One of the fishy elements of the GCSB-Dotcom-Key saga (along with the literally unbelievable ineptitude of the GCSB, the timing of Key’s visit to the White House coinciding with the denial of Dotcom’s OIO application, time timing of the ministerial certificate when Key was again out of the country in the US, and the ‘oversight’ of Neazor) is Key’s suddenly very faulty memory. This is a guy who will quote you stock and exchange prices from 25 years ago but can’t remember basic facts in this major issue. Here’s a partial list of things Key can’t recall, isn’t sure about, or doesn’t know – just from his answers in the House and just the last 3 days he has answered questions.
Dotcom Case—Actions of Government Communications Security Bureau – 26 September 2012
David Shearer: Is he aware of any involvement by staff from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the SIS, or the National Assessments Bureau in the Dotcom case; if so, what involvement was that?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure about the latter two, the SIS and the National Assessments Bureau. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet may have been advised. I do not know that—I would have to go and check that—but it is possible it would have known in that period when I was told on Monday the 17th.
Dotcom Case—Actions of Government Communications Security Bureau – 26 September 2012
David Shearer: Did he receive any advice from those agencies in the past 12 months in relation to the Kim Dotcom case?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not in relation to this issue. I was informed of that only on 17 September. Whether there was earlier advice on extradition and other matters, I am not sure. I do not think so.
Government Communications Security Bureau—Prime Ministerial Responsibility – 26 September 2012
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When was his chief of staff first informed about the Deputy Prime Minister signing a ministerial certificate on 16 August, which withheld information from the public regarding Government Communications Security Bureau operations in the Dotcom raid?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not exactly know, but to the best of my knowledge it was on Monday the 17th when I knew.
Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Briefings – 16 October 2012
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers I gave to oral questions during the last sitting week.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A number of oral questions put to me and the Minister answering on my behalf in the House between 25 and 27 September were based on public statements by me that the first I knew of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s involvement in the Dotcom matter was on 17 September. That response was based on my recollection. It was shared by the director of the bureau.
A subsequent review of all material held by the bureau found that on 29 February I had viewed a presentation that was not related to the Dotcom file, during a visit to the bureau. I am advised that the talking points for the presentation included a short reference to the Dotcom arrest as an example of cooperation between the bureau and the police. The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images, one of which was of Dotcom. Neither the presentation nor the talking points were provided to me in hard copy. Neither the director of the bureau or I can recall the reference to the Dotcom matter during the visit, but I accept that it may well have been made.
I wish to make it clear that I was not briefed by the bureau on its role in the Dotcom matter, nor any issues of potential illegality, until Monday, 17 September. This information affects the answers to three specific supplementary questions during oral question No. 1 and oral question No. 10 on 26 September, and oral question No. 2 on 27 September, but I also accept that it did impact on the questions that were asked during the course of the week. My answers to questions were based on my recollection at the time and the view of the director. There was no intention to mislead the House.
Dotcom Case—Actions of Government Communications Security Bureau – 16 October 2012
David Shearer: On what date did the Government Communications Security Bureau first become aware that its surveillance of Kim Dotcom was illegal?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first day that I was briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau about it being illegal was likely to be the 17th.
David Shearer: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I think I can predict the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order. The member actually asked on what date the Government Communications Security Bureau became aware that its investigation may have been illegal, not the date on which the Prime Minister was advised of that.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that date to hand.
Dotcom Case—Actions of Government Communications Security Bureau – 16 October 2012
David Shearer: In light of his answer to written question No. 8353, where he confirmed that he discussed the Government Communications Security Bureau’s illegal surveillance of Dotcom with the Attorney-General but was unable to recall which other two Ministers he raised the issue with, can he now recall and tell the House who those other Ministers were?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.
Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Staffing – 17 October 2012
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he saying as Minister that a member of the Prime Minister’s protection squad with a record of 15 years’ service to Prime Ministers, including himself, never told him as Prime Minister of his intention to leave the Diplomatic Protection Squad to go to work for Kim Dotcom?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is referring to a chap whose last name I do not know; his first name is Regan. He does not work for the Diplomatic Protection Squad; he works for—or he used to work for—VIP Transport Services in Auckland, and, no, I was not aware that he went to work for Kim Dotcom.
Dotcom Case—Actions of Government Communications Security Bureau – 17 October 2012
David Shearer: Which of his ministerial colleagues, other than the Attorney-General, did he discuss the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom with prior to the bureau’s actions being made public?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know the answer to those questions.
Dotcom Case—Actions of Government Communications Security Bureau – 17 October 2012
David Shearer: How, then, can he be sure he actually spoke to Ministers if he cannot actually recall who they were?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I remember having a discussion; I think it was with the Attorney-General. I am sure there were another couple of Ministers there, but I do not recall who they were.
Dotcom Case—Actions of Government Communications Security Bureau – 17 October 2012
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister possibly give an assurance that that matter was not raised by the Hon Simon Power with him back in June 2011, as he just did, when in his formal writing to me in a written answer he said: “There is no record of what was discussed … and I have no recollection of the discussion.”? How can he reconcile those two statements: the one today and the written one in the House?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite easily because I do not recall the exact conversation of why Simon came to me on that particular occasion, but I know for a fact it was not about Kim Dotcom.
Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill—Prime Minister’s Statements – 17 October 2012
Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister aware that my bill is an opportunity to lift 100,000 children out of poverty, but would have no effect at all on millionaires and the rich, who would remain ineligible for the in-work tax credit, just as they are now?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, broadly I am aware of it, although I am also advised that if the in-work tax credit equivalent was paid to beneficiary families, it would cost more than $1.5 billion over 4 years. I do not know the financial costs of the member’s payment.
11 memory lapses in 3 question times. So, what do you think: does the Prime Minister have a serious memory problem that is impairing his ability to do his job, or is he lying to you?
Update: got to tip my hat to Te Reo Putake’s name for the PM: DunnoKeyo
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress