Posted by Blogger Name. Category:
Circumstantial evidence
,
Corin Dann
,
Duncan Garner
,
Grant Robertson
,
John Armstrong
,
John Key
,
Judith Collins
,
Oravida
,
Patrick Gower
,
Winston Peters
John Armstrong takes a close look at the Judith Collins/Oravida allegations. Under the heading Peters faces wait to complete Oravida jigsaw Armstrong opines:
Winston Peters has gotten to the very heart of the vital matter of whether Judith Collins is guilty of such a serious conflict of interest that she would have to be sacked from the Cabinet forthwith.
In tandem with Labour's Grant Robertson, the New Zealand First leader has pieced together a jigsaw of separate events and happenings involving Collins, the milk-exporting company Oravida, and the Chinese border agency which blocked dairy imports after the Fonterra botulism scare last year.
It goes beyond Collins creating the "perception" of a conflict of interest — something the Cabinet Manual stresses Cabinet ministers must avoid and which Collins acknowledges her actions created.
The two Opposition parties claim enough information has now seeped into the public domain to suggest Collins had a real conflict of interest — one from which she stood to benefit from financially.
Unfortunately for Peters and Robertson, a rather vital piece of the jigsaw is missing.
Well colour us surprised; Winston Peters had made an allegation that he cannot substantiate! Just like the impending sale of Huka Lodge to the Chinese; just like any number of Peters beat-up over the years, he cannot deliver the coup de grace. There's a good reason for that; in the Oravida case, there IS no coup-de-grace.
Armstrong continues, getting to the heart of the issue:
That piece, which would join all the dots, is proof that Collins lobbied a Chinese official to exempt Oravida from China's freeze on dairy imports.
Without that proof — and Collins strenuously denies that she engaged in any such behaviour — the evidence remains circumstantial and any conclusions are therefore only conjecture.
The latter commodity is not sufficient reason for John Key to relieve Collins of her ministerial warrants; he has to take his minister at her word. If that word is found to be in conflict with the truth, however, then he will have to dump her from his ministry.
Given she has issued repeated denials in the House, she would probably have to leave Parliament altogether if she is found to have been economical with the truth. That Collins is risking such a tough sanction suggests she has been truthful.
John Armstrong does a far better job than the likes of Patrick Gower, Duncan Garner and Corin Dann have done. Instead of being duped by Peters' promises to bring down a Minister and with her John Key, Armstrong understands that all that Robertson and Peters have is rhetoric and speculation. They have no evidence that Ms Collins discussed Oravida at that infamous dinner. On the other hand, Judith Collins has steadfastly maintained her position.
And Armstrong closes with a reference to Winston Peters' time-honoured modus operandi:
Peters says he has more to come on this matter. But he needs the protection of parliamentary privilege to use it to maximum effect. After today's sitting, Parliament goes into recess for two weeks. And if a week is a long time in politics, then two weeks is a very, very long time in politics, especially in an election year.
Winston Peters is always promising that there is more to come. He uses it to keep himself and his personality cult party in the headlines. But all too often the issue fades from the public consciousness, without Peters ever delivering the promised "evidence".
We reckon that's what'll happen here. Winston Peters talks a good game, but if he had the evidence he claims to have, he would have tabled it in Parliament yesterday. He didn't, because there isn't any evidence, beyond Winston Peters and Grant Robertson putting two and two together and coming up with 22.
