NZ POLITICS DAILY: View from the 9th floor

Prime Minister John Key has been vindicated.

The police opinion that the teapot tape recordings were illegally made shows that Key was right to refer the issue to them. As Key himself has said: ‘At the end of the day, his actions have been deemed unlawful’ and an apology has been extracted from the protagonist, Bradley Ambrose.

Key has also won a victory in his campaign against the sliding ethics of the media, which will prevent outlets such as the Herald on Sunday turning into the News of World. Key looks magnanimous in choosing to ‘turn the other cheek’ and has drawn a line under the case for the Government.

Well, that’s the view from the 9th floor of the Beehive.

There’s a different view, however - one that says John Key has seriously damaged his own reputation and credibility through his heavy-handed mismanagement of the issue; that the journalist (and media as a whole) have been defamed by both the Prime Minister and the police, without their day in court; and that the outcome of the police investigation will have a chilling effect on media and politics.

The strongest cases for John Key being the real loser in the saga are put forward in Vernon Small’s Teapot tape stunt scalded Key the most and John Armstrong’s Key comes to senses to end regretful tale – both are must-reads. Small is clear on the impact of the affair during the campaign: ‘the slide in his approval was almost palpable on the campaign trail from the time of the stunt; a cosy cuppa with a party doomed to failure without that deal in Epsom. In the end the teapot stunt scalded Mr Key the most’.

Key’s political judgment failed him according to Armstrong: ‘Politically, it was folly when coupled with his refusal to divulge the contents of the tape. It may well have been the difference between Winston Peters making it back to Parliament or not. Key would not let it go. It seemed to create a blind spot in his political antennae’. Armstrong says that any court trial would have been a bad outcome for Key and the Government: ‘It would have been a media circus; it would have been a further distraction from Government efforts to get voters to focus on National's policy program. That is the real reason why Key has opted to turn the other cheek’.

Without being tested in court there is widespread skepticism that any police prosecution could have succeeded. Ambrose’s lawyer, Ron Mansfield, thinks the police response speaks for itself: ‘If they had a strong case they would proceed. I don't believe they thought they had any reasonable prospect of succeeding if they went to trial’ – see: Lawyers brewed up a deal to settle teapot saga. Today’sHerald editorial agrees: ‘No crime had been committed, despite the police attempt yesterday to save face by claiming the cameraman's action was "unlawful" or, in a telling show of doubt, "at least reckless". The lawfulness would have been for a court to decide, but no prosecution will be taken’ – see: Key's attack on the media a sorry mess.

Graeme Edgeler (see: Police: "Ambrose not guilty") paraphrases the police’s statement of illegality: ‘Police believe that had this matter been taken to trial, they could not have established all of the elements of the offence, and that Mr Ambrose would therefore have been properly found not guilty, and that any conviction of him on the evidence they could present would have been a miscarriage of justice’.

Many are also arguing that the journalist has been defamed, not just by the Prime Minister, but now by the police. No Right Turn (see: The teapot decision) argues that without a judge and jury to decide, yesterday’s decision was ‘an exercise in defamation to protect the reputation of the police’. Andrew Geddis (see: Half a baby for everyone!) says Ambrose has been ‘publicly labelled as criminal by the police without being able to have your day in court to prove otherwise’. Colin Peacock from Radio New Zealand’s Mediawatch (listen to his interview on Morning Report here) makes the point that Ambrose’s position as an independent journalist with very limited resources makes him much easier to intimidate with legal threats than a large media corporation. He wonders if Ambrose should have received more support from the rest of the media, and compares his treatment to that of Jon Stevenson, another independent journalist whose excellent work on the SAS in Afghanistan resulted in his credibility being attacked by government ministers. The whole saga has had a direct and negative impact on Ambrose’s career – see: Peter Wilson’s Teapot tape starved cameraman of work.

There probably will be a day in court, not over the taping itself, but rather over legal costs as Attorney-general Chris Finlayson seeks nearly $14,000 in court costs from Ambrose over High Court action last year to have the tapes declared public – see: PM welcomes 'teapot tape' decision. Ambrose is also considering defamation action against the Prime Minister if there isn’t an apology over comments comparing the journalist’s actions to the News of the World scandal. Ambrose isn’t ‘holding his breath’, however – see: Newswire's 'Teapot tape' cameraman considers suing PM.

What will be the long-term legacy of the case? Lawyer and ex-Act MP Stephen Franks pointed out on Checkpoint (listen here) that the importance of the case to media, lawyers and politicians is far greater than to the rest of the population. The media were slap in the middle of the story and can be seen as merely protecting their own interests but when politicians set the police onto journalists for political purposes the implications need serious consideration.

Vernon Small thinks yesterday’s outcome should be of great concern, specifically: ‘the use of the prime minister's office in the cause of "principle", the high-handed raids on media organisations and the police putting a private citizen through the grinder. When a senior police officer effectively declared Ambrose guilty of intent yesterday, without a trial, it turned a bitter taste into a very bad taste in the mouth.’

The Herald editorial identifies the very important unanswered question: ‘As the police walked away yesterday, there was an unnecessary but chilling sting in the tail. The warning to Ambrose "sends a clear message to media that the recording and distribution of conversations that are considered private is likely to lead to prosecution in the future". But "considered" by whom?’

Russell Brown (see: The real problem with the #teapottapes decision) also thinks the police warning creates a real dilemma for the media in the future as it could include: ‘any open-mic accident of the sort that happens to political leaders the world over without the police getting involved. Good old New Zealand. And, on the face of it, it also means the kind of private conversations in which there is demonstrable public interest. Burgess may not have thought that his statement would have a chilling effect on the fourth estate, but that is precisely its import.’ The outcome was essentially a practical one for all sides according to Andrew Geddis, but it will effectively stop publication of material sourced in the same way in future.

The police timing of the announcement yesterday, with the Prime Minister out of the country and so not forced to front personally, added to a sense that politics – not principle – was the guiding force at work. John Hartevelt believes that yesterday’s outcome was no less ‘unsavoury’ than its beginning and describes the whole affair as a ‘sorry, grubby, absurd episode in this country's political history’ – see: Thank goodness teapot saga is over.

Over the last few days there has been some interesting coverage of the Labour Party and David Shearer. TV3’s The Nation ran a very good 18-minute programme on David Shearer’s listen and learn mission – Video. The Sunday Star Times put together an array of (contradictory) advice about What David Shearer must do next. Blogger Danyl Mclauchlan then offered Even more advice for David Shearer. Chris Trotter has also blogged about the decline of social democracy both here and in Australia, arguing that left parties have lost their ideological raison d’etre, and ‘the true wonder is not that Labour attracts so few votes, but that it still attracts so many’ – see: A Warning From Queensland.

In other items of note today, Colin James casts his eye over John Key’s recent political management and finds the Prime Minister wanting – see: Key, Shearer must both be wary; Karl du Fresne marvels that the National Government is starting to fall apart so early in its second term, and suggests its lack of ideological coherence is a problem: ‘its programme seems scattergun and ad hoc. There is little sense of a consistent, overarching philosophy’ – see: Big changes give Nats speed wobbles; David Farrar usefully puts together a list of MPs Social Media Details; Claire Trevett reports from the Prime Minister’s trip to Seoul: Key meets Obama: 'He was in great form'; John Hartevelt reports on an undoubtedly uncomfortable meeting in ACC chairman called to Beehive; Tracy Watkins reports on yet more Mfat leaks: Embassy repair man paid $154,000, and Gareth Morgan and Geoff Simmons put forward an argument for the value of New Zealand’s diplomats: Is the Ministry really that fat?.

Bryce Edwards, NZPD Editor (bryce.edwards@nzpoliticsdaily.co.nz)