, and if you try to do that, then his own actions come under scrutiny. People ask how long did he sit on the complaint for? Why did he not gather up evidence and pass it onto the PM’s Office. Why did he not respond with said evidence when Key came back to him?
Tags: Phil Goff, Richard Worth
June 5th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Surely much worse than any idea that the opposition played games with this is the awful sliding and sliming that our Minister of Tourism is engaging in. From Mary Wilson last night to Sean Plunket right now, this Man From Texas can’t stop digging. He’s blaming his his office, hes blaming Phil Goff, he’s got a cold, hes our Prime Minister fr crissakes.. how embarrassing. Somebody help this turkey out.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 7:22 am
No matter how hard right-wing bloggers try, this story isn’t ever going to be about Phil Goff…
OK, let’s forget Goff (it’s easily done). I, as a voter who’s responsible for no delays in this matter, would also like to know why John Key didn’t take it more seriously when it first arose.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 7:30 am
The stories about Worth. Key canned him as soon as he had the facts ie 7 days later. Goff is irrelevant, as are Labour.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 7:32 am
As a husband I can’t imagine simply sitting around for 75 days trying to work out what to do if my wife was being sent unsolicited communications of a sexual nature, especially if that person was a public person. I could however see myself sitting around for 75 if the communications had been solicited trying to plot the course of action that would cause the least impact to my wife, children and marriage.
However until copies of the txt messages and phone logs, in particular who call who and for how long each call lasted this situation will continue to stink for both Labour and National. However I think it is looking worse for Labour than National at it appears Goff tried to use it for primarily for political capital vs resolution of the issue.
BTW the way I would expect any opposition to use it for political capital however I believe it should be secondary to actually addressing the issue.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Goff laid a political trap for John Key. Sitting on the complaint for weeks and then timing it so that John Key could be caught flat footed if the investigation was not done thoroughly enough. I do not believe it was done thoroughly. Instead they seemed to rely on the statements of Dr Worth and left it at that. Take a man at his word old boy. That is not good enough. John Key’s Office should have asked to see verification from the complainant which she offered to do in her affidavit. I do consider the staff work in John Key’s Office to be sloppy at best and below the standard I would expect for a Prime Ministers’ Office.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 8:02 am
RGW (7:30am) – true, Phil (in) Goff is “irrelevant”…even his own Labour Party supporters admit that his leadership is inadequate to lead them into the next election (preferring the Ginger-Whinger Darren Hughes!).
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Key has really stuffed up on this issue. And his interview on Checkpoint last night was an embarrasment.
The issue is not about how long Goff knew about the allegations, but why Key didn’t ask to see the evidence. Why would Key just take Worth’s word after Worth’s previous errors of judgment?
Goff has already explained there were privacy issues with releasing the information. We don’t know what was discussed between Goff and the woman at the centre of the allegations about whether, or even if, to release the information.
This is not a story about Goff, as much as some people might want to spin it that way. Key was offered information and took a month to act on it.
[DPF: Worth said he was prepared to swear an affadavit that the allegations were false. Balance that against an unnamed complainant]
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 8:22 am
The dodgey looking one in this series events aside from Worth himself is shaping up to be Goff.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 8:24 am
“Mr Goff had said there was email evidence of Dr Worth’s communications, but yesterday said he was wrong and there were only texts.”
SBY – what information was Key offered? It appears Mr Goff wasn’t exactly sure of what information there was himself.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 8:32 am
“SBY – what information was Key offered? It appears Mr Goff wasn’t exactly sure of what information there was himself.”
Last night Goff told Checkpoint he had phone logs and texts. It seems unclear whether Goff offered to provide them to Key, or whether by saying he had the phone logs and texts that was implicit. The point is Key should have asked to see the evidence. He didn’t. Bad judgment.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 8:47 am
“[DPF: Worth said he was prepared to swear an affadavit that the allegations were false. Balance that against an unnamed complainant]”
But Key didn’t even ask to see the evidence against Worth. And this was after the Indian trip fiasco and the business with the taxi driver.
[DPF: From all accounts there is no evidence. The complainant herself has said the texts are not explicit and a case can be made only via the phone calls which are not documented]
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Worth is clearly the screw up and is rightfully being publicly thrown under the bus. So why is it that its Goff is doing all the squirming?
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Murray
“The dodgey looking one in this series events aside from Worth himself is shaping up to be Goff.”
Murray you cannot be serious?
Goff had a private discussion with Key and invited Key to deal with the problem and Key did not.
Goff did not leak the information to anyone, bloggers or otherwise. Believe me I have reasonable contacts within the Labour Party and I did not know about this until a couple of days ago when it first came out.
And it comes out after it is publicly stated that Worth has tried things on with another woman sufficiently badly for that woman to lay a police complaint?
And Goff does not use it even during Budget week where he could have devastated the Government’s PR.
The losers here are:
1. Worth – even if he has not committed any offence it is good riddance to him.
2. Key – why did he not ask to see the texts or get further information? Why did he accept Worth’s word at face value even after previous problems?
3. The National Party. The party of higher standards? Yeah right
And the winners are:
1. Goff – his principled behaviour in the context of modern politics is very refreshing
Vote:2. The Labour party – the next polls will be interesting
3. New Zealand women – there is one less misogynist to worry about.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:52 am
SBY (8:32am) – Phil (in) Goff also said yesterday that HE hadn’t seen the evidence either, just had it “read to him”….only a fool would expect Key to act on (at that point) unsubstantiated gossip, from a temporary Labour leader desperate to prove he has some relevance.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 8:57 am
3-coil, how hard would it have been for Key to say “can you show me what evidence you’ve got?”
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:03 am
If anyone argues that Key should have disclosed this all sooner – lprent posted a comment about Clark sitting on the knowledge about Peters for 6 months that fully justifies what Key did – I have a link to it here.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/worse-and-worse/#comment-138132
I think non disclosure was bad in both instances.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:04 am
SBY (8:57am) – evidently too hard for Goff, but Key should have been capable?
I can see the beginning of a reasonable argument (Goff’s inadequacies) there!
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Mickey, I feel no need to respond given the relvent karma levels. Your boy is a pale shadow of Clark. Get used to opposition.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Is there such word as “textes”?
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:16 am
mickysavage
Re: Your number 2 above;
“2. Key – why did he not ask to see the texts or get further information? Why did he accept Worth’s word at face value even after previous problems?”
See: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/08/brown_vs_hooton.html#comment-478840
Fish in a barrel.
[DPF: Superb detective work]
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Once again the leadership of National are proving to be more decisive than the leadership of Labour. Given that Clark knew about all the hoo-har about Peters for months before doing something about it – and only when the media questioned how much she knew.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:23 am
mickysavage
Keep reading down that thread I linked to – it gets better and better;
“Covered up something that was on the front page of the Herald a few days beforehand? And since when has the PM had an obligation to volunteer the contents of every discussion that she has with a Cabinet Minister? “
Oh dear micky – it really is OK for Labour but not National eh. What a looser.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Burt
A serious allegation is made to the PM about one of his own ministers and a member of his party that suggests this member may be using the office for personal gain. Of course this should have been investigated.
The Peters stuff still amazes me. The gift of funds was legal and the arrangement was between consenting adults. No laws were being broken. And the scandle is?
Good attempt, do you have any examples from the third Labour Government, or the second? Perhaps there is something dodgy that Peter Fraser did that you wish to raise?
[DPF: Wow Mickey still backs Winston, No wonder Labour lost with activists still in such denial]
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:29 am
mickysavage
If I were you I would shut up and stop digging. Google is not your friend today micky.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:32 am
“Is there such word as “textes”?”
Jarbury, yes.
They are text messages between consenting adult males.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Hey mickey, when the horse is on its back with its legs in the air not breathing its time to stop flogging the poor beast.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:34 am
ADOLF! Bad!
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am
mickey reckons he as reasonable contacts in the labour party – no shit. a union flunkey who pays for labour out of labourers wage taxing reckons he has contacts in labour. fuck me. thats incredible.
key fired worth.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am
If he was texting using a ministerial phone, why did Key not ask for the records from Parliamentary Services? I suspect the strong response of Worth gave him reason to hold off. I think many of us would do the same.
I suspect that when you are in politics and always under partisan attack for some of the most minor things (look at many of the nitpicking posts on here and the Standard for examples) there is a tendency to compensate by backing your team more strongly than others in a less combative environment might. HC was a good example of that. Muldoon before her.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 9:59 am
SBY
“SBY – what information was Key offered? It appears Mr Goff wasn’t exactly sure of what information there was himself.”
Last night Goff told Checkpoint he had phone logs and texts. It seems unclear whether Goff offered to provide them to Key, or whether by saying he had the phone logs and texts that was implicit. The point is Key should have asked to see the evidence. He didn’t. Bad judgment.”
What proof have you that he did not ask? Let’s use your type of reasoning. Geoff was remiss for not providing the proof when asked multiple times by Key. However he had none of the evidence but was read some texts.
(Now this is not necessarily what happened, but PROVE to me your version is more accurate. And the onus does ly with you as you made definitive statements in your post. You state as fact that Key did not ask for proof)
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Oh mickey you’re so fine, you’re so fine you blow my mind Hey Mickey.
Vote:Thanks for the laughs at your expense this morning mate, you stay true to form
June 5th, 2009 at 10:05 am
“What proof have you that he did not ask?”
Listen to the interview Key gave on Checkpoint last night.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 10:13 am
And here is another more likely situation. Any-one in position of leadership from the primary school teacher to the CEO of a company to the leader of a country would respond “Those are serious allegations, do you have proof? Please provide them as , i need to be able to confront this person with a bit more than rumors.”
Dont you think?
So the question is: 1. Why did Geoff not provide the proof 75 days ago.
2. Why did geoff, knowing the process he had put in place, and for the protection of the complainant, make sure that he had and kept hard copies of the proof
3. Why was Geoff not entirely sure of all the information before he started talking to media ( “i have emails and texts” becomes text only?)
4. Why did Geoff not show the same need for speed two weeks ago? Surely having spoken to Key, a call to say, “I gave you a heads up, You have done nothing, the public needs to know.”
SBY the only bad judgment ere is that displayed by Geoff. That is after the worm Worth off course. The only bad judgment from Key was appointing Worth to cabinet. But then leaders make mistakes. Clark appointed Field, DBP and held on to Peters.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 10:17 am
I’m looking forward to the phone records coming out to show whether or not this Labour Party activist was responding to the texts/calls. It smells a bit fishy that there were so many of them from Worth to her, it would be reasonable to expect there must have been some back from her to him. I sure hope we get to see the contents of any of her texts which I’m sure she is happy to authorise disclosure of, and which the phone company will have archived. I sure hope Goff hasn’t promised her that they won’t need to be disclosed.
Vote:I’m not denying wrong-doing by Worth, he seems to be afflicted with a blood problem – only enough to supply one head at a time. Of course Goff is trying to get some political capital out of this, he’d be failing in his role as opposition leader if he didn’t. I doubt he’s going to come out of this as a winner though, especially with the stench of a set-up clinging to him.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:29 am
mickysavage
There is a lesson in this; when you defend something you know is wrong simply because it was your team doing it – don’t do it in writing.
Blogs have changed the landscape on hypocrisy – it use to simply be a matter of saying “I never said that” but now proving it is just a hypocrolink ( © burt ) away.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 10:48 am
@RightNow: I was wondering how long it would take a righty to start blaming the victim. You just can’t help yourself.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Tom Semens (10:48am) – shit, she’s the “victim” now!!!
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Shorter Kiwiblog
That git Phil Goff. If only he had told John key sooner he could have refused to do anything about it months ago, which would have been better because….
er
Winston Peters! Phillip Field!
I’ve seen you lot like headless chickens before but this thread takes the biscuit!
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Goff said he didn’t have any evidence
John Key had no reason to ask ‘Do you have any evidence?’
Can that be made any clearer to you socialist retards?
79% of the public can understand that
Vote:http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/poll/pub/polls/index.cfm?action=results&pollid=A7A6188A-010B-2D8C-C650988ED8407695
June 5th, 2009 at 11:30 am
“John Key had no reason to ask ‘Do you have any evidence?’
Of course not, he’d just been informed that one of his ministers had been trying to sell jobs for sex, who would want evidence of a little, inconsequencial matter like that?
Did you vote early and often emmess?
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 11:34 am
@Tom Semmens, you seriously don’t think this is fishy? Believe what you want but I suggest we wait until we see the evidence which will include texts sent from Worth to her and then from her to Worth. Since the texts and calls apparently started last November and went until February then she had ample opportunity to bring to light. Goff didn’t tell Key until May, that’s 6 months after it started. Why? It’s a set-up that’s why. The woman probably really wanted a job and strung Worth along until it became clear she wasn’t going to get one. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? In this context perhaps Worth was really the victim – the victim of this self-serving Labour Party activist who is so dedicated to her party she was prepared to take a job offer from a National minister.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 11:44 am
OFFERED to swear an affidavit. Well MAKE him swear it. And check up on those text messages. I just get the feeling that the PM’s office was blindsided by the complainant being a Labour Party activist and yes they smelled a rat. There was a rat all right but it warranted a thorough inquiry.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
>>Of course not, he’d just been informed that one of his ministers had been trying to sell jobs for sex, who would want evidence of a little, inconsequencial matter like that?
Ummm yes – but Phil Goff had just said he didn’t have it
Vote:Why would you ask something you have just been told?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I nominate chronic for the slowest learner of the year award.
Beat the dead horse hard chronic, that’ll turn things around.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
But you keep reading the statement, and it mentions going to Phil Goff earlier in the year. Now Goff did not approach John Key until 9 May 2009, yet he may have had the complaint as far back as 23 February.
Just before your 75 days line gets set in stone David I’d just point out that “May” is rather important.
[DPF: Indeed. It turns out Goff knew back in Nov 2008]
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Beat, thrash, hack gallop you bastard, gallop!
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
There was a rat all right but it warranted a thorough inquiry
He’s the PM of the country, not Magnum fucken PI.
Goff tells Key, Goff reads out text – does not show Key the text. No official complaint laid.
Worth asked for his side of the story, states that he would sign an affidavit regarding his side of the story and sue Phil Goff and the Labour Party if they make the accusation in Public.
And hey guess what, Goff and the complainant STILL have not made the allegations or tabled the evidence outside the protection of palliamentary privelledge.
I wish the left cared more about this sort of thing when Helen was in charge!
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Murray
To be fair, mickysavage got the point and ran away. The other troll probably needs somebody to explain to him what this is all about. He will turn the horse into mince meat before he notices it expired long ago.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“[DPF: Indeed. It turns out Goff knew back in Nov 2008″
And did he have the woman’s permission to tell anyone?
Also my man point is still valid, if Key was told earlier that means he would have had a chance to do nothing about it a few weeks before he did nothing about it.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
This is another case of Goff trying to be clever and having it blow up in his face.
Like others in Labour he simply has not gotten the message that we’re sick of their muck racking politics and inept manipulations.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Great to see leftist dribble salivating so profusely over this issue. Key may well have been able to do a better job. Still better than the multitude of lies and deception Winston got away with. Despite the mountainous evidence against him. Clark failed to act to the detriment of her grasp on the reigns of power she was so addicted to.
If these things were on a scale it would be impossible to register with all of Clarks misdeeds.
And still goff makes a hash of it. It was worth a chew for a bit of media attention, but that halfwit seems to think it is the silver bullet that will bring the Nats down and allow him and his clan of half bred hill williams to saunter back onto the treasury benches. Get real.
BBTB
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
And did he have the woman’s permission to tell anyone?
Also my man point is still valid, if Key was told earlier that means he would have had a chance to do nothing about it a few weeks before he did nothing about it.
If Goff didnt have the permission of the Labour Party activist to go public, what makes you think John Key would have permission? Wouldnt be very bright accussing a fellow party member of impropriaty without evidence, Worth could have sued Key – he was willing to do as such if Goff made the allegation in public!
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Key did not have to go public Bevan, just get Worth’s resignation and say it was a personal matter. If he wanted evidence all he had to do was ask, the fact he did not tells us all we need to know about how seriously he took the matter.
Vote:June 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Key did not have to go public Bevan, just get Worth’s resignation and say it was a personal matter.
Do I have to bold it for you?
Wouldnt be very bright accussing a fellow party member of impropriaty without evidence, Worth could have sued Key – he was willing to do as such if Goff made the allegation in public!
You really should read the full post, not just the first sentence….
Vote: