Who'd a thunk that a commercialized model of academia could lead to the commercialization of access to academic research?
I doubt if he really believes any of that stuff.
Yes, I'd be amazed if there is any blood test that could truly detect virginity, although there certainly are plenty that can detect a lack of it.
I’m sure that Mr Hooton is made of sterner stuff.
So...he drinks the blood of the deflowered AND holds it down???
That is the reason the PM and his Chief of Staff are ultimately responsible for this scandal, even if their stories of not knowing anything about it are correct.
Yup. But it's just a flesh wound to Key.
Nah, it's gotta be a top hat. Really tall and shiny.
Is the day looming when the SIS is privatised in the interests of efficiency and independence?
I was a bit surprised to see that the official inquiry outsourced the IT stuff to KPMG. Who did, so far as I can tell, absolutely nothing. The work that went into getting the mail from Slater to confirm what went on consisted of them asking for it, and him giving what he felt like, them noticing that he'd not given them everything they asked for, him giving a bit more and them leaving it at that.
Nice phrase! Can it be portmanteaued? Ambivalues? Government by ambivaluation.
The fault lies with De Joux (and his bosses) who should at least have said to Tucker: “you know this is illegal under 4AA(1)(c), pull your head in”
Or with a political culture that makes doing illegal things something that people are prepared to do their utmost to excuse when it's someone very close to the PM, not to even mention things that are highly unethical.
He’s violated the Public Records Act.
Which part, btw? It's quite a long Act.
Mind you, it's hard to expect more when they state in there:
As to the first matter, the Inquiries Act does not refer to the standard of proof that should be applied by an inquiry. In Re Erebus Royal Commission; Air New Zealand Ltd v Mahon the Privy Council observed with reference to the Erebus Royal Commission:
... The first rule is that the person making a finding in the exercise of such a jurisdiction must base his decision upon evidence that has some probative value in the sense described below.
The technical rules of evidence applicable to civil or criminal
litigation form no part of the rules of natural justice. What is required by the first rule is that the decision to make the finding must be based upon some material that tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent with the finding and that the reasoning supportive of the finding, if it be disclosed, is not logically self - contradictory.
A pretty low bar. It's hard to think how much different it could be, though. Basically, they just need to make up a story and tie it to some facts of their choice and not be actually logically contradictory in doing so, and the standards of proof are satisfied.