Sorry for the long post. This is my transcript of John Key’s interview with Mary Wilson on Checkpoint last night. It’s just incredible. Key obviously shielded Worth with a *nudge* *wink* ‘investigation’ into the sexual harassment complaint and his now trying to cover his own arse. I’ve added my own comments in italics and taken out a few repetitive pieces for length:
Key: Firstly, Phil Goff made it clear to me that the woman who was making the allegations did not want to go public. Effectively my recollection of the conversation I had with Mr Goff was he said he had seen those textes [yes, textses] and certainly no one was able to produce those textses for me.
Wilson: Did you ask for them?
K: Well I’m sure if he had access to them he would have given them to me [so, no]
M: He says he told you he had them
K: He certainly would have provided them when I went back to him, when my office went back [ see how he's trying to distance himself from his office in case he needs to turn one of them into a sacrificial goat]…. I got my office to go back to Mr Goff’s office.
M: And asked for texts and phone logs?
K: Look, to relay exactly Mr Goff’s versions, Mr Worth’s versions of events [so, that's a â€˜no']. Now, if those textses were there and they didn’t substantiate the version of events that Mr Worth had presented to my office then I’m sure Mr Goff would have presented those and if he’s got them or anyone’s got them they should produce them today….
M: Well, he is quite happy to organise a private meeting between you and this wo…
K: No, let’s not have a private meeting. Let’s have the textses. if they’re real [why would he think they're made up?] let’s produce them. And if he gives them to me I’ll give them to the media. As I’ve said all along, if those textses were real and they, they were of the nature that Mr Goff said that the complaint said they were and Mr Worth adamantly denies then I would have sacked Dr Worth on the spot. No question about that.
M: Why does it have to become public? Why can’t this woman simply show you the information without becoming public? Why does her name, she’s got a small son and she wants to keep her name out of the public arena. If this man has hounded her for months and she is incredibly embarrassed
K: That’s your characterisation [why is he attacking the woman and defending his scumbag MP?]
M: No. Why, I’m asking you, why on earth would you demand that she go public with them when what she can do is have a private meeting with you and provide the evidence? Why would you force her into a situation where she has to go to the media?
K: I’m not, I’m making it quite clear and I made it clear that if there was evidence I would act. And there was none.
M: Do you want to see this stuff now? Without forcing the woman to go public?
K: Well I do want to see them [so, no?]
M: Without forcing her to go public? Are you prepared to accept them?
K: I’ve always been prepared to accept them…
M: Right and just a few moments ago you ruled out a private meeting. Are you prepared to look at this stuff without making this woman go public?
K: OK. If she can produce the textses but I wish she had done that a month or so earlier then we clearly would have sacked him. If they’re correct and if they’re there.
M: But you’re prepared to look at them privately now
K: Ah, well, OK. [that's decisive leadership my friends]
M: OK. Having decided last Tuesday that you have no confidence in him as a minister, why did you wait a week before taking action? Why was he allowed to continue with ministerial responsibilities..
K: Because it’s a very complex issue [why?] that we actually had to work our way through [also, who is 'we' in all this?]
M: No it’s not complex if you’re simply saying you had no confidence in him on Tuesday. That’s pretty black and white. No confidence
K: No I lost confidence in him on Tuesday [semantic defence, oh dear]. Umm..
M: What’s complicated about that?
K: There was a range of different matters that had to be resolved [what were they?] and it all through to the weekend to get that information
M: Why couldn’t he have been stood down immediately you lost confidence in him [like Parker, Samuals, Field]
K: Because we needed to resolve all the matters first
M: But what on Earth could that mean if you have already lost confidence in him? It just simply doesn’t make sense [exactly]
K: Well it does actually if you can see all the facts [what does that mean?] but obviously you can’t [Oww, bitchy]
M: Can you tell us..
K: All I can tell you there are a number of component parts to it [what parts? is there a manual? can we see it?] It took a while to get all the facts [yeah, until just after the Budget]. Worked as quickly as we could to get those facts
M: So it sounds like you’re saying that you lost confidence in him on Tuesday night before you knew all the facts
K: Urr… umm, well I didn’t know all the facts of everything but there was enough that I knew to know that my confidence was rapidly rescinding [sic] [so, now he hadn't lost confidence on Tuesday? Did he lie to the House or Mary?]
This man is not suitable to be our Prime Minister.
Please, pinch me. I want to wake up in a world where we have a decent Prime Minister.