ANOTHER VIEW
The question from a BBC journalist to a Wellington-based reporter last 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 reply, it was received with incredulity in London.
That the police have been called into the so-called "teapot tape" issue by Prime Minister John Key carries its own comment. That they are now advising news organisations that they seek information - and it is important to note that is not the actual tape recording or transcripts for now - should be resisted by the media and all citizens who value free media and their duty to the public.
The police officers handed this poisoned political teacup seem to want to gather any video broadcasters have of the notorious "cuppa tea" meeting between Mr Key and Act's John Banks a week ago to see what they can see.
As well, they seek from Radio New Zealand any extended recording of an interview it broadcast with the cameraman who left a microphone on a cafe table while the men talked.
As framed so far, the police inquiry is a fishing expedition to establish if there is anything that might help them understand what the Prime Minister alleges was breaking the law. Such 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 that 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 intolerable for an affair that 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 this 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.
APN News & Media