Labour: don’t trust the government

via RNZ

via RNZ

Parliament will begin a wider review of the security and intelligence agencies in 2015 following rushed law changes to clamp down on freedom fighters.

Recent publicity and fears surrounding beheadings and threats by the jihadist group Islamic State have resulted in new restrictions on individual freedoms.

Really?   In a practical sense?   Anyone not been able to go to the dairy?   Or play golf?   What are these freedoms that have been restricted?  

Before the middle of the year, the Government will begin a full review of security settings, and will consider broader changes to intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism.

Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson David Shearer said it was a balancing act.

“We have to make sure that where we need to counter those threats, that the way that we do it is very much restricted to those individuals and it doesn’t encroach on other people’s privacy and that people don’t fear that.”

But Mr Shearer said a review of the temporary laws that have just been passed was appropriate before new ones were introduced.

He said there was an expectation that it was a one-way street.

“That you just keep on chipping away and chipping away at people’s human rights. The tyranny of small choices – we make a little choice here, we make a little choice there – and we don’t go back and review whether the security agencies need this power and I think that’s a really important thing to do.”

As we saw earlier today, the threat of our own government to our people pales into insignificance compared to the threat we face from people, and governments outside of this country.

National MP Mark Mitchell, who is the chair of Parliament’s foreign affairs, defence and trade committee, agreed there needed to be a balance between protecting privacy and security.

People should be able to move around the country with as little risk as possible of being involved in some type of terror act, he said.

“I want personally to guard our human rights. We’ve got an extremely transparent system and we’re continuing to make it more transparent.

“But one of the basic human rights that I think that we should all fight for and be entitled to is to guard and protect ourselves from acts of terrorism.

“Sometimes governments have to make decisions and do things that continue to put those protections in place.”

However, Green Party global affairs and defence spokesperson Kennedy Graham said intrusive security measures were not warranted or justified.

These people need their heads read.  We’re talking about warrantless video surveillance on people as long as the warrant is being prepared at the same time before the usual security oversight officials, and the ability to cancel a passport.

Cancelling a passport isn’t the same as revoking citizenship.  Anyone can simply apply for another passport.

These are the “civil liberties” that Labour and the Greens want you to rise up about, because the New Zealand security services are not trusted to make good choices in the protection of all of us.

The Government was expecting the new visual surveillance powers would only be used half a dozen times a year, if that.

There appears to be zero pragmatism about this.  Which makes you wonder:  why are the Labour and Green parties so terribly keen to constantly undermine our security services?

 

– RNZ

 


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.

  • willtin

    It’s all to do with John Key. The reds and greens seek to undermine him whenever they can, regardless of the consequences to the country. They are as much a security risk to New Zealand as the recognised terrorists.

    • Coffee Connoisseur

      So if the situation was reversed and Labour was in power, dealing with this and taking away your rights would you be saying its all about the Labour leader and National need to settle down or would you be giving National a pat on the back for protecting your rights?

      • willtin

        I want the security of every New Zealander protected, for life and the Love of it. When you get dickheads in an opposition to government position, promoting the opposite, I will object.

      • RockinBob625

        Nope, because for the most part I would expect National to be working together to get a workable solution and not just opposing legislation because it says “Opposition” on the caucus door.
        (Before you say it…Yes, I am that naive.)

        BUT was it not Labour in charge during the Urewera raids?

      • Michelle

        Look at the Oz opposition they are behind the government as you will probably find with other countries opposition but we have to be special and different with our opposition

  • Whitey

    The fact that RNZ refers to these scumbags as “freedom fighters” says a lot.

    • Cambo

      Methinks best idea. SIS Man to suspect. “Hey look Akmah, sorry but we have been doing a wee bit of surveillance on you. We see you are keen to go fight in Iraq / Afghan.. etc
      Look here’s a 1 way ticket. have a great flight.. Oh and enjoy those 72 virgins”….

    • Cadwallader

      So, if these guys are “freedom fighters” then
      a Whose freedom are they fighting for?
      b Hagar is a freedom fighter too?

    • Honcho

      Well they do fight against freedom, especially freedom for woman folk.

    • TC in NZ

      That caught my eye more than anything else. What planet are these people on to even use that term? That’s ridiculously naive. Or is it as Honcho says? Ha. I doubt it. Ironically it’s written by an educated woman (assuming she’s educated of course).

      • Whitey

        I’m sure she’s much more educated than a lot of women who had to grow up in Sharia jurisdictions.

  • Labour at complete variance with the ‘average’ New Zealander, yet again. I doubt they can even hit 25% with this stance.

  • Dairy_Flat

    The Greens have a defense spokesman??? So his means of dealing with terrorism is what? A stern talking to? All these leftists are bereft of spine and will screach the loudest when it looks like their turn to lie down and submit to the evil that is radical Islam. History is full of soft targets and cultures that no longer exist.

    • Coffee Connoisseur

      The thing I don’t get is why it is that during the normal course of events those that think of themselves as Right wing are after smaller govt and freedom yet at the first sign of trouble they are the first ones in the queue to give their rights up. I’m not saying we don’t need to be prepared for any threat to our way of life but it also needs to be considered that giving up rights is a threat to our way of life if left unchecked.
      When/if the threat is gone are you just expecting the Govt to hand back the rights that have been curtailed. its never going to happen.

      • OneTrack

        It is also interesting that the left don’t seem to trust public servants ie the GCSB.

  • Rick H

    He’s looking more and more like his buddy Minto as time goes on – and spouting a similar line of rubbish.

    • mommadog

      He’s also waiting for his job with the UN with Auntie Helen so he is trying not to upset anyone.

      • Simo

        Ahh yes Auntie Helen the architect of UN inspired immigration to plump up her voting base, you can sheet home any potential terrorist crap in this country back to her and her travellers during the Clarkistan Dynasty

        • Michelle

          Wasn’t her lot who said that the recession wouldn’t affect us as well?
          You have to ask what planet they live on or what they have been smoking

        • OneTrack

          It worked -she got the job.

    • Albert Lane

      So where is Minto today? Is he protesting the attack by Islamic extremists in Paris? No. We’ve heard nothing from him. Is he protesting the murder of innocent civilians by ISIL? No. Is he planning a late protest about the extremist attack in Sydney? No. So what’s he up to? I presume that he’s busily planning the next protest against Israel for fighting back against islamic terrorism. After all, it’s important for him to look after his Muslim mates.

      • Rick H

        Apart from the fact the majority of those protesting in the “anti-Israel” protests here in NZ were brainless idiots not really knowing anything about much, especially what they were protesting about; the likes of Minto will be believing today’s “Paris Massacre” shooters were not actually islamists, but others, trying to smear the ISIL and Al-Qauda’s good name.

  • jude

    I just can not understand how the left operate. Do they seriously think that New Zealanders are deaf ,blind and dumb as to what is happening in the rest of the world?
    Do they think that if they say everything is ok, we all just nod in agreement?
    The fact they have such idiotic policies that do not take into consideration what is a world wide threat beggars belief.
    Thank the lord we have the government we do!

    • Dave

      More po, they say this less than 24 hours after the French terrorist attack, seriously?

  • Sally

    Labour want to undermine our security services because they are not in charge. They just don’t want to be seen supporting the government.
    The Greens are plain crazy.
    I personally welcome any type of surveillance if it means we can all move around our country safely.

  • Richard Holden

    how about the anti-smacking bill, no fault abortions for 14 year olds, etc etc that Labour decided were in our best interests. More personal freedoms eroded under their watch

    • Pete

      Privvy council???? Where were my rights then???

      • Dave_1924

        Exactly Pete. I actually wrote to my MP, Mr Mallard at the time, and his office responded: It was in our manifesto at the election, we won the government seats therefore we have a mandate to get rid of the Privvy Council……. which made me laugh out loud at Lefties when they protested the Asset Sales as not having a mandate, but that were in the National manifesto in 2009 and National won the government benches…….

        The Lefts hypocristy on many things is strong and unwavering. orwell painted them spot on with the concept of Doubethinkk and Doublespeak.

    • OneTrack

      They know best.

  • Mythrandir

    Since the overwhelming majority of us voted National, then what Labour is really saying is don’t trust New Zealanders. Pathetic.

    • Coffee Connoisseur

      Nope New Zealanders give power to The Central Govt.
      The Central Government should never be trusted implicitly. There is no other entity that has the ability to affect our lives adversely moreso and for this reason alone their should always be a level of mistrust regardless of which party is in power.

  • Rex

    Why would,anyone quote anything Kennedy Graham espouses! That man is an utter twit. He needs to stop line dancing practice and have a look at what is happening in the World. When I watch him prattle on in Parliament my TV set is,in danger of having a shoe thrown thru it!

  • oldmanNZ

    I am afraid, i will be watched.
    My emails and coment to WO will be watched by the government.
    My shopping habits and regular visits to Macdonald will be monitored.
    The type of movies i watch, mostly action movies with a high kill count, may mean im a bit of a nut.

    I think these are the things greens are afraid off, we might catch them doing.

    • TSD

      Actually most of what you just said will indeed be watched, just not by the government. It’ll be watched by a far more intrusive collective of credit card companies, Google, Fly Buys if you have it, huge advertising networks etc. And like all of us you will have clicked the little button saying you’ve read and accepted the conditions… But hey, we probably don’t pay it the attention it deserves.

      Of course the Greens know how they would use the tools of the SIS and it scares them that others may be able to misuse them as badly as they would.

      • Coffee Connoisseur

        Of course the Greens know how they would use the tools of the SIS and it scares them that others may be able to misuse them as badly as they would.

        And that is the exact reason that anything like this should be tread with extreme caution. It might not be about who is in power now but who is in power in or 20 years time and what they would could do with the Law.
        Silencing the so called media or any political dissent is the big concern with anything like this as both are required for a healthy and functioning democracy.

        • TSD

          Good point.

          Also a very good reason to really understand what a party’s real views are on democracy when voting. Patting dolphins is not the creed of the so called Greens.

  • Alright

    And here’s the thing: the current Government will be accused by its detractors as not having done enough when something bad happens, or will be accused of having done too much and attracted attention.

    How can one possibly win a political argument like that?

    • Coffee Connoisseur

      by being more open and transparent and by having regular reviews of any legislation that curtails our individual human rights.

  • digby

    Labour / Greens would be fine with these laws if they were the ones monitoring and determining who is ok and who is not. They seemingly cannot abide having someone who potentially doesn’t agree with their way of thinking doing the decision making. I am very comfortable with these ‘invasive laws’. I think the risk of the agencies in charge of these processes being corrupt is significantly lower than the risk posed by the threats that these laws are designed to counter.

  • Rodger T

    I have always taken that advice when Labour have been in power.
    The problem with Labour and their buddies in the Greens is that they just aren`t that bright,they got an absolute spanking on this very issue a few months ago and here they are bleating on about once again .
    The citizens of NZ have much more important things to worry about,like finding a better fishing spot,tho` I would be a tad upset if a bunch of GCSB staff turned up at mine I must admit.

  • Macca

    If there was one time that Labour, the Greens and NZ First should be shutting their yap regarding anything to do with security, it should be now!

    Of course they won’t be able to though and their continued criticism of National just makes them look stupider than they are and generally reinforces the majorities resolve that they backed the right horse in the Key government.

    • Michael_l_c

      They are so stupid they don’t realise they would gain kudos by saying, that circumstances have changed and we now support the govt on this issue. It would take the wind out of the sails of the govt when the sledging starts in the house.

      • Coffee Connoisseur

        I never want any opposition party to be saying that when the Govt (any Govt)is taking away rights of private citizens. In fact if an opposition party took such a stance I would be very concerned.

  • caochladh

    Imagine the lives that could be saved if the Green Lunatic took the Labour Fish Man to Syria for a meeting with Jihadi John over a cup of chamomile tea.

  • Nz front

    Labour and the greens just want to feel Important. And still, they keep shooting themselves in the foot. I realised they are not that educated.

  • TSD

    Do you think that at the nine year mark they will finally have realised why they have been losing elections or will they let National have a fourth term by simply not being Labour or Green?

    The Greens of course are afraid of the laws because they expect that National must be using the spy agencies in the same way that the Greens would if they could. Shudder…

    • Michelle

      l see the Oz opposition are behind their government not like this lot trying to get headlines and doing nothing to help the situation

      they will be the first to scream to the MSM, when it hits the fan, why didn’t the government do more to protect the public and the MSM will be screaming just as loud

      these divisions are what terrorists just love they will cuddle up to the left, idiots

  • Dave_1924

    To be fair to Shearer here, he is speaking sense:

    “That you just keep on chipping away and chipping away at people’s human
    rights. The tyranny of small choices – we make a little choice here, we
    make a little choice there – and we don’t go back and review whether
    the security agencies need this power and I think that’s a really
    important thing to do.”

    It is VERY important to review what has gone before in legislation and to make it more workable and remove the poorly thought out pieces.

    The surveillance without a warrant IS NOT necessary. The solution is simple and it will only take a panel of authorising agents [judges I believe] to be available 24/7 to review and authorise a warrant before surveillance begins. A panel of 5-7 with good rostering will mean a properly authorised person is available to grant or reject the warrant before the surveillance begins. Otherwise its a fishing trip through a persons private life.

    • Michael_l_c

      I assume you have never applied for a warrant. It is not a five minute exercise. If you are very lucky a simple warrant will take an hour a complex matter much longer.
      There are rules for applying for search warrants over the phone. I have never heard of it being done. ]
      Little in the law is as simple as some like to make out.

      • Coffee Connoisseur

        So give the process to someone like me who can streamline and largely automate the entire process. Problem solved.

        • Dave_1924

          Exactly CC…. find a solution to make it effective and quick to arrive at a decision, don’t abrogate peoples rights because the Law is resistant to coming innto the 21st Century and using technology and decent process design to get stuff done…

          • Dave

            And the appropriate person to make that decision for the 24 hours it takes to get the paperwork correct, is the Director of the SIS, any member of cabinet, or one of a panel from the military.

          • Dave_1924

            Dave – yip the watchers authorsing their own watching. brilliant. Where is the check and balance? It happens 24 hours after the event when its LEGALITY can be judged by someone who understands the LAW. Sorry mate but i disagree with you on this big time. We are being bullrushed into a poorly thought through situation on the back of a couple of tragedies. And I sincerely don’t agree with it

          • JustTinkering

            Dave – you continue to speak with high emotion and little real understanding of the process. I am reasonably confident that I have issued more Search Warrants than you and over the years you get a good understanding of the background. Firstly it is not just the time taken to read and issue a warrant. It is the hours sometimes in preparation. Then there is the critical situations where a 24 hours delay can prejudice the effect of the warrant given the live situation developing. I sincerely don’t agree with you – the new system has excellent protections for all of us in both safety and privacy respects.

          • Ratchette

            Perhaps Dave has something to hide ?

          • Dave_1924

            Yip and that comment lives up to the handle Ratchette. Nice attempt at a bully chap.

      • JustTinkering

        Apart from Fisheries there is not a process for issuing a verbal warrant. A complex warrant with historic information can take 30 minutes to read and another 30 minutes to check the warrant against the application. To have judges on standby for this is dreaming.

        • Dave_1924

          Yeah right JustTinkering – its not dreaming. You’re using the TINA strategy to deflect the criticism of 24 hours unwarranted electronic surveillance of an NZ Citizen or NZ Resident by the SIS

          its not dreaming – its asking for rights of privacy to be protected.

          Judges on stand by is a simple solution. You know, you call the one who is rostered on or the back up if first rostered one is unavailable. And you say have a look on your computer there is an application for a warrant and all supporting evidence in the secure warrant approval system. And they check it and call the applicant back, discuss it if required and approve/reject it.

          And as you yourself say 1 hour to read and check it???? where is the problem?

          My key objection is the Director of the SIS gets to make a judgement authorising and invasion of privacy and it can stand unapproved for 24 hours while the SIS figure out how to justify it. So its just a fishing trip …..

      • Dave_1924

        Michael. I don’t care if its not simple at the moment.

        But if we are talking the Director of the SIS can make a decision in isolation and authorise a citizen being spied on, and then the SIS can spend 24 hours with that covert spying happening and not being legal authorised before having to front the warrrant approval system, then maybe we need to get something simple sorted out.

        Its a gross invasion of peoples right to privacy, that is not required in my view.

        I don’t buy the “its really difficult” argument.

        And also if we are talking about someone who has never come to the SIS’s attention before, how would they know surveillance was warranted? Presumably in most cases the people who would be surveillance would have been on their radar for sometime and they would have being compiling a legally water tight case to justify electronic surveillance….

    • Dave

      Completely disagree with you Dave. Perhaps make sure there is an understanding of the rules in every case prior to surveliance, and a review of all survelliance without a warrant to ensure its not abused. But, if police stumble on cricial info, then they should be able to act with appropriate clearance, even if only for 24 hours to allow the paperwork to be completed.

      Think of it this way. What if they found a major terrorist attack just like in France was imminent, what do you honestly suggest they do, wait a few hours, or 24 hours while they wait for a warrant as the powers to be are way, sleeping etc, then, oops, sorry your relatives were killed, we had to wait for a warrant!

      Then consider, police have the power to shoot to kill a person in certain circumstances, yet you want them to get a warrant to listen into a few conversations?

      • Dave_1924

        I suspect if a criminal activity like violence was imminent then the Police can intervene regardless currently. You know watch them covertly, have the AOS in hidden vans around the corner ready to intervene and stop an event occurring.

        We are talking about the right for the SIS, on a hunch/suspicion to enter a property and electronically bug someone without a warrant. It is not necessary. If the SIS believes someone needs watching that closely, i.e. a wire tap, electronic listening device in premises etc… then they should have a case to back that up and it should be straight forward to present that case for a warrant to an on call Judge to duly authorise the suspension of that NZ Citizens/NZ Residents right to privacy.

        I am arguing for a rational, non knee jerk system to be put in place that serves its urpose but protects my rights to privacy.

        • Another Middleagedwhiteguy

          But you have given your own left knee a pretty good jerk there Davey.

          • Dave_1924

            Ah cute. Now jokes and tweaks on the name…. keep it coming its quite amusing

    • jay

      Because judges make such great decisions all the time so we won’t trust anyone but them right?

      Meanwhile the police have very broad emergency powers to search houses, cars and people on the spot without having to get a warrant. When was the last time such broad powers were detrimental to your rights? In fact guns, drugs, stolen property and wanted criminals are regularly turned up during these searches, making NZ a better place whether we know it or not.

      A panel of judges will be dead easy to convene at one a.m though right? Meanwhile some dangerous nut will have murdered someone, but as long as your right to privacy is protected that’s the main thing yeah?

      Imagine if the fire brigade needed a warrant before they could put your house fire out. That would be absurd wouldn’t it? This is how you’d like to see our security agencies hamstrung, thereby facilitating the actions of extremists.

      • Dave_1924

        No Jay, judges they don’t always make good decisions.

        But what has that got to do with correct checks and balances processes and procedures in the way our security services work?

        The Judiciary’s role is to adjudicate on the Law. Its a check on executive power and the power of state agencies like the SIS. Thats why they, as a separate body from the Government, decided on the issuing of warrants when assessed against the legislation they are granted under.

        The murderous nutter argument and the Fire Brigade argument are just deflection arguments which are not relevant to the point of unauthorised electronic surveillance. The Police can deal with any imminent threat of violence already. I have addressed that in another reply in this thread.

        Our agencies are not hamstrung – they have the tools to do the job.The unauthorised surveillance of an NZ Citizen/NZ resident by the SIS at the SIS Directors discretion is not warranted

  • Michael_l_c

    Labour believe that making a noise proves they are achieving something. They forget they, the greens, msm & kdc made a lot of noise and achieved what? The population is not as stupid as they think.
    They are doomed I say, doooomed.

    • Another Middleagedwhiteguy

      GOOD.

  • Albert Lane

    I have always subscribed to the old saying – if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

    • Coffee Connoisseur

      The problem with that is that that is the sought of thing that rogue governments use to silence political dissent. It is not the current problem faced that I am oppossed to further removal of civil liberties over. It is because it becomes dangerous piece of legislation that in the wrong hands can be used against its own citizens for purposes other than intended. People need to start thinking outside the narrative given to them by the government. This isn’t a LvsR issue, its an us (the citizens of New Zealand vs The Central Government).

  • Dave

    Living in Aussie, its a bit different, the police are not quite as PC as their Kiwi counterparts, and yes we lost some of our liberties the other day. I was about to lock up work and head home (approx 8.30pm) when police asked me to go back indoors and lock myself in. No, im not kidding! Approx 10 mins later, a constable came and told us, we have got him, its all clear. A crim had been spotted, and had run away, they suspected he was armed, and the area went into lockdown temporarily.

    Thank goodness there is ZERO tolerance of serious criminals over here!

  • The Accountant

    For F’s sake, hands up if your liberty has been stamped on by the government? The only restrictions I hear of are normally iwi restricting access to their beaches.

  • Another Middleagedwhiteguy

    Those freedom fighters he refers to, looks very much like they are the ones who are fighting against our Freedom.

  • Shane M

    I agree with everything you have said on this.
    Within our Bill of Rights it states, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise”. Unfortunately, “unreasonable” does not seem to be a strong enough safeguard to our freedoms.
    The right to privacy is fundamental to a free society and those who so easily give it up can only be regarded as being against freedom.
    The tired cliche of “if you’ve got nothing to hide…” is so puerile, we either wish for Liberty or we do not.

41%