.
A recent TVNZ story,
.
Source: TVNZ – Spy law legislation passes second reading
.
In the same TVNZ story, note the invocation of Helen Clark’s name by John Key;
“That is just the way things are,” he said. “We live in a global environment where there are real threats, that’s the point we make with the GCSB legislation, it is why Helen Clark passed the legislation in 2003.”
And,
“It is obviously small numbers but there are small numbers of radicalised New Zealanders, who have either gone over into those environments or returned, and I don’t think this is terribly new, I suspect Helen Clark would have signed warrants as well.”
Source: IBID
It’s not that Key is trying to shift blame on to Labour – as he usually does when avoiding responsibility for one of his stuff-ups (see: Taking responsibility, National-style, and National’s disdain for taking responsibility). No, this time he is invoking the credibility and mana of his predecessor to justify his own dubious actions on the scandals and unpopular legislation swirling around him.
Despite a few trivial errors of judgement, Clark left Parliament with her reputation intact; enhanced; and invited to work for the United Nations.
Contrast that to John Key whose reputation for distortion; fudging the truth – and in my opinion, some outright lies – has left his reputation in tatters.
Channelling his predecessor’s name appears to be Key’s last card to justify an unwarranted extension of governmental power; the growth of the policed surveillance state; and his involvement in illegal spying on a member of parliament and a journalist.
If that is all he’s got left , then he’s heading for rock bottom.
.
.
= fs =
Yes Frank. Listening to parliament last week, speaker after speaker from the Nacts spoke of the spook legislation being passed by the Labour government in 2003. It was more than coincidence and obviously the Party Line.
What a scurrilous bunch of gutless sycophants! But I guess that is the nature of raw “politics”.
By the way, did National support the legislation in 2003?
The original GCSB Bill was supported by all parties except the Greens. It’s quite interesting to read the Hansard Debates of the 2nd and 3rd readings of the 2003 Bill. In the 2nd reading debates for example, National’s Simon Power said:
“…This is probably one of the better pieces of drafting we have seen from this Government…”
It’s also explicitly clear from the debates that all Parties understood that New Zealand Citizens and Permanent Residents were off limits to the GCSB.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/daily/47HansD_20030325/volume-607-week-19-tuesday-25-march-2003
http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/daily/47HansD_20030327/volume-607-week-19-thursday-27-march-2003
NZ Femme – *snap*! 😀
They did indeed, Wyndham. The result from Hansards on the Third (and final reading of the original 2003 Bill;
Ayes: 108
Labour: 52
New Zealand National: 27
New Zealand First: 13
ACT New Zealand: 8
United Future: 8
Noes: 9
Green Party: 9
Source: http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/daily/47HansD_20030327/volume-607-week-19-thursday-27-march-2003
Only the Greens – bless their organic cotton/hemp socks – voted against it.
And check out what Dunne had to say about the Bill: http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/the-gcsb-act-some-history/
Comments are closed.