John Key`s poll tax?



Sometimes in politics actions belie words , philosophers call this a `performative contradiction`. Well I think I`ve spotted a classic case. Just after the National Party conference John Key smirked that New Zealanders cared more about snapper quotas than privacy issues. Protestors, pointy heads` Campbell Live` watchers and other non-National voters may carry on regardless.  Middle New Zealand doesn`t care a toss and government poll ratings remain high. Why then, did John Key suddenly decide to front John Campbell? That was last Wednesday. And, if one agrees with the view that Key dominated proceedings why did he release a press statement on Friday pledging strict controls over GCSB warrants to surveill emails?

These performative contradictions have damaged government credibility.

By giving the GCSB bill added media  profile Key has made it more difficult for his communication managers to frame and manage the issue. Here, one can only conclude that National`s private polling is delivering mixed results. Are some of their supporters feeling uneasy over recent events?

On Saturday the New Zealand Herald featured a column from Rodney Harrison, a prominent legal critic of the bill. He was given ample space to rebutt John Key`s earlier statements from the `Campbell Live` interview. Harrison conclusion was as follows  , `the Prime Minister`s attempt to reassure New Zealanders we are not sleepwalking into a  total surveillance society is, unfortunately, flawed in its legal analysis and fails to convince.`

TDB Recommends

Ouch! The New Zealand Herald doesn`t usually give National`s opponents this kind of opportunity. Another sign perhaps that some conservatives were concerned about the bill.

This situation reminds me of Margaret Thatcher`s Poll tax from twenty years ago. Her attempts to force non-property owners to pay municipal rates failed because it threatened individual liberty per se. As opposition to the tax spread from left to right some conservative MPs expressed disquiet. News coverage intensified as Maggies spin doctors lost control of the issue. Could something similar be happening here over the GCSB bill? Before we answer there is a prior question to consider. If the GCSB bill passes will that end the matter? Or is the surveillance issue likely to resurface before the next election?

Well, if Monday nights  Auckland Town Hall meeting is any indication the debate has only just begun. Over 1500 people. Stalls,balcony and `the gods` were full as our speakers took the stage. Under a `big brother` video screen featuring the Waihopi spy base, compere Martyn Bradbury waved a fishing rod and talked briefly about snapper quotas before getting the night under way.

The audience was expectant, not just activists and middle class liberals but an older conservative cohort that should have worried National Party strategists. Daily Blog visitors can observe the meeting for themselves, let me just  add some pertinent observations. Rodney Harrison`s distillation of the legal concerns was exemplary. He set out clearly the new powers accorded to the GCSB; the  right to spy on New Zealanders and gather communications data without specific justification. Kim Dot Com`s address reminded us all that the surveillance question was here to stay. There will be further revelations from Edward Snowden and  more to come from Dot Com`s own defence team about what the Prime Minister knew and when. The big German wasn`t sweating at all. Jon Stephenson`s first person account of how a journalist becomes a subversive was quietly chilling. His travails predate the new surveillance legislation, how will journalists fare in years to come? Infotech specialist Seeby Woodhouse discussed the Telecommunications Interception bill. As high-speed Broadband cables roll out, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will be shoulder tapped by the GCSB ;legally sanctioned Intelligence access to internet communication will become routine.  A number of speakers noted that some people were surveilled more than others and that this inequity was likely to increase. According to Helen Kelly, Jane Kelsey  and Marama Davidson , workers, anti-corporate protestors and indigenous rights activists would attract even more surveillance from intelligence agencies. What then could we expect from our politicians? Labour leader David Shearer resolutely opposed the GCSB bill and promised an independent inquiry into our intelligence networks followed by a replacement of National`s legislation. But it was Russel Norman from the Green Party who looked and sounded like the leader of the opposition. `People should not live in fear of their government`. `People should have trust in each other`. New Zealand  should not be` second deputy sheriff to the great United States`. This was standing ovation material and the rhetoric cut across political lines. Feeling proud of our country and not wanting to be bullied and spied upon were sentiments which challenged the sneering cynicism of our Prime Minister. And, Winston Peters too wound up the pressure; `we will not support a bill that makes our Prime Minister all powerful`. By this stage  audience enthusiasm was at a high pitch , `yes, he is going to make 5 per cent` I thought to myself. Mana Party leader Hone Hawariwa re-iterated the inequities of surveillance, beneficiaries experienced daily the insecurities of intrusions from the IRD, Work and Income, ACC , the Department of Corrections and their data matching programmes. By all means oppose the bill, he was saying, but widen your social vision. And, finally Nicky Hager; his early concerns about the Echelon network seemed so prescient now. The international context was foregrounded. Our new security laws will bring us further within US directed security operations, alongside citizens from the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. The GCSB`s offshore allegiances were the real problem; as the `war against terrorism` continues without end New Zealand effectively becomes a US colony. `Not a pleasant prospect` I thought as Mr Bradbury wound up proceedings. As he implored us to vote out the government I could hear David Shearer thinking ,`I wish I had said that`.


So, as of Monday August 19 it looks like the GCSB bill will pass. However,this matter is not settled. Monday`s meeting bought together an unlikely coalition of interests,from left activists to concerned conservatives. It’s the latter group the Prime Minister should be concerned about as we head to the next election. Could the GCSB bill be John Key`s poll tax?


  1. “Could the GCSB bill be John Key`s poll tax?”

    We like to think that this is the straw that broke the camels back, but knowing that apathetic attitude of Kiwis I’m not living in hope.

  2. I think Key may have pushed too far on this one and become too dismissive and contemptuous of Kiwis. His remarks about lefties running for the hills are more than a little ironic after the footage of him running from journalists yesterday. He’s resorted to spewing Slater/Lusk TeaBagger bullshit about left wing cowardice as opposed to right wing supermen fighting the terrorists on the beaches. The left has a proud tradition of fighting for good causes. Kiwi leftists went to fight fascism in Spain. We’ll fight Key at home. It is the left that fights to defend what is worthwhile, while the right looks for another opportunity to make a buck.

    It’s not the left who won’t go in the street without armed guards. It’s not the left who run from journalists. It’s not the left who welcomed rugby playing racists. We fought and we’ll fight again. Key will run off to the hills of Hawaii. He is scum. He is the spineless prick who runs and hides. We will not be running, Mr Key. You don’t know us at all.

  3. just saw the latest Roy Morgan poll the Left up by 9 % the National Party slumps By 7% Take that Mr Key. Maybe the sleepy kiwi has just woken up.

    • Its seems to me that the battle lines are slowly but surely forming.

      The GCSB amendment bill is a core part of a raft of legislation that is being put into place in NZ. As a member of the Five Eyes this mirrors similar legislation in the other member states.
      The TPP bill will almost certainly slip through well under the radar and mirrors similar legislation being proposed between the US and the EU (see ).

      In both cases the taxpayer will foot the bill for potentially grandiose settlements by trans-global corps against the states in which their markets exist. As with the financial crisis of 2008 the taxpayer and future generations will foot the bill to an out of control transnational polyarchy. I personally suspect that the GCSB bill and related legislation are tools (in part) designed to suppress opposition to this Brave New World.

      We are in the process of being enslaved.

      We are nothing more to the 1% than inferior humans who deserve our plight, and are here to produce the riches that the 1% think is their birthright. Alternative paradigms will be eliminated (cf the Occupy Movement in the US).

      The other side of the line includes a constellation of Aboriginal peoples, environmentalists, alternative economists and think tanks, civil rights groups, the disenfranchised of society and those who have fallen victim to the surveillance state to date. At this stage this is an embryonic movement but is likely to gain cohesion and traction as events unfold.
      In addition to this the planet is sliding into energy descent and climate chaos that is only just beginning and will likely bring many millions more to the helm of those who question this polyarchy.

      The 1% believes its own propaganda and the effects of the various environmental crises that face humanity are scandalously disregarded by them.
      This disregard and a delusional lack of understanding of their own process it a core weakness that provides a chance for sanity to eventually prevail.
      But I can tell you that the 1% will not give up without a long and bitter fight.
      We are globally entering a state of war between two broad sectors of a society that is now transnational. This division was created by the 1% with intent. We will now all have to live with and fight over the consequences of that division.

Comments are closed.