John Armstrong: An apology that could easily backfire
5:30 AM Friday Sep 28, 2012
Kim Dotcom speaks to the media outside the High Court. Photo / Sarah Ivey
Paul Neazor's report on the unlawful bugging of Kim Dotcom is not so much a whitewash as washed out.
In a political culture where sheeting home accountability usually means a mild slap over the wrist with the old wet bus ticket, Neazor's report sets a new low.
Sure, Neazor had to conduct his inquiry within very narrow parameters set by the Prime Minister.
Those boundaries may have been deliberately set tight to constrain the retired High Court judge from speaking out, thereby stopping him from overshadowing John Key and allowing the Prime Minister to pick up any brownie points on offer by getting stuck into the GCSB.
Given Neazor's watchdog role as Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence, however, you would have thought he would have used some equally strong language in his report.
His report instead delivers a mechanical account of what we largely already knew - that the police and the GCSB misunderstood Dotcom's residency status and thought he was a foreigner who could be legally monitored by the spy agency. If only someone had phoned the Immigration Service to check ...
Missing from Neazor's report is any reference to the apparent communication breakdown in the Beehive which has left questions as to why the Prime Minister was not told about the eavesdropping for months - especially as Key is the minister responsible for the GCSB.
Key's handling of the Dotcom affair came in for some stinging criticism from Opposition parties during a snap debate in Parliament yesterday.
Key sought to regain the moral high ground by apologising to Dotcom. Many will be wondering why. It could backfire badly on Key if the internet tycoon seeks and wins hefty compensation at taxpayers' expense.
Other have also mentioned there needs to be a very close look at how the police are using powers given to other government agencies to get around the law not allowing them to do the same. That appears to be what happened in the Dotcom case. How many other cases has it occurred in? What were the consequences of this potentially illegal conduct?
If there is a "Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink" approach employed by various government agencies pooling their powers without regard to legal limitations or jurisdiction, we need to know about it. It may be that the law is an ass and needs fixing or it may be that there is wrong being done in the name of good.
In either case we should not leave people working in these agencies alone to make it up as they go along. That's not fair to them or the public interest.
One other matter: will the Mr Plod who perjured himself before the High Court be required to answer for his misdeeds?
It is time to roll out the tumbrel and ready the executioner's basket. I can think of at least three heads that should be rolling around in the latter.