Labour has written to Key calling for a much wider-ranging investigation into the Dotcom spying affair than Neazor’s narrow, tell-us-nothing-we-don’t-already-know report. They would have been better to go straight to the Auditor-General. The Greens have gone for the established illegality and called in the cops on the GCSB – cleverly citing the same offence Key claimed in the teapot tapes.
Our government’s spies are overseen by two people – the Prime Minister and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The former asked the latter to investigate he found out the GCSB had been illegally spying on two Kiwis. And, guess what, the report blamed underlings. It didn’t even investigate the question of oversight.
John Key put on a display of incompetence in the House yesterday over the Dotcom spying affair. He claimed not to know a laundry list of basic facts that, if he didn’t know them before, he bloody well ought to have been briefed on by now. In some instances, his memory failed him over Dotcom. Yet he then showed he could recall exchange rates from 20 years ago. I think he’s lying. The alternative is too scary.
Key has said we all have to wait and see what is in the Neazor Report on the GCSB spies’ illegal spying on Kim Dotcom.* He won’t even answer basic questions like: ‘what section of the law did the GCSB breach?’ Funny that Key’s so keen for us to wait to read this report. But will he read it? Or will it be like the Banks Police Report, which he won’t read? And when will anyone get to read Banks’ statement?
Key has failed to uphold high ethical standards for himself, his Ministers, or his government. The GCSB illegal spying fiasco is just the latest example.
A couple of days before it was surely all going to come out – very messily and very publicly – in the Dotcom court case, Key has revealed that his spies illegally spied on Kim Dotcom. But, beyond that, Key won’t tell us anything apart from that he signed no warrant for spying on Dotcom (such a warrant would have been illegal anyway). Key has chosen not to find out more so that he wouldn’t have to answer questions.
So Key knew about the GCSB’s ‘unlawful’ actions for a week before he bothered to tell us. He happened to know that this Monday state owned companies would be announcing they were causing the loss of 500-600 jobs. Only one story would get its full due of airtime.
I think that Kim Dotcom is actually a very savy operator. Turning up to Parliament on the second day of questions (not today, when Key won’t be in the House) was inspired. It ensured another day of coverage. Then, his words: “I think the Prime Minister has had to make a choice, am I going to uphold high ethical standards or do I want to remain in power?”
Ecuador is giving us lessons in sovereign independence.
John Key might be regretting his moan about the media yesterday. His reward has been to be shown to be lying in the banks.com affair. Key has previously claimed he first heard of Dotcom the day before he was arrested. A new email, however, shows Dotcom’s staff met with Key personally months earlier over his attempt to purchase the Crisco mansion.
Amnesia is a song about the John Banks donation saga in New Zealand – from “MrKimDotcom” on YouTube. Help it go viral…
John Key has refused to sack John Banks saying “The test is, did he breach the law or not? If he hasn’t, then he’s not guilty”. That has never been the standard ministers are held to. Ministers are required to uphold “the highest ethical standards“. It looks like Banks traded an ‘anonymous’ donation from Kim Dotcom for his political influence. Is that Key’s idea of the “highest ethical standards”?
It’s been revealed that Banks took fifty thousand dollars for his campaign from Kim Dotcom. Given the subsequent furore around Dotcom, the would be slightly embarrassing in its own right but it’s been considerably exacerbated by the fact it came in two separate payments – as requested by Banks so he could keep the donation anonymous.
There’s a few interesting threads to the Kim Dotcom saga. Should merely providing a tool that can be used for piracy be a crime? Did the alleged offences justify a 70-strong armed police raid or was this more heavy-handed showing off by the cops? And, if Dotcom really is such a bad guy, why did National let him come to live in New Zealand in the first place?
There are a couple of nice pieces in the Herald today on upstanding ACT MP John Banks – on his advising arrested Kim Dotcom on residency and the Overseas Investment Commission, and on his “National” billboards…
