National's Budget leak documents 2019

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › National's Budget leak documents 2019

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2248439 30-May-2019 13:06

tdgeek:

National has a part here, what they did is illegal, Bridges is the leader, political science degree, and a lawyer. he knows what right and whats wrong

He does. And he seems to think there was no criminal action at all. But the 'ignored advice' angle is wrong because Bridges was not given advice that relates to this. He thinks it's above board.

There is nothing in the article that suggests Bridges sought and received advice that what he was about to do was not legal and he did it anyway.

If this is the case, Stuff needs to say so. Because the implication of the headline and what the article says are very different.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2248440 30-May-2019 13:06

GV27:

given that you're only focusing on Bridges and not the ethics of the other members who have made themselves part of this.

Where do you feel Robertson sits? If Treasury fed lies to Government, then the Government is an innocent bystander. Treasury claiming hacking on the one hand and National saying they did nothing illegal on the other. If this is the case then they did nothing wrong and are left in limbo. Until we hear if they knew anything more and when, they seem innocent

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2248441 30-May-2019 13:08

GV27:

I note the Stuff headline that says National ignored advice doesn't actually state that National received advice that they should not release documents. It just says this:

"But National's release of sensitive information two days out from the budget being delivered, goes against official recommendations. It was also still illegal, lawyers say."

The headline strongly implies they received specific advise about this information. But the article just cites guidelines does not state that National received advice relating to these documents. That's a very different notion to what the headline is selling.

Again, there seems to be a forensic inspection of what National did and no accountability for the statements made by Government ministers.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/113111605/nationals-budget-leaks-go-against-security-agencys-advice-and-treasury-breach-was-unlawful-lawyers-say

"The National Party went against the advice of a Government agency by releasing sensitive Budget information accessed through a vulnerability in Treasury's website."

...

"If someone knew they did not have authority to access information on the internet but accessed it regardless, and continued to do that more than 2000 times, as Treasury claims, then that was against the law, he said.

"The circumstances of it are highly suspicious in terms of criminal activity," Geiringer said.

"If you're doing something you know you're not allowed to do then it doesn't matter how easy it is to do, it's against the law."

Do you get it ?

If Bridges did not know he was not entitled to that information, especially after advice, then he has to be the stupidest MP in Parliament.

The ONLY choices are, Bridges did something wrong OR he is a complete moron.

What other people did or did not say or do is 100% irrelevant to Bridges and what he said, what he did.

The more he and others try to spin this is just more evidence he is unwilling and unable to take responsibility for his own actions and choices. THAT makes him unfit to be PM.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2248443 30-May-2019 13:10

GV27:

tdgeek:

National has a part here, what they did is illegal, Bridges is the leader, political science degree, and a lawyer. he knows what right and whats wrong

He does. And he seems to think there was no criminal action at all. But the 'ignored advice' angle is wrong because Bridges was not given advice that relates to this. He thinks it's above board.

There is nothing in the article that suggests Bridges sought and received advice that what he was about to do was not legal and he did it anyway.

If this is the case, Stuff needs to say so. Because the implication of the headline and what the article says are very different.

I see that ALL the time. Every day.

He should really know the conventions etc, but if he held your stance over web searches, then it's fair enough he would take that as different, and therefore legal, no issue with that. Its grey. Some say its now public, some lawyers says its criminal, some lawyers say its civil

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2248444 30-May-2019 13:12

tdgeek:

Where do you feel Robertson sits? If Treasury fed lies to Government, then the Government is an innocent bystander. Treasury claiming hacking on the one hand and National saying they did nothing illegal on the other. If this is the case then they did nothing wrong and are left in limbo. Until we hear if they knew anything more and when, they seem innocent

Ministerial accountability is a thing. At least, it used to be. If your department has made a criminal complaint to shut up the opposition who found you made an IT boo-boo and made parts of the budget visible on your own website's search function, that's a huge problem. It's not the public sector's job to muzzle the opposition.

If Robertson has been mislead, then he shouldn't ask for resignations at Treasury, he should be sacking people. If he knew, he's culpable. I strongly suspect it's the former rather than the latter. Merely addressing issues of state sector neutrality with OIAs that can be delayed, deferred or ignored is simply not good enough, especially given the assertions around criminal activity and the contrary opinion of the police.

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2248446 30-May-2019 13:13

GV27:

tdgeek:

National has a part here, what they did is illegal, Bridges is the leader, political science degree, and a lawyer. he knows what right and whats wrong

He does. And he seems to think there was no criminal action at all. But the 'ignored advice' angle is wrong because Bridges was not given advice that relates to this. He thinks it's above board.

There is nothing in the article that suggests Bridges sought and received advice that what he was about to do was not legal and he did it anyway.

If this is the case, Stuff needs to say so. Because the implication of the headline and what the article says are very different.

So you have discussed this personally with Simon Bridges and know exactly what he was told and by whom ?

Other Lawyers disagree with your assessment.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2248448 30-May-2019 13:15

sir1963:

If Bridges did not know he was not entitled to that information, especially after advice, then he has to be the stupidest MP in Parliament.

The ONLY choices are, Bridges did something wrong OR he is a complete moron.

Show me where it says he got advice that specifically relates to the release of these documents and he chose to ignore it. I think you'll find that article doesn't say that at all.

Because he's a former persecutor and you're a dude on the internet who seems weirdly fixated on him. I know who's opinion I'm going with for now.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2248449 30-May-2019 13:16

sir1963:

So you have discussed this personally with Simon Bridges and know exactly what he was told and by whom ?

No.

I am saying that article does not back up the assertion you and the headline are making. Why is the burden of proof on me to prove otherwise? I'm not the one making the assertion that doesn't seem to be backed up by any sort of fact.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2248450 30-May-2019 13:17

GV27:

tdgeek:

Where do you feel Robertson sits? If Treasury fed lies to Government, then the Government is an innocent bystander. Treasury claiming hacking on the one hand and National saying they did nothing illegal on the other. If this is the case then they did nothing wrong and are left in limbo. Until we hear if they knew anything more and when, they seem innocent

Ministerial accountability is a thing. At least, it used to be. If your department has made a criminal complaint to shut up the opposition who found you made an IT boo-boo and made parts of the budget visible on your own website's search function, that's a huge problem. It's not the public sector's job to muzzle the opposition.

If Robertson has been mislead, then he shouldn't ask for resignations at Treasury, he should be sacking people. If he knew, he's culpable. I strongly suspect it's the former rather than the latter. Merely addressing issues of state sector neutrality with OIAs that can be delayed, deferred or ignored is simply not good enough, especially given the assertions around criminal activity and the contrary opinion of the police.

I agree pretty much. I dont wnat this enquiry to be a "we found learnings here" It needs to be we issued pink slips here

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2248453 30-May-2019 13:19

GV27:

tdgeek:

Where do you feel Robertson sits? If Treasury fed lies to Government, then the Government is an innocent bystander. Treasury claiming hacking on the one hand and National saying they did nothing illegal on the other. If this is the case then they did nothing wrong and are left in limbo. Until we hear if they knew anything more and when, they seem innocent

Ministerial accountability is a thing. At least, it used to be. If your department has made a criminal complaint to shut up the opposition who found you made an IT boo-boo and made parts of the budget visible on your own website's search function, that's a huge problem. It's not the public sector's job to muzzle the opposition.

If Robertson has been mislead, then he shouldn't ask for resignations at Treasury, he should be sacking people. If he knew, he's culpable. I strongly suspect it's the former rather than the latter. Merely addressing issues of state sector neutrality with OIAs that can be delayed, deferred or ignored is simply not good enough, especially given the assertions around criminal activity and the contrary opinion of the police.

Peter Dunne said "politicians call for resignations when they have nothing else to say", or words to that effect.

I agree, its grandstanding and a distraction.

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2248462 30-May-2019 13:28

GV27:

sir1963:

So you have discussed this personally with Simon Bridges and know exactly what he was told and by whom ?

No.

I am saying that article does not back up the assertion you and the headline are making. Why is the burden of proof on me to prove otherwise? I'm not the one making the assertion that doesn't seem to be backed up by any sort of fact.

Oh, because you said "But the 'ignored advice' angle is wrong because Bridges was not given advice that relates to this."

That seems to be a very authoritative assertion and I was wondering on what basis you could make such a statement.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2248464 30-May-2019 13:29

sir1963:

Oh, because you said "But the 'ignored advice' angle is wrong because Bridges was not given advice that relates to this."

That seems to be a very authoritative assertion and I was wondering on what basis you could make such a statement.

My point was there's nothing in that article to back that up. Their headline makes that suggestion.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2248468 30-May-2019 13:37

GV27:

sir1963:

If Bridges did not know he was not entitled to that information, especially after advice, then he has to be the stupidest MP in Parliament.

The ONLY choices are, Bridges did something wrong OR he is a complete moron.

Show me where it says he got advice that specifically relates to the release of these documents and he chose to ignore it. I think you'll find that article doesn't say that at all.

Because he's a former persecutor and you're a dude on the internet who seems weirdly fixated on him. I know who's opinion I'm going with for now.

Persecutor LOL :-)

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2248472 30-May-2019 13:38

tdgeek:

Persecutor LOL :-)

Maybe if you ask Jamie-Lee Ross...

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2248473 30-May-2019 13:38

GV27:

sir1963:

If Bridges did not know he was not entitled to that information, especially after advice, then he has to be the stupidest MP in Parliament.

The ONLY choices are, Bridges did something wrong OR he is a complete moron.

Show me where it says he got advice that specifically relates to the release of these documents and he chose to ignore it. I think you'll find that article doesn't say that at all.

Because he's a former persecutor and you're a dude on the internet who seems weirdly fixated on him. I know who's opinion I'm going with for now.

As they say "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"

All you have done is prove even more so that he understood embargoes , confidential information, accessing information you are not entitled to, etc etc etc.

There is no weird fixation, nor am I a party shill, he has by his own actions demonstrated he has low moral and ethical standards.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11