John Key, you are wrong
By Vincent Heeringa,
Dear John
You are wrong. You're asking the police to seek evidence for ... what? Breach of politicians' privacy? Really?
You are a public servant. You invited the media to join you. You say you have nothing to hide. And you seek our trust to govern.
To ask police to seek 'evidence' from the very media you wish to exploit is disingenuous. You're implying that we're criminals for wanting to know what you promise. I thought that was what elections are all about? Are you perchance related to Frank Bainimarana?
I have voted National or Act all my life: but the search warrants disgust me so much I'm making a protest vote. I gave up on Act when the so-called rationalists' party abandoned science and swallowed the flat-earthers' approach to global warming (that is, denial).
Still, I agree with small government and asset sales. I agree with teacher accountability. I agree with welfare reform. And I agree that Bill English has the best credentials to manage the books.
But I do not agree that your conversation with John Banks was private; you are small-minded to claim so. Small minded to seek police help and too small minded to govern.
I'm sorry, you lost me somewhere after you said "my cake and I'll eat it too".
Kind regards
Vincent
Comments
Bill Bennett
Agree.
This incident has determined my vote.
I'm a journalist, I don't want to be in danger or prison or paying a huge fine just to do my job in the way colleagues around the world can.
You'd expect this kind of behaviour in Zimbabwe, not in New Zealand.
Vincent Heeringa
Exactly. Turkey, Egypt or Fiji. But here?
Vote against arrogance and privilege. There's no place for either in NZ.
Gerry
V Man
What are you worried about? Key's nothing more than a publicity seeking grub. Who could forget his appearance on Letterman? I'm not voting National because their solution to everything seems to be build more roads.
Reggie
Errrrr….Vincent. So what you are saying is that National has the strongest politicians and most robust policy to run the country yet you will not vote them because you are emotionally affected by the tea pot saga?
Forgive me for being a little insulting, but you may want to reconsider your own ideas on the meaning behind “small minded”….
Our tabloid media takes things too far and this recording was not an accident. If it were, then it should not have been sold to the Herald on Sunday. And just because he is a public servant, we should not be privvy to all his conversation - this is a foolish and unjustifiable statement.
I am concerned that many people vote with their emotions and not their brain.
Vincent Heeringa
It's a question of respect. Key lost mine when he ran like a child to the police to complain about something that he concocted.
In my view it's such an odious action that I wish to register my distaste through the most powerful weapon I have: my vote.
As for tabloid, you're confusing two types of reporting. I'm not interested in every conversation John Key has. For example his personal life or day to day travel and coffee arrangements are of no relevance to me. Tabloids might be.
But the conversation between Act and National about Epsom will make a material difference to the election. As voters we are entitled to know what arrangements they have.
danisrob
Co-sign with all of Reggie's points.
Journalists and bloggers in this day and age have such a false sense of their own importance.
Alastair Thompson
Errr regie and danisrob you completely miss the point. Key is prepared to throw freedom of speech and expression under a bus in order to win this election.
He pretends to do so as a point of principle but his actions have led to the criminalising of journalism. It is not an exaggeration to say that the execution of these warrants against media is a new low point in the history of media in NZ.
Muldoon got stick for booting Tom Scott out of press conferences, this latest affair makes that look like a tea party.
Neil Dorset
I think you are being a little precious. It's not OK to intrude on others privacy (when they ushered the press out and stated no more cameras that was the end of the photoshoot). So if anyone then records that (accidently - not) then protests innocence and claims it was a mistake while at the same time “selling” the tape to the MSM - that's porkies!
The media in NZ have shown throughout this whole campaign a decided bias towards the left and are seeking to make news rather than report it. If there was any sort of investigative reporting there would be an expose of Winston Peters and his refusal to repay the $135000 his party stole and refused to pay back - where exactly did the supposed Trust remit funds to? Who knows because honest open Winston won't reveal where our money has gone. Maybe some time spent doing some real journalism would be an eye opener for some of our media!
kate alexander
Well put Vincent.
Although I am not a national voter I 'DID' have respect for John Key.
Rob
co-sign with Reggie's points.
The manner in which some journalists have conducted themselves overseas seems to have given some here, as well as bloggers some misguided sense of importance or entitlement to do whatever they wish.
This current scenario can be blamed on one person alone, the person who recorded the conversation.
James
As someone said on Twitter, only in NZ could people be outraged with the media for finding out something a politician didn't want everyone else to know.
SHG
Dear journalists participating in this thread: you seem unaware of the fact that right now that we, the public, regard you as bottom-feeding leeches. You each personally might be perfectly nice and respectable humans, but in your professional capacity we think you're collectively scum.
Don't take it personally. This is due in large part to the NOTW phone hacking which presumably you had nothing to do with. But you've chosen the wrong time to complain about ethics and corruption.
Sumner Burstyn
so Vincent publish it! you can get it.
Hurry.
Russell Brown
Bravo, Vincent.
Key and Joyce's political problem is hardly an uncommon one — there's barely a major leader in the world who hasn't had an open-mic accident — but the way they chose to resolve it is disgraceful and deeply troubling.
Two days out from a general election we have the police serving warrants on four major media organisations in the hope of finding evidence for charges. In Radio NZ's case, the search seems likely to involve the temporary seizure of newsroom computers, because its management has rightly refused to comply with a request that is tantamount to giving up sources.
The content of the conversation — and frankly, it's pretty cocky to stage an event to express faith in Act, then order 40 journalists not to listen while you talk about rolling Act's leader — was transcended at that point.
And remember, this was after the Herald on Sunday *did not publish* the transcript. Major news organisations in more robust media markets would almost certainly have published the transcript, but the HoS asked nicely and didn't do so. Meanwhile, Radio NZ is to be subject to a forcible search *merely for reporting on the story*. It never even had a copy of the tape.
In a way, the fact that such a tactic may prove to have worked makes it even worse. Key and Joyce will have solved a transitory political problem by sending the police into newsroom during an election campaign. Ugh.
Ken Usmar
If I had any hair left I'd be tearing it out at the obtuseness of people who can't see that Key has effectively shut down the NZ Media (who by the way need a slap for letting him intimidate them) and sent in the police etc etc all to make sure his dirty little secrets don't get out until he has got back in. The rest of my frustration over this can be seen at the above URL. Please don't let it happen NZ.
Russell Brown
@SHG:
“Don't take it personally. This is due in large part to the NOTW phone hacking which presumably you had nothing to do with. But you've chosen the wrong time to complain about ethics and corruption.”
Do you even realise how you know about the NOTW phone-hacking?
You know about it through the work of journalists. Brave, persistent journalists who faced down the police, politicians and their own complaints authority over several years, because they knew there was a story there.
Your equation of all journalists with the NOTW is not only insulting, it's utterly absurd.
But don't ask me: ask Mark Lewis, Milly Dowler's lawyer, Mark Lewis:
“There is a difference between the News of the World hacking into someone's phone to find out private information and seemingly - whether accidentally or on purpose - effectively a journalist investigating some kind of political statement.
“But if it's particularly a political statement which affects the future government or the ways to achieve future government in a country, then that's something in the public interest and it sounds like it should be reported without the unfavourable comparison to what was clearly a criminal act.”
He regarded any comparison of this case with the NOTW phone-hacking as a “cheap shot”. You might do well to contemplate his words.
Vincent Heeringa
I'm disappointed with how polite we've become - the idea of a journalist poking his nose into some else's business seems to be unacceptable to so many of you.
Please shoot me when I become such a patsy.
But it's especially noxious to 'respect privacy' when Key:
a) asked the media to attend
b) conducted the meeting in a public (or at least not his own) space
c) is a public figure on public duty
d) discussed matters that have a material affect on how we might vote
Harden up people, he's playing the bully.
SHG
@Russell Brown: I'm not saying it's logical or even sensible. But that's the way it is right now. We're going through one of those phases in which the journalists are perceived not as being there to shine light on the bad guys but rather AS THE BAD GUYS. I'm sure there are male priests out there who have helped uncover sexual abuse of children, but when I think “priest” I see pedobear. It's not logical or sensible but that's just the way it is right now.
That Key somehow managed to catch this wave of the zeitgeist to a bump in the polls over something as stupid as that secret recording was either an act of Machiavellian brilliance or staggeringly good luck. Key took a gamble that Joe Public would side with whoever sided against Big Media and it worked. The enemy of Joe Public's enemy is his friend, and National have put John Key to be that friend. That only works if Joe Public regards the media as his enemy.
mark mckeefry
“In the ideas business” eh? These include dumb ones like tagging this story with “arsehole”.
Low rent.
Vincent Heeringa
Mark, oops you're right, stand corrected.
Someone was playing the fool, methinks.
Timothy Allan
Touche,
I agree that the general act is not a good fit with New Zealand's more egalitarian approach to politics. The presidential style
adopted by key rankles.
It is at best a waste of police time, and at worst a real abuse of position and power.
As a national voter, I have found it a little curious to hear their steady claims of safe financial management. Was it not the finance minister that was double dutching the tax payer claiming a residence he was never in?
It is also sad to hear the lack of Verbal Accuity in debates between leaders, it seems New Zealand is going to have to settle for an average not great leader.
Andy Kenworthy
As a journalist who has worked in the UK and further afield the idea that the press has 'crossed the line' by acquiring, in part by accident, a tape of a conversation with a genuine Pubic Interest (i.e. not just that the public might be interested) involving the leader of our country and then faffing about asking permission as to whether to publish it is laughable.
The idea that this incident risks NOTW-type hacking is hilarious: it's like saying if we allow mice in our country it risks being over-run by tigers. The timid wee creature we call the NZ press is simply not the same beast as in the UK. This is partly a good thing: we don't get anywhere near the excesses of the NOTW, but it is also a very bad thing: people of power are very seldom held to account, criticized or even seriously questioned. Which, apparently, is just the way people like John Key like it.
Reggie
Regardless of what was said between Banks and Key - and let's face it, all we can do is speculate at this point - the recording of the conversation was illegal under NZ law.
The media needs to know their place - if it were me in John Key's shoes, I would be prosecuting and I certainly wouldn't feel bad about utilising police resources (at least it would get them out of their cars and away from their speed cameras). The line has been crossed and without swift rebuke and prosecution, the media will only try to stretch the boundaries further into violating someone's privacy.
I'm not even a National voter - but there are two things here that just really irk me here:
1. People who vote with emotion, and
2. A media who thinks it is OK to break the law and invade privacy on grounds that it will reveal a story that the public would be interested in. The public DOES NOT have a right to know.
Vincent Heeringa
Eh? Illegal to record in public place? Since when has New Zealand become 1984?
Reggie
Check out the Crimes Act 1961, Part 9A - “Crimes Against Personal Privacy”. It's quite clear - it is illegal to intercept and record a private communication. It is illegal to then disclose the intercepted communication to another party. Doesn't matter where the conversation was held.
The device was located on a table hosting a private communication - not where the cameraman was sitting. There is no doubt that the cameraman was not part of this conversation and thus it was a private communication between two people - two people that regardless of who they are have the same basic rights as anyone else in this country. That communication was intercepted and was passed on to a third party. Law broken, twice. It's pretty black and white.
Forgive me for my youth, but I don't really get the reference to 1984 - it's a law that exists now and I'm pretty happy with it regardless of the decade.
Josie McNaught
Ah well - it didn't make any difference in the end did it? But Reggie, you might want to take a look at the one and only book all politicians have been reading this year - The Political Brain - and then you will know why Saturday unfolded as it did! (While you're in the bookstore, ask if they have a copy of '1984' or better still being a yoof - I expect you can find it on your kindle.)
P.s. okay so maybe Gerry Brownlee didn't read it. Betcha Winnie did though….
Andy Kenworthy
@Reggie. Crimes Act 1961, Part 9A, 216A (b) “does not include such a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so.”
See you in court.
Anonymous comments on this post are disabled. Please sign up to post a new comment.