Your Parliament just voted in a Police State – and you aren’t even aware of it!

Policing Bill To Become Law
Police today welcomed the passing of the Policing Bill, following conclusion of its third reading with near unanimous party support in the House. Acting Commissioner Lyn Provost says it is an historic day for New Zealand Police and all the communities it serves. "Receiving such a resounding vote in Parliament is a welcome indication to Police that the new legislation is well balanced and widely supported." The Policing Bill now requires Royal Assent to formally become the Policing Act 2008. "I extend my thanks to everyone who had input into the Bill's development - including Police staff, service organisations, members of the public, government and non-government agencies, and those who guided the Bill through the select committee and parliamentary process," Acting Commissioner Provost says. A comprehensive implementation plan is well advanced within Police to effect the many changes the new Act will introduce following Royal Assent.

Unbelievable! Are you kidding me? WTF! When my co-blogger Tim Selwyn brought this to my attention months ago I argued that there was no way this could go through. I did not think for a minute we would be so stupid to give the Prime Minister of the day such unregulated power by appointing the Police Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioners while relegating the Police Minister under the Prime Minister. Meaning the Police are answerable to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister hires and fires those who run the policy, it is a closed relationship that does as my co-blogger points out “invites political manipulation, under-performance and ultimately corruption”.

The exacerbating factor is that we are realigning accountability right when the Police are about to execute and mug the Serious Fraud Office of it’s existence and it’s no right to silence powers. As the Police immediately attempt to use this newly acquired power they will turn from white collar corporate crime to ‘da gangs’, so a power created to acknowledge the difference in power relationship between the state and the corporation is about to be used between the state and the individual within a system controlled by the Prime Minister of the day.

This is not acceptable in a country that likes to think of itself as fair and democratic, this is the sort of structure that builds a Police State.

NZ Police: wrong to swear

The parliament had to rush this bill through yesterday - all in one sitting - because of a self-described "monumental cock-up" by the NZ Police.   It was disappointing that Hone Harawira wasn't there to chuck a spanner baton in the works and deny the necessary leave to push it through - now that would have been beautiful: to have these twits left twisting in the wind - all witless and warrantless.

Far from unusual or exceptional the public have come to expect this Keystone Cops blundering from these oafs in blue. People have come to accept the NZ Police are incompetent at every level and this is merely a footnote in a chapter in their sorry story.

RNZ news:
--
Parliament had to rush through a change to the Policing Act on Thursday after it was revealed 63 police officers had been incorrectly sworn in over the past four years.The blunder created a loophole which defendants could have used to challenge their arrests.
Police Minister Anne Tolley says the blunder is embarrassing and should never have happened.
A similar mistake was discovered four years ago.
Labour Party police spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says the minister needs to explain why she did not ensure the right processes were in place after that mistake.
Ms Tolley says the Police Commissioner has assured her it won't happen again.
[...]Acting Police Commissioner Viv Rickard told Morning Report it is clear the issue was the responsibility of the police, and an apology has been given to the minister.
--

The hilarity of their incompetence comes from the fact it was the NZ Police themselves who wrote their own Policing Bill in 2008.  The politicians didn't want a new Act and they didn't drive it either, all the work and the text came out of police headquarters as their own wish list - a list duly, dutifully rubber-stamped by the parliament.  So far so pathetic.  So when the Minister (as below) attempts to offer an excuse of a change in wording between a 1958 Act it is no excuse whatever - they did this to themselves.  The NZ Police can't even carry out their own laws they crafted and drafted for themselves, if that is not a reasonable example of incompetence what is?

Anne Tolley, Minister of Police:
--

Police Minister Anne Tolley says that an amendment to the Policing Act 2008 has been introduced into Parliament under urgency.
The Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill makes a technical change to the Act, which removes any doubt over the validity of the actions of a small number of former constables who have rejoined the Police.
63 officers who returned to Police between October 2009 and July 2013 were sworn in by District Commanders or Inspectors. This would have fulfilled the requirement under the Police Act 1958, however the Policing Act 2008 included a new procedure which states that the oath can only be administered by the Commissioner or a person specifically authorised by the Commissioner.
All 63 officers were properly sworn in once this administrative error was identified.
“Police received advice from Crown Law that a legislative fix was also required,” says Mrs Tolley.
“To avoid any attempt by defendants to exploit this issue, the Bill will retrospectively authorise the oath given to the officers when they first rejoined the Police, as if it was administered by an authorised person.
“It’s disappointing that we are having to take this action, and I’ve expressed my concerns to the Commissioner.
“I’ve been assured that this will not happen again, and that Police now have the necessary safeguards in place.”

--

It won't happen again!  LOL. Of course it will.  If iPredict cares to run a book on when the NZ Police will come crying to their Minister demanding a clean-up bill for another one of their this-will-never-happen-again cock-ups: in the next 3 years it would probably be even money - in the next 5 years almost a certainty.

And what will happen if the NZ Police carry out another, routine, breach of the Policing Act or any other Act?  What will the Minister do exactly?  Who will be held to account?  Like now and in the past the answer is the New Zealand government will always validate the unlawful acts of their police force - no questions asked.

Policing Act makes cops accountable to PM only

[√] Imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.

The cops are tasering themselves in disbelief that the Bill they wrote for themselves so easily became law. The Bill to make sure they are an instrument of the Prime Minister of the day and unaccountable to anyone else was passed by parliament on Friday with support from both Labour and National.

While much of the Bill's content puts into statute that which has been practiced uncontroversially for some time, it also consolidates the Prime Minister's role as the one who appoints the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners. The position of Police Minister in the Bill is also relegated under that of the Prime Minister.

The Police under the Bill have no board to oversee and scrutinise them and make them accountable - all they have is a Commissioner - a Commissioner appointed by the PM. The Police Commissioner is therefore not properly independent because the PM controls the career gateways that lead to Commissioner. The Police as an organisation are very much independent of parliament however. Having the Commissioner appointed by and accountable to parliament rather than the executive never seems to have drawn breath as a viable alternative.

I've previously posted on the short-comings and lost opportunities of the Policing Bill. Apart from the identifying particulars being left open (and therefore open to abuse) local accountability is a key failing. Naturally, local input is automatically redundant if there isn't even any proper central accountability. If people wonder why the police are often slow to respond to minor crime (or even shootings!) they should ask themselves who the local district commander has to report to and be accountable to. It's not local government or locally elected or appointed citizens or judges - as it normally is in democratic jurisdictions like the UK and the US - the structure in NZ points directly back to the Commissioner and they are accountable only to the PM. Forget the select committee process, that's more of an ex post facto audit that can only interview and recommend, and forget the State Services Commissioner - those are not managerial elements in the relationship to the Commissioner - the relationship that counts is with the PM.

The PM hires and fires, the PM promotes and demotes. That closed system invites political manipulation, under-performance and ultimately corruption. That is inappropriate, especially in a country that likes to think of itself in terms of progressive legislation. This law is anti-democratic, and flies in the face of transparency and accountability and is well out of step with similar jurisdictions who have endeavoured to improve police performance. Given that the government is prepared to go along with Police plans to absorb the Serious Fraud Office and therefore concentrate its own powers and capabilities, more scrutiny needs to be applied to the motivations and projected end point of the Policing Act.

More Police Powers? You have got to be joking me!

Police bill labelled 'draconian'
A bill extending police powers to spy on suspected criminals and conduct some searches without a warrant is "draconian" election-year pandering, says a civil rights watchdog. The Search and Surveillance Powers Bill, tabled in Parliament by Justice Minister Annette King yesterday, seeks to reform the laws and transfer powers from the Serious Fraud Office, which will soon be disbanded, to the police. Among several controversial proposals are the ability to search without a warrant in certain cases, detain people present at a search and access someone's electronic information remotely. New Zealand Council For Civil Liberties chairman Michael Bott questioned the bill's arrival so close to an election. "It appears to be another macho lurch to the Right by a government attempting to pander to the law-and-order debate in a very simplistic fashion at election time."
The proposals include: The ability to apply for a search warrant electronically or verbally.
A power for police officers to search without a warrant where they think evidence of a serious crime could be endangered in the time it took to get a warrant.
Power to declare an area a crime scene and ensure evidence is not hidden or destroyed while a warrant is secured.
Power to detain people present or who arrive at a search until it can be determined whether they are involved in a crime.
Specific powers for officers to access and copy material held on computers or data-storage devices.
Permission to remotely access computer data in limited circumstances.
Provisions on warrants for placing surveillance devices, including the ability to enter property to place the devices.
The removal of a need for a warrant for surveillance devices in certain circumstances, such as public areas that are already under surveillance.

More Police Powers? Tell me this is a really bad joke, you can smell it’s election year with Labour playing to the ‘lynch-em-high’ brigade by whistling a merry jig of macho raw meat chewing laws from banning gangs to the capitulation of accountability in the Policing Bill by handing all power for career advancement within the Police directly to the Prime Minister.

This new punch to civil liberties allows the Police to break into your home – WITHOUT A WARRANT – and plant secret spy cameras to record you in your own home, until they gain enough evidence to convict you of something. This is arming the police with fishing expedition tools and with a complaints system that can only handle 30% of cases independently you had best hope the media pick up on your story of Police abuse or you’re screwed.

Handing over powers where the Police can access your electronic communications remotely is effectively state sanctioned electronic hacking into your privacy and giving Police discretion to search without a warrant if they think process will slow it down is just a glowing neon sign declaring ‘Open to constant and unrelenting abuse’.

The other major issue will be how the SFO powers will be interpreted by a Police Department that has always pushed for powers to trump our right to silence, watch how they will twist a unique power that was only ever supposed to be used against corporate power into one that will be used against citizens. Here's how the argument will run, ‘Gangs are organized crime, these no right to silence powers are used against organized crime, we now have the power to question anyone we define as in a gang with no right to silence powers. Not a gang member? Don’t care? Well once any group of citizens rights are breached it is only a matter of time before those breaches are taken across the spectrum to all citizens.

Seeing how the Police Bill was rammed through without any changes other than denying the Police the ability to become a political party (a direct threat to the Party’s themselves so that decision was no surprise), my fear is that these new Police powers will be rammed through again with zero discussion and further major erosion of our civil liberties will occur unheralded as the forces of state power continue to grow.

Over-ruled

A press release from the Attorney-General:
Attorney-General statement on select committee report on Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill
[...]
“Our priority is to pass this legislation this week to allow the Police to resume video surveillance operations in investigations of serious offending,” Mr Finlayson said. Parliament rises this week and will not sit again until after the election.

“There is cross-party support for the Police to have appropriate surveillance powers to investigate serious criminal activity,” he said. “The Bill preserves the position as it was understood by successive governments and the Police, that covert video surveillance in an otherwise lawful search was not illegal.”

The position as government and the NZ Police understood it was wrong. They knew it was wrong too, so saying they always thought it was right is also wrong. They assert their current desires as facts and then put it into statute where the courts have to take their word for it. That is the illness in the system.

The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill expresses Parliament’s intent that any otherwise lawful search involving covert video surveillance should not be unlawful just because of the use of video surveillance.

The intent? Let's deal with the intent of the current parliament (National and Labour) - they are intent on re-writing the law to suit the cops who were caught with their pants down. To save face - and to save the embarassment of having to find a way to remove the unlawfully installed spy gear - they are trying to approve it.

As I pointed out when the Policing Act was going through a few years back they assert a history and assert what is common law in the statute and at that point it doesn't matter to the Courts whether those assertions are true or not because it is in statute they must defer to it. This means they have been able to extend their powers over time and this so-called "temporary measures" bill is just another example. By making it cover only the next 6 months they have also put pressure on the search and surveillence bill to go through quickly to suit the NZ Police agenda.

From suspicion they are able to get a search and now they claim that the search automatically means they have a right to plant spy devices. We are very far down the slippery slope on this one.

From the Policing Act 2008: section 37:
(4) Nothing in this section affects the right at common law of a constable to search any person on the person’s arrest.

The NZ Police themselves wrote this Act by the way - it's their own law for themselves - that's the first thing that must be mentioned. It is therefore, by any definition, self-serving. Section 37 is headed: "General searches of people in custody" and says if someone is taken into custody and is either in a police station or police vehicle and is to be taken to be securely detained (which I take to mean they are under arrest for a reasonably serious offence) then they may be searched and money and property taken off them. Note it does not say they are to be searched in the field - to the contrary they may only be searched on police premises. It says the police may use "any reasonable force necessary to conduct a search or take any money or property". That may seem OK, but subsection (4) asserts a common law right exists to search anyway. It may not have been a common law right at all, but by putting it in statute it makes it so, and it's open-ended because it doesn't qualify it with "lawful" or "reasonable" or "necessary" - just "on arrest." So arrest = search.

The notes to the "temporary measures" bill asserts that it was OK to put in spy gear during a warranted search. The Supreme Court determines common law and over-ruled them, so they change the law. So, search = surveillence.

The real danger is the extensions the authorities have gained and how that is to be read in conjunction with their other extensions of power.

The search and surveillence bill they want passed says unwarranted surveillence is OK for 48 hours, ie. a fishing expeditions are go. You see where this is going?

For example if it is alright to plant spy gear during a search and anyone can be searched upon arrest then the equation is arrest = search = surveillence. What is to stop them planting bugs on people during an arrest? Very little. They will get a legal opinion from their in-house lawyers to say it's OK and will claim it as a common law right. Then if the Supreme Court over-rules them they will turn around - as they have done in the Urewera case and get some weak politicians in parliament to change the law for them. That's how they roll.

Exclusive: Police DNA database secretly used for racial profiling

After talking to Keith Locke this morning I am even more concerned than before about the police DNA compulsion powers that Simon Power, the Justice Minister, has come up with. The ability to take DNA from someone who is a suspect but has not been charged or arrested is outrageous. Simply outrageous. Everything is in urgency and so questions of ministers will be some time off.

Announcing Police Association/Nactional's new bill introduced into parliament yesterday Powers outlined heavy measures:

The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill:

Doubles the penalty for participation in a criminal gang to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Makes involvement in a criminal gang an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Gives police authority to apply for interception warrants to investigate the offence of participation in a criminal gang, and lowers the threshold for offences that can be used as the basis for warrants, from those attracting 10 years in prison to those attracting seven years or more.

Enables removal orders to be sought from a court to remove gang forts.

- and it won't be the last time they use this excuse to widen police powers:
"Gang activity is insidious, and so requires a comprehensive, integrated response. This bill is just one part of that response, providing more effective investigative powers and strengthening penalties.
"Although it is one of the first actions of this Government, it will not be our final action on gangs."

The government's legislative response is also insidious. Insidious because the gang leaders in the drug business will be only one of many different people who can be spied on and should they be convicted then penalised again because they talked about it with someone else. The reasons given by the Minister to knee-jerk the sentence maximum upwards dramatically is at total odds with the ability to actually gain convictions in the first place, as he says:

"Between 2004 and 2007, the average sentence for participating in a gang was just two years, and of 339 prosecutions there were only 19 convictions.

The police are getting their dream wishes - it's like Christmas in February for Greg O'Conner. The Police bureaucracy will spawn an organised crime unit and so it needs it's laws passed to justify amping up its budgets given that its focus will now be gangs rather than having to also go after white collar offenders handled by the SFO (which will not be merged into the Police's organised crime group under National):

This bill will give additional powers for such ‘intimidating’ [gang fort] structures to be removed.

The Police want to eliminate the rival forts. Yesterday night they also introduced the Organised Crime Bill's evil twin, the British-style Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill:

It allows police to collect DNA from people they ‘intend to charge’, and to match it against samples from unsolved crimes. At present, DNA can be collected only with consent, by judicial approval, or by compulsion where people are suspected or convicted of an offence punishable by more than seven years’ imprisonment, or another specified offence.

It's a drift net for the cops to go fishing with. It assumes the arrested person is guilty and is designed to build a massive database of people's genetic identification. Why?

To make their work easier and up the clearance rates of their case loads and prevent crime - that's what it is to the Police. To the politicians and officials it is solving and reducing crime (increase productivity and increase social outcomes) and a rational response to the existence of technology to achieve this. It does all this at the expense of privacy and personal dignity however and it does it without any regard to the merits or justification of the defence to a criminal charge that may be so petty as to only have a maximum sentence of one day imprisonment. A charge that may later be withdrawn altogether. The bill will incite concocted arrests in order to secure a genetic search.

That is what I blogged about last year when the Policing Act was going through without a word barely uttered from anyone. Less than a hundred submissions in the end I believe. The Police asserted a common law right to search if arrested in the Act - that is nowhere near as innocuous as people may imagine - it is the foundation upon which this new bill rests. It is not at all automatic that a person who is arrested has the right to be searched by a police officer - especially for a very minor offence. Now it is. This encourages arrests in order to gain searches - which is a bad policing strategy because if it is seen to be abused it will erode confidence in the Police. The means of identification of an offender was deliberately not spelled out in the Policing Act - and was certainly not limited - leaving DNA sampling a moot point which is answered in the affirmative by this new bill.

If a police constable arrests you (or as Locke was explaining they don't even have to arrest you - just suspect you) you will lose your right to genetic anonymity under this draconian population screening process. I said it is degrading, indeed I say all this as someone who has been through "the system" and has been compelled to provide DNA to the police database. It wasn't the sedition, it wasn't the endless concertina-like printout of every individual incident of my ultimately self-destructive fisting of the Crown's piggy bank over the course of the mid-late 90s that earned me a DNA sequencing, it was actually being a party to intentional damage that will get you a mouth swab from Mr Plod.

OK, it was the PM's electorate office that was intentionally damaged, but I talked to other prisoners and the police have a policy of ordering DNA specimens off everyone they can. My lawyers said it was futile to fight it and it had become quite routine.

But here's where the routine gets curious.The Police have a survey they want the person they take the sample from to fill out - about the racial origins of their parents and grandparents. Not mandatory, it would just be useful.

They didn't want to know hair colour or eye colour or height or build or whatever they wanted to record only the ethnic origins.

Why? Well it's the basis for racial profiling is what it is. They don't want to know any other characteristic of the offender - just their racial make-up. They don't want to know whether the offender is tall or has red-hair or is skinny they want to know what their racial make up is. Half this, quarter that. one-eighth etc.

Junior phrenology from the Police's Academy of Racial Hygiene? Is Porirua the new Pretoria? I didn't know so many former South African police had moved over after Apartheid ended? Next step would be calipers and measuring noses. That was my impression.

The only thing I could imagine them using that information for would be to see if they can isolate any genetic markers for race so they can make a probable guess as to an unknown suspect's racial background if they have some of their DNA, or to help identifiy bodies. What else? But to make a study of race and not of physical features (which can be better at describing how a person might look according to their DNA than race) is not evident.

The problem with their racial profiling study they are running is the sample group are very likely to give false or wrong answers. That will throw their entire study into doubt. It has dubious scientific value as well as having racist undertones.
Environmental Science and Research (ESR) run the database for the police.The only two things on the ESR website I can find relating to race and the DNA national database is this:

Race-specific genetic markers and markers for specific physical characteristics are being investigated for their usefulness and applicability in forensic laboratories. Some private laboratories also offer to determine your ancestral lineage, for example Oxford Ancestors.

- Which does not say that they are undertaking any such work, but doesn't say they are not either. Equally vague, but suggesting the undertaking would be problematic is this bit:

In some cases the likely ethnic ancestry of a person can be partially indicated although this feature may not be evident from physical characteristics and is therefore of limited value.
[...]
Is it possible to tell the ethnic origin of a person from their DNA profile?
Particular DNA alleles may be more common in one ethnic group than another which may give some indication of a person's ethnic group, however there is considerable overlap between races so it is not yet possible to say that a DNA profile must have come from a member of a particular ethnic group. Further complicating this is the fact that a person will not necessarily look as if they are a member of the ethnic group that is indicated by their heritage and their DNA. Attempts are being made by some international laboratories to develop methods to accurately determine a person's race from their DNA but these techniques are not currently used by ESR.

Aren't currently used because they are building up a racial profiling survey of their own? Why else are they collecting racial information?

The officer conducting the sampling assured me it was an internal police survey and not done by an outside organisation. If that is correct and the ESR are out of the loop it is extraordinary. He reckoned that before long everyone would end up on the database anyway - law-abiding people - everyone. That was a just a couple of years ago.Someone ought to ask the Police Minister, Judith Collins, (the one who told the NZ Herald once that the person she most admired in the world was Erwin Rommel), to explain if this DNA racial profiling study by her police force is continuing and what it is all about, including it's scope, objectives and methodology and who is in charge of it.

What does she have to say? At the moment the Justice Minister is running the show:

The implementation of DNA sampling will be introduced in two stages:

The first will allow police to obtain and test the DNA profile of every person charged with serious offences where DNA trace evidence is often involved, crimes that indicate a propensity for more serious offending, and crimes such as aggravated assault, peeping, committing an indecent act in a public place, unlawful possession of a firearm, cruelty to a child, and male assaults female.

The second stage, to come into effect by 2011, will enable samples to be taken from everyone charged with an imprisonable offence.

"Our preference was full implementation as soon as possible, but we need to allow Environmental Science & Research to adjust to the increased workload and for police to develop guidelines and train staff. Full implementation will occur by the end of 2011.

UPDATE: No Right Turn

And further still - the Government's own Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson points out that John Key is wrong

DNA seizure law triggers rights alert
The National Government's plans to give the police unfettered power to take DNA from those they arrest has concerned its own Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, who said it appears to breach the Bill of Rights. A report by Mr Finlayson said the DNA plan "appears to be inconsistent" with the right against unreasonable search and seizure under the Bill of Rights.
National's plan would give police the power to take DNA from those they "intend to charge" with an imprisonable offence without the safeguard of judicial or other independent approval. Mr Finlayson said such safeguards were required in jurisdictions that used a comparable DNA scheme, including New South Wales, Victoria, Canada, the United States, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands. Mr Finlayson said the only comparable schemes were in the South Australia, Tasmania and the United Kingdom - noting that in the United Kingdom, the lack of safeguards is currently under review after it was found to breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Finlayson said he could not see any special circumstances in New Zealand to justify not having statutory safeguards.
Mr Finlayson's report was completed as part of the Attorney-General's "vetting role" of legislation that may breach the Bill of Rights. It is essentially his opinion as the Government's lawyer, and in his capacity as an MP he will almost certainly still vote for the bill. Currently, DNA samples can only be taken from certain convicted offenders.

Prime Minister John Key yesterday said the Government was expanding the criteria because DNA was the "modern-day fingerprint". But Mr Finlayson's report notes this similarity "is not generally accepted". Mr Finlayson's report quoted a recent finding of the Supreme Court of Canada, later cited by the European Court of Human rights that: "Unlike a fingerprint [DNA] is capable of revealing the most intimate details of a person's biological make-up ... The taking and retention of a DNA sample is not a trivial matter and, absent a compelling public interest, would inherently constitute a grave intrusion on the subject's right to personal and informational privacy."

Policing Act - identifying particulars

Add another tick, the Police are on the brink of getting their own law about how they are governed rubber stamped by parliament. There are so many problems with it - starting at the top:

12 Appointment of Commissioner
(1) The Governor­General may, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, appoint a fit and proper person as the Commissioner of Police for a term not exceeding 5 years.
[...]
13 Appointment of Deputy Commissioners
(1) The Governor­General may, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, appoint 1 or more fit and proper people as Deputy Commissioners of Police for a term not exceeding 5 years.

The PM appoints the Police Commissioner and the deputy Commissioners - is this "independence"? The PM will most likely only elevate a deputy, therefore they would have to do as they are told to get appointed to the Commissioner's job. A Deputy Commissioner (or Assistant Commissioner) looking for a promotion within the gift of the PM is hardly likely to prosecute the PM, over say, art forgery, or election over-spending, or speeding.

The Police are not structured to be independent under this Bill. The Commissioner does not report to a board. The Commissioner is the board. In other jurisdictions the Commissioner must report to a board which includes elected representatives, judges and appointees - that is the mechanism that modern democracies use to ensure transparency, accountability and responsiveness... but not in NZ. Here they report directly to the Minister. Well - that's not quite accurate either now - the Bill emphasises the role of the Prime Minister:

Minister means the Minister of the Crown who, under the authority of a warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of this Act

This is a continuation of a concentration of security powers in the hands of the Prime Minister being explicitly put in to legislation. This means the institutions are less independent.

The Police Minister's second reading was unconvincing:

When I first introduced the Bill in February this year, I noted it contains the most far-reaching legislative proposals on policing to come before the House in half a century.
[...]
First, the Bill provides an important acknowledgement that trust and confidence in Police hinges on policing being conducted in a principled way.
[...]
I do want to briefly highlight clauses 32 to 34 of the Bill, which update powers relating to the identification of suspected offenders who have been lawfully detained by police.

For instance, clause 33 will allow frontline police to obtain a suspected offender’s identifying details without the need for the person to be physically arrested, facilitating use of summons and other notices to commence proceedings. This improvement should reduce the opportunity for people to provide false identities; and, in turn, prevent precious time and resources being wasted in the justice system while the law catches up with offenders.

Oh it's all about efficiency is it? It's all about the Police expanding their ability to trawl for information is what it's about. It is also potential tool for harrassment.

s.32 Identifying particulars of person in custody
(1) The purpose of this section is to enable the Police to obtain information that may be used now or in the future by the Police for any lawful purpose.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a constable may take the identifying particulars of a person who is in the lawful custody of the Police if that person is detained for committing an offence and is
(a) at a Police station; or
(b) at any other place being used for Police purposes.
(3) A constable
(a) must take the persons identifying particulars in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances; and
(b) may only use reasonable force that may be necessary to secure the persons identifying particulars.
(4) A person who, after being cautioned, fails to comply with a direction of a constable exercising his or her powers under this section
(a) commits an offence; and
(b) is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to both.
(5) In this section and section 33, identifying particulars means, in relation to a person, any or all of the following:
(a) the persons biographical details (for example, the persons name, address, and date of birth):
(b) the persons photograph or visual image:
(c) impressions of the persons fingerprints, palm­prints, or footprints
place includes any land, building, premises, or vehicle.

Meaning: There is no list of "identifying particulars" - just some examples. So the Police can make up biographical details that a suspect must answer. They say it must be taken "in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances" but then say it's alright to use "reasonable force" to "to secure the persons identifying particulars". ! And if you don't want to answer their unlimited questions to determine what they consider to be the necessary details then you can be charged for that too. This is unacceptable. Whatever happened to: Name, Rank and Serial Number, or name, birth date and residential address. Something simple - but no, they list those as examples only and leave it wide open for other "biographical" details. They should be listed in the Bill - and that's that. They obviously contemplate something more than name address and birth date, and they ought to spell it out. If they want gang affiliation, or ethnicity, or family relationships then that must be listed and we can have the debate about what the Police agenda is. I suppose we should be thankful they didn't add DNA sample to the list. At the mmoment they are trying to sneak these things through because they know these MPs are half asleep - 3:30itis style 24/7.

s.33 Identifying particulars for summons

(1) The purpose of this section is to enable the Police to obtain information that may be used now or in the future by the Police for any lawful purpose.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a constable who has good cause to suspect a person of committing an offence and who intends to bring proceedings against the person in respect of that offence by way of summons, may detain that person at any place
(a) in order to take the persons identifying particulars; and
(b) only for the period necessary to take the persons identifying particulars...

So if someone is going to be charged for a minor offence they get their details so they can serve them at a later date with the summons seems to be the point. Sounds alright, but a Police officer on a fishing expedition could steer a Japanese 'whale research vessel' through that hole.

s.34 Storage, etc, of identifying particulars on Police information recording system
The identifying particulars of a person that are obtained under section 32 or 33
(a) may be entered, recorded, and stored on a Police information recording system; but
(b) any photographs or visual images of a person and any impressions of a persons fingerprints, palm­prints, or footprints that are obtained under section 32 or 33 must, as soon as practicable, be destroyed
(i) after a decision is made not to bring proceedings against the person in respect of the offence for which the particulars were taken:
(ii) after the completion of proceedings against the person in respect of the offence for which the particulars were taken, unless
(A) the person is convicted; or
(B) the person is discharged under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002; or
(C) an alternative resolution is imposed where the person admits to an offence (for example, diversion).

Hey, safeguards it looks like. Well, not really. Details will be kept if a person is convicted - which seems reasonable - or discharged or if they plead guilty - which is marginal. But the slight of hand we weren't supposed to notice was that it says the pictures and prints have to be destroyed - but not the vague and open "biographical details" that Police will be able to collect. All that information is in their system and protected it would seem by this Bill. It doesn't matter if the summons never arrived, if charges were never brought - your "biographical details" will remain on the system... like a criminal.

And then you look at how each of these sections are prefaced - about what the purpose is: "enable the Police to obtain information that may be used now or in the future by the Police". So it has a general application - it doesn't say, for example, "enable the Police to establish information about offenders in order to prosecute them", no, no these sections act to enlarge the scope beyond that remit. This is important if - or when - the Police get challenged in court thay can wave this law around and a judge would have to agree the legislation is relatively clear (including on parts on which it is silent) and the tenor of the law is unmistakeable.

I warned back in October last year where this was all going. It's all coming to pass:

Hide, Rodney: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading:
We have the situation where the Prime Minister, on his or her own bat, can declare someone or some group to be terrorists. The assets of that person or group are frozen, and that is it.

Office of the Minister of Police (Chair Cabinet Policy Committee) POLICE ACT REVIEW:
The specific proposals in Paper 5 seek to: [...] enable police to identify lawfully detained people in places other than at an actual/deemed "police station", and for identity information to be obtained from suspected offenders in certain pre-arrest situations. Better enable the lawful use of assumed identities in covert policing activities...

Hon Annette King 11/09/2007:
The Government plans to set up an Organised Crime Agency (OCA) within New Zealand Police [...] Attorney-General Dr Michael Cullen, who has ministerial responsibility for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), said the SFO will be disestablished and its important functions will be carried out by the new OCA. Justice Minister Mark Burton said the new organisation was designed to provide police with improved tools to target organised crime.

Community Policing

No, this isn't about the concentrated neighbourhood door knock campaign in a Whangarei state housing suburb, as NZPA reported

Police said the small community of 2256 people in Otangarei was responsible for 10 percent of the crime in Whangarei -- about 75,000 people live in the Whangarei district.
"That's a fair bit of crime for a small place," said Sergeant James McCullough, the head of the new Otangarei Community Safety Team.
[...]
He said the team was about to knock on every door in the suburb to introduce themselves and would do a mail drop survey to identify issues concerning residents.

Feedback is good. I'm not sure the door-knock idea is so good, it could feel like group intimidation. The Policing Bill that unfortunately went through parliament with maximum haste a fortnight ago has no mechanism for local (let alone central) accountability for the Police and will concentrate more powers in the hands of this Crown instrument. My co-blogger has more alarming news on that front in an earlier post today.

Safer communities for everyone might be better achieved by reforming the wider criminal justice system:

NATIONAL LEVEL

Serious Fraud Office to remain.

Police lose CID/CIB functions and staff to a non-uniformed, non-ranked investigation/intelligence service (with some constabulary powers).

Police remain as the muscle - the goons that other agencies call in to handle the grunt work like rescue, searches, enforcement operations, guard duty, emergency response etc.

NZ Transport Agency to have Highway Officers - traffic/enforcement officers dedicated to policing the State Highway system. Let's make the quota system transparent at least.

Prosecution service instead of Crown warranted private practices. This should be looked into - esp. comparison with Australia.

LOCAL LEVEL

Communities to have capability of low level law enforcement. Community Boards and local government need to be reformed into regular units for this to occur, and legislative and service support would have to be arranged between local and central government and their respective departments (eg. Community court could sit in same building as district court possibly and rely on same services as them or have stand-alone services), but if that happened:

Community wardens could be appointed as Officers of the Peace by a Community Board, and Justices of the Peace - presently a quasi-political appointment of the local MP and the Justice Department - could be done the same way - and with terms rather than life tenure. The lines of accountability for local policing and criminal justice in minor issues are kept local and hopefully more in tune with community expectations and practices. Policing policies being variable may help in developing strategies that work and may be adopted by other communities.

Formalised jurisdiction for community courts would be set to restrict it to minor offences. Any summary offence with a maximum sentence of 2 years or less and/or with a maximum fine amounting to 2 years of the value of the average adult income (c.$50-$60k) or less - is justiciable in a community court rather than at a District Court. The police could still prosecute in a community court. The court may also make reparation/restitution/restoration orders etc. involving property valued up to the same value as it's max. fine (c.$50-$60k).

The Policing Act refers to the common law right of constables to search people under arrest. A reform to that Act would be to refer to the common law right of citizens to arrest people for offences with a maximum of 2 years or more imprisonment, and refer to a community officer of the peace/warden's right to arrest for any offence carrying imprisonment. Perhaps if it is a minor offence a warden could take a maximum of one hour to identify and record the offender's details and complete the issuing of a community court summons.

As for the powers of the JPs - or possibly Community Magistrates - they could have the competency to sentence on all available options except custodial imprisonment. Home detention should be an option as detainees are not actually in custody. They should have the ability to convict and also the ability to recommend imprisonment and transfer the offender - in custody if necessary - to a District Court where they can deal with making the sentence (This might be handy if the wardens or police believe major offences are pending).

The community court may only impose sentences that last less than two years. Now, I think banishment or restricting someone inside of that community should also be options - as this is not custodial.

There should be a mechanism with minor offences in the community courts that after maybe 7 years an offender can apply to have the conviction reversed - which can be granted by a Community magistrate/JP pro-forma if there are no police, warden or victim objections.

Perhaps even a 7 year expiration may be in order as a statue of limitations so that minor offences many years old - where witnesses and testimony may be unavailable or unreliable - cannot be brought. The District Court might be better at handling that.

Local corrections services could be run minimally - with other agencies or people being tasked to help the offender complete their sanctioned remedy (like a groundsman being assigned an offender to weed the hillside) - or it could be a more intensive local govt. service that runs PD crews. The administration side will need some study.

These are just some rough thoughts mind you.


Do we need District Court Judges tied up with these petty cases? Scooby and the gang check out a haunted house - and get convictions and have to pay $350 each. Ouch!:

They were all sober, courteous, and apologetic when police found them in the building.

So why didn't the Police tell them off and send them on their way? Why did they go through all the hassle of prosecuting them? Petty, petty Christchurch. The Police should not be doing this and neither should the District Courts. If these matters were deemed worthy of penalty it would best be done through a community court.

DO NOT LET THE NZ POLICE FORM A POLITICAL PARTY

PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE - THIS IS VERY, VERY, VERY BAD - YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE

Ok the search and surveillance bill is bad enough right? Allowing the Pork Board to break into our homes and plant bugs and spy cameras on us with the barest of legal oversights is despicable and we must fight to stop the State having this power - but this new move by the National Party has an even worse outcome, National have just cleared the way to allow the Police to create a political party that will be able to stand at local council elections.

Cue shocked horror look now...

Bill will allow Police to serve in local govt
A Bill allowing Police staff to serve as members of local authorities was introduced to the House today by Police Minister Judith Collins. The Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill seeks to remove restrictions within the Policing Act 2008 which prevent Police staff serving on local authorities. Under the Act members of Police wanting to stand for local authorities must be placed on special leave during the campaign period, and required to resign from Police if they are elected. "The current legislation is undemocratic in excluding Police staff from serving their communities in local government," Ms Collins said. "This Bill will ensure that Police employees are not treated any differently to other state servants who are not prevented by legislation from standing for election and serving on local authorities. "Police are respected members of their communities. Allowing Police to serve in local government can only build on the strong relationships between Police and community groups, and further contribute to the safety and well-being of those communities." Police internal policies would be reviewed and updated to ensure any actual or perceived conflict of interest was managed appropriately. Removing restrictions on Police from holding office was a pledge by National at the 2008 general election. Ms Collins hopes for cross-party support for the legislation to ensure it is passed in time for the upcoming local government elections.

...okay let's just think about this for a fucking second shall we? The bloody cops will be allowed to form their own political party and run in local elections - wtf? They are cops, they have immense power, they CAN'T run as a political party because they area branch of the Government! We can all imagine scenarios where cops could easily muscle other candidates out of the race with all sorts of dirty tricks. They are the branch empowered to act on behalf of the Government - THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!

This is the legal framework for a police state, it must NOT be allowed to pass. The Police HAVE TO BE apolitical, they can't form their own fucking political party and start passing legislation!

National are building tomorrows coalition partners today. This is ugly and deeply disturbing, the Cops HAVE to stay out of politics, there is no way this can be allowed to pass.

Why give the State more powers to spy on us?

Surveillance bill clears another hurdle
A bill that gives the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) stronger surveillance powers has been reported back to Parliament with only minor amendments.

The bill was introduced in December last year and earlier this year the Intelligence and Security Committee heard submissions on it in secret, against the wishes of the Labour Party and the Greens.

The Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill gives the SIS explicit authority to use modern technology for surveillance, such as electronic tracking devices.

The Privacy Commissioner recommended that the new SIS powers John Key wants heard in secret take 3 years, National will ram it through before the rugby world cup, what's more dangerous? Terrorists or drunk rugby fans?

Why do we need these powers? On 9/11, 2001, the UN reports 36 615 children died from poverty, yet we don't seem to be rushing through laws to protect the most vulnerable in society now do we? Funny what motivates us to rush through secret powers don't it?

This combined with the vast erosion of our civil liberties by the proposed search and surveillance police powers which will be expanded to 70 other state departments, represents the largest attack on our rights we've ever seen in NZ. The fact it will be heard in secret and rammed through in less than a year when advised to take 3 years doesn't serve our democracy in any way shape or form, it serves the interests of those hiding it. As Armstrong points out...

If the reasons are so good, tell us what they are
Banning the public and the media from hearings on a new law increasing the powers and reach of the Security Intelligence Service is a giant leap backwards.

And not just to the Cold War era. It falls not far short of a return to the Dark Ages of parliamentary scrutiny - or rather the lack of it.

As the minister in charge of the SIS, the Prime Minister may have very good reasons for not allowing submissions on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill to be heard in public by Parliament's intelligence and security committee.

It would be useful if he shared them with the rest of the country.

...I don't care how much John Key smiles and waves, increasing state powers in secret is is not acceptable in a democracy.

Why should the SIS who are so incompetent that they couldn't even do a basic CV check on a fantasist they gave a top security level clearance to in the NZ military be given expanded powers that will be granted to them in secret?

* That the SIS did not check with its counterpart overseas agencies to see what they knew about Mr Wilce. This was contrary to standard practice in cases where the application for a securing clearance had worked overseas;

* That the SIS did not follow up on Mr Wilce's failure to disclose convictions once a police check revealed that he had convictions; and

* That the SIS did not record or follow up on information received on Mr Wilce after the announcement of his appointment.

The last time we just allowed the SIS to make up the rules to suit themselves, they spied on Sue Bradford and Keith Locke when they were children and spied on the sex lives of Green Party members.

Let's not forget the utter abortion the last great supposed terror threat managed to achieve...

Urewera trial taking too long, Goff says
Delays to the Urewera trial is denying defendants their access to justice, Labour leader Phil Goff says. Last week it was reported that the trial of 15 people, arrested after police raids in 2007 at alleged training camps in the Urewera Ranges, appeared unlikely to go ahead as scheduled on May 30 and could be delayed until next year.

...as Matt McCarten so precisely notes...

Urewera trial delay to hide egg on faces
Remember those domestic terrorists who were discovered right under our noses in the Ureweras nearly four years ago?

Well, the court case against them, which was to start on the 30th of this month, is falling apart. On Thursday the courts announced the case had been delayed another year.

Insiders tell me the priority for the anti-terrorism unit and the police hierarchy is to continue to drag the whole matter out as long as they can.

There is a strong possibility that if the Supreme Court suppresses or dismisses some of the police evidence (which is likely) the prosecutors can then claim on that basis they can't proceed with the case.

That will give them an excuse to apply to have everything permanently suppressed. That way they get all the senior players who started this nonsense off the hook.

But we shouldn't forget what they did. Former prime minister Helen Clark, the police commissioner Howard Broad and the entire anti-terrorism unit hyped themselves into believing a secret cell was about to launch a terror campaign against the citizens of this country.

They signed off sending 300 police dressed up in SWAT uniforms to raid houses and detain innocent citizens, search school buses and cordon off a whole town.

The "terrorists" were held mostly in solitary confinement for a month.

As I've argued previously, the local cops should have been asked to pop up and see the so-called terrorist leader, Tame Iti, take his guns off him and serve him a summons to appear in court.

Then they should have sent uniformed cops to visit all the suspects at home and give them formal warnings for running around the bush with weapons.

...Tama Iti and his merry militia are no more terrorists than I am, and Matt is right, this should have been a local policing issue, not the farce they made it into. As an activist, you never pick up a gun, ever. But the over reaction by the Police will merely be repeated over and over again if the State is allowed to increase their powers with the barest of oversights.

Let us also remind ourselves these powers are not just limited to the SIS, the Government are also pushing for vast expansions of surveillance powers for ALL 70 State Departments.

We are being conned into believing these powers are aimed at 'da gangs', really - da gangs huh? Vast erosion of civil liberties doesn't impact on you because it's da gangs da gangs, dem gangs, da gangs, da gangs, dem gangs, da gangs da gangs, dem gangs and it doesn't impact on me.

Do you know what the police definition of a gang for these powers is?

You think dear asleep NZer that da gang is the Headhunters or the Mongrel Mob or Black Power don't you.

Do you know what the police definition of a gang is for these powers?

3 people who know each other. THAT IS THE DEFINITION THAT TRIGGERS THESE POWERS, 3 fucking people who know each other.

NZ - you are being conned into handing over YOUR rights with zero debate just the way you were conned into the manufactured crises at the Hobbit which resulted in Warners laughing al the way back to the Hollywood bank..

This is not a political issue, it doesn't matter of you are right wing, left wing, in the middle, white, brown, yellow, green, male, female, gay, straight, trans, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jedi - WE SHOULD NEVER GIVE THE STATE THE POWER TO LEGALLY SPY ON US!

3 day 'fishing' trips for the police who can spy on you with no warrant whatsoever

No right to silence

Domestic spying by 3rd parties

The media losing their right to protect sources.

While our civil liberties are under the most disturbing attack in modern history, National are trying to 'streamline justice' with Simon Powers cheap pet-food grade abattoir conveyor belt of mercy. While announcing he wants a 'rethink' of the Bill of Rights (cue Emperor's march from the Empire Strikes Back), Simon wants this black hole of Justice to suck anyone caught in it to save some measly dollars.

Look NZ, you hopped up and down and screamed over power saving lightbulbs and water saving showerheads and the repeal of section 59 that didn't do any of the ridiculous things you thought it would and you screamed for unionist heads over the manufactured crises at the Hobbit, all pointless protests over shit that never mattered, yet here the Government are about to pass the largest erosion of civil liberties ever passed in NZ and nothing from the country?

Who knew how far smile and wave political capital could pacify sleep hobbits?

FACEBOOK
TWITTER

Police declare open season on Asians

The police message to the Asian community, as articulated again last night on the Close Up programme, was that they are to surrender their valuables immediately on demand to criminals without any resistance and that it is their fault in the first place for carrying around cash. You heard it - it's open season on Asians for the criminals and the thugs. It's official Police policy.

That is what has angered Mr Low - the man made out to be some sort of cross between Charles Bronson and the mysterious Dr Fu Manchu. The man speaks English awkwardly and the media have played up on his un-nuanced use of "vigilante" and "combat" to make him out to be some wild Triad-Ninja. He's sick of the rampant crime in South Auckland, and he's sick of the police attitude. I am too.

The cop talking to Sainsbury last night trotted out all the lines about calling 111 and not defending yourself. He chided Low for not engaging in the useless established bodies (token talk shops) that obviously have not worked. What he was doing when he explained that Asians were in the wrong and had to change was blaming the victims. Women should wear less provocative clothing - heard that before? Even if Asians changed their habits it would take years for that to sink into the criminal fraternity that target them. And they do - I've spoken to prisoners who ethnically profile their Asian victims.

The sub-text to a lot of this issue is that Maori and Pacific criminals and gangs from the poorer areas to the south are harassing the White and Asian middle classes to the north. Regardless of Asian-on-Asian crime it is others-on-Asian crime that highlights the point that everyone is interconnected. But not always in a good way. Immigrants from Europe and Asia are usually from business or professional backgrounds and are wealthier than their Pacific immigrant counterparts - and Maori. The criminal underclass and malfunctioning families that spawn people unlikely to care for others will come from the poorer areas. But I don't see the racial aspects becoming anything more than a latent sub-text.

If Mr Low wants to run self-defence courses and make women a bit more street smart then good for him. The tragedy of the woman who was run down after chasing her bag-snatchers is a case in point. The talk of Triads though was a threat to far for most people however. But that was the last resort.

I was amazed that up to 15,000 people - mainly Chinese - could be rallied at such short notice. Amazed - even though I witnessed the thousands at the pro-China Olympic rally in Aotea Square a couple of months back - because it was out in the suburbs. But these were the residents. Over 50% of the Botany electorate was born overseas. There are large numbers of British, South African and Indians in those areas too. All of them are concerned about the crime rate and the lame police non-reaction.

If the police continue to under-perform and fail these communities and tell them that they are wrong and must change and must not defend their property or themselves then they run the risk of forming the very vigilante squads the police dread. My ideas for local policing and local accountability - something rejected in the new Policing Bill - don't seem very radical now. This is just the sort of thing it should prevent.

But as usual it's everyone's fault but the Police.

Liberties crushed in government's anti-social motorist bill

It sounds extraordinarily petty and prone to misuse. It's going about persecuting a phase in growing up.

But popular? Oh shit yes - instant populist, reactionary adrenaline. Tory's are good at it, much better than Labour and Jim Anderton, because they mean it. Their conservatism is genuine - it's not just a necessary ploy to win an election - it's their roots. They can go more extreme than Labour. They can carry forward certain internal agendas that could not be proceeded with under Labour or under other forms of government.

Collins may be lapping up (and regurgitating) the "crusher" line, but it is all horribly more than just a cheesy Melissa Lee-made campaign advertorial, it's become real life now. The police don't even have a board let alone independent oversight - the Commissioner and the deputies are appointed by Collins - that's the extent of accountability and chain of command for the unitary centralised police force of the whole country. Gang patches and now boy racers. The outlawing process, the enemies list process, continues.The real curtailing of the freedom of the public by the government in its anti-boy racer crusade has been detected by Idiot/Savant:

amending the current requirement to give details to police officers to include not just your name, address and date of birth, but also your occupation and telephone number. Which is getting awfully close to "papers, please". And if the police don't like your answer - sorry, think it is false or misleading - they get to arrest you (though exactly what the offence justifying that arrest is is unclear - pissing off an authoritarian not technically being a crime in New Zealand).

I have previously posted on "identifying particulars" being a major problem with the Policing Act that was put through last year at the behest of the police. From the bill (now Act) - my bolding:

s.32 Identifying particulars of person in custody
(1) The purpose of this section is to enable the Police to obtain information that may be used now or in the future by the Police for any lawful purpose.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a constable may take the identifying particulars of a person who is in the lawful custody of the Police if that person is detained for committing an offence and is
(a) at a Police station; or
(b) at any other place being used for Police purposes.
(3) A constable
(a) must take the persons identifying particulars in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances; and
(b) may only use reasonable force that may be necessary to secure the persons identifying particulars.
(4) A person who, after being cautioned, fails to comply with a direction of a constable exercising his or her powers under this section
(a) commits an offence; and
(b) is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to both.
(5) In this section and section 33, identifying particulars means, in relation to a person, any or all of the following:
(a) the persons biographical details (for example, the persons name, address, and date of birth):
(b) the persons photograph or visual image:
(c) impressions of the persons fingerprints, palm prints, or footprints
place includes any land, building, premises, or vehicle.

Meaning:

There is no list of "identifying particulars" - just some examples. So the Police can make up biographical details that a suspect must answer. They say it must be taken "in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances" but then say it's alright to use "reasonable force" to "secure the persons identifying particulars"! And if you don't want to answer their unlimited questions to determine what they consider to be the necessary details then you can be charged for that too. This is unacceptable. Whatever happened to: Name, Rank and Serial Number, or name, birth date and residential address? Something simple - but no, they list those as examples only and leave it wide open for other "biographical" details. They should be listed in the Bill - and that's that.

They obviously contemplate something more than name address and birth date, and they ought to spell it out. If they want gang affiliation, or ethnicity, or family relationships then that must be listed and we can have the debate about what the Police agenda is. I suppose we should be thankful they didn't add DNA sample to the list.

So now that list is getting longer, but note the amendment does not eliminate other forms of identification - these are all police discretions - ones they do not need to do their job.
John Key's press conference on the anti "boy-racer" bills. It sounds silly and unnecessary.

Judith Collins at 4:30. Goes on about "the crusher" and "closing loopholes" and boy-racers "terrorising."

Stephen Joyce ay 7:30. Spent a lot of time speaking to the Police. 17 measures. "Anti-cruising". This just sounds silly. The noise tests I agree with and wish they would be applied to fucking motorbikes - because they don't appear to be dealt with now and just one bike can wake an entire neighbourhood.

Questions taken at 10:00.

But there is no data in any of this - no reasons beyond the anecdotal. There was also a lot of talk about how "illegal" these activities are and yet their entire package must mean that all of that stuff is not illegal now. Joyce's defence at 16:00 concedes the anecdotal point.

Act and UF will support the bills to select committee for a planned 1st December implementation. Public submissions will be called for and no doubt people will - including Idiot/Savant. He starts by quoting from the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill:

"cruising means driving repeatedly over the same section of a road in a motor vehicle in a manner that—
(a) draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven; or
(b) creates a convoy that—
(i) is formed otherwise than in trade; and
(ii) impedes traffic flow"

But this doesn't just cover obnoxious boy racers driving round and round the (Palmerston North) Square every Friday night; it also clearly covers "boobs on bikes" parades, as well as any form of motorised protest (for example, the "big rig" protest last year).

No - it doesn't. It says "repeatedly". If the car/convoy does not pass "repeatedly" on the same bit of road then it does not constitute an offence. It must mean more than twice. As I understand it it is illegal to go more than once around a roundabout - this is similar. The objectors do themselves no credit by misreading it in their haste to condemn. The general thrust of what the government is doing is quite objectionable enough without representing it incorrectly. A carkoi (motorised protest) that does not pass over the same part of the road three times is not affected. The Standard makes the same error:

Councils will be able to fine drivers just for driving around. The punishment will be just for being a boyracer doing peaceful, non-disturbing boyracer stuff.

No - it doesn't. It may end up being deliberately misapplied to hassle people, but the way it is put is inaccurate. The driver must go around for at least the third time and it also must have un-peaceful and disturbing elements or else they cannot act. Two ways of disturbance are given: impeding traffic flow, and a much weaker first one: "draws attention to the power or sound of the engine." That is so lame it's crippled.

That is the worst part - it is designed to include revving that is not in itself loud enough to warrant an excessive noise infringement. To the middle aged, middle class people writing and fronting the bill this is the real definition of a boy-racer that they are seeking to outlaw: someone who goes up and down the street all night revving their car and playing loud music. And yes - if such a car goes back for a third time the uniformed people with clipboards can write them a ticket. These petty laws do seem ripe for further abuse beyond just providing an outlet so the little men can then fill their quota or fill their time.

The fact is the police have always had powers to deal with the people and vehicles that are disorderly and offensive. They don't require more. The more powers and weapons the police demand the more control and accountability we must demand of them.

The Sunday News Roast

On the Sunday News Roast tonight at 7pm, Sky Digital 65, Alt Tvs News and weekend newspaper critique show that is Unfair & Unbalanced, THE SPIN STARTS HERE with the best political news team on television with your host, Bomber - head of Current Affairs at Alt Tv, Blogger, Phoebe Fletcher from the Auckland University Media Studies department, Tim Selwyn - the last man to be convicted of sedition in NZ and Ben Thomas the Political Editor of the NBR.

Tim – Community Policing and Winston. John Armstrong is suggesting that Helen won’t execute the old fox and will let him whimper off to die quietly under the deck.

Ben – Was Winston lucky with Capitalism having chest pains this week?

News that caught the eye this week
1: Auckland City Council are holding secret meetings to run all their assets as a company, Westhaven, Auckland Airport shares, and all the cities recreation facilities are to be run like a business, will we see user pays for council services? John Banks was given a privatization plan by his friend Bill Birch and it looks like the good mayor is acting out Birch’s wet dream fantasy.

2: The financial market meltdown, was it a blip or a symptom of a full scale stroke? As Finlay MacDonald notes in his column today in SST, this is not the financial position of a Superpower. He points out Bear Sterns was leveraged at a ratio of 26 to one, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 80 to one. With a Trillion committed and another Trillion about to be committed by the States in a bailout, how precarious is the debt position of America now? McCain claimed an hour before the meltdown that the fundamentals of the American economy were sound, and an hour after the meltdown was trying to redefine the word ‘fundamental’ while Sarah Palin called for strong Government that deregulated the financial world even further.

3: Michael Cullen tried to tie John Key to Merill Lynch this week as an example of the dodgy fast money tactics he would adopt if Prime Minister. Why didn’t Cullen just stick to actual National Party economic policy rather than John Key’s CV to make his point because massive overseas borrowing to fund tax cuts and subsidize corporate public-private crony capitalism exploitation of infrastructure in a newly unregulated environment highlight the similarities of America’s current predicament with what National are proposing much better than throwing mud at John Key. Will Labour over cook the argument in this election by personalizing it too much?

4: Banning gangs? Really Phil? Has Phil been eating raw meat again? Isn’t this just electioneering crap, how could our under funded, corrupt, over stretched and violent prison system cope with 10 000 newly imprisoned gang members? Didn’t talkback rednecks gleam crimson with incandescent rage that gangs had applied under the Treaty of Waitangi this week and they even mentioned the dreaded ‘c’ word – Colonialism! Interesting to see Labour can decide when the cut off date for claims is AND they can determine which claimant is legitimate and which claimant isn’t.

5: The joys of bondage under National – smart move to look at bonding certain professions by wiping off debt for those Doctors and Nurses that stay in NZ rather than move overseas. This is as socialist as National get.

In the Weekend Newspapers
STORY 1 – Judge lambasts top cops in damning report - sst
THE ACTIONS of some of the country's highest-ranking police have been criticised in a damning Independent Police Conduct Authority report due out later today. The report - released after a two-year investigation - makes adverse comments about 10 Dunedin police, including four inspectors, a detective senior sergeant and two detective sergeants. Justice Lowell Goddard is understood to criticise police for their involvement in private investigations of ACC clients - and for how they handled their subsequent inquiries into complaints. The inquiry was launched after conflict of interest allegations that Peter Gibbons - a former Dunedin CIB head who became a private investigator working for ACC's fraud unit - used his police constable son-in-law to improperly obtain search warrants and seize property from ACC clients. The clients alleged that when they complained, senior police - including three of Gibbons' former CIB colleagues - failed to act. They also alleged that warrants were issued on false and misleading information.
In the same month that the Policing Bill passed unchallenged to consolidate power over the Police directly under the Prime Minister and in the same week we have new Police powers recommended that will give Police access to the SFO’s power of no right to silence with their intention to broaden that well beyond white collar corporate crime to citizens using da gangs as a smokescreen AND gaining the power to break and enter your home to plant spy cameras without Judicial oversight for 4 days, in the same week that we hear serious allegations of corrupt police practice by misusing the proceeds of crime act - we now get a damning report showing what can only be optimistically called a gross perceived conflict of interest. Why are the Police gaining powers when they aren’t properly using the ones they have? And hasn’t the Independent Police Conduct Authority shown they have a big pair of teeth?

STORY 2 – Fonterra "should have known"
FONTERRA AND New Zealand embassy staff in China failed to notice the looming scandal over melamine-contaminated baby formula despite months of rumours on popular internet sites, and a TV news programme about babies falling ill after drinking milk products. And a Christchurch political scientist says Fonterra's lack of understanding of the Chinese political and business environment meant the dairy giant was out of its depth before it had even bought its 43% shareholding in China's largest dairy company, Sanlu, in late 2005 for $US107m.
Well we were talking last Sunday about why we had to read about the story of one of NZs largest companies involved in poisoned milk in the world section, that evaporated as quickly as protein in Sanlu milk products as the national news media bothered asking some questions. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but is monitoring local media a hindsight too far? What about criticism of not being open eyed in doing business in China. Finally, and perhaps the most damning question –On their website, Fonterra boast a code of ethics that states they will show “moral courage and leadership”, was waiting 6 weeks to go public showing “moral courage and leadership”.

STORY 3 – By day a teacher ... by night a prostitute - hos
An Auckland primary school teacher is moonlighting as a prostitute, throwing her school bosses into a quandary over her future. The woman, a mother of two children in her 30s, is new to teaching and moonlights as a prostitute to boost her income. The Herald on Sunday understands her principal was alerted to the situation by a student's parent. It is understood the principal is now in a dilemma - prostitution is legal, but he is worried about the reaction of other parents and students if they find out about the teacher - and has referred the matter to the school's board of trustees.
The Teacher when asked about her moonlighting profession pointed out that it was none of the schools business and that she was regarded as a good teacher and it did not effect her teaching ability. Is she right?

STORY 4 – Sacked lecturer reinstated - Weekend Herald
A political science lecturer sacked by the University of Auckland for an angry email he sent to a student has been quietly reinstated. Dr Paul Buchanan was sacked after sending an angry email to a United Arab Emirates student, refusing her an extension in June, 2007. But after a recent meeting between the two parties, the university has confirmed that Dr Buchanan has been reinstated.
Paul Buchanan has been re-instated by Auckland University after his ill tempered email to a Muslim student, remarkable turn around when considering how dirty the Auckland Uni have fought to dismiss him with him winning $60 000 in damages. Was the University of Auckland out of line and why the sudden reversal?

FINAL WORD – The dirt in this campaign. With Helen playing up the trust issue right when her trust is at issue, my prediction is Labour have dirt on Key and the National Party and it will be dropped either 10 days out from the election or the Wednesday before the Saturday election. It will be John Key’s secretly taped comment from the infamous cocktail party and any evidence that links a high ranking MPs spouse to the Hagar hollow men e-mails. National also have their own bombshells regarding the Police and Labour – oh the filthy mud that will be sprayed. It’s gonna get very very very dirty out there.

PS – Bill Ralston’s new election show on Prime is easily the best on NZ screens right now.

Lets be Frank 10pm tonight, Oliver talks to Robert Fisk. Replay of this weeks amazing interview.

On Tuesday Let’s be Frank Judith Tizard and National Party MP Nikki Kaye face off on why Auckland should vote in Labour or National.

“Gangs are terrorists” – banning gang patches and other European NZ fantasies

Gang patch ban 'outweighs rights'
A jump in gang crime and the recruitment of youths by gangs means a city-wide patch ban outweighs any human rights considerations, Wanganui Mayor Michael Laws says. Speaking to Parliament's law and order select committee yesterday, Mr Laws said new police figures showed gang criminal activity had increased, with violent attacks almost doubling from 52 in 2006 to 99 in 2007. The Wanganui District Council Prohibition of Gang Regalia Bill, which was spearheaded by Mr Laws and Whanganui National MP Chester Borrows, would ban gang colours, patches and regalia from Wanganui's public places.
Mr Laws said gang members were terrorists, were New Zealand's largest drug manufacturers, and existed only to create mayhem and intimidate law-abiding citizens. Gang regalia was used to recruit children as young as seven who looked up to gang members as role models. "[The ban] is designed to remove intimidation and the potential for violence from public places. We're not solving the gang problem here but we are giving our police another facility to police a safer community."
Mr Laws said the main concern over the bill - that it infringed on gang members' human rights - should be put aside for the greater good. Former police gang specialist Cam Stokes said the bill would be ineffective and make policing gangs more difficult. "It makes it harder to identify those people without their patches. The quicker we identify them after they have committed a serious crime the quicker we catch them."

Oh Lord, where to begin? I used to like Michael, after reading his very good book, The Demon Profession , you got the real feeling that Michael was a very principled voice within NZ First and took his responsibilities as an MP very seriously, however since then he has bloated into Talkback reactionary dog whistle speech that seems more intent at creating heat than any light. This latest outburst demanding gang patches are made illegal is on par with last months call to set the Army on gangs. Setting the Army on NZ citizens because we have decided those citizens are ‘terrorists’ is perhaps the most ill thought out, backward, fear mongering bullshit I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. The Army? Michael wants to turn the Army on it’s own citizens? He then, without even understanding the irony, invokes the collapse of Zimbabwe as a reason why we should use the Army, of course in Zimbabwe Mugabe has in fact used the Army on his own citizens and managed to do that by painting his opposition out as traitors and terrorists. The way we deal with organized crime in NZ is by reforming the old SFO and attack the financial structures that allow Organized Crime to prosper and have the assets to keep ahead of the Police, as for street gangs, the societal alienation that drives much recruitment for gangs needs to be tackled while a much quicker Court system would hand out quicker Justice so that gang members do perceive that there is a direct counter reaction to their actions, with Court cases taking almost 2 years at the moment, there is no immediate effect felt. These are structural and resourcing issues and would go much further in finding solutions than the madness of suggesting we have the Army turn their guns on a splinter group within society and crush them in some type of bloodbath that Commissioner Laws envisions would be an Apocalyptic cleansing of the filth from the planet, only someone drinking deeply from their own well of bullshit could ever believe that is a solution. Likewise this call to ban gang patches, it won’t change a damned thing and only start a precedence where Michael can decide which group should be in society and which group can’t be in society, his evidence that gang violence doubled last between 2006 and 2007 also coincides with a massive economic downturn that is squeezing those on the bottom, economic factors tend to be more of an exacerbating factor with gangs in this country than some recruitment drive on behalf of the gangs – but Laws doesn’t even consider that, instead he wants them banned, damn the consequences. This is not wisdom, it’s malformed hate.