Labour policy: whatever

The headline says Labour would repeal GCSB law: Shearer.

But read on and you find that’s not quite the policy he’s espousing:

Labour leader David Shearer says the proposed GCSB bill is “bad law” and would be repealed if the party was successful at next year’s election.

However, he said the law would not be rolled back until an independent inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence services was carried out. . .

But he said the bill’s days would be numbered from the moment Labour came to power, were it successful in the next election.

“We would have an independent review and legislation would come out of the review. The current legislation would need to be repealed, modified or whatever.”

Repealed, modified or whatever – what sort of policy is that?

Labour says it won’t vote for the Bill. It must have strong arguments for that stance because unlike the wee parties which know they’ll never lead a government, Labour aspires to do so and knows it can’t play games over security legislation.

It should be quite clear on what it objects to in the Bill and and how to improve it in which case it should have a very clear policy on what it would do.

Repeal, modify or whatever is anything but clear.

It does however, give a good indication of the state Labour’s in.

A party which can’t come up with better policy than whatever isn’t fit to lead the opposition let alone ready to lead a government.

2 Responses to Labour policy: whatever

  1. robertguyton says:

    “We would have an independent review and legislation would come out of the review. The current legislation would need to be repealed, modified or whatever.”

    Ele, what’s happened to your logic?
    Shearer promises a review. On the basis of the findings of that review, a number of things could happen. In other words, he’ll respect the findings and tailor a response accordingly.
    Key on the other hand, won’t bother himself with an independent anything, he’ll push on against the advice of a number of very respected professional New Zealanders and ram his bill through with the help of Dunne’s one vote.
    That’s the difference.
    Shearer’s proposal is democratic, Key’s dictatorial.

  2. JC says:

    What the hell is an “independent review”?

    Does that mean Shearer would contract the local Greenpeace office to do it, some grandmas from Auckland, a spook from Nicaragua?

    Who does a review on national security and under what brief is as important the security itself. There’s also national sovereignty to consider which is why such reviews are always done from within Govt itself with appropriate instructions to consult more widely. No advanced country contracts an independent review because such a review is a security issue itself.

    National security is an *evolution*, not a rewrite because its tied tightly to a host of other intelligence services and international agreements, laws and protocols. For instance you can’t have Geoffrey Palmer doing a review and rewrite that guarantees NZers more freedom and privacy in certain areas of security that are at odds with our allies.. nor can we have freedom of information requirements which expose ourselves and allies.

    This is nothing new and both Labour and Helen Clark stomped firmly on this in passing the 2003 Act.

    Shearer just opened himself up to more grief with these imprecise and stupid statements.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: