Vance asks the right questions on Key cronyism

Written By: - Date published: 8:07 am, April 4th, 2013 - 65 comments
Categories: corruption, john key, Spying - Tags:

Key’s adopted what Andrea Vance labels his “so what demeanour” as he tries to shrug off his highly irregular and inappropriate role in the selection of Ian Fletcher to head the GCSB. But whether or not Key was too involved in getting his mate a job is only the first round of this – the next calls into question the reliability of both Key and Fletcher’s account of the Dotcom saga.

Here’s Vance:

Mr Key is expecting the public to swallow another brain-fade in the epic Kim Dotcom chronicle. He couldn’t recall a briefing on Dotcom in February last year.

Now – even under scrutiny from the Opposition and journalists – we must accept that he “forgot” he called a childhood friend to suggest he apply to lead New Zealand’s foreign spy agency.

In light of this latest revelation, can we still be confident in the assertions that Mr Fletcher – only in the job a matter of weeks – also forgot Dotcom was raised at the February 22 briefing?

One of his first jobs was to attend a joint police-GCSB debrief on the raid on February 16. It’s hard to fathom why he wouldn’t be keen to play up that perceived success to his new boss.

And would any rookie not feel it prudent, or at least cautious, to alert the prime minister to the potential illegality of the GCSB’s work on the Dotcom raid which was, after all, making headlines around the world?

Mr Key has been forced to repeatedly insist he told the truth about the Dotcom case. But with every episode like this, his denials appear less plausible.

65 comments on “Vance asks the right questions on Key cronyism ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ghostwhowalksnz 1
    4 April 2013 at 8:15 am

    Forgetful ?

    More like he isnt up to the job. let alone what he was doing playing recruitment headhunter.

    My guess is that is the part of the job Key likes, lining up jobs for his mates

  2. mickysavage 2
    4 April 2013 at 8:17 am

    Kim Dotcom, the gift that keeps on giving …

  3. LynWiper 3
    4 April 2013 at 8:23 am

    One ‘shrug off” too many? The final shrug?

  4. Craig Glen viper 4
    4 April 2013 at 8:26 am

    What it makes me wonder is just how long the political Journalist will go on protecting John Key when he is obviously telling lies. Key’s list of brain fades is as bad as many Alzheimer’s patient’s I have ever assessed. Oh and before anyone says what about Mr Shearers brain fade with a certain bank account let me be clear I think that is total bullshit as well and is quite frankly not good enough.

    It concerns me greatly that we expect/accept such low standards from these so called leaders. This National Government reeks of deals for your mates, its time we had a clean out in Parliament on both sides of the house.

  5. triicldrown 5
    4 April 2013 at 8:27 am

    PinoKeyo’s lies don’t pass the sniff test!
    You tell a lie you have keep telling bigger lies to cover the original lie!
    Key has painted himself into a corner on many fronts!
    A new ERA in accountability no golden hand shakes Elder and longstone!
    Asset sales the wheels are not going to be economically viable not that they were in the first place especially as Niwa and even bungling blinglish have said drought will be the new norm!

  6. karol 6
    4 April 2013 at 8:29 am

    I have struggled to find the words to exactly describe Key’s slippery manner when he’s confronted with legitimate criticisms. Vance nails it with far fewer words than I ever used.

    The “so what demeanour”! Exactly!

    • wyndham 6.1
      4 April 2013 at 8:38 am

      Karol.

      Another simple word is “arrogance”. It is a quality that has seen the downfall of many persons far better than Key.

      • karol 6.1.1
        4 April 2013 at 8:58 am

        It’s not just arrogance, it involves a slipperiness. And Vance’s nailing of his demeanour shows she’s one MSM jounro that is not taken in by his conman style. In another article today, Vance also identifies inconsistencies in the Team key statements and non-statements. Some of the things in her article:

        Despite his insistence that he had seen Mr Fletcher for just two business breakfasts and a lunch, Mr Key said: “I know his number.”…

        He also rejected the suggestion that the director of GCSB should come from an intelligence or military background. Former GCSB head Sir Bruce Ferguson said the standard process of appointment was not run as normal.

        He said he was aware of one of the candidates, who was “eminently suitable” for the job. Sir Bruce, also a former Defence Force chief, headed the bureau for four years but his term of appointment was not continued by the Government in 2011.

        Last week, Mr Rennie put out a media statement to provide “further detail” on the appointment process. The statement made no mention of Mr Key’s involvement.

        But Mr Rennie’s office could not provide answers to questions last night. Mr Key denied he had asked Mr Rennie to release the statement.

        Interesting about the discontinuing of Ferguson in 2011 as GCSB Head. This was followed by the Key-favoured appointments: first Mateparae who was quickly moved on to governm=or general, and then replaced by Fletcher.

        Last night I was looking unsucessfully for an update on Rennie’s statement of 28 March, which strategically omits crucial details of the appointment process.

        Rennie has, in fact, released a statement last night (though I can’t see it on the SSC website). I still don’t see any increase in the amount of details he is providing beyond saying the process was all good.

        he omits to deal with a significant revelation by Ferguson: that at least one of the shortlisted candidates knew they had been shortlisted, and then was told s/he wouldn’t be called to interview because someone had already been chosen.

        Sir Bruce told Campbell Live last night he believed Mr Fletcher did not go through the same selection process as he and previous heads had.
        He says he knew of one of the people who was shortlisted for the job by the State Services Commission, but “then at the 11th hour was told ‘don’t come to an interview, we’ve already selected a candidate'”

        • Blue 6.1.1.1
          4 April 2013 at 9:23 am

          Don’t give Vance too much credit. She’s also been responsible for some of the fluffiest pro-Key bullshit going.

          • freedom 6.1.1.1.1
            4 April 2013 at 9:52 am

            put it this way Blue

            should not every warmonger be made welcome at the peace table

            • karol 6.1.1.1.1.1
              4 April 2013 at 1:36 pm

              Agreed. And several are questioning Key’s integrity as it has become hard to deny his slipperiness over the Fletcher issue.

              John Armstrong says Key’s body language contradicts what he said.

              Claire Trevett says key is highly skilled in the science of obfuscation.

    • geoff 6.2
      4 April 2013 at 9:35 am

      It’s that glazed look he gets when he knows he’s been caught out. He sort of looks like he’s slightly drunk, others on here have described it as the ‘hooded eye’ look. I like to think that during those moments he’s transporting himself to Planet Key, where they never have troubles, at least very few… (apologies to Dr Suess)

    • triicldrown 6.3
      4 April 2013 at 9:38 am

      Con Mankey

    • emergency mike 6.4
      4 April 2013 at 11:42 am

      It’s been referred to here as ‘Tranzrail eyes’ for some time, I also like the ‘not bovvered shrug’. But the ‘so what demeanour’ is good. Key is trying to imply that A) there’s nothing to see here, B) he’s the big man so if he’s not bovvered about it then you shouldn’t be either C) its all a media/Labour/Greens beat up (playing the victim).

      In saying ‘so what’ he also knows that most of the dumbed down public are too cognitively lazy to actually come up with any meaningful inference themselves. John Key knows his audience.

  7. quartz 7
    4 April 2013 at 9:07 am

    When Key did his stand-up on this yesterday he made the same nervous high-pitched noise that he made when he was trying to explain how he couldn’t remember what side he was on during the ’81 tour.

    • geoff 7.1
      4 April 2013 at 9:40 am

      Hah! Yes that was hilarious, I think it was good old Brent Edwards of RNZ with the question that prompted that from Key.

      Somebody needs to make a montage of all those moments.

  8. karol 8
    4 April 2013 at 9:19 am

    Paul Buchanan was interviewed on RNZ this morning. He says the appointment of Fletcher doesn’t pass the sniff test.

    He says the spy chief doesn’t need to be a military person but it is better if they have an operational background in signals intelligence. He says the summary dismissal of the shortlist, no doubt drawn up for a considerable amount of money, is odd. He thinks the shortlist would have been very suitable for the job as far as intelligence operational matters and experience goes, but must have been rejected for some other reason. Buchanan would like to know why. It does signal a shift towards more of a focus on business matters.

    Buchanan also makes connections with the Dotcom case; says Fletcher would not have had the practical and intelligence background to know that surveillance of Dotcom was illegal; Fletcher as appointed before the Dotcom case hit the headlines; it would be highly likely that Fletcher was briefed on the Dotcom case months before Dotcom was arrested.

    Sometimes I just can’t get the embedding of links to work, even with several efforts:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2550983/'economics-of-spying'-could-be-clue-to-gcsb-appointment.asx

  9. prism 9
    4 April 2013 at 9:28 am

    The interview with Paul Buchanan was illuminating and he was direct in his opinions. Quite a difference from listening to pollies.

    To get a rounded picture on this don’t miss reading karol’s piece from yesterday – The CV of a spy boss.

  10. ianmac 10
    4 April 2013 at 9:56 am

    Does anyone else note the connection between Key’s “funny”answers to questions in the House, the protection given him by the Speaker in spite of Opposition protests, and the difficulty Key finds himself in as he fluffs reporters questions?
    (Note by the way Adam Bennet’s column in the Herald and John Armstrong’s.)

    • freedom 10.1
      4 April 2013 at 10:17 am

      “Key’s “funny”answers to questions in the House”

      Various people have talked of ‘missions’ Standardistas can engage in to re-activate political awareness in New Zealand, here is a simple one.

      Encourage your friends and families and enemies and that guy across the street with the interesting hat, encourage all of them to watch Question Time in the House. If we can successfully motivate people to sit and watch the behaviour of John Key [et al] in the House, the reaction will be consistent and damning regardless of their political persuasions. The last decade has seen an obvious slide into buffoonery on far too many occasions and with an increasing regularity.

      Exposing the reality of the circus is essential to mitigate the cost to Democracy and re-educate the Representatives of the People that they are there to do a damn serious job and they need to pull their collective heads in.

    • ianmac 10.2
      4 April 2013 at 10:18 am

      And Claire Trevett in the Herald.

  11. Jono 11
    4 April 2013 at 10:00 am

    I note Ian Rennie’s statement reported this morning that Fletcher was employed as a “change-manager” ie restructuring, redundancies, outsourcing, loss of institutional memory, low morale, blah blah blah Same shit, different department!

    • geoff 11.1
      4 April 2013 at 12:23 pm

      Yeah this is what I was driving at when responding to one of Karol’s comments yesterday. I don’t think GCSB morale will be low just because of the dotcom case, I think there will be a feeling that some of them could lose their jobs.

  12. prism 12
    4 April 2013 at 10:27 am

    I despise ‘change managers’ as they have been utilised since 1984. They seem to be just mechanical brooms sweeping all before, as Jono noted.

    They get paid quite high salaries to do this and are in effect foreign mercenaries. They can be foreign even if in their own country because they are foreign to the ethos built up. Objectivity, analysis and a bigger vision are the advantages an organisation can get with a new manager, but ‘change managers’ it seems are totally laxative.

  13. SpaceMonkey 13
    4 April 2013 at 10:48 am

    John Key… “do you even lift?”

  14. North 14
    4 April 2013 at 11:06 am

    Thanks to the people on TS who have closely followed and reported every inch of this extraordinary moving feast.

    Makes the reflexive Key apologists like Chris73 and a few others look bloody ridiculous actually.

    Ha ! Shonkey Donkey Deep !

  15. Penny Bright 15
    4 April 2013 at 11:19 am

    .http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/rennie-defends-fletchers-appointment-gcsb-director-ck-138073#comment-612751

    Where is the WRITTEN RECORD of these significant affairs of State?

    Where are the diary notes /memos/ MINUTES – the ‘full and accurate records’ that are required by statute under the Public Records Act 2005, so that we do not have to rely upon the proven unreliable memory of ‘shonky’ John Key?

    How is this a proper way to run a country?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

    • infused 15.1
      4 April 2013 at 11:55 am

      Paid your rates yet Penny?

      • felix 15.1.1
        4 April 2013 at 12:18 pm

        Penny’s non-payment of rates is to make a political point, in public, a perfectly valid form of protest for which she risks prosecution and other sanctions against her.

        Your comment is meant to imply that she isn’t paying because she’s shifty, dishonest or self-serving.

        It says far more about you than it does about her.

        • infused 15.1.1.1
          4 April 2013 at 4:09 pm

          You’ve read far too much in to my simple question.

          • felix 15.1.1.1.1
            4 April 2013 at 7:46 pm

            No, I’ve read into it exactly what you intended to imply but were too cowardly or inarticulate to say.

      • trickldrown 15.1.2
        4 April 2013 at 12:34 pm

        pathetic confused at least your the only ring wing idiot to put your head up but take it out of your rs first

  16. veutoviper 16
    4 April 2013 at 12:12 pm

    Gordon Campbell’s excellent post on Scoop is well worth reading – both for his take on the appointment process; and his amusing linking of the bird flu scare in Beigjing to Key’s departure to China tomorrow night for 8+ days!

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2013/04/04/gordon-campbell-on-the-gcsb-appointment-and-bird-flu-scares-in-beijing/

  17. red rattler 17
    4 April 2013 at 12:26 pm

    The bigger picture is that this is not about Key, his brainfade, or his school mates.
    Cronyism is only the appearance for what is an underlying concentration of power in the Executive.
    The NACTs are concentrating political power so they can drive through their rip, shit, bust agenda to maximise their profits as their whole system is in danger of crashing.
    The NACTs are no more than an agency for US control and Key an ‘asset’ of the US executive.
    We have seen parliament reduced to a powerless charade while the executive drives thru new laws and regulations to rip out resources willy nilly. Canterbury, CERA, RMA etc.
    The bureaucracy has been beheaded and political appointees put in to fast track privatisation in education, health, energy, transport etc etc. Ministers now run the bureaucracy directly.
    When ministry heads don’t play the game they are removed with big handshakes.
    Dotcom has brought a lot of this to the light of day and it remains to be seen if the Supreme Court is capable of resisting politicisation by hearing a Dotcom appeal.
    My pick is if the Supreme court does come down against Dotcom’s extradition it will be trumped by a rapid signing of the TPPA that shifts intellectual property sideways into an extra-judiciary tribunal of the big monopolies.

  19. karol 19
    4 April 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Now Rennie is departing slightly from key’s line and saying it is normal for the PM/minister to vet the shortlist.
    Claire Trevett reports:

    He said all short listed candidates knew there was a chance they might not make the interview process and that the Prime Minister would have some input.

    “Those who were shortlisted were told the PM had considered their applications and they were declined at that point.”

    He had offered advice to the Prime Minister on that short list, saying he did not believe they were best placed to take the role given the changes that were needed at GCSB at the time.

    • ianmac 19.1
      4 April 2013 at 2:39 pm

      Yes Karol. Mr Rennie seemed to be saying “Those who were shortlisted were told the PM had considered their applications and they were declined at that point.”

      And that means the story has shifted significantly – again. Because Mr Key has been saying that it was Mr Rennie who turned down the short list but Mr Rennie is saying that it was Mr Key who did so.

      And surprise, Mr Key’s choice got the job. Huh???

  20. ianmac 20
    4 April 2013 at 3:16 pm

    NRT has an interesting post up explaining just how the Appointments are supposed to work under the the State Sector Act. He comments on Mr Rennie’s statement given to the press today. NRT is a very interesting read as usual.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/not-ok.html

  21. peterlepaysan 21
    4 April 2013 at 9:14 pm

    Key is an American working to wall street and Washington rules.

    I cannot wait until we become another state of the USA. Yeah right.

  22. Lloyd 22
    4 April 2013 at 9:50 pm

    Why doesn’t Key support his real principles and bring in a Bill abolishing the Queen and replacing her with the US President?

    • Draco T Bastard 22.1
      5 April 2013 at 12:42 am

      Because I suspect you’ll find that Key doesn’t support the US presidency. What he supports and represents is Big Money.

Links to post