The emergency Coronavirus Bill will be rushed through as law.
Today sees the 2nd reading, if passed it will immediately proceed to 3rd and on. It contains the most draconian powers ever proposed in peace-time Britain. It will be rushed through Parliament and the powers will last two years. The powers will affect your freedom and take away your rights.
Forced detention and isolation can be of anyone, including children, and for any amount of time.
Authorities can FORCIBLY take biological samples from your body.
There’s no clear access to legal rights from as-yet unidentified isolation facilities.
Powers last up to 2.5 years
Lockdown powers could prevent protests against measures.
State surveillance safeguards weakened.
Protections from forced detainment and treatment under Mental Health Act lowered.
Cremations can be enforced against personal and religious wishes.
Changes to the court system. Registration of deaths.
No inquests into suspicious deaths!
No requirement for any medical certification for burials or cremations!
It also indemnifies the health service should they fail for what ever reason to provide care.
The most frightening part. Only one medical 'officer' is required to sign off COMPULSORY TREATMENT ORDER which means... in the real world you can be forced to accept medication. Or held down and injected with whatever is seen fit. THAT is the biggest and worst threat to your own freedoms.
Schedule 8 Pt1.
Local Authorities will now be exempted from compliance with their duties under The Care Act 2014. Schedule 11.
The BBC won't be telling you that bit.
So. If someone dies in police custody or any type of custody they can simply dispose of the body without any paperwork medical exam or certification or inquest.
I
am following the news every day but this eluded me – I had to be
told. Is it any wonder when this important news is not covered by the
mainstream media
GCSB
spying reforms pass into law
The
Government's foreign intelligence agency can now spy on New
Zealanders under spying reforms passed into law this afternoon.
The
New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill was supported at its final
hurdle by all parties except the Greens.
The
reforms have not attracted the same level of debate and controversy
as the expansion of the Government Communications Security Bureau's
(GCSB) powers in 2013. That is partly because the latest round of law
changes have cross-party support.
The
bill brings the GCSB and the NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS)
under the same laws and warranting regime.
In
a fundamental shift in policy, it permits the GCSB to monitor New
Zealanders if national security issues are at stake.
Until
now, New Zealanders could only be targeted by the agency if they were
an agent of a foreign power.
A
"Type 1" intelligence warrant will be needed to target New
Zealanders using otherwise unlawful activities, such as intercepting
phone calls.
That
will require approval from the minister and a Commissioner of
Intelligence Warrants and will be subject to review by the
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security - a process known as a
"triple lock" process.
There
will also be new flexibility in terms of getting warrants, including
allowing warrants for classes of people rather than named
individuals.
The
Government has given the example of the intelligence agencies being
alerted to a group of unidentified New Zealanders in Syria.
A
group warrant would allow them to target those people without having
exact information on their identities.
Urgent
warrants can also be sought in special cases, including where
someone's life is at stake or there is a serious threat to New
Zealand's national security.
In
such cases, a warrant must still be applied for within 24 hours, and
if it is not authorised all information collected would be destroyed.
The
reforms also create a new offence for leaking Government information,
punishable by up to five years' jail.
Provisions for secret courts in case that concern "national security" inserted secretly into legislation without public consultation. The Law Society is worried and we should be very afraid.
The Attorney Gneral (also minister in charge of the GCSB), Chris Findlayson said this was in an "old version"of the Bill; the Law Society says their concerns remain.
In the meantime the legislation passed last night with the help of the usual customers - but also with the help of the Maori Party who have shown themselves as complete traitors to their constituency.
Meanwhile the public remains still largely in the dark.
“All
New Zealanders should be very worried” - Law Society
Last
minute changes to new laws initially drafted in response to the Pike
River Mine tragedy could impact constitutional rights, the New
Zealand Law Society says.
After
three days of intense debate, the Health and Safety Bill could see
its third and final reading as soon as tomorrow.
The
bill is a 273-page omnibus one which will overhaul New Zealand’s
workplace health and safety system, replacing the Health and Safety
in Employment Act 1992 and the Machinery Act 1950.
But
the Law Society has written to Workplace Relations and Safety
Minister Michael Woodhouse, expressing concern around the last-minute
insertion to the bill of provisions for a closed material procedure
for court proceedings where national security is involved, saying the
provisions should not have been inserted at this late stage of the
legislative process.
The
provisions will allow a person to be tried and convicted of a
criminal offence without seeing all the information relied on by the
Crown and without the right to be present - or to have their
representative present - during all the proceedings.
This
is inconsistent with the fundamental right to a fair trial, the Law
Society said in a release yesterday.
Law
Society president Chris Moore recommended the removal of the
provisions from the Bill, to await the outcome of an inquiry the Law
Commission is carrying out on National Security Information in
Proceedings.
“The
Law Commission has already identified significant issues about the
matters covered by the provisions which have been inserted in the
Bill, and it does not appear that these have been taken into
account.”
The
processes inserted by Schedule 2A directly impact on very significant
constitutional rights, he said.
“Because
Schedule 2A was not in the Bill when introduced, it has not been
subject to the Bill of Rights vetting process and will miss public
consultation and input.”
Mr
Moore felt that the Government’s advisers believed there would be
relatively few circumstances where secure handling of classified
information would be needed as part of any health and safety
investigation or legal proceedings where national security is
involved.
“However,
Schedule 2A has a very wide definition of ‘classified security
information’. The Law Commission – which, it is important to
stress, has been actively researching this very matter – has
identified some major human rights issues in this matter.”
The
Law Society has also advised the Minister that Schedule 2A attempts
to remove the power of the courts to review a determination that
certain information is ‘classified security information’.
“New
Zealanders should be very worried when the powers of our courts to
review any decision made by civil servants are curtailed, as could
happen here.”
The
Law Society said that if the provisions are to be retained in the
legislation, they should be more narrowly cast “at a minimum” and
it strongly urges that the outcome of the Law Commission review be
awaited.
The
Bill has attracted some controversy; with opposition MPs angered by
the Government’s decision to dairy, beef and sheep farms as low
risk, while classifying worm farms as high risk. That has since been
changed.
Law
Society still concerned about 'secret courts'
Controversial
health and safety legislation, which does does not classify farms as
high risk, has passed in Parliament.
Marty Melville
Attorney-General Chris Finlayson says the Law Society was wrong and were commenting on an old version of the bill.
A
row over secret courts rumbles on - with the Law Society refusing to
back down on fears over new health and safety laws.
The
lawyers' body raised concerns over a last-minute change which could
see someone tried and convicted without seeing all the evidence, or
being present during all proceedings.
Attorney-General
Chris Finlayson fired back, saying the Law Society was wrong and was
commenting on an old version of the bill.
The
late additions introduce "closed material" procedures for
dealing with top-secret material in court. It also allows the
directors of spy agencies to declare parts of the legislation do not
apply to their staff, to protect national security.
Finlayson,
who is also security services minister, says defendants will always
have access to evidence being used to prosecute them and he is not
expanding the use of controversial secret courts.
But
questions remain about provisions which allow a court to order a
defendant or lawyer be excluded from proceedings, and allow the
appointment of a special advocate with security clearance to view
evidence on their behalf.
Now
Law Society president Chris Moore has reviewed the new changes - and
he says many of his organisation's original fears stand.
"The
impact of these is unclear in relation to the right to a fair trial,
and the other concerns we raised in our letter remain. We feel it is
important to release our letter in the public interest," he
said.
Moore
said the Society was unaware of the initial changes - made on August
19 - when its original letter, dated August 21, was sent to Workplace
Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse. "As a result
our letter was written without reference to the changes," he
said.
But
he's now sent a new letter to Woodhouse outlining "significant
concerns" both about the provisions and their last-minute
insertion into law without public consultation. There has also been
no vetting to ensure the changes don't breach human rights
legislation, he said.
"The
absence of public consultation is undesirable, particularly where the
provisions inserted - as here - directly affect very significant
constitutional matters such as the fundamental right to a fair trial
and open justice."
He
says the Government is yet to explain why the changes were made at
such a late stage. Moore also says the provisions are still
inconsistent with the right to a fair trial.
And
he points out that the definition of "classified security
information" in the bill is "very broad."
The
Society recommends the new provisions be scrapped until the Law
Commission completes a pending review on how classified evidence is
dealt with the courts.
Labour's
David Parker is also concerned about amendments, saying they are "a
nonsense" and "hard to fathom."
Passed with the votes of the Maori Party. Note who the traitors are.
Health
and safety reform bill passes, amid division over worker
representation
Controversial
health and safety legislation, which does does not classify farms as
high risk, has passed in Parliament.
The
Government claims the changes will address New Zealand's workplace
safety standards, while Labour claims a watering down of the
legislation will lead to additional deaths.
Five
pieces of legislation which have been debated as the Health and
Safety Reform Bill, completed its third and final reading in
Parliament this afternoon.
The
legislation passed by 63 votes to 59, with National, the Maori Party,
ACT and UnitedFuture supporting the legislation, while Labour, the
Green Party and NZ First opposed it.
In
the early stages of the bill, prompted following a Royal Commission
of Inquiry into the Pike River Mine Tragedy, there was widespread
support across Parliament.
However
changes following the select committee process, and changes brought
in as a result of an internal debate within National, broke the
consensus.
The
major dividing issue was around requirements for health and safety
representatives in small businesses, with fewer than 20 employees.
Changes
announced in August meant small businesses in industries not defined
as "high risk" would not have a requirement to offer health
and safety representation where requested.
Although
agriculture is responsible for a large proportion of workplace deaths
and serious injuries, dairy farming and sheep and cattle farming both
escape being defined as high risk. Initially at least worm farming
and minigolf were defined as high risk, while explosive laying was
not.
Workplace
Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse said the legislation
marked a "major step in addressing New Zealand's unacceptable
workplace death and injury toll", and the first significant
reform in 20 years.
"It
delivers a system that strikes the right balance between safe
workplaces for workers and unnecessary red tape on businesses,"
Woodhouse said in a statement.
"Under
the new law, the duty for all businesses, regardless of size and risk
level, to have effective worker engagement and participation
practices has been strengthened. However there will be some
flexibility in how a business can choose to do this, to suit their
size and need."
But
Labour's Iain Lees-Galloway said stronger legislation would have
saved more lives.
"Deaths
that could have been prevented by a more robust piece of legislation
could well occur because of weakening of the legislation,"
Lees-Galloway said.
"Health
and safety representation is one of the most effective ways to
improve health and safety in the workplace" and the Royal
Commission into the Pike River Tragedy had recommended that
representation should be required where employees requested it,
Lees-Galloway said.
Labour
claimed that the figures which defined what was high risk were set at
a level to deliberately exclude farming. Lees-Galloway said that
another five serious injuries in dairy farming would have seen it
cross the 25 serious injuries per 1000 workers which defined a 'high
risk' industry.
"I
think this is a direct result of a revolt within the National Party
caucus who have been deeply divided over this for some time."
The
Council of Trade Unions (CTU) said the bill was a "failed
opportunity" which would add to the unnecessary deaths in New
Zealand workplaces.
"When
the Bill was introduced, it had the support of all political parties,
workers and business," CTU general counsel Jeff Sissons said.
"It
was a foundation to rebuild New Zealand's broken health and safety
system. Sadly, the Government lost its nerve in select committee and
the bill came back bearing dozens of cuts and compromises to appease
National's backers. The law will be less effective and more workers
will die and be hurt as a result."
More events in the process of New Zealand's move towards fascism. Firstly Key has been caught out lying and was forced to release text messages between him and Cameron Slater before they were released for him. Key refuses to apologise to the NZ people or to Phil Goff over egregious abuse of state power but HAS apologised to hate speech merchant, Cameron Slater. In the meantime the NZ taxpayer is picking up Slater's legal bills. If you want to know exactly how things have got, listen to this inteview with NZ's Solicitor General and (since Key sacked himself from the position always held by the PM -of-the-day), Minister for the SIS.
Meanwhile, like Paul Buchanan before them, these two academic say it how it is when it comes to the spy legislation that this government is rushing through parliament giving the public ONE DAY to put in submissions - a democratic safeguard the Solicitor General has described as a "three month chit-chat"
Academics
speak out against Terrorist Fighter Legislation
Terrorism
experts say the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, which
is being rammed through Parliament this week is completely
unnecessary and counter-productive
Here are the main stores. PM,
blogger in contact several times
Prime
Minister John Key has admitted being in contact with Cameron Slater a
"handful" of times since two inquiries were launched
relating to information given to the right-wing blogger.
Mr
Key this morning responded to reporters' questions about why he
initially denied being in contact with Mr Slater, when asked
yesterday by reporters and in Parliament.
He
said he could not recall the exact number of occasions on which he
had communicated with Mr Slater, saying it was "a handful"
of times.
He
said he had talked to the blogger ahead of his decision to release a
screen grab of their email exchange on the evening of the release of
reports on the SIS and on former Justice Minister Judith Collins.
In
the first, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn
found the SIS released inaccurate and misleading information leading
to unfounded criticism of former Labour Party leader Phil Goff.
A
second report released on Tuesday cleared former Justice Minister
Judith Collins of undermining Serious Fraud Office (SFO) head Adam
Feely in 2011. The report concluded former and current staff members
of the SFO were leaking information to Cameron Slater and the New
Zealand Herald.
Mr
Key told reporters this morning he treated Mr Slater as he would any
other journalist, and that on each occasion Mr Slater had initiated
the contact.
Yesterday
the Prime Minister returned to Parliament to correct his earlier
answer, confirming the exchange of text messages with Mr Slater about
the Inspector-General's report.
"On
Monday the 24th of November I received an unsolicited text message
from Mr Slater with a reference to the IGIS report. There was a very
short exchange where I briefly acknowledged that text message,"
he said
Anti-terror
bill 'rammed through'
Public
submissions are open on legislation the Government claims will
protect New Zealand from the threat of foreign fighters but
submitters will have to be quick as the deadline is tomorrow.
The
Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill passed
its first reading in
Parliament yesterday.
It
will be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select
Committee, with hearings to be held tomorrow and Friday.
The
bill will be reported back to Parliament on 2 December, and the
Government wants it passed before the House rises for Christmas on
December 11.
The
bill will extend the period the Government can cancel a passport for,
from 12 months to three years. It will also allow the Security
Intelligence Service to carry out greater surveillance than it does
now, including in special cases without a warrant for up to 48 hours.
Chief
Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford said the Government should
not be rushing through bills which impacted on human rights.
"We've
been concerned about the use of urgency for many years," he
said.
"The
problem seems to be that the very bills that affect our human rights
most are the bills that are put through using ugrency."
No
good reason
Auckland
Council for Civil Liberties spokesperson Barry Wilson said he had yet
to hear a good reason for the rush.
"Here's
a bill that affects the rights of all New Zealanders rammed through
Parliament with complete disregard of the normal democratic process.
''
"The
normal reporting back process is four months."
Labour
Party defence spokesperson MP Phil Goff said four working days was a
deplorable amount of time for a select committee to consider the
bill.
He
said the United Kingdom was introducing similar legislation this week
with a deadline of May next year.
But
Labour did offer support for the bill's first reading yesterday,
which passed by 107 votes to 14 with only the Green Party voting
against it.
National
said the bill needs to be rushed through to fill gaps in security
legislation, and wants it passed into law by Christmas.
Academics speak out against Terrorist Fighter Legislation
Terrorism experts say the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, which is being rammed through Parliament this week is completely unnecessary and counter-productive
Cameron
Slater: 'I never said Labour Party were trying to kill me'
Whaleoil
blogger Cameron Slater was this morning backtracking over his claim
that figures within the Labour Party tried to kill him.
Slater
made the claim - dismissed as "delusional" by Labour Party
Leader Andrew Little - in a Monday night text exchange with John Key
which the Prime Minister until late yesterday denied ever took place.
After
being forced to correct earlier statements that he had not been in
recent contact with Slater, Mr Key late last night released an edited
version of his text conversation with Slater.
In
the texts, Slater tells Key he had learned from a journalist on
Monday night that Labour MP Phil Goff had leaked details of
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn's report
into the SIS role in Slater's 2011 political attack on Mr Goff.
He
goes on to claim that former Labour Leader David Cunliffe's chief of
staff Matt McCarten was "involved in hack" - an apparent
reference to the hacking of his email accounts.
The
hacked emails formed the basis of Nicky Hager's book Dirty Politics.
In
an apparent reference to Labour, Slater said "they played the
real dirty politics...even tried to kill me... I have evidence of".
This
morning however, Slater wrote: "Just to be clear, I never said
the Labour Party were trying to kill me. That's the spin the Labour
Party have put on it this morning."
He
said his comments about McCarten and people involved in Dirty
Politics trying to kill him "were separate and distinct".
"The
criminal conspiracy was large enough for some of them not to know
what others were planning in parallel."
'I
don't think it's embarrassing'
Slater
appeared on NewstalkZB this morning but was not asked this morning
about the sensational claims in the text messages last night.
He
rejected claims that Mr Key misled the country when he denied having
contact with him over the reports, adding that he was entitled as a
private citizen to contact whoever he wanted to, and the Prime
Minister had the same right.
"I
don't think it's embarrassing," Slater told NewstalkZB. "He's
the Prime Minister of all New Zealanders."
Slater
said the Prime Minister and he did not discuss the Chisholm inquiry,
so Mr Key was not actually misleading the House. "If you ask a
question with two legs to it then the person answering that question
is entitled to answer just one leg."
Mr
Key yesterday and even on Tuesday morning denied he had any recent
contact with Slater. He later returned to the House to confirm he was
in touch with Slater about Ms Gwyn's report the night before it was
released on Tuesday.
"On
Monday the 24th of November I received an unsolicited text message
from Mr Slater with a reference to the IGIS report. There was a very
short exchange where I briefly acknowledged that text message."
His
office said Mr Key did not discuss the findings with Slater during
that exchange.
Mr
Key explained he had mistakenly thought the initial question related
only to the report that exonerated former Justice Minister Judith
Collins of allegations she worked with Slater to undermine former
Serious Fraud Office boss Adam Feeley. That report was also published
on Tuesday.
Mr
Little said there was "an air of unreality" about the
texts. "Some of them look somewhat delusional."
He
scoffed at the claim Mr McCarten was involved in the hacking. "I
don't think his computer skills go that far."
'Delusional'
Mr
McCarten said claims he hacked Slater and that Labour was planning to
kill the blogger were absurd, fantastical and had a "delusional"
nature. "Cameron, I'm sure, has lots of thoughts in his head
about the way the world works."
Mr
McCarten said the claims had echoes of the hyperbole about Serious
Fraud Office boss Adam Feeley that earlier got Judith Collins in
trouble, where Slater was "exposed" as an exaggerator.
"No
one believes that we were organising to have him killed. I mean, this
is just sad. And the Prime Minister just needs to get better friends
I would suspect."
Mr
Little earlier said the different versions of events raised more
questions about the Prime Minister's office.
"The
Prime Minister gave an answer to a question in Parliament today that
was wrong. People will draw their own conclusions. This is a very
disturbing development at a time when the Prime Minister's office is
under question for its lack of integrity and ethics. We are seeing
more of it yet again."
The
Green Party said Mr Key had demonstrated that his answers to
questions couldn't be trusted.
"The
waters surrounding Mr Key and his attack blogger friend have been
further muddied in the past 48 hours, highlighting the need for a
Royal Commission to investigate the extent of the Prime Minister's
involvement in dirty politics and the use of SIS information for
political purposes," Co-leader Metiria Turei said.
Ms
Turei highlighted that Mr Key's office described him as the Prime
Minister in the transcript of the text conversation with Slater
despite Mr Key's insistence that he didn't' communicate with Slater
in his role as Prime Minister.
"New
Zealanders can't believe what the Prime Minister says, he has been
caught red handed," Mrs Turei said.
Meanwhile,
Ms Gwyn yesterday said she would investigate Mr Goff's
acknowledgement he disclosed findings from her report before its
release.
She
would be seeking further information from him and others.
"The
broadcast or publication of that information may also have
contravened the IGIS Act and, in any case, these events raise
questions for the handling of future reports.
"Any
issue of prosecution will, however, be for the police", she
said.
Mr
Little said Mr Key's admission "throws open a whole new issue".
"Now
the Inspector-General's inquiry into the alleged leak of the report
has to be widened and I expect the Prime Minister to co-operate fully
with [her]."
The
battle for the moral high ground over the leak of the report followed
further efforts from opposition parties to get Mr Key to accept that
his office's role in supplying information provided by the SIS to
Slater, as confirmed by the report, was unethical.
"Why
does he not cut the crap and just apologise to New Zealand for
running a smear machine out of his office?" Mr Little said in
the House.
But
Mr Key said the report found there was no collusion between the SIS
and his staff and they did not breach any obligations of
confidentiality. He added that Labour itself had a history of dirty
tricks.
THE
TRANSCRIPT
Cameron
Slater: gave it away to me...Goff leaked SIS report
John
Key: It's a joke isn't it. They will attack Jason for talking to u
and they break the confidentiality agreement. Classic lab.
Slater:
Yup...I'm very angry over it...Goff is the one who leaked oravida
stuff too.
Slater:
They still have standard bloggers on staff
Slater:
And Mccarten was involved in hack
Key:
Hopefully it will all come out in time
Slater:
I wish they would hurry up...they played the real dirty
politics...even tried to kill me...I have evidence of.
Taxpayers
to foot WhaleOil's legal bills over 'dirty politics' probes
Taxpayers
will be billed up to $10,000 for blogger Cameron Slater's legal fees
for two inquiries into dirty politics.
Slater's
links to the Beehive were at the heart of investigations by retired
High Court judge Lester Chisholm and intelligence watchdog Cheryl
Gwyn, which were published this week.
He
was a witness to both probes, carried out under the 2013 Inquiries
Act. This entitles his lawyers' fees, travel costs and expenses to be
met by the taxpayer.
A
source said Slater's legal costs for the Chisholm investigation -
which examined a campaign to smear Serious Fraud Office boss Adam
Feeley - were between $7500 and $10,000. The budget for the inquiry
was $663,000, but the full costs - including Chisholm's pay packet
are yet to be finalised, a spokesman for the Department Internal
Affairs said.
"The
forecast costs for the inquiry allowed for witnesses to be reimbursed
for costs associated with their appearance ... we are yet to finalise
costs which will be completed once invoices and claims for
reimbursement have been received and processed," he said.
A
spokesman for the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security
could not confirm costs for Gwyn's inquiry or details of Slater's
expenses.
Slater,
who publishes the WhaleOil blog, confirmed he expects his barrister's
fees to be met, at the department's approved rate, but has "no
idea" of the amount. "It was all arranged with Internal
Affairs, but I didn't handle any of that ... I applied, I met the
criteria and that's it, as far as I am concerned."
Earlier
this month Slater appealed for readers of his blog to contribute to
legal fees, stemming from an attempt to injunct media outlets over
Dirty Politics. "It cost me over $60,000," he said.
Meanwhile,
Prime Minister John Key continued to draw fire over the Dirty
Politics scandal yesterday.
Gwyn's
report confirmed Slater was given Security Intelligence Service
documents to use in a political hit in 2011 on Labour leader of the
time Phil Goff.
Slater
was instructed to ask for them by senior staffer Jason Ede, who was
tipped off by Key's deputy chief of staff Phil de Joux. Both have
moved on to other jobs.
Labour
leader Andrew Little told Key to "cut the crap" and tell
the truth about the relationship between "black ops"
adviser Ede and Slater.
However,
Cabinet minister Steven Joyce returned fire, accusing him of "a
little anger issue".
Key
later returned to the House to correct an answer he gave during
Question Time.
He
confirmed he received an "unsolicited" text message from
Slater on Monday, about Gwyn's report. Key says he "acknowledged"
the text.
He
had earlier denied the communication because he thought Labour had
asked if it was in relation to the Chisholm inquiry.
The
11-week Chisholm inquiry cleared former justice minister Judith
Collins of undermining Feeley but was condemned by Greens co-leader
Metiria Turei as "once over lightly"
Having refused even once to have come clean with the New Zealand public and apologise to ex-Labour leader, Phil Goff, Key offers his apologies to friend and hate merchant, Cameron Slater
John
Key says sorry to Whale Oil
The prime minister has apologised to Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater over the release of an email that forced Justice Minister Judith Collins' resignation.
The
discovery comes as John Key awaits an inquiry report into an alleged
smear campaign against the boss of the Serious Fraud Office. An email
from Slater, obtained and released by Key, implicated Collins in the
smear against her own official, saying she had been "gunning"
for SFO director Adam Feeley.
Collins
resigned, insisting she would clear her name. Key called an inquiry.
Slater countered by lodging a privacy complaint against the prime
minister for disclosing a personal email.
The
email indicated Feeley may have been the target of a campaign to
undermine him involving two bloggers, Cathy Odgers and Slater, and
seemingly endorsed by Collins. At the time, Collins was overseeing
the SFO, and the State Services Commission was investigating Feeley's
actions.
Documents
suggested the bloggers had been engaged by embattled Hanover
financier Mark Hotchin to mount attacks, including one on the SFO
director whom they dubbed "Five Fingers Feeley".
Justice
Lester Chisholm is due to present his report to the prime minister
this week. It is likely to clear Collins of any illegal actions.
However, the bloggers may be the subject of criticism.
Despite
this, Key has been forced to say sorry to Slater and Key's office has
confirmed: "The Prime Minister recently wrote to Mr Slater to
apologise."
But
he stood by his actions. "The Prime Minister believes, however,
it was in the public interest to release the email in question
publicly," a spokeswoman said.
The
Prime Minister's Office said it would not release the letter as it
related to a privacy issue, but it was up to Slater to decide if he
wished to make it public.
Slater
yesterday agreed to issue a copy of the letter.
In
it, Key says there was "intense media and public interest in
matters concerning you and Judith Collins, following the publication
of the book Dirty Politics", creating an "election issue".
Slater's
email raised serious questions about Collins' conduct, he says. "In
my view the reasons for Ms Collins' resignation were of real and
legitimate public concern, and it was in the public interest that the
fullest possible factual background be available."
But
Key acknowledges the release of the email provoked increased media
scrutiny of Slater and his family. "I regret any harm that may
have been caused to you or your family by the release of the email,
and hope that this letter may help to bring this matter to a close."
Neither
Collins nor the bloggers were willing to comment before the report
was released.
Otago
University Law Professor Andrew Geddis said he would not be surprised
if the inquiry found no wrongdoing by Collins.
"I'm
not going to say that's a wrong conclusion either. It's always
possible that she was acting as badly as intimated, but I just find
it very hard to believe any politician could be that dumb. It
wouldn't surprise me if [Slater] was just big-noting and puffing up
his own importance with regards to this issue, and that he's
misconstrued gossipy comments from one of their regular telephone
conversations."
Posts
