"Clearance" cleared up

Alright, let's first update the whole "he was cleared in 1996" debate.

Someone in comments said:

Here is the accusation posed by LawsWatch. Our mayor was not "cleared" by the Local Government Commisson back in 1996 because ... there wasn't an investigation. Oh, how dreadful!

Indeed, it proves nothing as to guilt or innocence at the time. What it does show, however, is that protestations from the Diva's spin team of squeaky-clean honesty based on supposed "clearance" by various authorities are incorrect.

While the LGC dealt with our request quickly, other authorities need time to search their dusty archives. While we await those response, we could perhaps turn to the Parliamentary Hansard for 28 March 1996. It contains reference to the Audit Office investigation, a Daily Telegraph report of the previous day which apparently carries the statement: "Laws did breach Act in respect of a survey conducted by Harlequin from Michael Laws' Hawke's Bay electorate office" and a Personal Explanation from the Diva himself, worth repeating here:

I have received a fax copy of the Audit Department report, which finds that I did breach the Act. The Audit Department considered this and found that it was "an honest mistake" and will take no further action... I promptly wrote out a personal cheque for $2,100 plus GST, and paid the invoice from Harlequin Research Associates myself.

In his own words, he did breach the Act, the Audit Office took no action, he repaid the money. So no need to invent claims that he was "cleared" in order to defend him. Apparently he mistook his wife's company's bank account for... oh, we don't know... a charitable donation, perhaps. And when found to have broken the law, repaid the money. So there you go.

Incidentally, far from "taking his lumps" as the spin team have asserted, and fronting up to Parliament to admit his mistakes and resign, Winston had to do it for him on 23 April 1996, after finally extracting a letter of resignation just before the House sat.

And it appears from a subsequent Question for Oral Answer that same day that Alan Dick, then Mayor of Napier, admitted on National Radio that morning that he and the Diva considered ensuring the resignation letter to the Council went only to the Mayor (rather than to the city chief executive), so that the resignation would not be accepted. It seems this is the same Alan Dick who benefited from being touted as a "leading mayoral contender" in another poll.

Seems to be a pattern of behaviour (which was our whole point, actually). Do something wrong, squirm round exploring every possible option for avoiding acceptance of responsibility, then only when there's no other option, fall on your sword.

And finally (till we get answers from the other investigating authorities), in a completely unrelated post, a commenter said:

Imagine the scenario at Guyton Street:
Michael: But Sean, what if I said...
Sean: No.
Michael: But Sean, let's put it this way...

Good heavens! It's almost as though the commenter were channelling precisely the discussion which took place in the Diva's office the morning of the resignation from Parliament back in '96. Extraordinary.

Comments on this post are now closed.