Leaker has name suppression

No, this obviously isn’t about Peter Dunne, but it’s similarity (except for suppression) is interesting, especially as Labour’s Grant Robertson wants police to force Peter Dunne to give evidence.

Leaker’s identity remains secret

The mystery continues over the identity of the person suspected of leaking sensitive cabinet papers about plans for restructuring the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The person, known in court proceedings as “A”, will go to the Court of Appeal to protect details about their identity.

In High Court judgments made public this morning Justice Robert Dobson said “A” planned to appeal, and suppression orders would continue in the meantime.

The judge had intended to release where the person worked at the time, previously and presently, but lawyers for “A” succeeded in keeping those details suppressed as well.

Paula Rebstock was appointed to head an inquiry after Labour foreign affairs spokesman Phil Goff claimed under parliamentary privilege to have been given leaked details of plans for restructuring at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The details came from sensitive Cabinet committee documents.

“A” is alleged to have scanned and copied the documents on May 1, last year, but has repeatedly denied distributing them.

Dunne has had no opportunity to have name suppression, and appealing is out of the question, the political kangaroo court has already made up it’s mind and Labour want a forced confession.

As David Farrar says in Opposition parties may look silly over Police complaints.

Now let us compare this leak to the leak of a Cabinet paper on MFAT restructuring. Unlike the Kitteridge report, the Cabinet paper was not a paper about to be released to the public. Cabinet papers are for Cabinet, and that paper was leaked even before it got to Cabinet (off memory).

That leak is clearly just as “bad” a leak as the Kitteridge report, and arguably worse.

Yet in this case Labour have spent months arguing the leak should not be pursued, and that a leak inquiry is a waste of money. Flagrant hypocrisy. And I hope one day, we will be publicly able to publish why Labour is so frightened about the leaker’s identity being revealed, and any links back to them.

Perhaps Grant Robertson can change his stance on the police inquiry he wants for Dunne.

Leave a comment

6 Comments

  1. I am wondering if the Police can do anything? Because this issue is about National Security, not domestic criminality. This issue is also bordering on Treason (Complicity in trying to bring down a sitting government). The reason behind my weekend long analysis is that the true leaker purposely leaked what may be classified or Top Secret Documents for whatever reason but to stain relations between National and UnitedFuture? Then if Winston Peters found out, then he has implicated himself in said act because of his sudden knowledge of David Henry’s request for Peter Dunne’s emails. How did he know about them? As Michelle Boag on Q + A this morning (TVOne) said, it could only have come from Andrea Vance. Boag also wondered what kind of game was she playing? For me, the answer would be an extremely dangerous one when it comes to receiving Top Secret documents. Another point to remember is Peter Dunne may have personal regrets not giving up all emails which does not look good when asked why not? That may be his mistake but I believe he has been used as scapegoat for a much bigger picture game being played out. We must also remember this GCSB saga goes all the way back to the infamous Dotcom Raid.

    To conclude:
    1. Peter Dunne is not the leaker. But by not handing over all the emails, does him damage because there are now too many questions about the contents of those held back.
    2. Andrea Vance should be arrested for receiving government documents, especially if the content is the issue of National Security, before they were ready to be released. Was the Top Secret Appendices also included? I doubt that.
    3. A small number of Senior MPs will now know the identity of the leaker. So one must see if Treason has been committed? I believe it’s getting very close. Does that make Andrea Vance an accomplice? Yes, to expose a report related to National Security is extremely dangerous. She played a game for her career, not for the best interest of New Zealanders.
    4. Winston Peters should also be arrested. He is also an accomplice to bring down a government, which in part has succeeded by removing a single crucial vote – Peter Dunne. John Banks may well be next. He has not shown evidence or explained how he got the information (See the excellent interview on The Nation this morning (TV3) with Winston Peters).
    5. Suddenly, the Opposition has used the de-registration of UnitedFuture and Email scandal of Peter Dunne to speed the process of eliminating a crucial vote in the House.They are like Grease Monkeys lubricating further the machine of destroying UF for after 2014. I find said behaviour really devious; and totally immature of grown adults

    I will add further observations if I find them.

    Reply
  2. Diane Yeldon

     /  10th June 2013

    I wonder whether this is whistle blowing and whether legislation for that covers it….?

    Reply
    • Diane,

      I wonder that too. This is why I am thinking a long those longs too To me as I said above it smacks of Treason

      Reply
  3. Pete, after reading your post ‘GCSB leak not criminal- lawyer’, i retract my comment about the leak being a national security matter but it leaves serious questions.

    Reply
  1. GCSB leak not criminal – lawyer | Your NZ
  2. Shearer contortions on Dunne | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s