1080, blackmail and terrorism

By now we've all heard about today's announcement of a threat by anti-1080 loonies to contaminate infant formula unless the government stopped using 1080. The story is still developing, but there's some interesting points already:

• The threat was made in November, but only announced today. Fonterra has prior on covering up health scares to protect their brand, and this smells like more of the same. And it seems that it was only announced today because the media were finally getting wind of it. So, we learn about a significant threat for media management reasons, not because the police think we need to know about it.
  
• While the police are calling this blackmail, there's a word for threatening to kill (which poisoning infant formula is likely to do) or cause serious risk to the health or safety of the public for the purpose of unduly compelling the government to do or not do something: its called terrorism. As for why they're not going down that route, maybe they think it will be too hard to prosecute, or maybe its just because their expected perpetrators aren't Maori or Muslim. Note that even if the threat is a hoax, it is still threats of harm to people or property and punishable by seven years imprisonment.
  
• John Key and Nathan Guy have called this "ecoterrorism", but there's no "eco" about it. The environmental movement in NZ supports the use of 1080, because it kills threats to the environment (see also: the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment). It is hunters - people like Guy - who don't.

The last bit is particularly disturbing. We have a Prime Minister who has significantly increased surveillance powers, and who will be staging a review in just a few months to grab more, hyping up a domestic threat by pointing the finger at an innocent party. Its pretty easy to see where this is going to go, and its not going to be pretty.

Pork and poor governance

Yesterday, faced with losing the Northland byelection and their easy majority with it, National resorted to outright pork-barrelling and promised to upgrade ten bridges in Northland. Andrew Geddis has a great analysis of the actual need for this (very little), and basically calls it corruption. I wouldn't go that far - corruption benefits donors and cronies, not voters - but its certainly the sort of pork-barrel politics you see in the US. And its nakedly so. This morning, when asked about the timing of the decision, John Key said it was planned before the election but delayed by Kim Dotcom and Nicky Hager (yes, really). But this afternoon, Transport Minister Simon Bridges gave a more honest answer: on Friday:

Simon Bridges made the decision for $69 million "bridge bribe" for Northland on Friday. #porkbarrel

— Patrick Gower (@patrickgowernz) March 10, 2015

So, the day after that shock poll then.

No matter who you support, this is appalling governance. Who gets roads and other public services should be decided on need, not on whether the government is in danger of being embarrassed in a by-election. And such decisions should be made after appropriate cost-benefit analysis, not on a whim by the PM's electoral strategy team. But clearly, National doesn't care about any of that, and can't even be bothered pretending any more.

The flag referendum bill

The government has finally released its New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. As expected, the bill provides for two referenda, the first selecting between four alternative flags by preferential voting, the second a runoff between the most popular alternative flag and the current one. The actual referendum mirrors the process of the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000 (with appropriate changes for two referenda, one of which uses a different voting system). If we updated our referendum legislation to cope with such possibilities, we wouldn't need to include it every time the government wanted to ask us a question.

There's one interesting feature, though. The Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 imposes a $50,000 spending limit on advertisers. There's no such limit in the new bill. From the timeline's mention of a "regulated advertising period", one was clearly contemplated, but it has now clearly been removed. Which is something the government owes us an explanation for. Spending limits are a normal part of referenda in New Zealand, designed to ensure a fair process and level playing field. The only reason to remove them is because you want the process to be dominated by money. And that just isn't good for our democracy.

Collection, surveillance, and interception

Back in 2013, John Key promised he would resign if there was mass-surveillance of New Zealanders. Now that the former head of the GCSB has admitted that there is mass-surveillance, which includes New Zelaanders, he's changed his mind. His reason? Because he's "sure the lawyers would tell you there is a difference" between mass-surveillance and mass-collection. At this stage, we should all remember John Key's view of lawyers: "I can provide you with another one that will give you a counterview", and this morning he's reportedly not even sure what the word he was hiding behind yesterday means anyway, but it doesn't matter. Because firstly, from a targets point of view, there's no difference whatsoever. Just as with public security cameras, it doesn't matter whether someone is watching them right now; what's important is that a) you know you're being watched; and b) they can look at the data whenever they want. And that's the case with the GCSB's spying on kiwis in the Pacific, regardless of what word games the Prime Minister plays.

But more importantly, none of it legally matters. Because the GCSB Act doesn't talk about "surveillance" or "collection" - it talks about "interception". What's "interception"?

intercept includes hear, listen to, record, monitor, acquire, or receive a communication, or acquire its substance, meaning, or sense

Its a pretty expansive definition, which covers not just the traditional ideas of someone sitting there with a pair of headphones while you're on the phone, but also recording it for later use, acquiring it from a foreign "partner", or even just being given a summary. They don't have to look at it - simply recording or acquiring it is enough. And it applies to any communication whatsoever, whether phone calls or internet or Morse code.

It is clear from what we've seen so far and what has been admitted that there is mass-interception across the Pacific. Because of the method - "full-take" - that mass-interception necessarily includes the private communications of New Zealand persons. The scale of that interception seems to be well beyond a level where it could be considered "incidental", and to piss on the legal requirement to minimise impacts on third parties. John Key was the Minister in charge of the GCSB at the time, and he still holds overall responsibility through his national security portfolio. The buck for this stops with him, and its time we held him accountable for what the spies have done under his watch.

Australia are torturers

Its official: Australia's refugee gulags violate the Convention Against Torture:

An independent expert has found aspects of Australia's asylum-seeker policies have breached the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

A report addressing concerns about Manus Island, as well as recent amendments to maritime laws, is due to be submitted to the UN Human Rights Council today.

It was prepared by Juan Mendez, the UN special rapporteur on torture.

Human Rights Law Centre director of legal advocacy Daniel Webb says the report finds detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island, and conditions at the centre, violate the convention.

Mr Webb says the torture convention prohibits subjecting people to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the report confirms Australia is failing to meet this basic standard.

Bring on the prosecutions. And if Australia won't prosecute itself, then we should do it for them.

A nation of loraxes

Yesterday news broke that an Auckland developer was planning on razing a 500 year-old Kauri tree - one of only 200 remaining - to make way for a deck. It was appalling news which showed a complete disregard for the environment. But this morning, protesters turned out to save it:

About 50 people have gathered to save a 500-year-old kauri from the chop this morning, and have scored a significant victory.

Residents of the Auckland suburb Titirangi have vowed to stop the felling of the tree, arguing that is unfair to lose such a treasure from their neighbourhood.

Contractors had been due to chop down the tree this morning but left saying they did not have the power to remove protesters.

Its great to see people getting out to save their local environment, and it shows that kiwis care about the trees and will speak for them. But they shouldn't have to. we used to have a law enabling local authorities to protect significant trees under the RMA. National effectively repealed that law. And the result is what we're seeing in Titirangi today: greedy developers destroying the environment for private profit. If we want to really stop it, we need to enable councils to protect trees properly again, rather than having the law effectively be a licence for the chainsaws.

Meanwhile, if you'd like to show your opposition to the murder of this tree, there's a petition here.

New Fisk

Who can the Saudis trust when they find themselves on Netanyahu's side?
Being coy doesn’t change the reality of modern Pakistan — a a corrupt, politically savage and physically broken society

Massively disproportionate

Over the weekend, a second dump of Snowden documents revealed exactly what was going on at Waihopai, and that the GCSB is spying on the Cook Islands and Niue:

The people of both these tiny nations are New Zealand citizens, and the GCSB is legally barred from eavesdropping on New Zealand citizens' phone calls and emails except under a warrant.

However, a United States National Security Agency document, which explains GCSB targeting rules to US spies, says: "Note: The governments of Cook Islands and Niue may be targeted, but not their citizens since they are entitled to hold New Zealand passports."

The exception is made to allow spying on all Cook Island and Niue politicians and public servants, even though they too are New Zealand citizens.

While I don't like it - the Cook Islands aren't just our friends, they're family - there's no question that spying on members of these two governments is legal. The GCSB Act bans spying on New Zealanders "unless (and to the extent that) the person comes within the definition of foreign person or foreign organisation". What's a "foreign organisation"?

a Government of any country other than New Zealand [or] a person acting in his or her capacity as an agent or a representative of any Government, body, or organisation referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e)

So, section 14 doesn't apply, and the governments of our cloest allies are fair game for spying even though everyone involved is a New Zealand citizen.

But there's a bigger legal problem. On Friday, former GCSB head Bruce Ferguson admitted that the GCSB doesn't do targeted surveillance anymore, and all it does is mass surveillance, spying on whole countries to get the information they ask for. What does that mean in practice? Let's look at the numbers for the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands has approximately 1,100 core public servants, or ~450 if you exclude the doctors and teachers. Throw in 50 MPs and Parliamentary support staff, and you have a total target group of about 500 people. And to acquire intelligence on them, the GCSB spies on the phone calls, emails, and web traffic of 10,000 Cook Islanders and the 70,000 New Zealanders who visit them each year. Every one of which is a New Zealand citizen. They spy on tens of thousands of New Zealand citizens in order to capture intelligence from the 0.6% of them who are legal targets. Whatever way you look at it, its grossly disproportionate.

But it may also be illegal. Section 24 of the GCSB Act requires the GCSB to

take all practicable steps that are reasonable in the circumstances to minimise the likelihood of intercepting communications that are not relevant to the persons whose communications are to be intercepted.

Their chosen collection method - mass surveillance, "collect it all" - pisses on this law. Again, its a depraved indifference to our privacy and a depraved indifference to the law. And the only way to end it seems to be to shut this agency down permanently.

Meanwhile, if any MP wants to protect New Zealanders in the Cook Islands and Niue from GCSB spying, I have a members bill for you.

Protest against the TPPA tomorrow

Tomorrow is a nationwide day of action against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the "free trade" deal which will undermine our public health system, give US corporations the right to veto our laws, and impose US-style copyright rules on our internet. There will be protests happening in 22 centres, and a thousand people are expected to march in Christchurch. You can get a full list of what's happening where here.

The Northland by-election matters

Last night's 3 News-Reid Research poll of Northland showed that the by-election everyone expected to be a coronation for National's dead white male wasn't, and that there was a real chance of them losing the seat to Winston Peters. Which would mean (thanks to MMP) an extra NZ First list MP in Parliament. Which in turn would mean that the government no longer had an easy majority with ACT on everything, and instead had to win the support of both ACT and Peter Dunne, or the Maori Party to pass legislation, just as it did last term.

This matters. Just last week, the vote on Sue Moroney's Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, which was supported by every party except National and ACT, was lost by a single vote. If the by-election had been earlier, it would have passed. National and ACT are pushing ahead with RMA "reform", which means gutting the RMA and removing local input and democracy, against the wishes of every other party in the House. If Winston wins Northland, those plans are dead in the water. As is pretty much their entire policy platform beyond "cling grimly to power and collect our fat Ministerial salaries while doing as little as possible". And National's plans for a stitch-up on the next spy bill? Probably doomed.

With good coalition-building and the right issue, Labour and other parties might even be able to pass member's bills over the head of the government. National will hate that.

It isn't over until the polls close on March 28th, of course - but Winston looks to have a real chance. If you're on the left and in Northland, you might want to think hard about who you hate more, him or John Key, and grit your teeth and vote to fuck up National.

How to complain to IGIS

Are you a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident? Have you travelled to the South Pacific (Fiji, Samoa, New Caledonia, Tonga, French Polynesia, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru or Kiribati) for work or a holiday since 2009? Congratulations, the GCSB collected every phone call and email you sent as part of its new "full take" collection.

This is illegal. The GCSB is not allowed to spy on New Zealanders. Fortunately, we have an Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to investigate the spies when they violate the law. The Greens lodged a complaint with them this morning. But if you'd like to do the same, the Inspector-General has a handy online guide. The short version:

• Email the Registrar of the High Court at Wellington at WellingtonHC@justice.govt.nz. Say that this is a complaint for IGIS care of the Registrar. Note that the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 means that an email counts as "in writing".
  
• Include your name, address, and contact details. State whether you are an NZ citizen or resident.
  
• State the period when you were travelling the in the Pacific, and whether you made any phone calls or sent any emails.
  
• State that recent revelations from the Snowden documents have given you reason to believe that those emails may have been intercepted as part of their "mass collection". Include links to relevant media articles.
  
• Ask IGIS to inquire into whether your information has been destroyed as required under s23 GCSB Act, and if not, to ensure its destruction. Also ask for copies of what was intercepted.
  

The government assures us that the Inspector-General protects our privacy from the excesses of our spy agencies. So, lets see if the system works. And if it doesn't, then we'll all know that its a charade and that we should burn it down and build a new one.

Depraved indifference

This morning's Snowden fallout: an admission from a top former-spy that yesterday's revelation was true:

This morning, former director of the GCSB Sir Bruce Ferguson told Radio New Zealand that mass surveillance was being undertaken in the Pacific, and it was "mission impossible" to eliminate New Zealanders' data from the collection.

"It's the whole method of surveillance these days - it's mass collection. To actually individualise that is mission impossible," he said.

You can listen to the full interview here, but two things stand out. First, Ferguson contends that this is legal, and that the 2013 GCSB Act amendments were designed to make it so. Reading the Act, this isn't obvious; s14 forbids the GCSB from doing anything "for the purpose" of intercepting New Zealanders' private communications, but also contemplates that they might be accidentally collected as "incidentally obtained intelligence" - which must be destroyed "as soon as practicable". But listening to Ferguson its clear that they don't do the latter, and in fact regard it as utterly impracticable to check their feed for such material so it may be destroyed (so they just pass it all on to the NSA, GCHQ, and fuck knows who else, and ask that their partners follow their rules when looking at it and not look at kiwis' data. Yeah, right). Which I don't think fits with kiwis' ordinary interpretation of the law or how it was sold to us as a safeguard; generally speaking, I think that if the law says "as soon as practicable", that's a clear command, and if there are problems, the government needs to make it practicable. They can't just engage in a clear course of action which will result in them conveniently not being able to do what the law commands them to.

Speaking of courses of action, its also clear that the GCSB is relying very heavily on "purpose" here. While they're collecting all this data on New Zealanders, its not for spying on us, but for spying on the whole Pacific (a policy which makes the legal requirement to minimise the impact of interception on third parties a bad joke. There are no "third parties" any more). But think about this: the GCSB, subject to a law which says "don't spy on New Zealanders", has deliberately chosen a course of action in which they know they will "accidentally" spy on hundreds of thousands of us (yes, that many. In 2013, 186,000 New Zealanders visited the South Pacific, excluding the Cook Islands. If you include them, its quarter of a million. That's almost 10% of the total population of the target area). Which shows a depraved indifference to our privacy (not to mention that of their Pacific victims).

(It also makes you wonder how far they're willing to stretch this purpose. can they spy on all internal NZ communications if its "only" done to intercept the communications of foreign terrorists? Its the same logic. How many kiwis caught in the dragnet is too many?)

The core problem here is that the law - and GCSB's nationality policy - is written for individual targeted collection. There's a person or a place (like an embassy) that you want to spy on, so you get a warrant for it, and if any kiwi happens to get in the way, you clean them out of it. But that's now how the GCSB does things, and it hasn't been for a long, long time. They do bulk collection, "full take", and the mindset is so ingrained that this morning Ferguson went so far as to outright deny that you could do targeted surveillance (someone better tell the police that their individually-warranted wiretaps based on individualised suspicion and probable cause don't exist). And this makes the law a farce which is no longer fit for purpose.

I'll repeat that: a law which in fact permits what it seemingly denies is a farce which serves only to obfuscate what the government is doing from the public. It is dishonest law. And it needs to be repealed.

As for the second point which stands out, it's Ferguson's response to Espiner's concerns about legality:

I don't think your concern is actually relevant

And that's the view of our spy agencies and the defence / foreign policy deep state in a nutshell. They've decided what's best for us, and what we think about it doesn't matter. These people need to be reminded that in a democracy, the people are boss. And the best way to do that is by sacking the whole fucking lot of them.

Bizarre

When is an organisation subject to the Official Information Act not subject to the Official Information Act? When it has a secrecy clause. When John Key said publicly that he had written to the Remuneration Authority "expressing my view that there should be no increase" in MPs' pay, people were naturally curious as to exactly what he'd said. So they used FYI, the public OIA request system to ask. The Authority is listed in Schedule 1 of the OIA, so you'd expect a response. But according to the Authority, s9(1) of their Act forbids them from giving one. So, the Remuneration Authority is explicitly subject to the Act, while not being subject to it. Its absolutely bizarre.

As for how we ended up with this situation, this is a legacy clause, dating from an era when we still had an Official Secrets Act. And as it deals with sensitive issues of how much people are paid, in that era such a clause probably seemed like an appropriate way of dealing with the privacy issues. But the Remuneration Authority is not the IRD and it is not WINZ (both of which have similar clauses, because they deal with heaps of deeply private information); it handles abstract questions of how much classes of people should be paid, not deeply personal questions of individuals' personal circumstances. To the modern eye, the secrecy clause is outdated. To the extent that there are legitimate questions of privacy and the need to receive submissions in confidence, these can be protected under existing OIA withholding grounds. While it won't help this request, the Remuneration Authority's secrecy clause is outdated and should be repealed.

(As for how to solve this specific problem, there's two ends to every conversation, and where one is legally secret, you can always ask the other).

Contributing to the international relations and well-being of New Zealand

Tonga too busy to decide on Fiji Forum push, Radio New Zealand International, 5 March 2015:

Tonga's prime minister says his government does not yet have a view on Fiji's push to end New Zealand and Australia's membership in the Pacific Islands Forum.

Fiji has called for this as a pre-condition to it recommitting to the Forum following the lifting of its suspension over the Frank Bainimarama led coup in 2006.

Suva has said New Zealand and Australia, as donors, should not also be members of the regional body.

Akilisi Pohiva, who came to power nine weeks ago, says he is aware Fiji is seeking support from the Polynesian countries but his government is too busy to consider the matter.

Snowden leak spying claims spark diplomatic fallout, Stuff, 5 March 2015:

New Zealand spying on the South Pacific and Tonga is "a breach of trust", Tongan Prime Minister 'Akilisi Pohiva says.

Pohiva was "adamant that this is a breach of trust", the Prime Minister's Department in Nuku'alofa said this morning.

"But it is happening all over the world. Tonga is too small to stand up to the 'alleged spying'," Pohiva said through the official.

"China is on the radar … so what can we do?"

Gee, I wonder...

"Our" spies through their over-reaching and subservience to the US have just pissed off every government in the South Pacific. These governments are our friends, and they think we are theirs. They back us at the UN on that basis, and allow us into their regional forum. That could easily change. The hawks worry about the potential for the South Pacific to re-align itself towards China rather than Australia and New Zealand. The GCSB has just given them an excellent reason for doing so.

Just another example of how "our" spies damage our international relations and reputation rather than advancing them.

Customs wants your data

So, in addition to the GCSB spying on you while you're on holiday, Customs now wants to poke through all the data on your phone or laptop when you come back:

Customs are seeking the power to require people to disclose passwords to their electronic devices when entering New Zealand.

Failing to do so without reasonable excuse should be an offence punishable with three months prison, it has suggested.

It said the power would be useful in helping detect objectionable material and evidence of other offending, such as drugs offences, as well as to verify people's travel plans.

Part of the policy, explained full here, is also an explicit power for them to poke through any electronic device at the border. But quite apart from a massive invasion of privacy for ordinary tourists, we already know that these questionably-legal powers are being used to circumvent police warrant requirements and for political surveillance. We also know that they're largely unsuccessful; while they don't keep proper records, of thousands of digital searches performed in 2012 (some fraction of the 0.2% of 4.8 million international arrivals whose baggage was searched), only 234 searches were "successful", and half of those were for copyright infringement. So, a massive invasion of privacy for very little gain, and the very definition of unreasonable search and seizure.

Rather than violating our rights in this way, Customs should do what every other agency has to do when searching our devices: get a warrant.

Unscreened

In my previous post, I asked whether GCSB was screening its "full take" Pacific mass-surveillance before putting it on XKEYSCORE for the other four eyes to see. But we know the answer: they're not:

The Snowden documents show how foreign intelligence staff follow a step-by-step process to access the GCSB's South Pacific intelligence, including the metadata and communications of New Zealanders living, holidaying and interacting in that region.

A British agency guide shows that there are two databases on "Ironsand" (Waihopai)-intercepted communications they can access. "To query the data on these sites," the guide says, "you must first have a briefing on NZSID7, the law that governs what the GCSB can and can't do." The foreign staff were instructed to read a written briefing and then, before accessing the New Zealand intelligence, take an online test on the GCSB rules.

[...]

The NZSID7 (New Zealand Signals Intelligence Directive 7) contains the rules for when the other Five Eyes agencies can look at intelligence about New Zealanders.

Pretty obviously, they wouldn't need to check those rules if the material wasn't there. So, the natural conclusion is that material collected at Waihopai isn't screened. Which is a problem, because the s14(2) of the GCSB Act says that any "incidentally obtained intelligence"

must not be retained or disclosed except in accordance with sections 23 and 25.

[Emphasis added]

Those exceptions cover direct threats to human life or national security or when information "relates directly or indirectly" to one of the GCSB's functions. Those functions include "the national security of New Zealand" and "the international relations and well-being of New Zealand", and I suppose the GCSB could argue that providing such information unscreened is "the price of the club" and therefore advances those functions. But I really don't think the public would buy that as a blank cheque for mass-surveillance.

The GCSB owes us some answers on this. And it speaks volumes that instead of giving them, their spy-Minister is instead spouting nonsense about terrorists.

Spying on our friends

The first GCSB-specific Snowden documents have been released, revealing that New Zealand spied on our Pacific friends and allies:

New Zealand's spies are targeting the entire email, phone and social media communications of the country's closest, friendliest and most vulnerable neighbours, according to documents supplied by United States fugitive and whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Snowden's files reveal a heavy focus on "full-take collection" from the Pacific with nearly two dozen countries around the world targeted by our Government Communications Security Bureau.

Information from across the Pacific is collected by New Zealand's GCSB but sent onto the United States' National Security Agency to plug holes in its global spying network, the documents show.

From there, the documents show information collected by New Zealand is merged with data captured from across the world. It is then able to be accessed by the NSA's XKeyscore computer program through an online shopping-style interface, which allows searching of the world's communications.

John Key says that this is done for "really, really good reasons". Really? What's the "good reason" for spying on Samoa? On Tonga? On Nauru? These aren't terror states. We're not at war with them. These are our friends. If spying on our friends is "the price of the club", then its not a club we should be a member of.

But its not just a diplomatic disaster, there's also a big legal problem. If the GCSB is collecting full-take, then it is almost certainly collecting the private communications of New Zealanders, because there are lots of New Zealanders in these places, and lots of kiwis with family connections to them. And until 2013, this was unequivocally illegal - and given that these documents date from 2009 and 2011, it looks like the GCSB was breaking the law (again). In 2013, John Key changed the GCSB law to reduce protection for kiwis' communications. Thanks to that law change, information collected on New Zealanders overseas (or calling relatives overseas) as part of "full take" collection might be considered "incidentally obtained intelligence". It wouldn't be illegal to collect, but it "must not be retained or disclosed". If GCSB isn't screening this material before giving it to the Americans via XKEYSCORE, then they're breaking the law (again).

The vital question then is what safeguards the GCSB has in place to ensure that the communications of New Zealand persons collected from around the Pacific are not disclosed to the NSA in violation of s14(2)(b) Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003? And I think we deserve an answer to that. The material makes reference to NZSID7 (New Zealand Signals Intelligence Directive 7), the rules which GCSB operates under. Its time those were made public, so we can see whether our privacy is being properly protected.

London's dirty-money property boom

London has seen a property boom over the last decade which is on the verge of driving ordinary people completely out of the city. And its all driven by dirty money:

Billions of pounds of corruptly gained money has been laundered by criminals and foreign officials buying upmarket London properties through anonymous offshore front companies – making the city arguably the world capital of money laundering.

Some 36,342 properties in London have been bought through hidden companies in offshore havens and while a majority of those will have been kept secret for legitimate privacy purposes, vast numbers are thought to have been bought anonymously to hide stolen money.

The flow of corrupt cash has driven up average prices with a “widespread ripple effect down the property price chain and beyond London”, according to property experts cited in the most comprehensive study ever carried out into the long-suspected money laundering route through central London real estate, by the respected anti-corruption organisation Transparency International.

The fundamental problem here is that Britain is a tax haven. While it pretends to be a good global citizen, its financial services industry launders money for tax cheats and the corrupt. And the spillover effects - finance-sector bonuses and dirty-money driven property booms - ruin life for everybody else. Shutting down this criminal enterprise by closing tax loopholes and forcing transparency would be good for the world, and good for ordinary UKanians. But since when have "their" rulers ever cared about them?

(Meanwhile, it makes you wonder about how much of the top end of the Auckland property market is being driven by dirty cash as well...)

"As soon as practicable" II

In New Zealand, "our" spies are part of the core public service. Every year the GCSB is required to submit an annual report to the Minister "as soon as practicable after each year ending on 30 June".

I've been waiting for the GCSB's annual report for a while. So, three weeks ago I used the OIA to ask the Minister whether they'd received it. According to the response I got yesterday, he has - on February 16, four days after I made my request. Whether this "as soon as practicable" is left as an exercise for the reader.

(By comparison, almost every other government department submitted their annual report in mid-October - the exception being the Ministry of Women's Affairs, which also slacked around until February).

Speak out against the war in Iraq

Don't like John Key's new war in Iraq? Peace Movement Aotearoa has organised a series of vigils around the country tomorrow night. If you're in Hokianga, Auckland, Tauranga, Hamilton, Raglan, Otaki, Wellington, Takaka, Nelson, Christchurch or Dunedin, please go along and make your voice heard.