Norman on Dunne

June 11th, 2013 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

has facebooked:

1. The Kitteridge report was going to be released anyway, maybe a week after it was leaked. Whoever leaked it simply gave Vance an exclusive, they weren’t releasing any secret document.

2. We don’t know what Dunne may have leaked other than the K report, including from the Intelligence and Security Cttee (ISC) of the Appendix tot he K report – Henry Report says Dunne didn’t leak the classified Apprendix as he didnt have access to it. If there is a police investigation, and it seems that NZF have complained to the police, then that seems the relevant issue. I don’t think this is the central issue but clearly my comments on it have been a cause of some concern.

This looks like a hasty retreat from his position of a few days ago when Radio NZ reported:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman says the Prime Minister should ask police to determine who leaked the report, and says a police inquiry would have the power to force Mr Dunne to release his emails.

Glad to see the Greens are acting more sensibly on this now.

5. On Privileges Cttee, I’m pretty dubious about giving a bunch of MPs the right to force another MP to release their emails. If there is something criminal then it’s a matter for the police, but otherwise it is only the Kitterridge report and that isn’t sensitive. Of course if it goes to Privileges Cttee then we’ll do our duty to be fair minded about it.

It is a fair point about the undesirability of MPs voting on whether or not to force another MP to release their e-mail. That could set a nasty precedent.

6. On Dunne leaving parliament. Based on the publicly available evidence he hasnt done anything serious enough to call for him to leave parliament.

Glad to see Norman say this. This affair is a long way off the bar for an MP to resign his seat and force a by-election.

Tags: ,

38 Responses to “Norman on Dunne”

  1. Dennis Horne (2,200 comments) says:

    So Norman isn’t as green as he is cabbage looking.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dishy (234 comments) says:

    Norman may finally be awaking to the fact that speaking in measured, reasoned tones will earn him more respect than constantly grizzling like an ill-informed malcontent.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Warren Murray (293 comments) says:

    The punishment should fit the offence. If sensitive information, such as the appendix, has been leaked, and Henry is satisfied that it couldn’t have been Dunne, it would be manifestly unjust to pursue him further for something done by someone else. Some weeks ago the PM said he didn’t expect the enquiry to find who released the report, signalling that was the outcome he was looking for. While the PM clearly regrets having to let Dunne go, I suspect he is worried that one of the other ministers may also be implicated.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Viking2 (11,263 comments) says:

    Act in haste and repent at leisure it seems.

    Still it would be interesting to know who did leak the appendix. Will we ever learn, probably not.
    Obviously there were more than Dunne involved in this. Possibly a friend from the past or some other MP trying to get an advantage.
    Personally all this should be open anyway and then pollies would be more circumspect and the Public Service would be more accountable.
    Unlike the present situation.

    And what about the PRISM?

    Did we Kiwi’s EVER sanction that?
    I can’t recall it ever being in the open. If it had then people would know to not be coming here with bad intent and we wouldn’t be feeding the Yankie disestablishment with our own business. Is it any wonder we don’t trust the Govt. or its internal organs that are not open to scrutiny. Govt. should be taken to task by the taxpayers for establishing this without the consent of Kiwi’s who pay tax, are residents and who vote.

    Appalling invasion of Kiwi citizens rights to safe citizenship.

    Maybe the Govt. is compromised by its own lack of accountability to Kiwi’s.

    If a consitution is called for then this is the sort of thing that should be proscibed in there to protect citizens from the state. The TOW pales into significance against this type of erosion of citizens rights without tranparency.

    (Clearly this was executive decision making without the scruitiny of Parliament nor its constituency, much klike the new GCSB legislation is going to be.)

    Is there a place for the likes of PRISM.

    Almost certainly one would think, BUT, let it be open, not directed from the USA and it’s maniacal security services and let it be accountable to a Jury of Kiwi citizens, other than politicians who, with the best will in the world, react to political pressure from elsewhere and always act in their own self interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pongo (371 comments) says:

    And the fool Shearer is on Breakfast wanting Dunne hounded out of parliament for propping up the government, does this idiot want a snap election over releasing a report a week before it was due to be publicly released anyway. Someone should point g out his polling numbers arnt that flash.
    The hypocrisy of Labour is astounding, this lunatic was trying to shop round a secret video, albeit one that never existed, taken at the GCSB headquarters not 6 months ago. Does Goff want the leaker of the Mfat report locked up too ? I think not.
    Maybe Carter should allow the privileges enquiry and expand it to include ALL emails between MPs and journos.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Brilliant, Norman has just directly contradicted what Captain Mumblefuck said on the radio 30 minutes ago – haha

    Poor old David

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    I think Russel probably got a little carried away in his initial enthusiasm to see Peter Dunne gone. For all of the authoritarian red-peril stereotypes of the right the reality is that the Greens are a very liberal party. The idea of politicians using the police to silence whistleblowers does not sit well with much of the Greens membership and they have told him as much. This retraction/clarification from Russel is likely a response to that. At the end of the day the Greens have the most democratic party structure of all the parties in NZ. Russel is a list MP who owes his leadership and list ranking to the party membership and serves at their pleasure – he is far more accountable to the will of the party membership than other party leaders. I’m not sure if this is the first back down of this kind, but it will definitely not be the last. The Greens promise is policy over personality – this is a great example of how this works in practice, a leader who strays to far from the principles to which the party adheres will be called into line.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Viking2 (11,263 comments) says:

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Benjamin Franklin

    Wise words from a long time ago. More relevant today then ever.

    Is this what is happening to the USA and by proxy New Zealand?

    Slightly off this topic BUT relevant is this post. Relevant because it is the cause of the American fanatcism with their security.
    Its a darn good read and will take a couple of minutes.

    http://brendanslongblog.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/the-future-of-europe-geert-wilders.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Richard29

    Hurry up all you’ll miss the train to Green HQ for work

    The Greens promise is policy over personality

    FFS – get a grip

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (835 comments) says:

    Why suddenly Norman’s brain is straight? What is he smoking now?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. KiwiGreg (3,212 comments) says:

    As I understand it our employee, Dunne, is claiming emails he sent on his employer-provided computer and employer-provided email address are somehow private? What am I missing, did he use his gmail account?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. OneTrack (2,810 comments) says:

    “the reality is that the Greens are a very liberal party.”

    Bullshit. The truth is Clint told Norman to tone it down and take the high road since Dunne is a goneburger for 2014 anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. OneTrack (2,810 comments) says:

    “The Greens promise is policy over personality” – just like Muldoon, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Cunningham (828 comments) says:

    What is it the opposition say about John Key? Something like if you don’t like his position he has more? Haha they just continue to make fools of themselves on a daily basis. Amazing how quickly they have gone from a party that supposedly has principles to a party competing with Labour for the gutter.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,310 comments) says:

    There has been signs for a while that Norman is listening and thinking things through, unlike Shearer who bumbles on.

    In the meantime Winston Peters made it clear he is lying about having seen any email proof to back up his claims.

    And he has put his reputation – and career? – on the line. Peters: “I live and die by what I say on this matter”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. alloytoo (463 comments) says:

    What has Wussel got to hide? He’s probably got plenty of cans of worms he’d rather not set any precedents that could examine them.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,425 comments) says:

    Viking2 (9,577) Says:
    June 11th, 2013 at 7:35 am
    Still it would be interesting to know who did leak the appendix.
    ————————————

    According to the Henry Report, the appendix was not leaked.
    Henry was able to determine by the information published that the appendixes were not part of the leak, and therefore the person responsible was someone who had only the basic report.

    Dunne’s copy of the report did not have the appendixes.

    Vance’s article did not show any evidence of the appendixes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ross12 (1,269 comments) says:

    So why has Norman only said this on Facebook? Why hasn’t he run off a PR to give to one of his tame MSM mates ?
    Thats what they would normally do.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. David Garrett (6,734 comments) says:

    Ross: Because, as you well know, anything put on on any social media site will find it’s way into the MSM eventually anyway…a facebook post by Norman actually has a great deal more chance of reaching a wide readership than a press release – one of many issued by every party every day.

    And clearly it is working; here we are all talking about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Dennis Horne (2,200 comments) says:

    There was an old polly called Peters
    Who denied the smoking of reefers
    Blowing smoke in the face of Pete Dunne
    The black powder too wet for his gun
    It’s his own power that now actually teeters.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,310 comments) says:

    I’m more than happy for a politician to change his stance based on listening to feedback from party members and the public. It should be encouraged.

    Good on Russel Norman.

    There’s a lot of social media interest in this, what Norman said would have been picked up wherever he said it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Cunningham (828 comments) says:

    Pete George (17,817) that is true but the opposition are so quick to jump on the PM if he changes his opinion (the irritating term ‘flip flop’ is mentioned all to often). He deserves plenty of scorn if that is the way he wants to play the game.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (23,310 comments) says:

    I don’t care about opposition game playing. I’m happy for Key to change his stance too, when justified.

    And Key has certainly changed his stance on the importance of the Kitteridge leak, from being important enough to call an inquiry to it simply being a release of public information a week early.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. rouppe (942 comments) says:

    I love how people are on the front page or on national radio making the original statement, but when retracting they use twitter, or facebook, that most of the people who heard the original complaint wouldn’t be following.

    Why would I want to listen to the ranting of this fuckwit on Facebook or Twitter every day. It would drive me to murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Rich Prick (1,633 comments) says:

    The only lesson to be learned here is to never take anything the Greens scream about too seriously in the first instance. They sky is not falling, never was.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Alan Wilkinson (1,848 comments) says:

    Bugger. The last thing NZ needs is red Greens pretending to be sensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (8,024 comments) says:

    A Green Party leader… No… He supported the EFA … Such a sell out … A party founded in the right to protest supporting the draconian notion that people need to put their real name and residential address on protest material…

    He’s no leader – he’s a fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. 3-coil (1,204 comments) says:

    Russell Norman is just showing that he can “flip-flop” with the best of them. Actually, he’s bloody good at it – a natural!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Cunningham (828 comments) says:

    3-coil (1,147) but of course it is fine for him to do it. How long before he is screaming about a ‘flip flop’ by the PM? Hypocrisy from left knows no bounds. It is easy though to act this way though when you are ethically challenged!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    Richard29 (353) Says:

    At the end of the day the Greens have the most democratic party structure of all the parties in NZ. Russel is a list MP who owes his leadership and list ranking to the party membership and serves at their pleasure – he is far more accountable to the will of the party membership than other party leaders.
    ……..
    the problem is when the membership is so tainted moderate members are put off joining. What sort of membership votes for the most draconian interpretation of “te tiriti” or votes someone who sees one man one vote as “a limited concept of conservative Pakeha” to #4 on the list or gives open support to the Urewera gun slingers?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    @ Richard29 [Green Democracy]

    “Not too many years ago the Green Party decided one of its members was ineligible for selection as a candidate because his views on the Treaty of Waitangi were unacceptable.

    And civil servants tell me (albeit behind their hands) that anyone foolhardy enough to openly oppose the inclusion of “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in departmental policy-formation, or who objects too loudly to the introduction of Tikanga Maori, can kiss their careers good-bye.”
    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2010/04/dangerous-preaching.html

    “The dangers inherent in the Greens’ educative model are demonstrated in their policy on the Treaty of Waitangi. Though the signing of the Treaty, like all historical events, is the subject of multiple, and often sharply contradictory, interpretations, the Greens have adopted an unequivocal and quite inflexible interpretation of the Treaty’s meaning. So much so that when some of their own members, unconvinced by the official party line, openly questioned it’s accuracy, they were deemed ineligible to stand as Green candidates by the Party leadership.

    That the dissidents’ views on the Treaty of Waitangi were actually more in tune with those of the majority of Pakeha New Zealanders was an “inconvenient truth” to be overcome by – yes, you guessed it – a taxpayer-funded traveling road-show which would take the “true” meaning of the Treaty directly to the ignorant Pakeha masses and educate them into full conformity with the Greens’ historical interpretation.

    This authoritarian aspect of the Greens’ political style is nowhere more apparent than in their so-called “consensus-based decision-making” constitution. Described as a means of “seeking positions that the maximum number of people can support, rather than a simple majority”, what these rules actually make possible is the ability of a tiny minority to over-rule and/or subvert the will of the majority.”

    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2009/09/figuring-out-greens.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. tvb (4,247 comments) says:

    Except Dunne may have mislead a select committee over whether he leaked a report. The email would be evidence either way on that. I cannot see how the Committee can avoid asking for then if Dunne has mislead a select committee and by doing so breached privilege.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Alan Wilkinson (1,848 comments) says:

    @tvb, they will ask Peters to produce the evidence. He can’t. Then they will ask Dunne to incriminate himself. He won’t. Then they will throw out the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,310 comments) says:

    tvb – he may not have misled the committee, as Andrew Geddis has said,

    …did he “deliberately attempt[] to mislead the House or a committee” by doing so? Recall that he was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee in his role as Revenue Minister, to answer questions relevant to his responsibilities in that portfolio. Winston Peters then began badgering him with questions relating to the Kitteridge Report leak. In the stuff.co.nz report of the matter, this is how the matter is reported:

    After having attempts to question Dunne repeatedly thwarted, with committee chairman Todd McClay ruling that the questions were beyond the scope of the hearing, Peters directly accused Dunne of leaking the report.

    So the chair of the committee was telling Peters not to ask Dunne about the leak, because it wasn’t any of the committee’s business. That is the chair’s responsibility under Standing Order 221(1):

    The chairperson will take care to ensure that all questions put to a witness are relevant to the committee’s proceedings and that the information sought by those questions is necessary for the purpose of those proceedings.

    Given this fact, the question then becomes whether a witness before a select committee misleads it if she or he falsely answers a question that wasn’t relevant to the committee’s proceedings in the first place. Or, instead, did Peter Dunne simply deliberately attempt mislead Winston Peters … in which case, there’s no contempt of Parliament involved. Because contempt relates to the work of the House of Representatives as an institution, not to the individuals within it:

    If Carter rejects the complaint he will no doubt get clobbered by Mallard and Peters again (oh no, they might work out again!) but it looks to be a fairly weak case.

    And then there’s the issue of whetehr the committee should be voting on whether they should sieze MP and journalist emails. That ‘s a slippery slope that no party should want to venture on to.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Russel’s reversing of course on this won’t negate his initial reaction. Especially with that following so hot on the heels of his exposure of the real face of the Greens with his personal attacks.

    People make mistakes and Party leaders are no different, but his was an error of judgment not of interpretation; a leadership failure.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Keeping Stock (10,174 comments) says:

    “Hey Clint; how long do you have to cook a dead rat before you swallow it?” :D

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    I can’t help wondering if Norman’s original outburst was motivated by memories of when Dunne slammed the Greens in 2010, as Jeanette Fitzsimons was retiring.

    Dunne stated that “the understandable tributes being paid to Jeanette Fitzsimons on her retirement mask a couple of unpleasant and contradictory facts”, and went on to utterly castigate the party for their lack of success (“no member of the Greens has ever held office as a Minister in a government”), called them “our most unsuccessful small party under MMP“, and continued on to lambast the media for failing to point this out.

    Truthful? Maybe. But as Dunne chose to score some political points then, can we really blame Norman for reacting heatedly at first? Maybe that episode still rankles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Paulus (2,559 comments) says:

    Did I not hear/read that Dunne did not receive the Addendum to the Kitteridge Report.

    It was probably seriously classified, and therefore not for the likes of him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.