I beg your pardon, Mr Key

Written By: - Date published: 2:40 pm, December 7th, 2010 - 17 comments
Categories: accountability, democracy under attack, democratic participation, john key, Parliament - Tags: ,

From the Herald:

Parliament’s security and intelligence committee, chaired by Mr Key, is expected to accept public submissions on the bill, but hearings will be held in private for security reasons.

“It won’t be in the public interest to have it open, for a whole bunch of reasons I don’t want to go into,” Mr Key said.

Yup, that’s good enough for me.  “We’re stripping your democratic rights and invading your privacy, but you’re not really entitled to know why, and besides, we can’t really be arsed telling you.”

I can’t wait to see the back of this lazy, arrogant arsehole.

Sasquash

[Good to see Labour and John Armstrong in a similar vein]

17 comments on “I beg your pardon, Mr Key ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ianmac 1
    7 December 2010 at 2:53 pm

    His argument is that apparently this Committee will meet behind closed doors unless there is unanimous agreement amongst the members that it should be open to the public, and since he is against it the openess there cannot be such a unanimous decision, so it will remain closed. See?

    • Rex Widerstrom 1.1
      7 December 2010 at 3:42 pm

      Indeed the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 makes it clear the hearings must be “private”. Key has said, however, they’ll be “secret”.

      “Private” = heard behind closed doors, but published in the Committee’s report.
      “Secret” = heard behind closed doors and not published.

      Considering serving SIS officers may want to give evidence – and considering the law sets a high bar (unanimous consent) to switch from private to public – one can hardly blame Key for saying that that’s what will happen.

      (Though the “you don’t need to know why” attitude is appalling… he could simply have said “The Intelligence and Security Committee Act says so, so I have no say in the matter”)

      But, did Key mean “private” and just made a typical stumble, or did he actually mean “secret”? If so, what possble justification does he have?

      Do our media understand the distinction? If so, will they even bother to demand an explanation?

      I won’t be holding my breath.

  2. Bill 2
    7 December 2010 at 3:07 pm

    I wish we could get through to these bstards that they are public servants. Y’know?

    Where then the space for ‘It won’t be in your interests to have it open master, for a whole bunch of reasons I don’t want to go into.’ ?

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    7 December 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Wikileaks please.

    • Tiger Mountain 3.1
      7 December 2010 at 9:58 pm

      Your’re not wrong CV, the SIS have substantial stocks of black marker pens for those few personal files that are released under the privacy act. The SIS Act 1969 still effectively prevents the ‘openess’ Dir. Tucker professed a couple of years back. Basically a lot of their snouts are still around and about as are some of their ‘work’ methods so they are allowed to hide from scrutiny.

      Which is why Wikileaks is required, the “pie and penthouse” snoopers (oldie, and a goodie) need maximum scrutiny.

  5. felix 5
    7 December 2010 at 5:05 pm

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that the Herald headline isn’t “DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK!!1”

  6. kinto 6
    7 December 2010 at 5:51 pm

    Interesting they can get this one through before the RWC but not the liquor law changes?

  7. Pascal's bookie 7
    7 December 2010 at 10:01 pm

    Because Shut Up. That’s why.

  8. BLiP 8
    7 December 2010 at 11:41 pm

    What difference does it make anyway? The government – including Labour – will do what they like in regard to spying on its people regardless of any submissions. The fact that John Key is going against previous National Prime Ministers’ policy in this regard is neither here nor there. Its just more of the same.

    So far as preventing any terrorist actions – fat chance. There are so many ways and means to avoid detection this latest nonsense being slipped into legislation under the guise of protecting the RWC is just a make-work exercise for our resident and visiting spooks. Its about creating the aura of something being done, generating the illusion that people are safer – in fact, the opposite is true and our real enemies are not disaffected extremists, its those who purport to have our best interests at heart.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.