Thursday, May 23, 2019

Climate Change: Submit!

The Environment Committee has called for submissions on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill. To submit, fill out the online form by Tuesday, 16 July 2019.

This is an important bill, and I urge everyone to submit on it. Farmers and other polluters certainly will be, so if you want a habitable planet, its important to make your voice heard. And while the fix may be in on this bill (it all having been pre-negotiated with NZFirst), at the least you will be helping pile up ammunition for future toughening.

As for what to say, I'd suggest supporting the general framework for the bill, demanding tougher methane targets so farmers are actually pulling their weight like the rest of us, urging the replacement of s5ZK with one which requires government agencies to take targets into account in decision-making, and removal of the odious secrecy clause. You should put all that in your own words, because if you just copy and paste it, the select committee will consider it a form submission and ignore it.

Again, the polluters will be out in force, trying to convince the government to let them drag their feet some more and destroy the world for private profit. Don't let them get away with it. Speak up, or drown.

Destiny's Child

Back in 2003, Destiny Church theocrat Brian Tamaki founded a political party, Destiny New Zealand, to rail against modern society. In the 2005 election, it gained just 0.62% of the vote. But Tamaki is undeterred, so he's trying again:

Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki has announced he and his wife Hannah Tamaki will lead a new political party - Coalition New Zealand.

"You're going to see politics with teeth," Tamaki said at a press conference on Thursday afternoon.

"Labour has been taking us in the wrong direction our freedom is endangered due to harmful politics coming from the government."

What are its policies? They don't say. Instead its all about "poor decision making" and "spin" and standing up for the "silent majority" (all 0.62% of them). But no doubt they'll add something in due course. In the meantime, it looks like just another ego-trip.

Meanwhile, the bigot party niche is looking increasingly crowded, with Coalition New Zealand, the New Conservatives, and Alfred Ngaro's planned handmaid party. So many parties fighting over so small a chunk of the vote! By party count, bigots are some of the most well-represented people in New Zealand. Sadly, our unfair MMP threshold prevents them from ever gaining parliamentary representation.

The UK has no friends left

Back in February, the International Court of Justice ruled that UK had violated international law in its ethnic cleansing of the Chagos Islands, and ordered that they be handed back to Mauritius. Today the UN General Assembly voted on a followup motion to that ruling, to condemn the UK's illegal occupation of the Chagos - and the UK found itself without any friends:

The United Nations general assembly has overwhelmingly backed a motion condemning Britain’s occupation of the remote Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean.

The 116-6 vote left the UK diplomatically isolated and was also a measure of severely diminished US clout on the world stage. Washington had campaigned vigorously at the UN and directly in talks with national capitals around the world in defence of the UK’s continued control of the archipelago, where there is a US military base at Diego Garcia.

The vote was in support of a motion setting a six-month deadline for Britain to withdraw from the Chagos island chain and for the islands to be reunified with neighbouring Mauritius. It endorsed an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in February, calling on the UK to relinquish its hold on the territory in order to complete the process of decolonisation.

The US, Hungary, Israel, Australia and the Maldives backed the UK in the vote and 56 countries abstained, including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Poland and Romania. Other European allies including Austria, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland voted for the UK to relinquish sovereignty.

The UK was desperate to avoid having single-figure support, but in the end all it could muster was a collection of militarists, racists, and outright fascists. Which is what happens if you behave like a rogue state.

As for New Zealand, sadly we abstained rather than vote to uphold international law. So much for our commitment to decolonisation and a law-governed international environment.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Let Fonterra die

Fonterra is complaining that the offshore oil exploration ban could impede its plans to switch from coal to gas. Basicly, they're worried about future gas supplies and whether they can switch to a fuel which may no longer be available. So, they claim they'll just have to stick to dirty old coal, just like they do at present. Of course, this ignore the likelihood that it will get more expensive as carbon prices rise, or the possibility that it too may one day be banned, let alone the possibility of simply cutting production to reduce emissions (which, if you believe farmer wailing about forestry conversions and methane targets, is likely anyway). And meanwhile, their competitor Synlait is going clean, using heat pumps and biomass rather than coal.

So why doesn't Fonterra follow suit? I don't know - maybe their farmer-shareholders should ask them, given that the future survival of the company depends on it. Meanwhile, the public is justified in concluding that they're just dirty environmental vandals who hate change.

If companies want to survive in a climate change world, they need to go clean. It's that simple. If Fonterra won't, and persists in clinging to dirty technology, then the best thing that can happen is for it to die and for its place to be taken by a cleaner competitor.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day. While it was originally expected to be the second reading of David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill, National's bigots have successfully filibustered the past few Member's Days, so that now looks like it won't happen until June. Instead, we have the third reading of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill, followed by the third reading of Simeon Brown's Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill and the committee stage of Kieran McAnulty's Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. Depending on how the filibuster goes, the House might also make a start on the second reading of Hamish Walker's KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill, but is unlikely to get further. There will be no ballot tomorrow.

Climate Change: We are not prepared for this

A couple of years ago the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment warned us of a "slow-moving red zone" due to sea-level rise. According to their estimates, tens of thousands of homes and billions of dollars of infrastructure were at risk. The PCE's warning was based on sea-level rise of up to a metre by 2100 (with storm surges above that line). But there's bad news: we may now be looking at twice that:

Previous predictions for rising sea levels might be incorrect, according to a new study.

The study - published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - found sea levels may rise by 2 metres by 2100.

These findings contradict the original prediction by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report in 2013, which suggested there will be a rise of just under a metre by the year 2100.

"For 2100, the ice sheet contribution is very likely in the range of 7-178cm but once you add in the glaciers and ice caps outside the ice sheets and thermal expansion of the seas, you tip well over two metres," lead author Professor Jonathan Bamber told the BBC.

Globally, this means whole countries disappear, and more than 180 million people displaced. In New Zealand? Well, we just don't know, because the PCE's maps, designed to highlight problem areas, only go to 1.5m. But even from them, we can get an idea of the scale of the problem: whole communities will be going under. Central Lower Hutt will be on the beach. The cost of this will be enormous. Local Government New Zealand estimates a cost of between $8 and $14 billion for pipes and roads alone, and that's not even considering people's homes or the disruption and stress.

Avoiding those costs is a question of planning. But MfE's Coastal Hazards and Climate Change guidance for local government suggests councils use a worst-case scenario of 1.05 metres by 2100. Clearly we need some better estimates, otherwise a lot of people are going to end up carrying the can for poor council decision-making, while greedy developers laugh all the way to the bank.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

This is not acceptable in a democracy

Last week, ACT leader David Seymour called Green MP Golriz Ghahraman "a real menace to freedom in this country" over her views on hate speech. He said this in an environment where Ghahraman regularly receives death threats. And now, thanks to him, she needs a police escort:

Green GP Golriz Ghahraman is now accompanied by a police escort at all times following a series of death threats.

The MP has seen a significant escalation in threats of violence following comments by ACT MP David Seymour, a source told Stuff.

Seymour told radio host Sean Plunket that: "Golriz Ghahraman is a real menace to freedom in this country" in a Magic Talk segment on hate speech.

A Green party source said there had been a jump in disturbing threats to the Auckland-based MP since the comments last weekend.

Seymour is basicly trying to get one of his political opponents murdered. But I guess that's what ACT, the "party of freedom" stands for now: the "freedom" of racists to threaten and even murder anyone they want.

Needless to say, this ought to be completely unacceptable in a democracy. And if you live in Epsom, and you voted for this racist thug, I hope you're really proud of yourself.

A toxic workplace

The report of the Independent External Review into Bullying and Harassment in the New Zealand Parliamentary Workplace was released today, and it paints a picture of a toxic workplace where bullying is rife. MP's bully staff, MP's bully each other, Parliamentary Services' HR department is useless and compromised, and its basicly a perpetual torrent of stress and shit. And no-one does anything about it because of the power imbalances and political sensitivities which mean no-one can complain, let alone get justice. And this is all widely known within the building, which makes it surprising that anybody is willing to work there at all.

What to do about it? The independent reviewer recommends a bunch of changes to staff contracts and conditions, which is all good. More importantly, they have recommended that Parliament establish an Independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Conduct to investigate abuses by MPs. Which would be great if it happens, but given those sensitivities, I just can't imagine MPs ever voting for that.

Speaking of MP's, this bit is particularly quoteworthy:

“There’s a majority of absolutely lovely MPs and Ministers who are real people people and who would be excellent leaders anywhere. They are just awesome. Then there’s the few who are various shades of shits...and everyone knows who they are, and no one ever challenges least not obviously or effectively.”

It was very common for respondents to mention the names of a small number of Members they saw as ‘repeat offenders’. As one put it: “Everyone will give you the same list. It’s well known but there’s a conspiracy of silence about these few.”

The report of course refuses to name those MPs, meaning that the independent reviewer is effectively part of this conspiracy of silence as well. Which is not acceptable. Naming names is the first step towards accountability, and that needs to happen if anything is to change.

There's also some interesting stuff about demographics. Pointing out that many member-support staff are "twenty-something year-old staff members in what may be their first job out of university", the report goes on to say:
This has several consequential effects. One of the more concerning is the fact that some young staff members appeared to me to believe that some of the negative aspects of the parliamentary workplace were normal. Some described emerging from their employment experience at Parliament cynical and with a high tolerance for poor behaviour. When young professionals in their first jobs see or experience bad behaviour by leaders it risks them replicating those behaviours.

And at this point that its worth noting that both of the publicly-identified parliamentary bullies (Jami-Lee Ross and Meka Whaitiri) previously served as member-support staff, meaning their bullying behaviour may have been institutionalised into them. Its rather like intergenerational child-abuse: today's abusive MP's were normalised to abusive habits by their past exposure to a toxic, abusive institution.

So what can we do about it? Apart from demanding an independent commissioner, this bit has a hint:
I did form an impression of demographic differences among Members in their attitudes to peer to peer bullying and harassment, regardless of Party. Newer or younger Members tended to express low tolerance for poor conduct from colleagues, while longer tenured Members tended to say something like, in the words of one: “I’ve just got used to it as being part of what this place is all about. It’s not a place for the faint hearted.”

So one obvious way of improving parliament's culture would be for us to vote out the time-servers who are institutionalised to and help normalise it. While its not sufficient, it might at least allow some change to take place.

Climate Change: More emergencies

Last week, ECan declared a climate change emergency, becoming the first local authority in New Zealand to do so. They were swiftly followed by Nelson, and Christchurch looks like it will follow suit this week. And from a report on Friday, Parliament might do it as well:

Canterbury and Nelson have moved into a state of "climate emergency" - and Parliament could soon vote to make the declaration.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw agrees global warming has created an emergency, and applauded Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Nelson City councillors for taking the step.

And he revealed some MPs are in discussions about taking a similar stance on a national level.

That would require MPs to approve a motion in Parliament, as they have done in Britain and Ireland in the last few months.

All of which is great, but we need this to be more than empty symbolism. Instead, these declarations need to include language stating that climate change will be considered in all future policymaking - or, in the case of the government, legislative teeth to make that happen. And with the Zero Carbon Bill having its first reading this afternoon, there's an obvious way to do that: remove the existing s5ZK (which allows but does not require agencies to take climate changes into account) and replace it with one that requires them to do so.

NZDF's secret rules of engagement

There's been another dump of documents from the Operation Burnham "inquiry", this time about rules of engagement. In the past, NZDF has refused to release these due to "national security", on the odd theory that if it were publicly known that their soldiers could only shoot at people who were actively participating in hostilities, their enemies might somehow game the system and avoid being shot by not doing that. Which would be a Bad Thing, somehow. But now they're public (give or take redactions around specific weapon approvals), and they say exactly what people thought they said. Which really invites the question of why they were secret in the first place. But I guess NZDF's idea of secrecy is like US patent law: it can apply to things which are obvious, if not public domain.

If you read them closely, though, there's an unpleasant twist: the rules of engagement only allow use of force to defend themselves, "designated persons" or "designated property" against "hostile acts" (being use of force against NZDF, "designated persons" or "designated property"). Those "designated persons" definitions basicly boil down to the occupying forces and their Afghan government allies and their stuff. It does not in any way include Afghan civilians - the people our government told us the NZDF were in Afghanistan to protect. Protecting them may be covered in some circumstances under the "achieve the mission" clause, but at most, they're an afterthought. The important lives in NZDF's rules of engagement are those of Americans and their vassals, not the actual people whose country they're in and who they're supposedly there to help.

And then there's the mission, which is stated in another document as "to maintain stability, defeat the insurgency, assist the Crisis Response Unit (CRU) and enhance the reputation of the NZDF and GONZ" (emphasis added). Pretty obviously, one of these things is not like the others. In NZDF's own words, the SAS were sent to Afghanistan to make them and the National Party look good to America. Which is basicly the core critique of Hager's Other People's Wars. No wonder they wanted to keep it secret.

Monday, May 20, 2019

Australia votes for the same old shit

Australians went to the polls over the weekend, and have apparently re-elected the shit party to government. It was unexpected, but I guess that's what happens when you have a media landscape utterly dominated by a highly partisan monopoly. Meanwhile, thanks to the country's unfair electoral system, the government will enjoy an artificial (near?) majority, while a party which won 10% of the vote will have less than 1% of the seats.

But while its a devastating blow for anyone who valued human rights or wanted action on climate change, there's a slight silver lining. Firstly, the government is unlikely to be much stronger in the House of Representatives than it is now, while in the Senate (which is elected under STV, and so roughly proportional), it will need the support of either Labor or the Greens to pass anything. Which means that while all the current bad shit will continue, it might not be able to get up to much worse shit unless supported by those arseholes in the shit-lite party (which sadly happens with disturbing regularity on anything human-rights related). Of course, there's all sorts of ways a government can do shit without needing to legislate (like approving coal mines, or bombing places), and those will continue, but big policy change is probably off the table, just as it has been for the last six years. Which in turn means the government will probably stick to knifing one another simply to have something to do, until frustration causes them to call another election.

(Thanks to Juice Media's Honest Government Ad on preferential voting for their characterisation of the parties).

Genesis clings to coal

Back in 2015, SOE Genesis Energy committed to shutting down the last two coal-fired units at its Huntly power-plant by December 2018. Last year they pushed back that commitment to 2030. And now, they're weakening it still further:

The country's largest power company, Genesis Energy, is easing off its plan to stop using coal completely by 2030.


In February last year, Genesis announced an ambitious target to rid of the coal-fired units at Huntly, but chief executive Marc England is now wavering on that goal.

"Our intent is to remove coal by 2030 if we can."

Whether they can depends on the investment decisions they make now. The fact that they're weakening their target suggests that they have no intention of making the necessary decisions to meet it. Kindof like the New Zealand government's climate change targets for the past 20 years, really. But we can no longer afford to piss about; if Genesis won't commit to eliminating coal, the government must do it for them, by banning mining and imports. And if that is inconvenient for Genesis, well, they should have planned for a better future then.

Equality (finally) comes to Taiwan

Back in 2017, Taiwan's highest court ruled that violated “the people’s freedom of marriage” and “the people’s right to equality”, and gave the legislature to enact a marriage equality law. And over the weekend, just one week before the deadline expired, they finally did it:

Taiwan has legalised same-sex marriage, the first of any Asian state, with the passage of legislation giving gay couples the right to marry.

Lawmakers on Friday comfortably passed part of a bill that would allow gay couples to enter into “exclusive permanent unions” and apply for marriage registration with government agencies.

Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, who campaigned on a platform of marriage equality, tweeted after the vote: “We took a big step towards true equality, and made Taiwan a better country.”

The government had a gun to its head, in that if they hadn't legislated, a court order would have come into effect allowing same-sex marriage. And while the current president supports equality, in the interim they have had a bigot referendum which sought to restrict marriage rights and permanently exclude gay couples. The law tries to dance a line between the court order and the referendum. Whether it manages that successfully will I guess be decided by the courts.

Ignoring the Ombudsman

Back in 2017, after then-Transport Minister Simon Bridges had been caught red-handed unlawfully interfering with an OIA request about Auckland rail upgrades, the Ombudsman recommended that government agencies develop formal protocols with Ministers to limit Ministerial interference. So how's that workign out? Sadly, its not:

Ministers and government agencies have ignored the Ombudsman's plea for signed agreements outlawing political meddling in Official Information Act (OIA) responses.

Two years after the Ombudsman urged agencies to agree terms to avoid "perceptions of impropriety", none of the 30 departments surveyed have done so. Two have agreements in the pipelines.


While Boshier found KiwiRail did not act "contrary to the law", its OIA process was "less than ideal". As a result, he drafted a model agreement, promising ministers "will not provide inappropriate input, such as raising irrelevant considerations (like political embarrassment)".

However, a Stuff survey of 32 agencies found none yet had a signed agreement with their minister. Internal Affairs is finalising an agreement and the Ministry for Primary Industries is working with the Ombudsman to improve its OIA process, including a signed protocol.

KiwiRail still has no agreement and sends all OIA requests to shareholding ministers and transport-related ones to the Transport Minister.

Which suggests that Ministers still want to unlawfully interfere in requests, and agencies are unwilling to stand up to them. As for what to do about it, we need a statutory requirement for such agreements, and criminal penalties for interference. But what Minister is going to vote for that?

Friday, May 17, 2019

Climate Change: Tweaking the ETS

Climate Change Minister James Shaw has announced the latest decisions in the government's programme to tweak the Emissions Trading Scheme to make it actually discourage pollution rather than subsidise it. There's a commitment to begin auctioning units from late next year, and to remove the price cap from then (or from 2022 at the latest). There are also plans to increase penalties for non-compliance, ensuring that polluters who refuse to engage with the scheme can be properly punished. But one of the biggest change sis around transparency, with a commitment to publish totals of emissions and removals for every ETS participant. This isn't actually as intrusive as it seems: because our ETS sets the "point of obligation" at a very high level, there are only about 300 mandatory participants (plus 2150 voluntary ones, mostly forestry companies), and we'll be seeing effectively how much oil, gas and coal is being imported and mined rather than how much individual companies are using. On the other hand, it will allow us to identify highly-polluting industrial users, as well as deforesters.

On the price cap, the government has committed to keeping it at $25 for this year. And while they plan to remove it next year if everything goes well, they haven't committed to a particular level in the interim. Which given that the price cap both harms the market and poses a financial risk to the government, suggests an obvious fix: legislate for a separate, higher cap to apply from next year until it is removed. Doubling it to $50, and increasing it by $25 a year until the 2022 deadline should give room for the market to find its level, while avoiding the current problem of prices being up against the cap. But that would mean they'd have to progress the legislation quickly to get it in place by next year, which seems unlikely, given that it hasn't even been introduced yet. Though a quick raise in the future carbon price caps seems like the sort of thing which could legitimately be done under urgency, given the time-sensitivity.

Neither socially not environmentally responsible

Dunedin will play host to the New Zealand Minerals Forum at the end of the month, where the companies who dig up New Zealand and destroy our natural environment for private profit will conspire on how to pillage more effectively while avoiding being held responsible for the damage they do. The forum will be held at the Dunedin Centre, which is operated by Dunedin City Council-owned Dunedin Venues. And this has raised a few eyebrows:

Protesters are already planning to make their voices heard at the event, and yesterday Wise Response environmental group chairman Sir Alan Mark questioned Dunedin Venues' actions.

In a letter to the Otago Daily Times, he asked whether Dunedin Venues had complied with its own policy, set out in its statement of intent, to "exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility".

The council also had a policy on achieving net zero carbon emissions in the city by 2050, and the company was supposed to bring any potential conflicts with policies to the council's attention, he said.

Councillors appeared to be unaware of the situation when the event was made public.

An obvious question here is whether Dunedin Venues would rent their venues to the tobacco industry. Because that's the level the mining industry is on in terms of social and environmental responsibility. Except that where the tobacco industry merely profits by literally selling cancer, and has caused a public health crisis which has killed millions, the mining industry profits by destroying the planet, and threatens to make the earth uninhabitable. No company with a real commitment to social and environmental responsibility should have anything to do with them. And no individual should either.

New Fisk

From the Middle East to Northern Ireland, western states are all too happy to avoid culpability for war crimes
In Iraq, the ghosts provide the glue of unity in a story of survival

Time to get out of Iraq

Cabinet will be considering whether to pull out of Iraq this month. Meanwhile, thanks to the US openly threatening war with Iran, other countries with military forces there are withdrawing them:

Germany and the Netherlands have suspended their military training programmes in Iraq because of a perceived security threat in the wake of rising US-Iranian tensions in the region.

The announcements came after the US embassy in Baghdad ordered all but emergency staff to leave Iraq. No details of the supposed security threat were provided.

A German defence ministry spokesman, Jens Flosdorff, said that by pausing its small-scale training missions north of Baghdad and the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, Germany was “orienting itself toward our partner countries, which have taken this step”.

However, Flosdorff said the move was not a response to a “concrete threat” but rather to a general security situation being viewed as more tense.

New Zealand should follow their lead. Besides exposing kiwi troops to danger, staying in Iraq alongside the US while it threatens Iran is effectively expressing support for US warmongering. And that's not something our country should do.

A handmaid party?

Earlier in the year, National helped failed Green leadership candidate Vernon Tava set up a "teal" astroturf party, sustainablenz. It seems to have sunk without a trace, without even registering a logo with the Electoral Commission, let alone applying for party registration (which are things it would have done if there had been a rush of people discovering a party which finally represented their views). So, they're turning to a new plan: trying to tap the bigot vote:

The coalition lifeline that National will need if it's to have a chance at the next election looks set to come in the form of a Christian party led by one of its own, former Cabinet Minister Alfred Ngaro.

Talk within the party's been rife for weeks now with Ngaro's plan being well received and with the possibility of National standing aside, possibly in the Botany seat, where it has the strongest party vote by far.

Jami-Lee Ross's departure would let National gift an electorate to its new vassal without having to throw a sitting MP under the bus. But religious politics has a toxic reputation in New Zealand for all sorts of reasons: misogyny and homophobia, historic religious parties being dominated by fringe loonies (which in one case the public only discovered after they'd been elected), and Graham Capill, combined with a strong social consensus that religion is a private matter and a desire not to be like the US. So while its a natural fit for National - just look at the way they vote on gay rights, women's rights, and death with dignity - a "handmaid party" is also risky. Because voters are influenced by who a party's friends are (National's 2014 and 2017 election advertising infamously relied on this), and if a party's path to power is to crawl into bed with the religious right, then a fair number of people will be turned off by this, and vote accordingly.

And on the griping hand: National has no friends, and has effectively destroyed its previous coalition partners, so all it can do is gamble and hope.

Correction (17/5/19): Thanks to a 2014 amendment to the Electoral act, unregistered parties can no longer register logos with the Electoral Commission. I hadn't noticed.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

UK spies are not above the law

In a major decision, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that that country's spies are not above the law:

Government security decisions will in future be open to challenge in the courts after judges ruled that a secretive intelligence tribunal could not be exempt from legal action.

By a 4-3 majority, supreme court justices declared that the extent of GCHQ’s powers to hack into internet services should be subject to judicial review.

The judgment, in effect integrating the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) into the existing hierarchy of court appeals, was welcomed by human rights groups as a victory for the rule of law.

The UK parliament had put a purported ouster clause in the law forbidding judicial review, but the court found that “[i]t is ultimately for the courts, not the legislature, to determine the limits set by the rule of law to the power to exclude review.” Given the powers in question and the implications for human rights, they read down the purported ouster clause and effectively voided it.

Of course, that still leaves the main problem that in order to review a decision, you need to know about it in the first place. Which highlights the importance of leaks in ensuring intelligence agencies behave lawfully. But now at least the decisions of the IPT will not be final, preventing it from colluding with or being captured by the spy agencies it is supposed to oversee.

(Meanwhile, in New Zealand, decisions by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and security cannot be challenged in court. But its is effectively a parallel jurisdiction, with a clause stating explicitly that IGIS looking at a case does not affect the jurisdiction of the courts or the police. Meaning that if you don't get justice from IGIS, you can always seek judicial review of a spy agency's decision directly).