There is something exceedingly whiffy about all this. The Royal Commission has decided to hide all the evidence, particularly that given by ministers and civil servants:
The Royal Commission into the March 15 terror attack has stamped 30-year-long suppressions on evidence given by ministers and senior public servants raising concerns that accountability may be dodged.
The commission’s report, which will be released by the Government on Tuesday, December 8, is expected to detail any failings within government organisations, including police and the spy agencies, in the lead up to the terror attack – including how the terrorist obtained a firearms licence.
Among the widespread suppression rulings made by the commission are the permanent suppression of the police staff involved in granting the Australian-national a firearms licence, including the two people who vouched for the terrorist.
Stuff has previously reported on police’s failure to properly scrutinise the terrorist, wrongly licencing him to purchase the stockpile of semi-automatic guns later used to murder 51 people.
Stuff.co.nz
What have they got to hide?
The commission also ruled that the identity of certain witnesses would be suppressed, including the two people that acted as references for the terrorist in his firearms licence application: “the gaming friend”, and “the gaming friend’s parent”.
It is the first official confirmation that the terrorist’s references were provided by a friend and his parent. The firearm licensing process requires family members to provide a character reference.
Police staff involved in the licence application, including a former Dunedin arms officer, firearm licencing clerk, vetting officer, and Waikato vetting officer, would also have their names suppressed.
Stuff has previously reported that it appeared police failed to properly vet the terrorist when granting him a firearms licence. Sources, who required anonymity to speak, said police relied on character references, a father and son, who met the terrorist through an Internet chatroom.
Stuff.co.nz
Could it be that the entire tragedy might have been avoided if only the Police had done their jobs?
Or that there was no need for the draconian and forced buy-back of weapons?
We know that the Police were slipshod in granting the firearms licence and authorising ammunition and rifle purchases. What else is in the evidence that leads to some culpability for the tragedy?
Hiding the evidence just smacks of a whitewash.
I can foresee this being politicised. What is the Government hiding? Why the secrecy? Political parties can make considerable hay in demanding to see the evidence and promising to lift the suppression; not unlike the politicisation of Pike River by Labour and NZ First.
The Government should not be hiding evidence given to the Royal Commission. It just leads to wild supposition of what it is that they are hiding.
