Labour’s hypocrisy over GCSB Bill

Last night the GCSB Bill passed and the histrionics from the left are astonishing. Clare Curran had a moment:

I am struggling to see how a VOTE in parliament is an appalling day for democracy. If they had won the vote would that have been equally appalling. Of course it wouldn’t.

I mean seriously these lunatics need to take a chill pill.

Yesterday though David Farrar posted a comparison of the Helen Clark GCSB Bill and the John Key GCSB Bill. Apparently the increased controls and clarifications of the bill are an affront to democracy, according to loons like Clare Curran, yet Helen Clark’s bill was perfect.

So perfect was that bill that Labour cast 52 votes in favour of the GCSB Bill’s third reading 27 March 2003. All parties supported the bill except the far left  lunatics in the Green party, they are at least consistent in their opposition to western democracies protecting themselves.

These hypocrites who voted for Helen Clark’s GCSB Bill though are beyond the pale. The current Labour MPs who voted for Helen Clark’s bill and against John Key’s bill are

  • Cosgrove, Clayton
  • Cunliffe, David
  • Dalziel, Lianne
  • Dyson, Ruth
  • Goff, Phil
  • King, Annette
  • Mahuta, Nanaia
  • Mallard, Trevor
  • O’Connor, Damien
  • Parker, David
  • Robertson, Ross

Also former Labour MP:

  • Turia, Tariana 

Some of them even took a call to speak against the bill. Do they not remember their vote in 2003. Will labour now lobby to return the law to 2003 or will they do even worse and return it tot he state it was in when that other old has been ex-PM Geoffrey Palmer ran the GCSB without any laws at all? Labour seemed very happy with the GCSB back then.

One person that can hold their head up though is actually Helen Clark. She at least knows the importance of security when asked on her last trip to New Zealand, not that you would know because the media kept her opinions very quiet indeed because her opinion simply didn’t fit the narrative they have invested themselves in.

Helen Clark told Corin Dann that there is a need for a GCSB and she’s urging dialogue across the political divide.

“The answer is yes, you do, because you need that foreign intelligence, and not least for safety and security reasons. I think the real issue is, is there a gap in the law, which the Kitteridge Inquiry apparently found that there was, and if so, how do you deal with that and do you take the opportunity at the same time to write in more controls to protect the privacy of the individual? That, as I see it, is the debate raging at the moment.”

Ms Clark says when her government brought in the 2003 GCSB legislation ”that actually took GCSB out of the shadows and made it a government department with its own Act, which was good. But, you know, in retrospect, as Miss Kitteridge has found, perhaps there was a gap in the law. So that has to be dealt with, but I think it’s really important to try to reach across the political divide when you’re dealing with these issues.”

Ms Clark says, “Try and take the politics out of it and look at what do we as Kiwis need to protect our interests and how do we protect the privacy of individual Kiwis who should never be caught up in a giant trawling exercise across their communications.”

Everyone knows I don’t like Helen Clark’s politics, but read those statements and understand that she knows what doing the job of Prime Minister entails and what you have to make decisions on. She has sat in the big chair, David Shearer never has and never will. I admire Helen Clark as a politician, I despise her politics, but on this she was dead right.

This issue will now die, in a month people won’t even remember except those nasty, bitter socialists who seem tho think that western democracies shouldn’t protect themselves while other less desirable nations are spying and causing harm unfettered.

They are idiots.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Excellent post Cam.

  • Agent BallSack

    Bit of a thread jack but I have been thinking this a while – What was an affront to democracy was when the referendum was held on the anti smacking law and 70% of Kiwis were against it. Labour made it a law.

    • LesleyNZ

      Yes EXACTLY – why wasn’t Clare Curran tweeting madly then? This still needs to be put right.

    • steve and monique

      That was down to that Bradford bitch. What pissed me off was she did not raise her own kids. Good thing too,she probarly would have ate them.

  • Greg Presland

    Wow Cameron your spin advisers are really good. There is one major difference between the old legislation and the new law. It used to be that “[n]either the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.”

    Now everything is up for grabs.

    BTW The spin line that it is all Labour’s fault is getting really stale. National also voted for the 2003 Act. Are you saying that they also were not doing their job properly?

    And most people accept the need for the SIS and the GCSB. But we don’t want them having very wide powers so that they can spy on us. If you read Helen’s statements properly she is talking about a fix if there is a problem, not the institution of wide powers of data interception.

    • LesleyNZ

      Don’t think Cameron needs spin advisors. He can think for himself pretty good.

    • GregM

      I don’t think everything is up for grabs. If you add the words ” without a warrant signed by the PM and the Director” to your paragraph 1, what’s the problem ?
      Agree that ALL parties to the 2003 law should have looked at it a lot closer.

      • Alloytoo

        There’s a growing meme that basically says while you may trust John Key to do the right thing, what about his successors…….So the left don’t trust their leadership to “do the right thing”….interesting heh?

    • Agent BallSack

      National voted for it. So there was bi-partisan support for the law. Obviously there is a need for the law as both parties saw in the 90s. What scares Labour is that due to the amount of anti government sentiment its own people spout, they could very well be targets under this law and rightly so. The rabid ones that say ‘nothing a bomb won’t fix’. Say that to the wrong person and you have a recipe for criminal terrorism.

    • JC

      “But we don’t want them having very wide powers so that they can spy on us.”

      Yes we do. Thats what the entire Parliament with the exception of the Greens voted for in 2003. To prove the point Helen Clark then signed dozens of warrants over the rest of her terms to “spy on us”.

      The intent was always there, the Parliament knew it and accepted a few weasel words as a sop to the panty wetters.. and the Labour faithful lapped it up.

      JC

    • In Vino Veritas

      And how manyof the 88, did the GCSB provide information while Labour was in government 2003 – 2008, and under what part of the Act did they provide that information Greg? You are being disingenuous quoting the one part of the Act that supports your argument.

      • Agent BallSack

        John Key mentioned 9 people per year so approximately half were under Labours watch. Obviously 40 odd kiwis were of enough concern to track their communications under HELEN CLARKS administration.

        • AnonWgtn

          I think you may find that nearly all the 88 were in Labour/Fergusson’s time.

      • Greg Presland

        Havn’t a clue IVV and I would like to know. They assured the administration that they were acting legally and at the time there was no reason to doubt it. But I agree the details should be made public so we can have a proper debate on what the GCSB’s powers should be.

        • In Vino Veritas

          Try this Greg:
          to co-operate with, or to provide advice and assistance to, any public authority or other entity, in New Zealand or abroad,—
          (i) on the protection of information that the public authority or other entity produces, sends, receives, or holds in any medium; or
          (ii) on any matter that is relevant—
          (A) to the functions of the public authority or other entity; and
          (B) to any purpose specified in subsection (2).

          (2) The Bureau may perform its functions only for the following purposes:
          (a) to pursue its objective:
          (b) to protect the safety of any person:
          (c) in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime
          This was I believe, the overriding clause in the Act that both Clark’s (initially) and Key’s (latterly) advisors placed reliance on. The latest changes have only cleaned this up.

      • AnonWgtn

        Who was the GCSB boss when the 88 cases came up – bloody Ferguson, who is one of the prime bitchers today.
        He is pissed off because he did not get his term renewed after Helen’s original appointment of him, so he lobbied for a pal of his who did not get the job either – it went to a non Military man.

    • David Cunliffe

      Suck my balls gweg !

    • Muffin

      Hey dick, be careful what you write, no doubt now you are being spied on, your every word recorded and picked over by the new spy super computer. you can expect your door knocked down today, being dragged away for some re-education. Or you could get a fucking grip!

      • GazzW

        He’s got nothing to grip Muffin.

      • Agent BallSack

        Gulag re-education is a socialist thing. Unlikely under our current Government.

    • Quintin Hogg

      Greg,
      Talk about spinning.
      You have been watching too many re-runs of the Bourne trilology.
      There is more oversight now then there ever was over the Bureau. Which is good.
      Stick to your day job.

    • Pete George

      “And most people accept the need for the SIS and the GCSB.”

      lprent @The Standard: “This Act has a short lifetime.I think that we should have a serious look at killing the GCSB at the same time.”

      Bradbury @Daily Blog: “1. Repeal the Bill at the 2014 election, 2. Close the Waihopai Spy Base – America out of NZ”.

      Labour have put themselves in a very difficult position on this.

      • Bunswalla

        That’s what tends to happen when you substitute ideology for logic, common sense and pragmatism. Clark was above all a pragmatist and twice mentioning the need for those across the political divide to reach out was a big hint to the opponents of the bill. Shame they didn’t listen.

      • GazzW

        Labour is just echoing Norman’s policies Pete. Would never have happened under Clarke.

    • Agent BallSack

      Greg, I havent downvoted you because I respect your right to an opinion but there are 3 words that make this bill very damn important to every one of us:
      Radical Muslim Maori

      • GregM

        Same here, it’s good to hear differing opinions.

        • Agent BallSack

          Especially when you don’t have to visit the Daily Flush or the Sub-Standard to hear it. Those places make me wild.

    • Alloytoo

      “Are you saying that they also were not doing their job properly?”

      The affront is not so much in making a mistake, the affront lies in the blatant abdication of responsibility by labour.

  • Agent BallSack

    Good post Cam. I don’t agree with Helens politics either but she was a damn good politician and dare I say it the closest thing to John Key in that she was the consummate Leader. There was no thoughts of going against her or talking behind her back when she was PM. And she had the political nous to not ‘walk the plank’ or hold up the next deputy leader and co leader of the Labour party (dead fish).

    • Nechtan

      I agree Helen was a good politician but a “consummate leader” I disagree with that statement. A good leader would take the rap when speeding along in a motorcade to catch a game/plane not shove the poor bloody driver under the bus. A good leader would have been developing a second in command to take over when that time comes. Not so much a leader more a dictator.

      • Agent BallSack

        I think the fear of being rolled stopped her developing depth. She was challenged very early on and scraped through by the skin of her teeth. After that she brooked no interference and made sure everyone knew that she was there for the long haul. Of course it helped that she had very high popularity until the micro managing of our lives, leading to the so called ‘Nanny State’ lead to support disintegrating. Re the driver – in chess it’s quite common to sacrifice a pawn to draw attention away from your real gambit.

        • Nechtan

          All good points, the driver however wasn’t even a pawn in the political sense merely a guy doing his job. If the PM (or those representing the office) says get us to such and such by X time then that’s what happens. If she had just said “Hey I’m the PM and I needed to get there in time. We had a police escort etc…” I would have accepted that as semi reasonable (and perhaps most of NZ would).

  • LesleyNZ

    I wondered why what Helen Clark said was not on the mainstream media radar. She also spoke with NZ Herald’s Audrey Young. Shame on our media here in NZ. Does Clare Curran not know that democracy is by a 1 vote majority. What does she believe in – dictatorship? The Labour Party have shown once again that they have lost their way.

    • Agent BallSack

      Clare knows democracy is a one vote win, but only when you’re on the winning side, Lesley.

  • Bender Fender

    Sheep, Clare, you and all your labia colleagues are nothing but hypocrites. The bill was passed by a majority, is that NOT DEMOCRACY? Sour loosers and tossers like you should not be in parliament, you are a disgrace!

  • Pete George

    By choosing to play political games on this bill Labour have laid themselves a real minefield. Prentice is talking of scrapping the bill, and Bradbury is trying to talk up a campaign that would force splits in Labour for next year’s election.

    And if they managed to survive that and are in a position to put together a coalition they would have to negotiate with anti GCSB parties Greens, Maori and Mana. But they have promides an inquiry that they would be bound to. The only way they could pass amendments that keep the GCSB and SIS in action would be getting National’s suport.

    Great strategy Labour!

  • Stephen

    Ironical to see Collins, Banks and Tolley ,not forgetting dunne, reacting at yesterdays enquiry and raising questions with Henry over his right to access their information for his enquiry. so it seems that it’s ok for the rest of NZer’s to have everything spied upon but not National Cabinet Ministers and their prop up supporters.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11112246

    • peterwn

      They forget that David Henry (ex IRD chief) is an expert in getting blood out of a stone. These MP’s are now bleating at David Henry’s tactics. However as they (with all other MP’s) have ultimate control of Parliamentary Services thay must shoulder the blame for leaving the Parliamentary Services door wide open and letting David Henry walk right in. I have no sympathy for them.

      I think John Key was very shrewd with choosing David Henry to conduct that inquiry.

  • peterwn

    I think that David Shearer is under no illusion about NZ’s need to protect its security and it would not be surprising if John Key has briefed him on things that he would not pass on to his MP’s. However David Shearer’s caucus would have no appetite for supporting the bill especially with the Greens looming large.

    I also suspect deep down that Claire Curren supports GCSB’s powers – Ithink she would be more at home as part of a government in a repressive regime by the way she carries on sometimes.

  • Agent BallSack

    Putting this law into context, The Urewera trials would have had convictions and we would have people who want to terrorise ordinary Kiwis behind bars had this law been properly set out and applied when drafted.

    • Orange

      Ordinary kiwis … L. O. L.

    • GregM

      True, and to add more context, the IRD still has far greater powers of search and surveillance than the GCSB does, but you won’t here a peep from the left about that.

      • Sandysure

        It’s true- but probably doesn’t concern them if they aren’t paying taxes

      • tax dodger

        coz they don’t pay tax ..most of them are on the bludge /benefits..

  • richard.b

    I woke up today…… I am alive.
    I had expected the sky to fall in overnight after the passing of this, but surprise, It didn’t.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Folks – At the Stranded, they are mourning the death of democracy. Also the half wits who post there are wondering how the bill passed 61-59 instead of 61-60…….some jokers are blaming Pita bread Sharples…

    • Agent BallSack

      SCS when arent they moaning about the death of democracy. To them democracy means the right to cripple any industry at a whim via strikes, class warfare (their words) and many other fucked up notions a right minded individual has trouble understanding.

    • GregM

      Yep, headline in the Horrid: “Pita Wraps”

  • BJ

    Note that one Maori Party MP abstained from voting – isn’t that as good as an unspoken admission that they aren’t against it. Maybe it was Tariana Turia not prepared to be a hypocrite as she had voted for the GCSB Bill in 2003.

  • Col

    Done deal, closed case, ha fucking ha ha Labour and Turnip Top Norman

    • steve and monique

      Turnip or carrot?

      • Col

        Does it matter? if it grows in the ground and looks like him that will do. Turnips are white and pale like Noddy Norman, and I like carrots.

        • steve and monique

          fair enough. Turnips are wrong on so many levels.

  • steve and monique

    The GCSB is done and dusted. Thank fuck,am sick of hearing those media idiots,and labour/green/Winnie whiners rattle on about it. If Helen likes it,why not just nod your heads,and say thank you. You all did when she was in power. Guess you must have been scared she would kick your arse if you complained. Anyone for fishing,would like a good snapper.

  • Phar Lap

    What a great day for NZ if the MSM ,TVNZ,TV3 were to swallow their lies and pride, and apologise to the nation for misleading them on the real truth of why we needed to upgrade the GCSB.For a start on their penance of so many lies,they could duplicate such a fine presentation of the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth on such a fine presentation of the facts by Cam Slater alias Whaleoil.Of course they would need permission,instead of their usual plagerisering of Whaleoil articles.

    • Agent BallSack

      Like the Herald ‘discovering’ today due to ‘investigation’ who is actually behind GoogleDirectory

  • Agent BallSack

    It’s ironic that this law effectively gives the Government power to stop terrorist acts being planned and carried out on our soil. I wonder who would be the first to scream that not enough was done to stop it if an actual attack was carried out. That’s a rhetorical question.

  • Helen C #2 IC

    Even Helen Clark has said that when she drafted the GCSB law in 2003 she had cross party talks with Jenny Shipley and that the security of the country comes first, and the Nats supported that bill, now when it comes to clarifying and tidying it up, Sheep turns down the offer from JK and instead chose to go “fishing for snappers”..the rest is history.

  • JB Sails

    Of course the MSM wouldn’t elaborate on any of this, so to read this is a breath of fresh air. Most of the opposition to the GCSB Amendment Bill was and remains in fact just spiteful opposition to National and John Key. Petty personal politics.

41%