Oh, so THAT'S what the police are "there for"!

From today's Sunday Star-Times, this story from Nicky Hager and Anthony Hubbard:

"Anti-terror squad spies on protest groups"

Police teams set up to identify terrorism threats and risks to national security are spying on protest and community groups, including Greenpeace, animal rights and climate change campaigners, and Iraq war protesters.

Police officers from the Special Investigation Group (SIG) have carried out surveillance and used a paid informer to gather information not just about planned protests but the personal lives and sexual relationships of group members.

The police informer, Christchurch man Rob Gilchrist, whose activities are revealed in today's Sunday Star-Times, was a key member of various community groups during the past decade. He helped arrange protests and was close friends with leading campaigners, and advocated radical and illegal activities by the groups.

The Police are saying they "will neither confirm nor deny the identity or existence of any informant within any group" - and I think you can work out what that means.

What really struck me in this article, though, was the response from Police Minister Judith Collins. Collins says, "This government wants to ensure [the police] have the tools and the support they need to keep the public safe." So far, so good - one does hope the police have the resources they need to keep us all safe.

But she goes on to say, "From time to time it may be necessary to use paid informants. I think most New Zealanders would find it reassuring that the police are out there keeping a watch on the whole community. That's what they're there for."

Hey Judith, I don't find it AT ALL reassuring that the police are monitoring the political action and personal lives of political activists. And having informants "advocat[ing] radical and illegal activities by the groups" is NOT what the police are there for, and sounds awfully like entrapment to me.

I think I might write a wee letter to our Police Minister this afternoon, and if you'd like to do the same thing you can freepost it to:

Judith Collins
Parliament Office
Private Bag 18888
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6160

ACTing up on the news pages

Cartoons later today, I promise, but first I have to share this rage-inducing tidbit with you.

From today's Dom Post article, "Setback for Hide on climate study bid", the dancing canary has this to say: "The previous government took it that human-induced climate change was a sort of fact. It isn't a fact, it's a theory the evidence doesn't appear to support."

And this guy is now very near the top of the political food chain.

However, Peter Dunne, who will chair the committee studying changes to the emissions trading scheme, was surprisingly reassuring. "A variety of international bodies have done the ground work. It's not the competence of a parliamentary select committee in New Zealand to go and completely revisit all of that."

The upshot of the article is that the committee will not be looking at whether human-caused climate change is taking place. Wodders is claiming a victory for the "sceptics" because the committee can "look at the accuracy of climate change predictions." This ridiculous fight ain't over!

Also of note in the news pages is an NZPA story from Stuff last night, "Tax cuts debated under urgency", which quoted three people: Finance Minister Bill English introducing the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill; Labour's finance spokesman David Cunliffe arguing that the Bill was badly designed because it delivered benefits for upper and middle-income earners while low income families were the losers, it was undermining Kiwisaver, and cutting the R&D tax credit is folly for a government "targeting productivity and supposedly innovation"; and ROGER FREAKIN' DOUGLAS!!!

"ACT's new MP Sir Roger Douglas said it was 'a small step in the right direction' in marked contrast to anything Labour had done over the past nine years.

Sir Roger said core government expenditure increased by $18.2 billion above inflation during that time.

'This increased expenditure cost every New Zealander, on average, $1000 a month or $12,000 a year,' he said.

'And Labour spent that extra tax. . .on dubious programmes and failed social experiments that have not benefited New Zealand households by anywhere near the $1000 a month they took off them.'"

Why is this guy getting press parity with the Finance Minister and his opposition counterpart, especially when no other MP is? Is the press going to go running to Douglas for authoratitive comment on every economic issue? Key may have blocked Douglas from taking any formal position, but the press is certainly presenting him as a Very Important Politician, not one of many list MPs.