John Key refuses to accept any responsibility for what his spies get up to. The only point of democratic responsibility for our spies doesn’t monitor them and won’t take the blame for failing to do so. He won’t fire a corrupt, lying minister, either. The rot is spreading to the public service. There has been not one resignation, not a single one, due to the Dotcom debacle.
In other countries, and in New Zealand not too long ago, managers tender their resignations when things go dramatically wrong in their area of responsibility. Ministers go at the drop of a hat and whole governments resign over behaviour that National seems to regard as situation normal. Parata would have gone over her disgraceful behaviour in colour-coding principals as if it was some fun game, when really it was a way of segregating those whose schools she is closing. Brownlee would have gone over his fuckwit outburst that he was “sick and tired” of Cantabrians “carping and moaning”. English would have gone for signing the Ministerial Warrant to suppress the GCSB’s illegal actions and for failing (if we believe the Government’s story) to tell his boss.
Corrupt John Banks would have been gone by lunchtime in the European countries that set the standard for accountability – even if it jeopardised the government. Any government that refused to act would be diagnosed as a cancer threatening their democracy by the media, and a relentless campaign to excise it would follow. The only similar campaign we’ve had is when the Herald didn’t want to lose advertising dollars due to the EFA, so declared that democracy was under attack.
Here, a senior Police Officer lies in Court and he doesn’t resign, his bosses start lying to protect him. Detective Inspector Grant Wormald headed the OFCANZ investigation into Kim Dotcom. He was asked in Court who else had helped:
Dotcom’s lawyer asked: “So apart from the surveillance which [the police surveillance team] might have been going to undertake on your behalf was there any other surveillance being undertaken here in New Zealand to your knowledge?”
Wormald replies: “No there wasn’t.”
Of course, that’s a lie. GCSB was illegally involved (and the fact that Wormald knew to lie and the GCSB then moved to cover up their actions with the Ministerial Certificate indicates they knew their involvement was illegal). Wormald’s bosses are trying to protect him by claiming the question was actually only about physical surveillance, not GCSB’s electronic surveillance. The transcript makes a lie of that claim. I suspect Wormald’s bosses are trying to cover for him because they had agreed with him earlier that he would lie.
I don’t care how good an individual is, it’s not worth the cost of lying and willful blindness to protect them because it creates a culture official law-breaking and unethical behaviour. The only way to excise this cancer is from the top down.