Kevin Milne on the tape
Most New Zealanders will know Kevin Milne. He was the front for Fair Go for 20 years. In dealing with the various crroks etc they exposed, Fair Go would push right to the edge of what they could do, in order to tell a story.
Kevin Milne spoke on ZB today about the secret tape. When a journalist of his standing decries the media behaviour, that surely is a sign that collectively they got it wrong. A rough transcript:
“I’ve been surprised (to say the least) that speculation over what was recorded in the so-called “teacups” conversation this week has taken precedence over questions about the way the recording was obtained and how its been subsequently used.
The freelance cameraman is reported as saying he didn’t intentionally record the conversation. Perhaps that is correct. Perhaps. I don’t believe it, but perhaps. But my knowledge of the filming process is that while you might unintentionally leave a microphone in the proximity of where a private conversation is about to be held, as you continue to video from outside you would be aware that sound was also being recorded.
But lets say I’m even wrong about that and the cameraman didn’t intentionally record that private conversation, doesn’t his innocence in the matter evaporate when he passes on the tapes to the Herald on Sunday and TV3 presumably for money?
I think its a gross breach of privacy to record a conversation between two people who are unaware they’re being recorded and then release the contents of it. It makes me embarrassed Paul to have been once part of the same line of work. If its allowed to go unchecked where does it end? For example, camera operators and sound recordists sometimes use extremely sophisticated and powerful directional microphones. You can pick up conversations from about 100 metres away.
Are we soon to see these freelance guys drifting around parliament grounds seeing what they can pick up on tape – conversations between politicians standing on the steps of parliament for example? And while they’re at it such freelance cameramen could randomly listen in on private conversations between press gallery journalists and their partners lunching on the chairs in the sun.
I’m not soft, Paul, when it comes to investigative journalism. On “Fair Go” we often took our filming right to the edge in an attempt to show a scam was taking place and not everyone would agree with the tactics that we used. But never would we record a couple of public figures in private conversation then use knowledge of what was on those recordings to put pressure on them to publicly reveal details of what they’d been talking about. In my mind that’s appalling. I don’t care whether the victims are politicians, whether its election time, whether the “cup of tea” meeting was a staged piece of political nonsense or whether in the course of that conversation one or both parties said something they wouldn’t want made public.
The whole thing remains a gross breach of privacy in my mind. The heat ought to be on the media involved here not John Key or John Banks.” …
“I think that the media have misunderstood the public” …
“I’m surprised that there have been no other journalists who have taken the position that I have. I’m embarrassed.”
Whale has the audio also, embedded below.
NewstalkZb – Paul Holmes and Kevin Milne talk about the tea tapes by whaleoil
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
November 19th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
John Key as made a serious misjudgment. He should have gone to ‘Fair Go’ instead of the cops. (just kidding)
November 19th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Milne as it right especially as the camera man KNEW the conversation was being recorded. And he would have seen the microphone. And if it was all an accident why not delete the recording. Nope he was off the the Herald and TV3 hawking it for a price. And this man is a professional not a bumbling amateur. He does “jobs” for hire. He spotted an opportunity and hawked it around for money. The public is none too impressed with the media who seem to think the story is all that counts and they can place pressure on to get the story. Key has stood up to this and a good thing too. I am unclear why Labour has suffered except they have not been getting any publicity for their message and now they are fading.
November 19th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
“I’m surprised that there have been no other journalists who have taken the position that I have. I’m embarrassed.”
Kevin Milne seems to be the only person in the country who is surprised by this. Everyone else expects it.
November 19th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
The media should get a right bollocking over this from all the shows like Mediawatch who purport to monitor such things but I bet this doesn’t happen. I bet these “media watchdogs” instead gloss completely over both this and as well on the failure of the media to report on the repeat billboard attacks.
This together with the unnecessary and uniforming and frankly irrelevant week-long focus on the tea-cup “scandal” in the penultimate week of the election, is blatant evidence that our media is either really fucking dumb or really fucking biased.
Personally I think a lot of the problem is the media privately thinks the public are really fucking dumb. The superficial way they present their political analyses is very telling. They’re also very left, witness the Johanssen creature with a permanent spot on TVNZ political panels. He’s a fucking mental, he’s not even professional enough to hide his raging hatred for all things conservative and TVNZ present him all the time as their main “expert.” If that’s not proving they think the audience is dumb and proving they are biased as hell at the same time, then what is it.
And that’s just one channel, don’t let’s start on TV3 with Garner, Campbell, Forbes et al. They’re fucking outrageous lefty scum who once again are so unprofessional they don’t even bother to make an effort even to be seen as objective even if they aren’t, on the inside.
Fucking tossers. It’s not their fault though. Ultimately its the fault of the owners and the editorial boards who allow this execrable shit to happen night after night. Hulun would never have tolerated someone like a conservative version of Johanssen in that position, in her time. She wouldn’t have cared that the law says politicians can’t interfere, she would have just had him replaced with someone like the real Johanssen. I don’t really understand why the Nats are so fucking innocent they would never dream of doing something like that. Don’t they know anything about propaganda?
November 19th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
“I’ve been surprised (to say the least) that speculation over what was recorded in the so-called “teacups” conversation this week has taken precedence over questions about the way the recording was obtained and how it’s been subsequently used.”
I am not surprised. Media outlets like the Herald and TV3 have, for some time now, descended in the realm of tabloids. More and more their stories are inaccurate, incorrect and accompanied by blaring headlines twisting and distorting the facts. Their foreign media sources are extremely biased, one-eyed and their own ‘stories’ and editorials aren’t any better.
Milne is absolutely right to state that the way the recording was obtained and how it’s been subsequently used sets a dangerous precedent.
“I think it’s a gross breach of privacy to record a conversation between two people who are unaware they’re being recorded and then release the contents of it.”
And it doesn’t matter if they are politicians, celebrities or ‘ordinary’ people, the principle is the same.
November 19th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
I knew you wouldn’t be linking to the conversation with Milne unless you supported his position. Why don’t you give your readers Matthew Hooton’s opinion? Or Grey Power’s? Or almost anyone else’s?
November 19th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
And DPF, if you’re going to quote someone, why not media law expert Steven Price? He’s written extensively on the subject.
http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=522
November 19th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Because Kevin Milne is absolutely impartial.
November 19th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
touche!
November 19th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Ross, Grey Power seems to favour Winnie.
November 19th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
“Because Kevin Milne is absolutely impartial.”
And Steven Price isn’t? Oh ok.
November 19th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
@ross
“Why don’t you give your readers Matthew Hooton’s opinion? Or Grey Power’s? Or almost anyone else’s?”
Argumentum ad populum.
Just because most (or a lot of people) agree, like you, that it is OK to to tape and publish a conversation without the consent of the parties involved and continue to do so even after the parties involved have said that the conversation was private, does not make it right.
If the police want to tape or record a conversation, they must first receive a warrant from a judge or gain permission from at least one of the parties they are recording.
But the media should have free reign?
November 19th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
And Steven Price isn’t? Oh ok.
Actually ross if you don’t know he isn’t and never has been, then your political antennae is broken and needs an urgent upgrade. You must have missed years of updates. You’re not still running one of the early steam models are you? They were phased out fifty years ago.
He isn’t in the same way Kim Hill isn’t, in the same way Pam Corkery isn’t. Kind of in-between the two.
November 19th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Teapot affair too trivial for raids on media
5:30 AM Saturday Nov 19, 2011
The question from a BBC journalist to a Wellington-based reporter this week spoke volumes.
Was it true that one week before a general election, the police in New Zealand were about to search and seize material from the newsroom of the state radio service, at the behest of the Prime Minister?
When “yes” was the obvious reply, it was received with evident incredulity in London.
That the police have been called into the so-called “teapot tape” issue by the Prime Minister carries its own comment.
That they are now advising up to four news organisations that they seek information – and it is important to note here that it is not the actual tape recording or transcripts at this stage – should be resisted not only by the media but by all citizens who value a free media and its duty to the public.
Police inquiries, led by a detective inspector and a team that police will not quantify, are purportedly at a formative stage.
The unfortunate officers who have been handed this poisoned political teacup seem to want to gather any video that broadcasters have of the notorious “cuppa tea” meeting between John Key and Act’s John Banks a week ago to see what they can see.
Furthermore, they seek from Radio New Zealand any extended recording of an interview which it broadcast with the cameraman who left the microphone on a cafe table while the men talked.
There is no question that, as framed so far, the police inquiry is a fishing expedition to establish if there is anything that might help them understand just what the Prime Minister alleges was breaking the law. Such fishing expeditions are regularly decried by the courts and defenders of the public’s rights.
The Court of Appeal, in a notable case involving Television New Zealand in 1995, set out principles for the granting and execution of search warrants to be used on the news media. The first was that “a search warrant should not be used in trivial cases”. Given that the recording in this case arose during a media photo opportunity in a public cafe, and that it has neither been played nor published, this case surely remains in the realm of trivial allegations.
The Appeal Court also said “the material sought by police should have a direct and important place in the determination of the issues before the court”. As police now want video and sound from organisations which have never had the actual disputed recording, this principle cannot be validly met.
Many in the public have chosen to give Mr Key the benefit of the doubt, taking a view negative towards the media and endorsing a popular politician’s criticism of the recording.
Yet the prospect of newsrooms being searched for standard news coverage is surely not tolerable for an affair which the same public views as minor, and which centres on a discussion Mr Key terms “bland”.
The cameraman, Bradley Ambrose, has now sought High Court intervention to make a statutory declaration that the cafe venue and conversation were not, and could not have been, private. Should he succeed in a hearing likely to be next week, the police inquiry will be redundant as no law could have been broken.
Police should hang up the fishing rod and spare themselves the reputational damage Mr Key has invited this week.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503012&objectid=10767137
Key and Co on a hiding for nothing I sugest.
November 19th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
John Key and John Banks will be wishing they had taken C.S. Lewis’ advice that “tea should be taken in solitude”, as “cuppagate” heads to court.
But the Crimes Act is clear that a communication will not be private if it occurs in “circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted …”.
In the lead-up to the election, what journalist would not want to know what was said? The conversation also took place in a public cafe, was filmed and the communication was arguably intercepted at this point, even without the audio. Cue the lip-readers.
Even if the conversation was a private communication, Mr Ambrose would only be criminally liable if he intercepted it intentionally.
Appealing to the tort of invasion of privacy is going to be difficult for Mr Key and Mr Banks given the public interest in disclosure.
For the reasons given above, it is questionable whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists in this scenario or whether its publication would be considered highly offensive.
In this case, the political context in which the conversation was held is likely to be especially relevant.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503012&objectid=10767126
November 19th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Common mistakes.
1. Assuming that the recoding was planned and not accidental.
2. Assuming that the contents have been released. Assuming TV3 and Winston know the contents as against recontructed the possibilities from lip reading and second guessing.
Irrationally thinking that a politican should not be subject to public scrutiny. Especially two very experienced and police protected politicans and more especially at a time when they organised the circus for their own benefit.
Me thinkess that they protest too much.
And they will lose in any Fair Court of Law.
November 19th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
And they will lose in any Fair Court of Law.
V2 you make good points and “circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted …” is certainly open to interpretation in this case.
However I think it is a principle worth clarifying at the HC/CA/SC for if left unchallenged it does leave a wide open gap in a hitherto ill-defined area of media law.
I don’t therefore think Key is wrong to have taken it up with the police and I also think it’s relevant to factor in he was landed with this situation, he did not invite it and he did not engineer it. He was foolish, not to have thought: “what’s that at my elbow?” I mean der. And he was foolish in his suicide analogy. So he’s not perfect. Anyone who thinks already knew that anyway.
November 19th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
I totally agree with Kevin Milne and I think Ambrose should give some thoughts to brushing up on what constitutes ethical behaviour. He had no right to record that conversation, or to hand it to over to media outlets. The guy has stuffed up the election coverage for everyone. What a complete and utter idiot.
November 19th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
“But the media should have free reign?”
Do they? That’s news to me. You obviously have dozens of examples at your fingertips where the media routinely breach the law.
November 19th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
“The guy has stuffed up the election coverage for everyone.”
Yeah, that’s right, John Key was going to talk policy, policy, policy the entire campaign. LMAO
November 19th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Kevin Milne and Paul Holmes.???
Really you would beleive their opinions. FFS no wonder NZ is stuffed.
November 19th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Kevin Milne touches on a key point that has been overlooked by much of the discussion on this matter.
The cameraman made the decision to distribute the recording to other media outlets. He could have quietly deleted it – but he *chose* not to do so.
November 19th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Guys, all of this does not really matter.
Around this time next week (give or take an hour or so) we on the right will be able to utter that saying once again, The saying that get’s right up the nose of all the communists over at the standard, irritates all the trolls who come here.
I seven days time will will be able to say ” we won, you lost, eat that!”
November 19th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
ross (1,108) Says:
“Do they? That’s news to me. You obviously have dozens of examples at your fingertips where the media routinely breach the law.”
Thats called a “straw-man” Ross.
If you want to debate the issue that’s fine but don’t use fallacious arguments.
If the police want to tape or record a conversation, they must first receive a warrant from a judge or gain permission from at least one of the parties they are recording. Should the media (In this case Bradley Ambrose) be allowed to tape or record a conversation without these strict conditions?
November 19th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
100% agree with Kevin Milne. Although I’d add that it’s not just the media that’s been appalling; there’s many politicians who’d normally champion privacy rights, but in this instance are getting stuck in with the media on grounds of “public interest”.
I’d argue that the real public interest is that the right to privacy is maintained. I don’t care if it was a media circus, Banks and Key had an expectation of privacy during their conversation. What they said might be interesting but I’d rather have their rights respected.
Duncan Garner has been an absolute disgrace.
November 19th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Other Andy you seem to think it was a private conversation. I tend to think otherwise.
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201147/SCCZEN_A_121111NZLDWKEY01_460x230.JPG
November 19th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Viking2
Accepting all your wise advice via the Herald being true, can you perhaps help with one further point. Why aren’t the media publishing the tape instead of asking for permission? And for that matter why should either of the Johns give permission, under the circumstances?
November 19th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
So let’s imagine Phil Goff and Winston Peters sitting down in place of Key and Banks, with all the other factors involved identical.
I wonder how much of this faux outrage we’d hear from Kbloggers….
“Oh but it was a publicity stunt held by two lefty loosers attempting to rort the democratic system. They held the meeting in public, so they were fair game. After all, they are politicians, so if they were dissing the electorate, then it is in the public interest to know what the lefty mental fuckers were conspiring about” etc.
As for Milne shoving microphones and cameras where they weren’t welcome for the sake of ratings, oops, I meant for the sake of consumer rights, well that was perfectly okay….
November 19th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
@ Ross – I blogged about Hooton’s opinion earlier in the day, but here’s the link to it. It’s entitled Key’s strategy pays off
http://www.electionresults.co.nz/opinion/politicians/keys-strategy-pays
And here’s the closing paragraph, which might make you wish that you hadn’t asked for Hooton’s opinion:
Bugger!
November 19th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
You missed the bit where Hooton admitted to being wrong then? Check Keeping Stock’s “Mea Culpa” post – I’d link but I’m on itelephone…
November 19th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Hooton’s opinion was that Key’s handling of the issue was damaging to him…so he’s flip flopped…after the election we may see him flip flop again.
November 19th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
“Other Andy you seem to think it was a private conversation. I tend to think otherwise.”
It was visually evident that a conversation was taking place but perhaps you can explain why, if Key and Banks did not expect protection from listening in (which is the relevant test), all the photographers are on the other side of the window? Do you really think that had you been there, you would have been at liberty to rock up to the table and listen in?
November 19th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Nookin, look how close the public are to the PM. There is no window between them. There’s a woman sitting just behind the PM.
Those whingeing lack any class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D6bx8j4d-Y
November 19th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Ross
You are saying with certainty that those people can hear – assuming that they are not members of the party faithfull?
How many have come forward to say that they heard what was discussed? And you rely on that?
November 19th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Watch this Ross. They made it clear that they wanted a private chat.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/videos/5951413/John-Key-John-Banks-meeting
November 19th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I used to be a journalist. Here’s what I can tell you, honestly.
Most reporters wouldn’t dream of involving themselves in this kind of underhanded, sleazy conduct that the Crimes Act suggests is outside of the law.
Believe what you like. As a tertiary-qualified ex-journalist who’s moved to PR, I know a bit about the industry and what
goes on behind the scenes.
The vast majority of journalists and their colleagues simply wouldn’t resort to this kind of stuff … but there are always
those who will, and you always know where to find them.
November 20th, 2011 at 12:14 am
The day it becomes a crime to report what 2 politicians say in a conversation is a serious concern.
November 20th, 2011 at 1:59 am
How does Ambrose bugging the PM differ from NOTW bugging mobile phones?
If the latter caused the high-circulation newspaper to be closed down, should ‘Herald on Sunday’ suffer a similar fate? If not, why not?
November 20th, 2011 at 2:14 am
The news media, and the Herald in particular, shamelessly make their own news by selective reporting and omission of context.
I’ve had my own experience with the Herald quoting me and it was embarrassing. They are somewhere between liars and conmen in their ethics. Anything to spice up a story and to hell with the people involved – whether they are public figures or not.
Fuck them all. They make dodgy used car salesmen look honest.
The Herald’s veiled sanctimonious reporting over this recording (we’re just honest news men trying to bring you the news) is sick.
November 20th, 2011 at 8:06 am
Sublime:- “The vast majority of journalists and their colleagues simply wouldn’t resort to this kind of stuff …”
Heck, I would:
1) They are politicians conducting political business, not private business.
2) They are in a pubic place.
3) It is a publicity stunt. They are courting media attention.
4) What they discuss is of public interest.
5) They are arranging an unethical and undemocratic manipulation of the electoral system, so they themselves are behaving unethically. (probably the most important point, as this sets an ethical standard by which other behaviour can be measured)
6) John Banks is an asshole IMO.
7) It’s worth a lot of money.
Note: This has split most people down partisan lines. What does this tell you?
November 20th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Also, those who are comparing this with the NOTW phone hacking scandals are way off.
The most harm caused by the phone hacking scandal was to the parents of the teenager who went missing and was murdered, and who were given false hope of their daughter’s survival by the erasing of messages from the teenager’s voice mail by the hackers, leading the parents to think that the teenager was alive and erasing the messages.
Aside from that, they were private citizens and they were grieving, and the hacking was clearly deliberate and callous and systematic, and was carried out with the knowledge of the NOTW hierarchy.
As far as I’m concerned, politicians of any flavour on political business in a public place are fair game for the media. You can’t just turn the media on an off like a tap. What arrogance!
November 20th, 2011 at 8:40 am
“How does Ambrose bugging the PM differ from NOTW bugging mobile phones?”
If you don’t know the answer, I suggest you back to school – if you’re not there already.
November 20th, 2011 at 9:21 am
“You can’t just turn the media on an off like a tap. What arrogance”
Yes you can. It is simple, even for a moron.
If it is legal then it is on.
If it is illegal then it is off.
Politicians have no greater rights than any other person. More importantly, they have no fewer rights either. The Crimes Act does not say “This section does not apply to politicians who are fair game”.
November 20th, 2011 at 9:26 am
“If you don’t know the answer, I suggest you back to school – if you’re not there already.”
The difference is the extent. In principle we have news media using illegal tactics to get a story. NOTW was much more serious, extensive and offensive. Both criminal.
November 20th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Nookin says:- “Yes you can. It is simple, even for a moron.”
Moron? ~Crikey, what an incisive argument.~
Back to the issue. Whether or not it was legal will soon be established, and has been discussed on previous threads.
I was discussing the ethics of the matter, as was Milne, and as is the subject of this thread.
Simple enough for you?
November 20th, 2011 at 9:43 am
My reference to a “moron” was not part of the argument. It was to set the level of understanding necessary for somebody to appreciate where the press can go and where the press must stop. In this case, there is a very clear benchmark. It is specified in the Crimes Act. This thread is not solely about ethics. Kevin Milne starts by saying that he did not accept the recording to be accidental. As far as I can see, if it is not accidental than that is the end of the matter. A criminal offence was committed. Much of Kevin’s comments then go on to “assume” for the purposes of the exercise at the recording was accidental. I have no argument about that. However, this thread is not solely confined to that assumption.
And if you get your knickers in a twist about derogatory comments or sarcasm, try some restraint yourself.
November 20th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Has anybody noticed the complete absence of any comment in APN newspapers on the illustrious past of that slimeball Ambrose.
He had good reason, I believe, to change his name and I would like to see those reasons in print for all of us to reflect upon.
I think he would have similar ethics to Scott Chris.
November 20th, 2011 at 9:52 am
nookin says:- “My reference to a “moron” was not part of the argument”
Of course it is. It’s classic ad hom. Undermine what your foe has to say by attacking his intellectual capacity.
Unprovoked insults are the lexicon of fools. But I don’t think you are one.
November 20th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Point taken. Must be more careful with ad homs. There are, however, some deserving cases.
November 20th, 2011 at 10:21 am
“Has anybody noticed the complete absence of any comment in APN newspapers on the illustrious past of that slimeball Ambrose.”
Talking about Ambrose, it’s one thing to say he left his microphone at the table, it’s one thing to say the recording was “accidental” (although his videocamera was on and recording) and so on but as Kevin Milne reminds us he took that recording to the NZ Herald.
Then we see his lawyer contesting whether such recordings are legal or illegal (if legal the presumably all of the above can be dismissed) and now he is asking for an apology for hurt of reputation….
All I will say is, the world Ambrose inhabits is very competitive …. a cameraman must be at the forefront of the situation/subject to get the best shots (and best sound altough sometimes there is a sound operator or journo holding the microphone). In other words when the public watch the news and for example say it was Phil Goff being interviewed, the viewer wants to see Phil Goff’s face, not Phil Goff hidden behind a sea of other videocamera operators, journos or crowds of people. Notice on the News, that’s what happens, the best camera opeartors are right there up in the Politicians face.
Now I can’t help but feeling that Ambrose is digging a big hole here because his actions will be further scrutinised by the Courts in time (rather than us commentators and bloggers). He may come out ok or he may not, but no doubt the pressure on him is immense.
So, assuming if the following is the case of course, rather than go to court, why not say something like “yes, I left the microphone there, yes, I took the recording to the NZ Herald …. but I work in a very competitive environment and in the heat of the excitement (of the Epsom cafe meeting) my instincts got the better of me and I wasn’t thinking this through properly when I took the recording to the NZ Herald. Upon reflection I acted on haste and I apologise for my actions and wrong-doing on the matter and I apologise to JK and JB”.
Well his lawyer could draft something better up, but I think a bit of de-escalating of the issue would see some face saved and perhaps for Ambrose it might be a better course of action considering the long term effects for him.
I write the above on the assumption that Ambrose is a “decent guy”, of course…..?
November 20th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Niggly
You make perfect sense about de-escalating and attempting to save face but it won’t happen because Ambrose will already have been paid and he wont want to pay the money back.
Or he told his client that things were sweet when they boought the tape and its now turned to crap for him and he might not get paid anything, which would be great
November 20th, 2011 at 11:06 am
niggly says:- “the world Ambrose inhabits is very competitive …. a cameraman must be at the forefront of the situation/subject to get the best shots”
You raise good point. Ambrose has effectively become one of the paparazzi, which is an inevitable consequence of a free market, just as are telemarketers, door to door salesmen, pornography, harvey norman ads and anorexic 14 year old fashion models.
In other words, if you accept the idea of a free market, then you have to accept the idea that boundaries will be pushed. Ambrose’s actions are a function of the natural evolution of the media market. The fact that his personality fits his job is also a natural function of the labour market.
He probably is a callous, pushy wanker by most people’s standards, but not by the standards of the industry that he is in.
November 20th, 2011 at 11:19 am
The point which many of you seem to be missing is that it is not relevant whether John Key or John Banks wanted privacy or didn’t want to be recorded. That is a subjective test. The test for privacy is objective and whether, given the circumstances, they were entitled to expect privacy. Given that this was a media event which Key and Banks had orchestrated and that the media were within a few feet of their cup of tea I do not find it reasonable that they could have expected privacy. It’s absurd to expect that in such circumstances.
In terms of politics I doubt this issue will be damaging because given what has been reported about its contents the nature of what was supposedly said is not unexpected to most people. Most people would already assume that such things would likely be said behind closed doors so it’s not likely to change their vote. On the other hand if the contents of the tape were truly shocking rather than just embarrassing then it would be a different matter.
What does concern me though, and which others have alluded to, is the notion of the PM using the police to try and squash a political scandal under the guise of privacy. The PM may be lucky that most of the public dislikes the media but the public are fools to allow a politician to use the Police to intimidate the media over a political scandal. As much as the media is disliked for genuine and legitimate reasons, they are nevertheless an important check on government power and to me this represents a great abuse of power. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy and for the PM to use the police in this way to cover up a political scandal of his own making is rather chilling.
November 20th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Scott: I put it more down to “human nature”. Free-markets may (or may not) play a significant part and is a seperate debate but humans for millenia have been competitive. (Even probably back in the days of the USSR the camera operators there would too have been competitive)!
“He probably is a callous, pushy wanker by most people’s standards, but not by the standards of the industry that he is in.”
Not trying to defend Ambrose, but seeing there hasn’t been a precdent before …. what if Ambrose relied on the advice from the NZ Herald when he mentioned to them he had a recording? Whilst Ambrose would have some limited background knowledge on what makes for a legal/illegal recording, he is relying on the big guns eg NZ Herald with their access to top legal advice to make the call on what to do.
Have the NZ Herald used Ambrose? Ambrose can’t squeal to the media, for they provide him with work and if he blots his “reputation” with NZH they can turn off the employment tap. Rhetoric question: do the media abuse their position (to make a buck) ….?
November 20th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Weihana
Except:
The media were told to leave them while they had a chat.
The media were excluded from the cafe while that happened.
November 20th, 2011 at 11:52 am
“What does concern me though, and which others have alluded to, is the notion of the PM using the police to try and squash a political scandal under the guise of privacy.”
Weihana: that also was Chris Trotters’ (hardly impartial view) on the RNZ Panel the other day. But the answer is, that’s the law. If people have a problem with this, change the law and not pretend JK is running a Police state.
I think in National’s case, these things have happened before (eg Kees Kaiser recordings) and thought enough is enough, where does the line get drawn? National refered the matter to the Police, the Police’s legal team look at the law and decide whether or not it merits application. Incidentally the Police are acting slowly and cautiously presumably, issued search warrants but haven’t executed them, so hardly a Police State/PM abuse of powers type of situation in my opinion!
November 20th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Nookin,
Again, their desire to be left alone (despite orchestrating a media event) is not the test. That is subjective. You ever see defendants coming out of court and trying to cover their face and telling media to leave them alone? Do you think that means they are entitled to be left alone? Of course not. Just because you tell the media to leave you alone doesn’t mean you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The relevant test is whether, in the circumstances, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. How can it be reasonable to expect privacy in a media frenzy which you have personally orchestrated?
To me an event is either public or private. This event was public. You don’t get to say “film me but don’t record what I’m saying”. Indeed the film itself can, to an extent, be used to analyze what was said by reading the persons lips. This in itself, and given the PMs lack of opposition to filming the cup of tea, demonstrates that the conversation was not private.
November 20th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
niggly (471) Says:
November 20th, 2011 at 11:52 am
“What does concern me though, and which others have alluded to, is the notion of the PM using the police to try and squash a political scandal under the guise of privacy.”
Weihana: that also was Chris Trotters’ (hardly impartial view) on the RNZ Panel the other day. But the answer is, that’s the law. If people have a problem with this, change the law and not pretend JK is running a Police state.
I think in National’s case, these things have happened before (eg Kees Kaiser recordings) and thought enough is enough, where does the line get drawn? National refered the matter to the Police, the Police’s legal team look at the law and decide whether or not it merits application. Incidentally the Police are acting slowly and cautiously presumably, issued search warrants but haven’t executed them, so hardly a Police State/PM abuse of powers type of situation in my opinion!
But I do not agree that the law is on the PM’s side as I do not believe he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a media circus he created.
Are we a police state because the PM referred this to the police? No, but it could be seen as the thin end of the wedge. The PM is no ordinary person and anything he refers to the police is going to be taken seriously. I think as PM he has a responsibility to act judiciously and in this case what he is actually doing is making a smart political manoeuver in order to cover up an embarrassing political scandal and, most ingenious, to deprive Labour of oxygen while the drama unfolds. Mixing the police in this affair is in my view improper and sets a dangerous precedent. Great politics and more evidence that Key is an intelligent person and shrewd politician, but not something I can tolerate as a voter.
November 20th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Weihana: the “PM is no ordinary person” but he is a citizen of NZ like you & I etc. So why shouldn’t he?
Because if one thinks about it, perhaps this is why the media gets away with pushing the boundaries (and baiting people, including the PM) because they know that if the PM complains to the Police the media can highlight what you are highlighting in order to justify their behaviour (which incidentally the majority of public don’t agree with).
November 20th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Weihana
I think that you are applying the incorrect test. There is an objective test, I accept that. It is not looked at from the subjective viewpoint of the communicators, however. It is looked at from the viewpoint of the “interceptor” or bystander.
If an interceptor, viewing the circumstances in which a communication is made (or being aware of those circumstances) should reasonably be aware that the parties to the communication desire that it be confined to those parties then it is a private communication for the purposes of the Crimes Act. There is a proviso. In my view, that proviso does not apply in this particular case.
Your reference to filming people coming out of the courthouse is a distraction. Of course they can be filmed. They are in a public place. However, if one of them put a paper bag over their head, a cameraman is not entitled to remove it.
Similarly, if that person (assuming it is an accused) confers with his/her solicitor some distance from other parties, or having said “go away and leave us alone for a minute”, that is a clear message that those parties desire the communication that they are about to share in the confined to themselves. It does not matter that they are in a public place. It does not matter that they are politicians. They were not making public statements in the nature of a press conference or undertaking general chitchat in the presence of the news media has happened when they entered the restaurant. They made it clear that they wanted to have a cup of tea and a chat – alone – and asked the news media to leave. That, in my view, is a clear message that they were telling the news media that they expected their conversation to be confined to themselves. I do not know what other interpretation you can put on it. The news media were actually excluded from private premises.
Key and Banks were both sitting forward in their chairs and it was quite evident that the news media could not hear through the windows. Of course, there was a possibility that other customers (assuming that they were customers and not plants) could have overheard. It is reasonable however to assume that both Banks and Key would have been aware of the proximity of those the customers and adopted appropriate tones.
“private communication—
(a)means a communication (whether in oral or written form or otherwise) made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but
(b)does not include such a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so.]]”
November 20th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Nookin,
“ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted”
Given that they had orchestrated this media circus and that the media were filming the conversation through a window mere centimeters from Key and Banks I find it hard to see how they could reasonably expect their communication not to be intercepted. Indeed, lip reading the filming of that conversation would intercept at least a portion of that conversation.
However, I acknowledge I’m not an expert on these matters and will be interested to see the outcome of the court case this week.
November 20th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
niggly,
“the “PM is no ordinary person” but he is a citizen of NZ like you & I”
I disagree. being PM he is not like you and I.
I think there should be a public interest aspect to privacy law. I don’t think privacy laws should be a means for politicians to protect themselves when they say one thing to the public and then say another thing in private. If Key and Banks were talking about their families and their private life then that would be one thing, but when they are discussing political matters I tend to think it’s an abuse of privacy laws to try and protect politicians from being outed for saying one thing in public and another in private. I don’t think that is what privacy laws were intended to protect.
Maybe I’ve not thought this through enough. Would be interested to hear arguments against but seems to me politicians talking politics in private is fair game for public exposure. On the face of it it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable restriction of their privacy.