Pages

▼

Friday, 22 August 2014

Dirty politics - update - 08/22/2014

John Key had a difficult day in Christchurch yesterday


More egg on his face.

 A video of a 2011 press conference has turned up with the man himself contradicting his statements of the last few days

 Retweeted by Kim Dotcom
 · 2h
More . More confirmation that is accurate, fair, and not taken out of context.


 Retweeted by Robin Westenra
 · 3h
The Whale doesn't work for free

PM stands by statement on SIS issue

Prime Minister John Key is sticking to his line that he did not know about the release of spy agency documents to blogger Cameron Slater, despite telling reporters in 2011 that he did.



22 August, 2014

Mr Key has insisted he was not personally informed before the information, which was damaging to the-then Labour Party leader Phil Goff, was released under the Official Information Act (OIA) to the right-wing blogger.

However audio from a press conference Mr Key gave in 2011, when he answered questions on the documents, is raising more questions about what the Prime Minister knew.

John Key.John Key campaigning in Christchurch on Thursday.
Photo: RNZ / Alexander Robertson

Yesterday Mr Key told reporters he was holidaying in Hawaii when when Security Intelligence Service (SIS) director Warren Tucker was releasing the documents to Mr Slater, and that he wasn't personally aware of what was going on.

He was responding to the release of a letter in which Dr Tucker said he had informed Mr Key about the matter. The Prime Minister said his office was told but did not pass it on to him directly. Dr Tucker, who is now retired, also released a statement saying the reference in the letter to the Prime Minister meant the Prime Minister's office.

However at his post-Cabinet media conference in August 2011, Mr Key said Dr Tucker told him the document was going to be released.

Mr Key said: "Cameron Slater went to the SIS and under the Official Information Act, asked for the release of that document. What happened was Warren Tucker didn't come to me for that, he went to his legal advisers and the legal advisers told him this is the process they have to follow - and when he was going through that process it was at that point he told me he'd release them because he has to tell me that under the no-surprises policy."

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister said today he stands stands by yesterday's statement - that his office knew about the document release but he personally did not.
The Labour Party is calling for staff in the Prime Minister's office to be questioned under oath to determine whether they tipped off Mr Slater about the SIS documents used against Labour.

The documents were released after Phil Goff and John Key had clashed about suspicions of spying by Israeli backpackers. Mr Goff had criticised Mr Key's comments on the matter, but then had to admit he had been told about it by SIS director Warren Tucker. However, Mr Goff said nothing of substance had been said - otherwise he would have remembered it.

Mr Goff said today the Prime Minister's former top advisor Jason Ede and his chief of staff Wayne Eagleson should have to give evidence under oath to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, who is carrying out an investigation into the matter.

The Green Party is calling for Mr Key to be interviewed under oath as part of the Inspector General's investigation.



This is what Key said in his 2011 press conference.

  "Cameron Slater went to the SIS and under the Official Information Act, asked for the release of that document. What happened was Warren Tucker didn't come to me for that, he went to his legal advisers and the legal advisers told him this is the process they have to follow - and when he was going through that process it was at that point he told me he'd release them because he has to tell me that under the no-surprises policy."


In the meantime WhaleOil's Cameron Slater is under his own form of pressure

 · 4h
Oh the irony: WhaleOil is being prosecuted for using someone else's private communications without permission.

Slater faces prosecution for breaching privacy

Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater is being prosecuted for the same thing he is complaining about - using someone else's private communications without their permission.



22 August, 2014

And the prosecution could see the blogger ordered to produce in court original copies of information used in Nicky Hager's Dirty Politics.

Slater filed a complaint with the Privacy Commission after Hager used years of hacked email and social media conversations to write the book, which paints a picture of a National government which encourages attack politics through blogs.

But the Commission has recently decided Slater had breached the privacy of businessman Matt Blomfield after the blogger published dozens of posts on Whale Oil based on a computer hard drive he had obtained.

It passed the case to the office of the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, which is now prosecuting him over five days in October.

Barrister Simon Judd, who is prosecuting the case for the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, said Slater was defending the case by claiming he was a journalist and not subject to the Privacy Act.

He said it would be argued Slater was not a journalist - and even if he was, the material he published on Mr Blomfield was not a "news media activity".

"If he's putting stuff on the internet about Mr Blomfield where this is no public interest and the stuff he is putting on is private information, we would argue that can't possibly be a news activity."

He said he believed some material highlighted in Dirty Politics could be sought from Slater through discovery rules because it had relevance to the prosecution.

Dirty Politics claimed there was an arrangement which saw public relations specialist Carrick Graham feeding posts to Slater's blog attacking those who challenged his clients.

The posts included attacks on those campaigning against alcohol, obesity and smoking.

He said it could make the case that Slater's involvement in "public relations work for corporates" was not an activity which was consistent with claims he was a journalist.

Mr Judd said if the prosecution was successful then remedies could includes a financial damages award and an order for Slater to attend a training session on privacy rights.

Mr Blomfield claimed Slater obtained a computer hard drive with 10 years of data on it, including emails, family photographs and legal documents.

The material was used to write content for the blog which had a "huge" impact, said Mr Blomfield.

"It is not just the feeling of having no privacy whatsoever. It's the privacy of everyone around you that is taken away as well. It's a very good way to destroy any relationship you have with anyone in terms of trust."

He said the Dirty Politics case was different as it Hager had removed personal details from the hacked content and it was about public figures.

"I'm running my household. They're running the country."

Mr Blomfield is also suing Slater for defamation with a full hearing expected next year.

A High Court decision is pending in the case on whether Slater is a journalist - a status he is seeking in the belief it will allow him to withhold information about his sources from Mr Blomfield.

Slater did not return calls for comment.


    • at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.