Archive
Citizens vs the Rogue Deep State
.
.
Blogger Martyn Bradbury has won his case against unreasonable search and surveillance against the NZ Police; and subsequent Police attempts to produce evidence in secrecy, in a closed Court.
His case highlights a disturbing growing trend in Aotearoa New Zealand for State power to be used against anyone who has “run foul” of The Establishment:
- 2009: An attack by then Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, against two solo-mothers who criticised National’s social welfare policies. Ms Bennett released personal information pertaining to the two women’s financial circumstances to silence their criticism. Ms Bennett’s actions were deemed to have been a breach of their privacy.
- 2011: Police searched several media offices during the “Teapot Tapes” controversy. Radio NZ’s Don Rood said Radio NZ would refuse to hand over any material that might compromise anonymous sources.
- 2014: The illegal search and seizure of Nicky Hager’s property as retribution for his investigation into the close links between a far-right blogger and the National Party. Police were attempting to uncover the identity of the whistle-blower known as “Rawshark”. The search (and seizure of property) of Mr Hager’s home was later deemed unlawful.
- 2017: The leaking of Winston Peters’ superannuation details as part of a patently obvious political dirty tricks campaign. Senior civil servants passed on details to then-Ministers Paula Bennett and Anne Tolley – the latter admitting in Court to disclosing those details to others. Mr Peters’ case was then leaked to the media prior to the 2017 General Election, ostensibly to destroy his political career and his party’s chances for re-election. The case is currently on-going.
This illustrates why so many New Zealanders – including the dogged John Campbell through his former programme, ‘Campbell Live’ – were 100% justified in opposing increasing the surveillance powers of the GCSB, SIS, Police, and god knows who else.
.
.
The abuse of State agencies’ power – already considerable – showed how warranted our fears were. And still are.
It is why I made a submission in 2013 to the Justice Select committee on the GCSB Bill (which would permit surveillance of New Zealanders in our own country) should not only stop – but that the powers of the GCSB should be re-set to those of 1977. Then a full public enquiry held to determine what, if any, changes really needed to be made.
I still believe this more than ever to be necessary.
Secondly, the so-called Police apology to Martyn Bradbury is notable for an appalling part of their statement;
.
.
“Police apologise for the stress and other psychological harm caused to you by virtue of YOUR INVOLVEMENT in this investigation.” [My emphasis.]
That is insulting phaseology and is a sly suggestion that blame continues to lie with Martyn Bradbury. It strongly suggests that Police hierarchy have yet to fully comprehend the nature of their abuse of power.
Additionally, there was also financial and reputational harm caused to Martyn by Police abuse of their power. It is now clear that he was denied bank loans as a direct consequence of improper Police activity.
The appropriate phrasing should have been;
“Police apologise for the financial, reputational, stress, and other psychological harm caused to you by virtue of our over-zealous actions that inappropriately involved you in our investigation.”
That phrasing would be accepting responsibility. The original wording barely achieves that.
Lastly, someone authorised this illegal activity. Those individual(s) are still in positions of authority within the New Zealand Police. They still wield power – unbridled power.
I find that troubling in the extreme.
There must be resignation(s) from the Police force. Someone must be held to account.
Just as the rest of us are, under the law.
Famous Last Words
From Parliament, on 27 March 2003, when the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill was being debated;
“This is a good bill. I do not accept the criticism of those who speak against it, that somehow it means that information about people will be gathered improperly…” – Peter Dunne, then-MP and leader of the United Future Party, speaking on behalf of a Bill to extend the power of the GCSB
Media Reporting
Perhaps even more shameful than Police behaviour has been that of the Fourth Estate reporting this issue to the public. Search engine checks (and confirmation by Martyn Bradbury) have both confirmed that only the NZ Herald and Magic Talk radio have reported the outcome of this case and the Police backdown and apology. The Herald article is pay-walled and consequently of little use to non-subscribers.
The Police abuse of power and the gross invasion of Martyn Bradbury’s private life could happen to any of us. But you wouldn’t know it going by the Total Media Blackout at TVNZ, Mediaworks/TV3, Fairfax/Stuff, and even sadly – Radio NZ.
Perhaps if TV3, TVNZ, et al, had reported less of the gruesome details of two current murder court cases, the public of Aotearoa New Zealand might be more informed on one of the most important civil rights cases in recent years.
Imagine if every mainstream media devoted the same scrutiny and reporting of Martyn Bradbury’s civil rights case against the police as they did to Grace Millane’s drinking on the night leading up to her demise.
We might be a very well-informed nation indeed. Sadly that is not the reality.
We have been let down badly by those empowered to preserve the law, and by those we entrust to speak truth to power. The media are supposedly tasked to shine a light on events that are of crucial importance to society; to the people; and to every individual.The freedom of the Fourth Estate is critical, they keep telling us, as a bulwark against State excess; to promote openness; and to hold those in power accountable.
They utterly failed us.
.
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”
– John Philpot Curran (24 July 1750 – 14 October 1817)
.
.
.
References
The Daily Blog: 5 years and finally justice – NZ Police formally apologise & settle for breaching my civil rights
The Daily Blog: My case against a secret NZ Police investigation that breached my privacy and my civil rights
The Daily Blog: Kafka’s Shadow – My hearing against NZ Police & secret trials
Fairfax/Stuff media: Paula Bennett accused of Muldoon-style bullying
Fairfax/Stuff media: Bennett won’t rule out releasing beneficiary details
NZ Herald: TV3 searched over teapot tape
Fairfax/Stuff media: Radio NZ hands over ‘tea tape’ interview
Radio NZ: Anne Tolley admits ‘outburst’ in Winston Peters superannuation case
Mediaworks/Newshub: Police accessed blogger’s bank records unlawfully – report
Parliament: Hansards – Government Communications Security Bureau Bill – Third Reading
NZ Herald: ‘Bomber’ Bradbury gets apology from police after exploit used to access bank records, driving him to the edge
Previous related blogposts
The GCSB Act – Tracy Watkins gets it right
The secret closed trials of Soviet Russia. (And Aotearoa New Zealand)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 11 November 2019.
.
.
= fs =
Weekend Revelations #2 – Michelle Boag has a whinge
.
.
From TVNZ’s Q+A, on 25 October 2015,
.
.
The Q+A panel were ostensibly discussing out-going Police Association President, Greg O’Connor’s persistent calls to arm the New Zealand police. At one point, former National Party president, Michelle Boag offered her views on policing-techniques in this country;
@5.10:
Michelle Boag: “…But, it’s, it’s a bit of a shame, that for most of us, certainly for me personally, the, the only direct engagement I end up with Police is when they stop me as they did yesterday morning when I was driving to golf at seven o’clock in the morning for a random breath test. Right, so that’s an instant confrontational thing. And, er, it just makes you think, ‘oh god, here they are, enforcing’ all the time-”
Simon Dallow: “So were you more annoyed or were you more pleased that society is being protected here?”
Boag: “Er, well, I was annoyed because I haven’t had a drink for twenty years. And every time I get stopped on the way to golf early on a Saturday morning, I think, it’s a complete waste of your time. However, I know, if rather than saying my name and address, I say, ‘Listen, I don’t drink, you’re never going to catch me’, that I’ll probably get hauled up for, y’know, talking back to a policeman.“
It should not be lost on most politically conscious folk that one of National’s strongest, most agressively promoted tenet is that of “Law and Order”. One of it’s seven main election billboards, for the 2011 election, was the image at the top of the page.
National’s political history is replete with passing laws empowering the police and spy organisations SIS and GCSB. (The GCSB was set up under National, under then-Prime Minister Robert Muldoon’s leadership.)
Since 2008, National has passed the following laws;
Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill
The GCSB’s mandate was changed two years ago to permit it to spy on New Zealanders.
This, despite protests from New Zealanders up and down the country, opposed to extending the powers of the State into our lives. One wonders if Michelle Boag attended any of the anti-GCSB protests that’s been held around the country?
This is not the first time that a National Party apparatchik has been caught up in the new, murky atmosphere of surveillance, that is now part of our lives. In 2013, then-National Party president Peter Goodfellow, complained of being under covert surveillance by a private investigator;
.
.
I blogged on the issue here: National Party president complains of covert filming.
And who can forget the outrageously delicious irony of National’s coalition partner, Peter Dunne, having his emails pinched by Parliamentary Services and passed on to the Prime Minister’s Department.;
.
.
Then-Fairfax journalist, Andrea Vance, also had her Parliamentary phone and swipe-card records passed on to the PM’s Department (which was “assisting” the Thorn Inquiry), as an investigation was held into the identity of the secret source who leaked Vance a confidential report into the GCSB.
The irony is that even as Peter Dunne was rearing up and braying in self-righteous indignation at the invasion of his privacy, two and a half weeks later, he voted with National in the Third and final reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill (now an Act) which passed it into law.
Now everyone in New Zealand could have their privacy invaded.
I blogged on the issue here: Parliamentary spies and games – some bad numbers
When governments pass laws extending the powers of the State’s security organisations, and increase surveillance capabilities of spy agencies, then it has created a fertile environment where privacy is no longer as sacrosanct as it once was. Whether it be police stopping motorists at random to detect potential drunk drivers*; a private investigator recording a conversation; or one government agency passing private emails on to another; or covert surveillance on potentially all New Zealanders, a new norm has been created.
Michelle Boag may be indignant at being stopped on her way to her golf on a Saturday morning – but her right to unimpeded travel on our roads was extinguished a long time ago. The State now has the right to stop her as, when, and however, it’s security agencies ‘deem necessary’.
She may even have her phone and internet tapped, should she ever run foul of a future government.
All perfectly legal.
I love it when National’s quasi-fascistic law and order policies eventually catch up with it’s own supporters.
Thank you, Lady Karma.
.
“We are from the government, we are here to help.” – Ruatoki, 15 October 2007
.
* Footnote:
It should be noted that this blogger has no problem with random breath-testing conducted by Police. Whilst this country is awash with cheap, easily-available booze; and whilst New Zealanders refuse to address our penchant for binge-drinking, random breath testing is one of the few means we have to protect ourselves and our families from liquored-up drivers. Michelle Boag needs to get over her preciousness and sense of entitlement in this regard. The next drink driver the police catch could be one on her road, as she drives to her golfing rendezvous.
.
.
.
References
TVNZ Q+A: Panel on arming the Police
Wikipedia: Government Communications Security Bureau
Fairfax media: National Party boss alleges covert filming
Fairfax Media: Emails given to inquiry
Parliament: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill
Previous related blogposts
Parliamentary spies and games – some bad numbers
National Party president complains of covert filming – oh the rich irony!
National’s disdain for democracy and dissent
Welcome to new glorious People’s Republic of New Zealand
Today’s irony was brought to you courtesy of former ACT MP and Govt Minister, Rodney Hide
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 Octobr 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Dom Post journos get it wrong – again!
.
.
Yet again, journalists who are experienced, professional, and supposedly well-informed have made a mistake about the pre-amended GCSB Bill. From the above article written by Tracy Watkins, Stacey Kirk, and Michael Fox stated,
The Government changed the law in the wake of revelations the GCSB may have spied illegally on more than 80 New Zealanders.
The law at that time supposedly prohibited them from doing so.
“Supposedly”?!
One. More. Time.
The GCSB Act 2003 was very specific in restricting the Bureau from spying on New Zealand citizens and permanent residents. Section 14 of the Act stated with unambiguous, crystal clarity;
14Interceptions not to target domestic communications
-
Neither 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.
The law at the time could not have been any clearer. (Unless it was written in big red crayons!)
Key’s Official Party Line that the GCSB Act 2003 was “vague” or “flawed” was accepted almost without question by many journos too lazy to actually get on the internet and look up the law (as it stood at the time) for themselves.
There were exceptions though.
Audrey Young from the NZ Herald knew the Act very well, and said so in no uncertain terms;
The GCSB Act 2003 expressly forbids it from spying on the communications of New Zealanders.
But, by a series of snakes and ladders through the stated functions and objectives of the act, it convinced itself it was allowed to help the SIS and police spy on New Zealanders.
Another journo was Tracy Watkins from the Dominion Post;
“The GCSB’s interpretation of the law was so loose it managed to spy on 88 New Zealanders even though the law specifically stated it was not allowed to do so.”
The same Tracy Watkins who put her name to the more recent story above, “Key dismisses GCSB spying claims from Greenwald” which suggested “the law at that time supposedly prohibited them from doing so”.
I can only assume Ms Watkins did not read that part of the story before putting her name to it.
Sloppy work.
.
References
Fairfax media: Key dismisses GCSB spying claims from Greenwald
Legislation: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003
NZ Herald: Spying on NZ: More power to watch us
Dominion Post: Spy bungles start to entangle PM
Previous related blogposts
The GCSB Act – Tracy Watkins gets it right
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
When Stupid meets Hypocrisy, the result is David Farrar
.
.
As the sh*t storm over Nickey Hager’s book, Dirty Politics engulfs the National Party; Key’s teflon coating is being scoured away by the nova-like searing heat of public glare; Cameron Slater is shown to have been the weapon-of-choice for the government’s dirty tricks campaigns; Judith Collins is embroiled (again) is claims of mis-using her ministerial position; SIS information was leaked to Slater; etc, we have David Farrar – blogger for the National Party – now making this incredible (and somewhat incredibly stupid) public post on Facebook;
.
.
To quote in cut-and-pastable text;
“For reasons I’ll make clear tomorrow, but should not be hard to guess, I need to do a security check of my home and office. I need to check for bugs, implanted software and the like.
Does anyone know of a good but reasonably priced firm that can both check for physical bugs, but also check laptops, computers, phones etc for any electronic nasties?
I’m rather sad and angry that I have to do this, but it seems it is necessary.” – David Farrar, Facebook, 14 August 2014
W.T.F?!?!
Farrar hasn’t spelt it out, but I’m guessing that he’s not pointing the finger at the GCSB/SIS/Police/NSA for needing to do a “security check of [his] home and office” and needing “to check for bugs, implanted software and the like”?
I’m also guessing that he’s making a snide reference to alleging that Nicky Hager or an accomplice has bugged his home?
And I’m also guessing that Farrar, the National Party’s blogger-of-second-choice, is hoping that the media will pick up on this – an extremely clumsy attempt at deflection – by running a counter story/smear against Hager.
Pathetic, Mr Farrar, absolutely pathetic. Also throw in desperation mixed with a bit of juvenile dramatics.
Is this your best defense after being found out?
Anyway, Farrar is a fine one to be complaining bitterly about being “bugged” (even if we were to take him even minutely seriously). After all, Farrar supported the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill which, which finally passed on 21 August 2013, against massive public opposition;
“These are good changes. I had talked on TV about one area of concern being the proposed ability for the Govt to add other agencies onto the list of agencies the GCSB can assist with interceptions. Having Parliament, not the Government, make any changes is desirable.
Despite these significant changes, Labour appears to still be voting with the Greens against the bill. Ironic as it was a Labour Government that caused this problem with their 2003 law change.
Dunne and Banks have shown how you can have a constructive role in improving legislation.” – Kiwiblog, 24 July 2013
Or this;
“What I think is important is that the GCSB can’t just help the SIS with any old request. That their assistance is limited to cases where the SIS has gained a warrant due to security concerns. Let’s look at the SIS Act for the criteria. That:
the interception or seizure or electronic tracking to be authorised by the proposed warrant is necessary for the detection of activities prejudicial to security
And what does security mean:
- the protection of New Zealand from acts of espionage, sabotage, and subversion, whether or not they are directed from or intended to be committed within New Zealand:
- (b)the identification of foreign capabilities, intentions, or activities within or relating to New Zealand that impact on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being:
- (c)the protection of New Zealand from activities within or relating to New Zealand that—
- (i)are influenced by any foreign organisation or any foreign person; and
- (ii)are clandestine or deceptive, or threaten the safety of any person; and
- (iii)impact adversely on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being:
- (d)the prevention of any terrorist act and of any activity relating to the carrying out or facilitating of any terrorist act
So it is important to recall that the 88 cases cited in the Kitteridge report, all had warrants authorised under the SIS Act because they met one or more of the criteria above. The issue is not that they should not have legally had their communications intercepted – but whether the right agency did the interception.
If you do not amend the law, then there will be no reduction in the number of NZers who have interception warrants issued against them. The only difference is the SIS will do the interception directly, rather than use the GCSB.” –Kiwiblog, 15 April 2013
And this,
“Yet Labour and Greens are opposed to the GCSB doing what it did under Helen Clark – assist the dSIS. The problem is the law passed by Clark does not make it clear if the clause saying it will not monitor NZers over-rides the clause saying it can assist other agencies such as the SIS.
She rejected that the Government Security Communications Bureau routinely spied on New Zealanders as that was “not part of their remit”.
And still will not be, despite the hysteria. In fact the bill will provide greater transparency than in the past over what work the GCSB does do.” – Kiwiblog, 4 August, 2013
Plus this bit,
“What is being proposed is that the GCSB can continue to do the actual interception on their behalf as they have the expertise. If the bill fails, it won’t mean a single less domestic interception. It will just mean interception infrastructure will be duplicated and exist in multiple agencies, rather than one.” – Kiwiblog, 25 June 2013
And,
“The Inspector-General has said that basically on balance of probabilities he does not believe their actions have been outside the law – but again, that it is not absolutely clear.
A recent review of compliance at the GCSB by Rebecca Kitteridge found difficulties of interpretation in the GCSB Act. Following the Prime Minister receiving that report, cases involving 88 New Zealanders were referred to the Inspector-General. All were cases where the GCSB had been asked to help another agency.
Mr Fletcher says the Inspector-General found that all of the cases were based on serious issues including potential weapons of mass destruction development, people smuggling, foreign espionage in New Zealand and drug smuggling.
Nothing to worry about then!
- 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.
- another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.
- the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.
- the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
It is worth noting that this is over around a 10 – 12 year period, so we are not talking a huge amount of activity.
Mr Fletcher says the Inspector-General is of the view that the interpretation of “communication of a person” is one of the issues where there are uncertainties in the interpretation of the GCSB Act, when it comes to metadata.
An example of metadata is the information on a telephone bill such as the time and duration of a phone call, but not the content of the conversation or identification of the people using the phone.
Now it is not good enough that interceptions happened when there was uncertainty over the law. The operations of the spy agencies must be beyond doubt legally. Hence the major changes being made to GCSB to ensure no repeat. But it is worth putting this into context, especially compared to the current scandals in the US with Associated Press and Fox news journalists having their communications intercepted to try and find out their sources on security issues.” –Kiwiblog, 21 may 2013
So after cheerleading National’s law-change to allow the GCSB to spy on all New Zealanders, Farrar is now bitching that someone *might have* spied on him?!
Not for the first time, I remind certain right-wing politicians and apparatchiks that Karma is an implacable goddess, and not to be trifled with.
But if this is a cunning plan to deflect attention away from this crisis, that Farrar is trying to dangle in front of the media – well, it’s a damn, piss-poor amateurish attempt.
Farrar and his Tory mates need to understand one simple thing; this is a small country. Like Cunliffe and his ill-conceived plan for a Trust fund during his Party leadership campaign, secrets do not stay secrets for long.
If there is one thing that the media loves in this heightened commercial, competitive, ratings/advertisement-driven environment: it’s a sensational headline.
The National Party dirty-tricks team have generated many of those headlines. Now it’s their turn.
The only ‘bug’ that Farrar needs to concerned about is a slater.
.
References
Scoop media: Nicky Hager book launched today
Facebook: David Farrar
Kiwiblog: GCSB Changes
Kiwiblog: Labour and GCSB
Kiwiblog: Clark on GCSB
Kiwiblog: What if the GCSB bill doesn’t pass?
Previous related blogposts
The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do
When Karma caught up with Cameron Slater
The Mendacities of Mr Key #4: “Trolls & bottom-feeders”
The Mendacities of Mr Key #2: Secret Sources
Whalers go gunning for Whaleoil
Other Blogs
The Standard: Cameron Slater dirties John Key (or vice versa?)
The Dim Post: Dirty politics
Public Address: Dirty Politics
Bowalley Road: Thank God For Nicky Hager!Gordon Campbell on Nicky Hager’s new book
Pundit: A crazy day in dirty ol’ NZ politics
The Jackal: National’s death by association
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 August 2014
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr Key #1: The GCSB Bill
.
.
In an on-going series, we will look at the half-truths; mis-representations; omissions; and outright lies, told by Dear Leader John Key.
1. The GCSB Bill
Background
Last year, upon revelations that the GCSB had illegally spied on 88 New Zealand citizens, Key legitamised that law-breaking by passing the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill into law.
The official governmdent narrative was that the GCSB law was badly flawed; vague; and confusing.
Either in ignorance, or another of his pathetic lies, John Key maintained this fiction,
“In addition, the Act governing the GCSB is not fit for purpose and probably never has been. It was not until this review was undertaken that the extent of this inadequacy was known…
[…]
The advice we have recently received from the Solicitor-General is that there are difficulties interpreting the legislation and there is a risk some longstanding practices of providing assistance to other agencies would not be found to be lawful.
[…]
It is absolutely critical the GCSB has a clear legal framework to operate within.”
Acknowledgement: John Key – PM releases report into GCSB compliance
The proposition that the 2003 GCSB Act was “ not fit for purpose and probably never has been” is not supported by reality. In fact, the law was crystal clear with it’s wording and intent. Section 14 of said Act stated with unambiguous clarity;
14Interceptions not to target domestic communications
-
Neither 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.
Source: legislation.govt.nz – Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003
Conclusions:
- John Key wilfully mis-led the country, and in this blogger’s opinion, lied about the effectiveness of the law.
- The actual purpose of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill was to legalise the GCSB’s illegal spying activities.
- Not only did the Amendment head off potential court action, but it legitamised ongoing spying on all New Zealanders, despite the original intentions of the Act that this would never happen.
Charge: broken promise/deflection/half-truth/hypocrisy/outright lie/mis-information?
Verdict: outright lie.
.
*
.
References
NZ Legislation: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill
Newstalk ZB: Govt data casts doubt on PM’s job comments
TV3: Key accused of spreading TPPA ‘mistruths’
NZ Herald: Toby Manhire – Chameleon Key delivers a masterstroke
Fairfax media: Demystifying the GCSB bill: Spies and lies
Previous related blogposts
The real reason for the GCSB Bill
The GCSB Act – Tracy Watkins gets it right
The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do
The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?
A proposed Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) agenda – part tahi
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 February 2014.
.
.
= fs =
One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill…
The following images were provided (anonymously) to this blogger. They show one Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill on 21 August. The message, “John Key is big brother” was painted on the footpath outside National List MP, Michael Woodhouse’s, office…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thanks to the person who sent in the images – and kudos for not spray-painting the building with the message.
The question now, is, will an incoming Labour-Green government repeal the GCSB Act, or will it tolerate the creeping growth of State power and surveillance in this country?
.
.
= fs =
As promised to young NZ First supporter…
… on Facebook,
.
.
(Hope the lettering is big enough, Curwen?)
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Stop the TPPA
Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand
Save Radio New Zealand
Kidscan – Supporting disadvantaged Kiwi Kids
Action Stations – Getting Out The Vote!
