It’s cronyism by another name

Prime Minister John Key has routinely polled more highly with the public than many policies of his government.

For that reason, party strategists must have been alarmed at last week’s events, in which Key proved unforthcoming to the point of being misleading about his relationship with Government Communications Security Bureau ( GCSB) spy agency boss Ian Fletcher, and about his role in Fletcher’s appointment.

Under pressure, Key finally denounced the media as ‘‘knuckleheads’’ and threatened to be less accountable to them in future.

Had Key really been the victim of his own frankness? Hardly.

Any damage done to the PM’s credibility had been self-inflicted, and was due largely to a lack of candour.

In Parliament, Key indicated he barely knew Fletcher and dismissed any suggestion he had played a significant role in Fletcher’s appointment.

Gradually, however, it emerged that Fletcher had been the only candidate interviewed for the job, that his name had been put forward by Key during a ‘‘brainstorming’’ session with State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie, that Key had phoned Fletcher to suggest putting his name forward, and that Key then ‘‘forgot’’ doing so. Finally, it transpired that Key had recommended Fletcher for other jobs in 2009.

At times last week, the media seemed as baffled as the public about what to believe. Key’s trip to China this week has provided a timely diversion. Yet bad as the Fletcher affair has seemed, Key’s popularity has survived previous occasions of tactical memory loss.

Key had also forgotten whether he supported the Springbok tour, how many Tranz Rail shares he had, and whether he had been briefed about Kim Dotcom.

Last year, when a poll majority said the drinking age should have been raised to 20, Key agreed, and added: ‘‘That’s one of the reasons I voted for it to go to 20 – in line with what the public thought.’’

In fact, he had voted for a split drinking age – 18 in bars, 20 for off-licence drinking – and once that option failed, Key had actually voted for the status quo, and against lifting the age to 20.

Such memory lapses may well turn out to be the least of the Fletcher affair.

With hindsight, Fletcher’s appointment may have been the opening shot in a revamp of the GCSB – which has supposedly specialised in foreign intelligence – and an eventual merger with the SIS, which looks after domestic intelligence.

Already, Fletcher brings expertise to the Dotcom copyright case, given his previous role as head of the former British Patents Office.

His wider role may well be to clean out the old by-the-books former military brass who have traditionally staffed the GCSB, prior to an SIS merger.

With a minimum of public discussion, the security services could well be more directly aligned with the government’s policy agenda.

Cause for concern, or no big deal?

In our political system, there are few checks and balances. Much has to be taken on trust, and perceptions matter.

In this case, a candidate known to the Prime Minister and with no previous experience in the field was the only person interviewed, and was appointed.

Even if this wasn’t cronyism, it looks enough like it as to damage the trust we are supposed to place in the security services.