Why Bomber’s claims are totally meaningless

In his latest rant against our intelligence agencies Martyn Bradbury has bombed with a mass of misfires.

The headline: Why the ‘protections’ in new spy bill are totally meaningless

There is no new spy bill. And Independent Review has just released a report that makes observations and recommendations.

Let’s get this straight – our intelligence agencies have been caught illegally spying on NZers, were caught helping the PMs Office smear the leader of the Opposition months before the 2011 election with falsified lies, were caught being racist, were caught spying on our trade partners to try and get John Key’s mate a job, were caught out by Edward Snowden telling the NSA that legislation had loopholes to allow mass surveillance, were caught out by Edward Snowden planning to tap the Southern Cross internet cable and were caught possibly aiding the CIA rendition torture program.

Most of those claims are questionable. Some of those issues are still under inquiry so it isn’t know whether anyone has been caught doing what Bradbury asserts.

So how does Key respond to intelligence agencies drunk on their own power?

Bradbury is drunk on hyperbole. The intelligence agencies are being reported on, not requesting changes.

Why he is suggesting even more power.

No he isn’t. He is suggesting a multi-party approach to assessing the recommendations of the independent review and deciding what might be done.

Why the hell would we give the GCSB and SIS more power when they can’t manage the power they currently have?

The report says “It was clear to us from our discussions with GCSB staff and from the GCSB’s own internal policy documents that these restrictions are interpreted and applied conservatively.” Is Bradbury wanting them to apply policies more aggressively?

The reality is that the so called 3 tier system of protections being suggested by the new legislation are utterly meaningless. The loophole built into the suggested legislation allows the spies to disregard all 3 of those tiers IF they believe there is an emergency or risk to life,  they then get 48 hours of warrantless surveillance.

This allows fishing expeditions for the spies.

Again, there is no new legislation. It should not allow fishing expeditions.

We must demand more protections for ourselves from this ever growing ultra secret deep state. A modern day stasi that answers to the NSA doesn’t make our democracy safer, it makes it far more dangerous.

Demanding more protections for ourselves is fine, but protecting ourselves from others requires some secret surveillance powers.

Likening New Zealand to a “modern day stasi ” is just pathetic.

Bradbury has bombed this with his hyperbole – “an extreme exaggeration used to make a point”. The problem is this sort of hyperbole doesn’t make any point other than the lack of credibility of the ranter.


  1. kiwi guy

     /  13th March 2016

    He’s a Marxist/Progressive, so is anyone surprised. He is louder and more theatrical than the rest of the Leftie herd except maybe Dildo Girl, but they are all suffering from Key Derangement Syndrome.

    • @ KG – Speaking of lack of credibility of the ranter …? :-/

      A great deal of excess verbiage there you know? You could abbreviate a lot. (I have no creds for saying this other than an English degree, of course … come in KCK?)

      “Marxist/Progressive. Leftie. Dildo Girl and Key Derangement Syndrome” is all that’s really needed there. You could even leave out the “and” above too! Sorta like KG speaking in tongues … 🙂

      • kiwi guy

         /  13th March 2016

        English Degree is a Cultural Marxism Degree.

        There was an article a few years back about how English grads don’t have a clue about any of the greats of Western literature because they never read it, they spend their time regurgitating “Critical Theory” academics who are only interested in pushing their own Progressive/Lesbian doctrine.

        • I was way before the time of Cultural Marxism KG. I took American Politics 101 instead.

  2. kiwi guy

     /  13th March 2016

    Key shrewdly appointed Cullen to the advisory board, leaving Lefties little room to maneuver.

  3. Oliver

     /  13th March 2016

    So PG why do you think the report is making recommendations? For shits and giggles? Obviously they want changes.. I think Bradbury makes fair assumptions.

    • Joe Bloggs

       /  13th March 2016


      You claim to be an International Man of Mystery, our very own Spy who came in from the cold. But have you actually read the report yet? If you had then you would know very well that the Labour Turncoat Cullen identifies four significant problems in the operations of the various spying agencies:

      First, lack of clarity in the legislation means the Agencies and their oversight bodies are at times uncertain about what the law does and does not permit, which makes it difficult to ensure compliance.

      Second, the inconsistencies between the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 (GCSB Act) and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969 (NZSIS Act) – in terms of the Agencies’ functions, powers and authorisation regimes – create barriers to the Agencies working together.

      Third, the systems for authorising the activities of the Agencies are not comprehensive. In the case of the NZSIS, in particular, many activities are carried out on the basis of the consent of the person or organisation holding the information (for example, obtaining telephone call metadata from telecommunications providers) or on the basis that the activity is not generally unlawful (for example, watching people in public places). The legislation does not provide for or require ministerial or judicial authorisation for these activities.

      Fourth, it became clear to us that while intelligence can play an important role in supporting government decision-making, not all of it is useful. Intelligence collection is only of value to the extent that it focuses on the issues most important to New Zealand and is turned into a product that decision-makers can use. For this reason, we consider it is crucial to ensure that the Agencies’ intelligence collection aligns with the government’s priorities and is independently assessed to ensure as far as possible that the end product meets the needs of its users.

      By addressing these deficiencies Turncoat Cullen hopes to facilitate appropriate checks and balances, improve coordination, make the laws simpler and easier to understand, and provide greater transparency.

      These seem laudable objectives.

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  13th March 2016

        Apologies, my blockquote html hasn’t worked on points 1-4 in my post – those sections are direct quotes from the Turncoat Cullen/Reddy report

        • What must you think of Turncoat Bolger, Turncoat Palmer, Turncoat Shipley and all the other retired politicians? They have to do something with their considerable bureaucratic skills, surely?

          • Joe Bloggs

             /  13th March 2016

            Parti, I see Cullen’s acceptance of an honour that he helped scrap as a bit of a sell-out to the working class he advocated/militated for, and a two-fingered salute to his former leader Helen Clark. So much for his ‘modest approach’ to shedding ourselves of the British monarchy.

            I don’t recall Bolger, Palmer, Shipley, or other retired pollies being quite so hypocritical when it came to recognising their contributions to New Zealand.

      • Oliver

         /  13th March 2016

        No what they recommend is to make spying easier and more legitimate. The only way to make spying easier is to erode individuals privacy.

        Here are examples Cullen uses to make spying easier.

        “…Suppose, let’s take an example, you know that a Chinese agent is arriving on a plane at an airport, for whatever reason you also know that they’re only going to be here for a short time but you’ve no idea what it is they’re going to be up to, and you can’t find a judicial commissioner, you know you’re only half an hour out from a landing kind of thing…”

        “…In extreme circumstances where you can’t find the Attorney General, or the the Minister deputed by the Prime Minister [to] act on the Attorney General’s behalf, or the judicial commissioner, then the Director can issue a warrant, but that’s in the case of immediate threat to life or the fact that if it doesn’t happen quickly then the opportunity to gather that intelligence will have passed…”

        If this guy is a foreign spy shouldn’t the police and customs arrest this spy at the airport. Why do we need our spy’s to get involved.

        second lame example

        “Let us suppose a New Zealander is in imminent danger, in terms of their life overseas. Maybe lost at sea or some other example. Under this legislation as the GCSB feels it has to interpret it, the GCSB’s capacity to trace an individual’s cellphone and to say exactly where it is, cannot be used.
        We have no way of finding out where that person is, using that capacity, in order to take immediate and urgent action, in whatever way, to try to protect the safety of that New Zealander.

        This is a search and rescue matter. What does this have to do with terrorism. Are these the best example you could give? It’s pathetic excuses.

        • Gezza

           /  13th March 2016

          If this guy is a foreign spy shouldn’t the police and customs arrest this spy at the airport. Why do we need our spy’s to get involved.

          He’s talking about the individual being a known intelligence agent of a foreign power. Such a person may not be arrestable if they’ve not been convicted of an offence for spying.,

          • Oliver

             /  13th March 2016

            That’s like saying a known terrorist can’t be stopped at the border because he hasn’t been convicted for terrorism.

        • Joe Bloggs

           /  13th March 2016

          Clearly, Oliver, you haven’t read the report. Take the time to read it, but remember to take your tinfoil hat off first.

          • Oliver

             /  13th March 2016

            I have read it. You need to read it again but this time without your National Party sunglasses.

            • Joe Bloggs

               /  13th March 2016

              Oh for Heaven’s sakes Oliver grow up. Just because I have a different perspective to you on matters of security is no reason to label me a National Party supporter, a Labour Party supporter, or any other of your idiotic efforts to categorise people.

              The intolerance that your comment displays is no different to the totalising patriarchal intolerance of diversity that Captain Vibrant displays.

            • Oliver

               /  13th March 2016

              You started when you falsely accused me of not reading the report. And then you had the audacity to call me a conspiracy theoriest just because I wouldn’t agree with your opinion.

              Perhaps you should listen to your own advice.

            • John Schmidt

               /  13th March 2016

              If you are not a conspiracy theorist then how would you describe yourself.
              National is to Labour not national is to conspiracy theorist.

  4. Kitty Catkin

     /  13th March 2016

    There’s a limit to the amount of freedom that any society can have, alas. We all have to submit to going through customs when we travel-my mother’s bags were searched with a thoroughness that wouldn’t have missed anything when they saw that she was from Ulster. It was done very courteously, but they couldn’t let a middle-aged school mistress go through unchecked on the grounds that she looked respectable ! It was during some of the worst of the Troubles. Someone could easily have slipped something into her suitcase (well, they couldn’t, she was a Protestant, but if she hadn’t been) hoping that as a well-dressed, deputy principal she wouldn’t be searched.