IPCA to investigate Hager house search

The Independent Police Complaints Authority has propmtly confirmed to the Green Party that it will investigate a complaint about the police actions in searching Nicky Hager’s house.

Metiria Turei has advised by press release:

IPCA to investigate Green’s complaint over Hager search

The Green Party received a letter this afternoon from the IPCA confirming that it will investigate, after the party wrote to the authority on Monday. A High Court judge last week found that the police warrant and search on Mr Hager’s home, which followed the publication of his book Dirty Politics, were unlawful.

“We welcome the IPCA’s prompt decision to investigate the decisions that led to the police warrant and unlawful search of Mr Hager’s home,” said Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei.

“There are many unanswered questions from the Dirty Politics scandal, and why the police made the decision to search Mr Hager’s home is one them.

“Given that the warrant and search on Mr Hager’s house has been ruled unlawful, I asked IPCA to investigate the decisions of senior-ranked police officials involved in applying for the warrant.

“It’s important to remember that Nicky Hager’s work uncovering the dirty politics regime run out of the Prime Minister’s office was the reason for the search.

“The Prime Minister has never properly addressed those allegations, other than to attack Mr Hager’s integrity.

“However the Inspector General of Intelligence did investigate one of Hager’s claims and confirmed the Prime Minister’s staff had handed confidential information provided by the Security intelligence Service to the attack blogger Cameron Slater,” Mrs Turei said.

I think this investigation will be useful in determining whether there was political involvement in police decisions to search Hager’s house.

Labour MPs including Annette King and David Parker have also suggested political ‘pressure’ – see Labour accusations of political pressure on police.

Turei’s emphasis here on ‘Dirty Politics’ suggests a wider agenda as her motive but the IPCA should focus on what influenced police decisions to search Hager’s house.

If there was interference from politicians it’s important that comes out.

And it is as important to know if there was not political pressure in this case, to counter the political accusations and insinuations.

Labour accusations of political pressure on police

Labour MPs have suggested that the police may have acted under political pressure in raiding Nicky Hager’s house. The police deny this.

Acting leader Annette King and Labour’s shadow Attorney-General David Parker have both speculated on Government interference.

Stuff reported Nicky Hager case ‘raises questions’ about political pressure on police – MPs

The illegal police search of journalist Nicky Hager’s home has raised questions about whether police were under pressure from the Government to act, opposition politicians say.

Acting Labour leader Annette King said she was concerned about whether the police’s illegal search was the result of Prime Minister John Key criticising Dirty Politics in the media after the book’s release.

It was very much a political hothouse…the police don’t have cloth ears: they hear what’s being said and they hear what’s happening in the community.

“My concern is that huge political pressure comes on them to do something about it when they hear the Government making derogatory comments and the Government saying it’s all a jack-up…it puts huge pressure on the police for action.”

King said another example was the “teapot tapes” case, in which freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose was investigated but not charged by police after he claimed to have accidentally recorded a conversation between Key and ACT MP John Banks on the campaign trail in 2011.

Because it involved the Prime Minister, the speed at which the police reacted, when you get reports on a regular basis at your electorate office that serious issues like having your house burgled or your car stolen can hardly raise a response…it’s in that environment that I’m concerned.”

Police needed to be “totally even-handed” when looking at all cases regardless of political pressure, while Key also needed to refrain from putting pressure on the police.

“I think it’s up to a Prime Minister to act in a prime ministerial way as well – at that time, he acted more like a gutter politician.”

Serious speculation and accusations.

However, police have rebuffed the claims, saying they are “without foundation”.

In a press release Parker goes further, claiming “unlawful action by police during two elections in a row”.

That’s an even more serious accusation. Except that the police actions were not during elections.

Landmark ruling finds Police acted illegally – Parker

Today’s landmark ruling from Justice Clifford that a raid on the home of journalist Nicky Hager was illegal means there was unlawful action by police during two elections in a row, Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General David Parker says.

“For the past two elections complaints in the media from the Prime Minister have led to inappropriate and excessive action by the police against journalists.

“In 2011 it was the tea tapes following a media stunt gone wrong between John Key and John Banks.

“Last year the disreputable antics of the National Party involving Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater, Jason Ede in the Prime Minister’s office, Judith Collins, and the Prime Minister himself were outed in Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics.

“He was painted as a villain by the Government after the release of his book and today’s finding vindicates him.

“Instead of the police attention being on the perpetrators, John Key kept asserting Nicky Hager based his book on hacked emails. The police in turn reacted on the public complaints by the Prime Minister and the formal complaint by Cameron Slater, and again turned on the media.

“We should be grateful that in New Zealand we have a brave and independent judiciary that can make today’s ruling.

“Now the police and the Prime Minister need to publicly accept the politicisation of the police was serious and wrong,” David Parker says.

Or are Parker’s politicisation and accusations of the police here serious and wrong?

The police are damned when they do and damned when the don’t take any action on politically related issues.

There are risks that police actions could influence political outcomes.

But there is a greater risk that by avoiding doing anything with possible political connotations important and potentially serious acts are not properly examined by our judiciary. And to put things before our judiciary the police have to first investigate.

Labour backing RMA bill for now

Recently National introduced a Resource Management reform bill that would leave environmental protections at the insistence of the Maori Party and Peter Dunne. Dunne was involved in writing the original Resource Management Act.

Initially two Labour spokespeople voiced some concerns, but a third has now said that Labour will support the reform bill to committee stage at least.

But what should be a positive for Labour has been laced with negativity.

Megan Woods: RMA changes must protect the environment

RMA changes must protect the environment

A Government bill to reform the RMA must not be used as a chance to tinker with its key role of protecting the environment, says Labour’s Environmental spokesperson Megan Woods.

“We will have to look at the proposed changes carefully as there are 200 pages in this Bill. We will be watching to make sure there is a decent chance for people to have their say through the select committee stage over what will clearly be a complex piece of legislation.

“The RMA is New Zealand’s core environmental protection and those protections must remain. That is our bottom line.

“Our offer to work together on sensible reforms is still on the table. This offer stands.

“We will be concerned at any changes around appeals to the Environment Court or any undermining of case law around the environment.

“We will be looking to see if the Bill elevates private property rights above wider community interests.

“This new Bill must meet these environmental bottom lines. We will be looking carefully at the Government’s intentions,” says Megan Woods.

: RMA changes skim surface for Maori participation

Protecting the environment and getting the right balance for sustainable development will be a core test of the proposed RMA changes, says Labour’s Maori Development spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta.

David Parker: Labour will back RMA changes at first reading

Labour will back changes to the Resource Management Act because it is a step in the right direction, Labour’s Environmental spokesperson David Parker says.

“We have always said we would support sensible process improvements to the RMA. We are pleased National lost the battle to undermine the core environmental protections in the Act.

“These process changes are modest and will do little to fix the causes of the housing crisis. But they will have some positive impacts around the margins.

“For that reason Labour will support this Bill to select committee.

“This legislation is no magic solution. It is an abject surrender by National because – after years of blaming the RMA for out-of-control housing prices – they know gutting the Act is not the solution.

“Labour has offered to work with Nick Smith to come up with meaningful changes but he has repeatedly refused to do so,” David Parker says

So Labour will vote for the bill to be introduced, which is positive.

But Parker chose to lace what should have been a good news story with political vitriol. So even on overdue RMA reform the impression is left of a negative Labour Party.

Parker replaced Woods as Labour’s Environmental spokesperson in Monday’s reshuffle.

Labourites strongly against TPPA

The dominant online Labour view on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is negative, despite Helen Clark saying it was ‘unthinkable’ that New Zealand stay out of such a large Pacific Rim trade agreement (and despite it being initiated by Labour in 2003 and worked on right through to the end of Clark’s tenure in 2008).

Rob Salmond seems to expand on Grant Robertson’s themes in TPP, eh? at Public Address.

The deal really is a very big one globally; it’s just not such a big deal for New Zealand.

It looks to me like the biggest loser in the deal is Mexico. It doesn’t get much in the way of market access that it didn’t already have via NAFTA, and the US-Japan deal on autos hurts a lot of Mexican factories purpose-built to supply auto parts from Japanese car companies into the US.

New Zealand isn’t as big of a loser as Mexico, but its gains are very small, and could get swallowed by the sovereignty losses.

Comments are also generally negative.

Greg Presland at The Standard: TPPA agreement reached

The TPPA has been agreed to. Dairy access improvement is minimal, there will be a cost hit on Pharmac and every industry but Tobacco will be able to access the investor state dispute resolution procedure.

Lynn Prentice at The Standard not strictly speaking a Labourite now): As expected, TPPA gives a peanut return

In 15 to 25 years, long long after I have retired,  and the TPPA is fully realised. It maybe worth an extra $260 million per year in possible tariff benefits. By contrast, the China Free Trade Agreement within 5 years was increasing our exports each year by an extra $350 million. But the costs for the TPPA start as soon as it is signed. We may make a profit off it in 10 years. This is not a good deal.

Anthony Robins: TPP roundup

A roundup of the best analysis of and reaction to the TPP. The gains are minor and delayed, the losses are real. In NZ we don’t have any democratic input into ratification, but the US does, and the deal may fall there.

Robins starts his post quoting staunch TPPA opponents Jane Kelsey and Gordon Campbell.

What about the Labour Party itself?

NBR reports: Labour says jury’s out on supporting TPP

Senior Labour Party politicians are waiting for the detail of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade and investment pact before declaring whether it breaches any of the five “bottom lines” the party says the TPP must meet before deciding whether to maintain the long-standing practice of bi-partisan political support for trade deals.

Written statements from acting Labour leader Annette King and finance spokesman Grant Robertson both cited the bottom lines without saying they had been breached.

“Too early to be sure,” said Mr Robertson in answer to a texted question from BusinessDesk. “On land/housing sales, it doesn’t look good, with Aussie-style ban on purchase of existing houses seemingly prevented.”

In her statement, Mrs King said: “Labour supports free trade but the TPPA is more than just a trade agreement. The government must come clean now on what ‘ugly compromises’ they have made behind closed doors.”

So some general criticisms but understandably they need to wait to see the details.

But notably:

Leader Andrew Little is on holiday and has not commented and the party’s trade spokesman, David Parker, is also out of the country.

Unfortunate timing for Little – or perhaps fortunate, it gives him time to digest the agreement and work out a suitable response, but his absence has left a vacuum for Labour’s online warriors to attack the agreement.

Parker’s absence may also be just a quirk of timing, it’s common for MPs to take a break during Parliamentary recesses and school holidays.

But as Labour’s Trade and Export Growth spokesperson Parker seems to have been quiet on the TPPA for some time. His last news release as posted on Labour’s website was on 19 August (on Saudi sheep and SkyCity).

His last item on the TPP was on July 31 – Will poor TPP dairy outcome stop National selling out our homes?

Like the details of the TPPA Labour’s position on the twelve country trade agreement may take some time to emerge with any clarity.

Stuart Nash conflicted on TPP opposition

Steven Joyce has highlighted the fact that a number of Labour MPs actively supported and spoke at Trans Pacific Partnership protests on Saturday. He also poited out that this may conflict with Labour’s interest in promoting regional development.

NZ Herald: Labour MPs’ TPP protests under fire:

Mr Joyce, the Economic Development Minister, said Labour tried to suggest it was generally in favour of TPP and trade deals as a way of backing regional New Zealand but then attended anti-TPP rallies, including in Hawkes Bay.

“I think they are certainly split on it but it also shows they haven’t got any discipline on it either.”

He was most surprised at the attendance of Mr Nash, of Napier, one of the few MPs Labour has from regional New Zealand.

“These trade deals are about the meat industry, the apple industry, the wine industry, the horticultural industry, all those food areas getting access to some of the biggest populations in the world and lowering their tariffs and he is wandering along to an anti-TPP rally.”

I think that’s a fair point, especially for a Hawkes bay MP.

Mr Nash was one of at least six Labour MPs who took part in nationwide marches on Saturday, as was Labour’s trade spokesman, David Parker, who spoke at the Dunedin rally. Others were Phil Twyford, Ruth Dyson, Megan Woods, and Clare Curran, while Jacinda Ardern apologised for her absence.

And Labour’s trade spokeperson David parker was also supporting protests agaist a trade agreement.

Nash defended his involvement.

Mr Nash said he had been an importer and trader for eight years.

“I support free trade, without a question of a doubt, but it is not free trade at any cost.

“I know how valuable trade can be … but I have real concerns about this free trade agreement.

“Because we have no idea what is in this agreement, it is impossible to support it.”

He has no idea what’s in the agreement but has real concerns about it and says it is “impossible to support it.”

I’m not sure whay he’s so ignorant about it, I’ve heard quite a bit about what might be in the agreement, should it be signed.

But why is his default position (if he really has ‘no idea’ what might be in the agreement) to oppose the TPP when it could potentially be of significant benefit to the region he represents?

Shouldn’t he be arguing for an agreement that’s favourable?

Nash and Labour seem to have a strategy of opposing anything the Government is working on, even when they would almost certainly be supporting the policies and initiatives if they were in Government, the TPP and flag change beig current prominent examples.

They might be credible if they opposed specific aspects of the agreement that have been publicised, but claiming total ignorance and appearing to totally oppose the TPP looks like a party entrenced in Opposition.

Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill

A Member’s Bill put forward by David Parker has passed it’s first reading tonight by one vote.

Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to extend its provisions to apply to payments under a contract for services that are remunerated at below the minimum wage.

For: Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, United Future

Against: National, ACT

Explanatory note:

General policy statement

People engaged as contractors have few of the protections of employees. They can be paid at a rate which is less than the minimum wage.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to extend its provisions to apply to payments under a contract for services that are remunerated at below the minimum wage. Currently certain types of work, such as pamphlet deliveries, are not subject to any minimum wage requirements because remuneration is paid under a contract for services. The Bill provides for such contractors to be paid not less than a minimum rate, equivalent to the minimum wage.

As is the case for the minimum wage, the rate can be either hourly or on a piece rate basis.

Parker’s speech:

Improving tax compliance on capital gains

In the past Labour MPs have repeatedly claimed and implied that property speculators don’t have to pay tax on capital gains. A year ago then leader David Cunliffe and finance spokesperson David Parker both pushed this fallacy. From Cunliffe and Parker repeat claims on property speculation:

David Cunliffe in a speech to Young Labour:

We have too many children who are getting sick because they live in cold, damp, cramped houses with black mould growing up the walls. Sometimes owned by speculators who just push the rent up while getting rich on tax-free capital gains.

David Parker on The Nation:

“You need to tax the speculators….capital gains tax”
“Loan to valuation ratios would not be needed if they were taxing speculators and building affordable homes.”
“National Party, despite the fact that we had 40 percent house inflation, they’re not doing anything about it. Not taxing speculators…”

Presuming they must have known that IRD does pursue compliance on taxing the capital gains of speculators this looked dishonest.

It’s good to see that Andrew Little seems to be either more informed or more honest. He recently suggesting that the Reserve Bank target speculators as reported in Focus on spec buyers: Little

 Mr Little said the Government must take action on property speculators who were damaging the housing market.

Mr Little is known to not favour the introduction of a capital gains tax, something Labour had campaigned on in the last two elections and lost.

Mr Little said there were several options the Government could take to prevent property speculators building up large housing portfolios and pushing up house prices.

First home buyers, or those who wanted a rental property for retirement, were being shut out of the market by lending restrictions that should be targeted at property speculators who sometimes owned 10 to 20 houses and sat on them, he said.

”The solution needs to focus on Auckland. There is no point in a family trying to buy a house in Wanganui, where prices are dropping, being subject to lending restrictions designed to lower house price inflation.”

Another solution could be those buying multiple properties needing a higher level of equity for subsequent purchases, he said.

But the most important action was to build more houses to increase supply.

He’s on the same page as National in seeing the need to increase the supply of houses. And I’d expect him to agree with Bill English in his approach in IRD to clamp down on speculators.

Finance Minister Bill English yesterday rejected calls by the Reserve Bank to remove tax incentives for investment housing, which the bank has blamed for rising house prices in Auckland. But he said there was an ongoing discussion about whether the Inland Revenue Department could be doing more to enforce existing rules on property trading.

Mr English said there was already a tax in place for people who bought property with the aim of reselling it.

And with real estate agents and buyers reporting high levels of trading activity in Auckland, “there is a question of whether that should give rise to further enforcement activity”.

Speculators are already taxed, when the IRD can determine that they have been speculating.

At present, speculators have to declare that they are buying a house with the intention of reselling it. They are then taxed on the sale.

The IRD scrutinises property transaction records to make sure people are complying with this rule. In particular, it looks at how quickly a house is sold and the number of houses a person is selling.

Figures released by the IRD showed that $52.4 million was collected in 2013/2014 from speculators or traders – either from one-off speculative transactions or patterns of dealing. This figure is expected to increase in 2014/15. The IRD has already collected $63.2 million.

So IRD are addressing speculation and their tax take is increasing.

Any potential changes to the IRD’s resources would be announced as part of the Budget on May 15.

That suggests that the rules are seen as sufficient but that more resources may be provided to improve compliance with tax on capital gains when speculating.

Slater with Garner – a bit of a bully goat

Duncan Garner talked to Cameron Slater yesterday on his ‘The Hour of Power’ on Radio Live.

Garner: One of the more controversial players this year, and I’ve put him in my top five because he has impact. You may not like him, you may despise him actually and you may think he plays a pretty rough game, but this guy you cannot ignore him. Cameron Slater, Whale Oil, Cam good afternoon to you.

Slater: Good afternoon Duncan.

Garner: Do you like the fact that, well I’ll be pretty blunt here, that um a lot of people hate you?

Slater: I don’t care. I literally don’t care if they hate me or despise me, um, that says more about them and their thought processes that they allow themselves to be consumed by hate, because I literally don’t hate anybody um in this country and certainly not anybody involved in the beautiful game of politics.

Garner: Yeah although you do run some pretty um, some pretty aggressive attacks with a hate lines. you say you don’t hate anybody but one look at your blog and um you might think that you do.

Slater: When was the last time you read my blog Duncan?

Garner: Ah about an hour ago actually before I came on air.

Slater: And where’s the hate in there? There’s thirty odd posts there today, thirty yesterday or so, there’s not a word of hate there anywhere.

Garner: Yeah it wouldn’t be hard to find.

Slater: I don’t think people are a little bit subjective and a little bit soft and just don’t like the robust confronting that I do and that’s too bad ’cause I’m going to keep on doing it.

Garner: Let me just quote you one thing though mate, you said you play politics or blog like the Fijians play rugby”I’ll smash your face into the ground”, that’s pretty aggressive.

Slater: Oh it is pretty aggressive, but you know this is politics not tiddly winks. You know people want to, you take David Parker today, he stood up in the house again, smeared everybody, not a shred of evidence, he’s too gutless to say it outside of the house.

I say things in my own name, I say it on radio, on my blog, in public, and I’m not afraid of confronting the truth, but these gutless little wimps in Parliament are too cowardly to say anything outside of the house, and it’s my role in society to deal with that.

Slater has chosen that role.

He isn’t afraid of ‘confronting the truth’, bluntly (what is true is often disputed). He does it under his own name publicly. No problem with that.

He has fearlessly pushed boundaries and led the bleeding edge of blogging in New Zealand politics.

But he can be gutless as well. His blog blocks, censors and bans people confronting him with truth. That’s as gutless as any politician.

But he isn’t good at being confronted. He’s a bully who often over-reacts vindictively if someone annoys him.

Slater uses a sledgehammer and through his draconian blog moderation he takes the tiddlywinks off people who have tried to tell opinions or truths he doesn’t want competing with his own attack lines.

He may not hate anyone but his comments, his posts, his attacks can often appear as hateful.

Some of his attacks on David Parker recently gone further than aggresiveness, they have been unnecessarily nasty and spiteful. It’s possible to confront the truth aggressively without playing the dirty card.

Slater has a well worn pack of dirty cards. That diminishes his impact and effect because it’s easy to dismiss his over the top attacks as just hate and dirt.

It’s unlikely he will change his approach, which is an extreme mix of guts and gutless.

He’s a bit of a bully goat.

How not to end your year

David Parker hasn’t had a good year.

ParkerQT11

The Labour policies he contributed significantly to helped lose Labour the election. He then contested and lost the Labour leadership, and looked like that whacked him hard.

Today in the last day of Parliament of the year Parker was the last to try and score a hit for Labour in Question time. It was as successful as his policies and leadership bid.

He seems dispirited and will probably be seriously contemplating his future over the Christmas break.

InTheHouse has somehow stuffed up their last two transcripts for the year, this one is not there. Probably just as well not to be on the record.

David Parker’s SFO allegations

Yesterday under Parliamentary privilege Labour MP David Parker made allegations about undermining the Serious Fraud Office.

Radio NZ reports Parker raises Hotchin, SFO allegations

Labour MP David Parker has used parliamentary privilege to call for a deeper investigation into allegations arising from Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics.

He also told Parliament he had been informed of unsubstantiated claims about businessman Mark Hotchin, and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) inquiry into the collapse of Hanover Finance.

Details in the book resulted in a government inquiry into whether the minister in charge of the SFO at the time, Judith Collins, was involved in a campaign to undermine the then head of the SFO, Adam Feeley.

Ms Collins resigned as a minister at the time but has since been cleared of any wrongdoing by the inquiry.

However, serious questions remained, Mr Parker said in the House today.

He told Parliament two people had approached him making serious allegations about Mark Hotchin and the SFO investigation into him.

Video of Parker’s speech:

General Debate (draft Hansard transcript)

Speech – Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour)

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): There remains much to be investigated arising from the Nicky Hager book. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security showed last week the politicisation of the SIS by the head of the SIS and the Prime Minister’s own staff in his office.

What was written off by the Prime Minister as a left-wing conspiracy during the election was proven to be true: underhand tactics being used by the Prime Minister and the SIS. National was cynical enough on the day of the release of that report to drop two others including the report by Justice Chisholm into Judith Collins.

That report found that Judith Collins did not undermine the Serious Fraud Office. It found that there was no evidence in that regard. It did not inquire into whether Judith Collins had been improper in respect of Oravida —whether she had a personal conflict of interest there, a financial one.

It did not inquire into whether it was proper of her to pass information about public servants to Slater and it did not inquire as to whether the other allegations as to undermining the Serious Fraud Office were correct. Those matters were all outside the terms of reference.

The report did not exonerate Judith Collins in respect of those other matters and the report does not exonerate anyone else in respect of what may have been happening in respect of the undermining of the Serious Fraud Office.

What do we now know? We know that thousands of dollars were being paid every month via Carrick Graham to Mr Slater. Presumably thousands of dollars were also being paid to Carrick Graham himself.

What were both of them doing? Well, they were both undermining the Serious Fraud Office.

Who were they doing it for? We do not yet know who they were doing it for. It looks like they may have been doing it for Mr Hotchin .

Why would Mr Hotchin have been interested in doing that? Well, he was being investigated as to whether he should be charged with criminal offences following the half a billion dollars of losses suffered through Hanover Finance failing. He was being investigated at the time by the Serious Fraud Office.

I have had two people make worrying allegations to me. One is a former staff member of the Serious Fraud Office who told me that at the time that the Serious Fraud Office commenced its investigation a former adviser to Hotchin contacted this person and said:

“Hotchin plays a rough game. You watch out. He will use underhand tactics to undermine the Serious Fraud Office and their staff.”

The second allegation I have had made to me was that Mr Hotchin used underhand tactics to take out some of the potential witnesses against him in respect of his conduct by Hanover Finance.

I cannot name either of those sources and I cannot prove those allegations to be true. They are both hearsay allegations to me but these allegations must be investigated.

We have seen in respect of the SIS matters that there was fire behind the smoke and in respect of these allegations we know that thousands of dollars were presumably being paid by Hotchin to Carrick Graham and Slater and Cathy Odgers in respect of their efforts to undermine the Serious Fraud Office.

What we do not know is whether those actions were criminal and whether there was a criminal conspiracy. I made a complaint to the police over 2 months ago in respect of that. The only information I have had back other than to inquire whether I had more evidence was a line in the Chisholm report to say that the allegations in respect of Judith Collins were not being looked to any further, but it looks like no further actions are being inquired into.

These are serious allegations. They must be looked seriously at by the authorities. We have seen the politicisation of the SIS.

We must make sure that the police have not been politicised. They were happy enough to inquire into the teapot tapes, to cooperate with the Prime Minister to deem Mr Ambrose guilty despite the fact that he had two arguable defences, and yet we do not have the police looking at these most serious allegations as to whether the other allegations in the Hager book are true.

Indeed, Mr Hager—and if it were not for his efforts none of the SIS stuff would have come out and none of this other stuff would have been investigated—is the one who is being raided. He is the one who has suffered search warrants and yet neither Mr Slater, Ms Odgers, Mr Hotchin, nor the others like Carrick Graham seem to have been investigated by the police, and I do not think that is good enough.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,147 other followers