Policing inappropriate relationships
NRT noticing because sniffing out these constitutional abominations to good governance is what he does:
The Nats have made the ex-spymaster one of their police complaints rubber stamps.
And it's all the same diff.
Here, like there, they think that by putting the word "independent" on the front it will make it so. The NZ version is dependent - in almost all respects - on the police despite the impression they try to give and despite trying to overstate their capabilities by saying their tiny staff of 9 (nine) are two investigative teams and including a manager who is also - miraculously - an Authority member. So 8 staff - 9 to be generous - are supposed to professionally, competently and thoroughly investigate and make recommendations upon an organisation where there are over 8000 sworn police officers?
The IPCA have zero powers:
It's a symptom of a security apparatus beyond the effective control of the political order. In NZ the PM appoints the commissioner and deputy commissioners of police - there is no board. There is accountability and responsibility to the Police Minister directly; so politics and policing are at inappropriately close quarters. But the influence and agenda are run by the police not the executive.
It's a symptom of expediency too because the link between the Minister and the police is so close that the police performance will inevitably be attributed to the Minister it is highly convenient if there were never any problems. The IPCA makes those problems go away.
Another problem-fixer for the Minister and the Police is the wire tapping authorisation. They re-appoint that old fool duffer, Jeffries again as Commissioner of Warrants for Spying upon Her Majesty's subjects. He was a corporate stooge as head of the Press Council (that hypocritically went outside its brief in order to attack me and Craccum amongst other rulings) and he's continuing on as a government stooge for John Key.
Now they appoint this murky SIS director to the IPCA. These appointments have little credibility. They are conflicted agents within, or compliant ciphers of, an unquestioned establishment which has long been beyond the control and comprehension of the public in whose interests they say they act.