policy

Business groups have welcomed the National Party's election policy on benefits but advocacy groups say there's cause for concern.

Under the policy, those on the DPB will have to work or train for fifteen hours a week, once their youngest child turns six, and people on sickness and invalid benefits who have been assessed as being able to work part-time.

"When the children are at school and not during the holidays, I think they should be doing something for themselves," says National leader John Key.

Long-term unemployed people will also have to re-apply for their benefits if National wins the election.

However the party's policy is not popular with some, including a 31-year-old solo mother on the DPB. The solo parent, who wants to remain anonymous, says National's proposals may prove to be too harsh. "It's putting so much strain on the families, and the parents. And you want to be able to be a good parent, you want to be able to be there for them when they come home from their day at school," she says.

Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson says the National policy will take New Zealand backwards. She says the approach is punitive and last time a similar approach was tried it resulted in an unacceptable rise in child poverty. A National-led government last introduced a controversial work for the dole scheme for sole parents and other beneficiaries in the late 1990s.

The Ministry of Social Development did a review of that scheme. It found many single parents wanted to enter the workforce and more of them did go off the benefit.

But there was not enough administrative support and parents had trouble finding childcare. Critics are concerned those problems could arise again. Some people's advocacy groups echo similar sentiments. "You want failure, you introduce work-test sanctions for DHB and the only people that will suffer are the children," says Paul Blair, Rotorua's People's Advocacy Centre.

There are also concerns that solo parents will just end up in low paid jobs. "By forcing out mothers into minimum wage labour so they can provide cheap labour for John Key's big business round table mates. They won't earn much more on their benefit...and the kids get inferior childcare and supervision," says Blair.

Despite drawing criticism from some advocacy groups, businesses say it's a way to create a productive labour market. Several business and employment groups have welcomed the policy, saying they support the principal of getting able-bodied people back into the workforce.

They say there is a demand for workers in retail, banking, and the hospitality sectors. "Even if employment is easing somewhat, retail always needs a large pool of people to keep it ticking over," John Albertson, Retailers' Association.

Meanwhile political scientist Therese Arseneau says National's policy will attract some voters and send other voters back to Labour. She says that National has finally adopted an election strategy suited to winning an MMP election. "It has softened its rhetoric, moved towards the centre on several key policy issues and challenged Labour for the crucial centrist swing vote. In 2008 National's strategy is intended to grow its vote primarily at Labour's expense," she says.

Reports of delays in employer contributions coming into KiwiSaver schemes has some questioning whether money is being lost in the system. Matt Baker, associate director in the tax department of Staples Rodway, which runs a KiwiSaver scheme, says the irregularity of contributions coming from the tax department mean it is a major challenge for providers to reconcile KiwiSaver accounts.

Baker reckons almost half of the employer contributions coming in since January have not yet made it to his scheme and since the compulsory employer contribution started in April the problem has worsened. "It's the result of double the number of people joining than what they expected. The IRD have been overwhelmed by the sheer number. The result has been effectively lost money. But they say it will balance over time."

He is hoping it will all be sorted by the end of this year but in the meantime he recommends people sign up to the Inland Revenue's account balance service to check how much money is getting to the IRD and if there is a problem to talk to their employer about sorting it out. However Inland Revenue says there are no delays that it is aware of in regards to employer contributions and people should be aware that it takes time to process payments.

Inland Revenue collects contributions for KiwiSaver members via the Employer Monthly Schedule, a system which has been in place for several years. This schedule is lodged with Inland Revenue either twice monthly or monthly for the payment of PAYE and now KiwiSaver contributions. These are lodged a month in arrears, so there is always a time lag between the contribution being deducted from salary or wages by the employer, and then passed to Inland Revenue for processing, and then on to the scheme provider for investment for the KiwiSaver member. You can sign up to get the account balance service with the IRD on www.kiwisaver.govt.nz.

FAIR PLAY
Moves by the Government to stop employers from paying those who join KiwiSaver less than their colleagues have been welcomed by some, but others say the changes will introduce even more headaches for bosses. Labour Minister Trevor Mallard has announced plans to amend the Employment Relations Act to make it illegal for employers to offer lesser terms and conditions to KiwiSaver members.

Mallard had become concerned following a number of employers who had docked the pay of staff members by using their money to pay for the employer contributions to KiwiSaver while pocketing the $20 tax credit given to employers by the Government.

Michael Chamberlain, principal of KiwiSaver provider Aventine, says he agrees with the minister that reducing the pay of employees who join KiwiSaver to cover the employer contribution is against the spirit of KiwiSaver but the changes may cause even more problems. "I have real concerns that the proposals announced by the minister may lead to major complications and unintended consequences with managing employment relations and remuneration strategies. "I believe the changes will penalise the good employers by the imposition of additional compliance and system costs."

Chamberlain says the Government should allow employers to go ahead with building KiwiSaver into total remuneration packages but should focus on stopping employers that have docked the pay of their staff to cover KiwiSaver contributions. He says if the minister proceeds with the changes the worst case scenario is that costs to employers will increase significantly while those who can't afford to join KiwiSaver may be discriminated against because those who can join have to be paid 4 per cent more. "I am concerned the minister is using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut."

Staples Rodway associate director Matt Baker says the new policy will completely contradict legislation brought in by the Government in December allowing employers to offer staff a total remuneration package. "As long as the agreement was entered into on or after 13 December 2008, and the agreement was negotiated in good faith, this was entirely lawful. In fact the legislation was passed specifically to allow this option, via amendments to the KiwiSaver Act."

He says if Mallard's proposed changes go ahead there will be a clear conflict between the Employment Relations Act and the KiwiSaver Act. A date has yet to be set on when the act will be amended in Parliament.

SAVERS FEEL PINCH
Finance Minister Michael Cullen takes the opportunity to trumpet the growing numbers of people joining KiwiSaver at every opportunity he gets. At a function last week he slipped in a line about KiwiSaver numbers reaching nearly 770,000 and just a few weeks ago he told a room full of bean-counters he believed the number joining could top one million by the time the election comes around.

But what Cullen doesn't mention is that some people are also being forced to pull out of the Government's savings scheme because of tougher times and higher living costs. Figures for the first year of KiwiSaver show 3506 people have had to take a contribution holiday because of financial hardship.

Sure, that's just a small number compared to the total but now that KiwiSaver has been around for a year predictions are that more people will join them.

Only those who can prove they are under financial hardship are allowed to opt out after being in the scheme for less than a year. But after a year in KiwiSaver anyone can opt out for up to five years - renewable as many times as they like.

The Retirement Commission has already been fielding questions from people worried about how they can afford to stay in KiwiSaver and has recently updated its www.sorted.org.nz website to answer questions like "Can I still afford KiwiSaver?" and "Should I change schemes?"

TAX CREDITS COMING
Those waiting to see when their $1043 Government tax credits will hit their KiwiSaver accounts can be assured it could be anytime now. According to Inland Revenue KiwiSaver scheme providers will apply for the tax credits on your behalf and can do so from July 1 onwards. The IRD then has 30 days to process the application. Those who contribute at least $20 per week are eligible for the tax credit, up to $1043 per year.

CROSSING THE DITCH
Those thinking of moving across to Australia will be glad to know the Government is happy for you to take your retirement savings with you.

Officials from both countries are expected to finalise a deal by the end of October that will allow New Zealanders to take their retirement savings - including KiwiSaver - with them when moving across the Tasman and vice versa. The basic framework has been agreed to but the details still have to be worked out.

New Zealand is likely to lose more home-grown companies as head offices follow manufacturing facilities overseas, warns a Treasury report, but ministry officials say there may be little the government can, or should, do about it.  The research was part of a wide array of work at government level assessing the risks of a "hollowing out" of the economy as jobs, firms and ownership go overseas.

Consultants Andrew Sweet and Murray Nash reported to the Treasury in September that New Zealand firms with global ambitions soon encountered the almost irresistible pull of large masses of consumers and bigger manufacturing bases overseas. Once production left New Zealand, they said, sales and marketing soon followed, with head office and R&D usually left last.

"Once a company has begun relocating key components of its supply chain offshore, a self-reinforcing process often begins, with the relocated components acting as `magnets' of attraction for components remaining in New Zealand," the study, based on confidential interviews with 15 firms with substantial overseas sales, said.  Head office functions tended to be "stickiest", or most resistant to uprooting, often because key staff wanted to stay in New Zealand. However in the long run, even this was not always compelling.

The report also found that companies, once purchased by foreign owners, were more likely to have their local offices shut down and moved overseas. Other than to access New Zealand's natural resources, "firms see few compelling benefits from locating activity here".

Although the Sweet/Nash report highlights the risks of corporate exodus, Treasury's position, revealed in papers released to the Sunday Star-Times under the Official Information Act, appears to have shifted in the past 12 months. 

A December 2006 Treasury internal discussion paper on "hollowing out" says the loss of head office type functions and high-skill, high-wage jobs overseas poses risks to the economy because of spillover effects.  These include loss of income for New Zealand; loss of job opportunities and career progression; loss of international connections; and loss of expertise that could encourage the emergence of a cluster of industries.  Prime Minister Helen Clark was briefed by Treasury on the issue in March, a month before Fisher & Paykel announced 350 job losses due to shifting production to Thailand.

But by October this year officials were telling ministers there was no hard evidence any "hollowing out" was under way, and that there was little the government could do about persuading firms to stay in New Zealand.

It pointed to the fact that total manufacturing jobs have grown by 14% between 2000 and 2006, even as manufacturing declined in relative terms compared to other sectors of the economy.  Treasury said even the loss of entire firms overseas was not necessarily a problem, as long as skilled individuals and capital switched to new ventures in New Zealand. There was already evidence, for example, that ex-Navman staff and management had been re-employed.  "In practical terms this means there is probably only a limited role for policies directly aimed at holding firms in New Zealand, given the fiscal and economic risks of the government targeting support and assistance toward narrowly defined sectors or firms," it said.

Finance Minister Michael Cullen told a law firm's business breakfast meeting last month that firms would succeed by focusing on their strengths.  "If New Zealand can determine which elements in the value chain we can realistically seek to achieve some level of dominance, we can go one step further in improving our competitiveness and in securing greater gains from globalisation," said Cullen.  He pointed to the introduction of a new research and development tax credit from April 1 and said the new research showed policies such as KiwiSaver helped retain local ownership.

Children who work need the same level of protection as adult workers doing similar tasks, says the Catholic social justice agency Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand.  Caritas research and advocacy officer Lisa Beech says that for many working children it was not happening.

The agency has published a report – Delivering the Goods – detailing the findings of a survey on children delivering circulars and newspapers to household letterboxes. It included in-depth interviews with 30 children aged 10 to 16 doing delivery work, as a follow-up to a wider 2003 survey of child workers.

"While many children have good working experiences and value much of their working lives, the survey showed many areas of concern," Ms Beech said, "Particularly when comparing children's experience with adult postal workers delivering to the same letterboxes."

Caritas wanted to see a code of best practice for the employment of children in delivery work.

"We believe the single most important step to improve children's working experiences would be to require that their employment status is that of employees rather than contractors," Ms Beech said.  "There was a very marked difference between children employed directly as employees and those who had the status of self-employed contractors."  She said child employees were considerably better off.  "They received holiday and sick pay, age-appropriate relief workers, clothing and bike allowances, the most effective information and oversight of health and safety conditions, and the most direct contact with employers. In contracting situations, these employment rights were mostly absent," Ms Beech said.

Other concerns highlighted by the report include:

• Little attention paid to health and safety concerns such as visibility and loads, particularly compared to adult postal workers.
• Contracts sighted generally showed an unbalanced power relationship between employers and workers.
• Although some companies had an informal age of entry to the workforce of between 10 and 12 years, this was not communicated formally on material supplied to workers. Children were sometimes asked to find their own substitute workers for illness or absence and in many cases children paid siblings as young as six to do the work for them.
• Pay rates were very low, with an effective hourly rate among children in the survey of between $1.67 and $6.25.

Caritas said a code of best practice needed to be developed by employers, unions and appropriate government agencies – working together with the children employed in the industry and their parents.

"New Zealand government reports have frequently stated that working children are adequately protected by our existing legislation," said Ms Beech.  "Caritas believes this position is based on very little information about children's actual working experiences, as there appears to be little oversight by the Department of Labour, or involvement by unions or other community organisations."

Ms Beech said any industry based on child labour, no matter how willing the participants, had a very high level of moral responsibility to ensure that they were well treated.

House prices are grossly overvalued, by as much as $90,000 on average and prices could stay flat for five years, according to Westpac Bank economists.  The house price boom is over and a long-expected housing market downturn is under way, they say.

But a strong economy, unemployment at a 20-year low, high job security and growing wages meant there was not likely to be a big fall in house prices.  National median house prices have not moved for the past seven months, stopping dead in April after rising about $8000 a month earlier in the year.  Prices are expected to "wallow" a few points either side of zero and in five years prices will be much the same as they are today, Westpac forecasts. Prices were flat for four years till 2001.

This year the market was hit by rising fixed-term interest rates and there is no relief in sight.  Mortgage rates were expected to move even higher next year, putting even more pressure on the market.

For investors, rents are averaging just 4 per cent of a property's value while interest rates are about 9 per cent, making property less attractive.

On Westpac's "investor value" of housing measure, the average home is worth about $260,000, slumping from $328,000 at the end of last year. The investor value of property has been dragged down sharply by rising interest rates. That value is based on interest rates, marginal tax rates, rents and expected capital gains. While the value to investors has fallen sharply, the median price rose to about $350,000 earlier this year but has stagnated since then.

Westpac stressed that the investor value was not a price forecast. "We are not saying the median house price will fall to $260,000," Westpac's latest market report said.  But that value would exert slow and steady pressure on the market price, so the overvaluation could persist for many years.  The big jump in interest rates has also made housing much less affordable this year.

The cost of servicing an 80 per cent mortgage on a median home, based on a five-year fixed mortgage rate, has risen from 34 per cent of average household disposable income to 39 per cent this year. The historical average is just 25 per cent of the average household disposable income.

If house prices remained steady, it would take eight years before affordability returned to normal levels, based on incomes rising 5 per cent a year. If house prices stagnated or fell slightly, it would take four or five years for house prices to come back into line with the return from rents for investors.

The union for retail workers is urging shop workers, community groups, churches and the general public to oppose renewed efforts to open shops for business on Easter Sunday.

The National Distribution Union’s call follows the release of a Government discussion document which contains options for reducing shop trading protections and which is open for public submissions until December 14.

Discussion around Easter trading restrictions is being encouraged through a document launched today by Labour Minister Trevor Mallard and Justice Minister Annette King.

"Easter trading continues to attract a range of opinions, and the Labour-led government is conscious of the requirement to balance the needs of a wide variety of organisations and individuals with different beliefs and preferences," Trevor Mallard said.

"The Easter Trading and Holidays Legislation discussion document we have released today considers the different legislation that affects Easter Trading and proposes a number of options for possible change in three key areas."

The key question areas are:

• what should happen to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 and Sale of Liquor Act 1989, particularly in regard to Easter Sunday
• what should happen with the status of Easter Sunday
• whether the enforceability and penalty regime for the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 needs amendment, and the issue of adequate employee/leaseholder protection against the compulsion to work/trade on Easter Sunday.

Trevor Mallard noted that none of the options proposed reducing the holiday weekend.

Annette King said officials would collect and analyse submissions and present a comprehensive set of recommendations for consideration.

The discussion document has been sent to a wide variety of individuals (including those who made submissions on Jacqui Dean’s and Steve Chadwick’s shop trading bills last year), businesses, social partners and a number of public service organisations for comment.

"This issue has been the focus of public attention for a number of years and we recognise the requirement to consult as widely as possible. We strongly encourage employers, unions, industry groups, individuals and other groups in society to consider this discussion document and provide their views," Annette King said.

The deadline for submissions is December 14.

A summary of the key options follows. The full discussion document is available now at www.dol.govt.nz/consultation/shoptrading

The options proposed for public consideration and comment reflect the differing views on how to recognise the significance of the four day Easter weekend. For example, whether continuing to recognise the significance of the Easter weekend involves ensuring that retailers and retail workers have time off work to be with their families, or whether it is about enabling shops to trade to meet tourist and consumer demand, or about preserving the religious significance of the weekend by restricting trading.

The first decision area focuses on what should happen to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 and Sale of Liquor Act 1989, particularly in regard to Easter Sunday. Three options are presented in relation to this issue, these are:

• Option 1: Retain the status quo.
• Option 2: Reinstate the exemption-making provision for shop trading to exempt specific areas from trading restrictions and enable sale of liquor exemptions to be considered at the same time.
• Option 3: Remove the trading restrictions under the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 and Sale of Liquor Act 1989 for Easter Sunday.

The second decision area focuses on what should happen with the status of Easter Sunday, and four options are presented in relation to this issue, these are:

• Option 1: Retain the status quo.
• Option 2: Increase the number of public holidays to 12 by making Easter Sunday the 12th public holiday.
• Option 3: Maintain the number of public holidays at 11 by making Easter Sunday a public holiday, subject to ‘mondayisation’ arrangements similar to Christmas and New Year holidays when they fall on Sunday .
• Option 4: Treat Easter Sunday as if it were a public holiday for employees of businesses affected by new amendments to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 or the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. This would not apply to those that are currently able to trade under an exemption or exception.

The third decision area focuses on:

• whether the enforceability and penalty regime for the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 needs amendment, and
• on the issue of adequate employee/leaseholder protection against the compulsion to work/trade on Easter Sunday.

NB: The full discussion document is available now at www.dol.govt.nz/consultation/shoptrading

Click here for a printer friendly version of this document

Police may be given more scope to bug phones and intercept text messages as the Government moves to fix discredited anti-terror laws.

Prime Minister Helen Clark said yesterday that several options would be put to the Law Commission as part of its review of the Terrorism Suppression Act, which drew severe criticism from Solicitor-General David Collins.  They include allowing police to use electronic surveillance under the Arms Act and other laws covering potential terrorist activity.

Dr Collins refused a police bid to charge 12 people arrested in connection with alleged terrorist training camps in the Ureweras.  He said that though there was evidence of "very disturbing activities", it did not reach the high thresholds required, and the Terrorism Suppression Act was confusing and virtually impossible to apply domestically.

His ruling meant hundreds of pages of intercepted evidence police acquired during their year-long investigation could not be admitted in court, as it was gathered using warrants under the act. Evidence obtained using a warrant under one law cannot be used for prosecutions under another.

The 12, and four others, face several charges under the Arms Act, which does not allow interception warrants.  Miss Clark signalled that she favoured boosting that law and other legislation, rather than overhauling the domestic provisions in the Terrorism Suppression Act. "... a possible course to consider is whether there should be a greater list of offences under the Arms Act, where prosecutions mounted for those offences would be able to draw on intercept evidence."

At present, police can obtain interception warrants in very limited circumstances, such as for serious violent crimes with a sentence of more than seven years' jail or suspected drug dealing.

Miss Clark said the Government would push ahead with amendments - including making a "terrorist offence" a specific crime - to the legislation tonight.

Nicky Hager follows the route from September 11 to this country's terrorist responses.

The police "terrorism" case against Maori, peace and environmental activists has its origins long before Operation Eight began last year. Like the five-year case against Ahmed Zaoui, it is part of New Zealand's misguided response to the much wider disaster and folly of the United States' war on terror.

The story begins in January 2002, four months after the September 11 attacks, when cabinet approved new anti-terrorism legislation and "operational capabilities". The result was the Terrorism Suppression Act and, more important, a range of new anti-terrorism forces. The police created: a position of assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism; a 12-person anti-terrorism Strategic Intelligence Unit at police headquarters; a fulltime commando-style Special Tactics Group specialising in terrorism; and police liaison officers in Washington and London to channel anti-terrorism ideas and intelligence to New Zealand. An extra 35 "national security" police posts were added in 2004, the majority in "investigative and intelligence" units.

The Security Intelligence Service also got 20 new anti-terrorism staff at that time. Their task: increasing terrorism intelligence collection within New Zealand. They provided more field intelligence officers, especially in Auckland, an enlarged surveillance team and new analysts at headquarters. New interception and photographic equipment cost $1 million and, like the police, an SIS officer was posted to the Washington embassy to increase collaboration with the US intelligence and security agencies.  By late 2002 the new anti-terrorism bureaucracy was in place, closely tied into US and British thinking. An internal list of police terrorism-related personnel in October 2002 has 29 names. But already by then the US war on terror was going horribly wrong, with intelligence being invented to justify attacking Iraq, illegal seizure and torture of "terror" suspects and US intelligence and security agencies targeting numerous peaceful Americans. It started to go wrong in New Zealand too.

The first sign of trouble was in December 2002 when the SIS and police thought they had their first real terror suspect. Never mind the unlikelihood that a dangerous terrorist would arrive at Auckland airport and introduce himself to officials using his real name.  Ahmed Zaoui was transported to prison in a cavalcade of police vehicles with a helicopter overhead and thrown into solitary confinement. An embarrassing five-year story of incompetence and unwillingness to back down began.

A second worrying sign came soon after, with hints that the new anti-terrorism personnel were involved in policing protests. Official Information Act documents about peace protests against the March 2003 invasion of Iraq show that written briefings for the minister of police on US embassy protests were not written by the ordinary Wellington police, but by counter-terrorism assistant commissioner Jon White.  At the same time, policing of protest was becoming more aggressive, with heavier treatment of protesters than is normal in New Zealand. Hundreds of arrests occurred, most for actions that don't normally result in charges, such as writing with chalk on a footpath.

After an anti-war protest against John Howard in early 2003, a man was charged with never-before-used legislation for burning a flag. Another man was charged for a protest email to the American embassy with the words "napalming babies".  Hardly any of the hundreds arrested were eventually found guilty of offences, but there was an escalation of distrust and confrontation between police and protesters. The police operations manual instructs officers to protect demonstrators' freedom of speech and peaceful protest. But a pattern developed of heavy-handed policing and intrusive intelligence gathering. Indeed it appears that intelligence gathering was in part driving the police's actions. A police investigation into a small protest in late 2003 illustrates this graphically.

On October 2, 2003 World Farm Animal Day a group of young Aucklanders held a protest at the Tegel Foods offices about treatment of chickens. They scattered some hay on the floor of the reception area and 23-year-old school teacher Jesse Duffield delivered a protest letter. Police documents estimate the cost of cleaning up the hay was $111 plus GST.  However, early the next morning, detectives raided Duffield's home. He was arrested roughly and charged with home invasion (maximum 10 years' prison) and intentional damage (maximum seven years' prison). Police opposed him getting bail and later imposed a 9pm-6am curfew. Meanwhile his car was impounded for a week and his house searched by detectives. They seized his computer and mobile phone, plus 100 floppy disks, posters off the walls and a T-shirt saying "GE, you are what you eat." These possessions were not returned for nine months.

The only rational explanation for their actions was intelligence collecting. The police eventually dropped their absurd charges but they'd got hundreds of thousands of emails and texts to build a profile of the animal rights groups. The detective who led the raid, Mike Paki, was not a normal CIB officer, but a police intelligence officer from the Auckland Threat Assessment Unit who was surprise, surprise studying animal rights and other protest groups. It appears police were working their way through activist groups looking for security threats. It's not hard to see where such ideas would come from.

At the same time as Jesse Duffield's case, there were many such raids occurring in the US. One of them, in Philadelphia in 2004, was at the home of a member of the group Hugs for Puppies, which protests against animal-testing. The agents, who made no arrests but seized computers and mobile phones, were from a special FBI unit called the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). US animal rights and environmental groups have never killed anyone but are openly branded as terrorists by the authorities.  Since September 11 the JTTF has conducted raids against animal rights groups, environmentalists and other protest movements. In February 2002, the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Section Chief James Jarboe told the US congress that "special interest extremism" had emerged as a "serious terrorist threat".  Many so-called eco-terrorists have received long prison sentences on terrorism charges.

In 2005 the New York Times reported that newly disclosed FBI records showed that "counter-terrorism agents at the FBI had conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved ... groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief".  New Zealand anti-terrorism staff attending US intelligence meetings and reading US publications were constantly exposed to this view of threats.

During these same years, New Zealand police intelligence and counter-terrorism staff dramatically increased their surveillance of protesters, and policing of protest and anti-terrorism seem to have become increasingly mixed. This provides the setting for the terrorism raids last month.

New anti-terrorism police intelligence units had identified and profiled radical suspects. The new anti-terrorism Special Tactics Group had collected covert video and photographic evidence in the mountains and the SIS in the cities. New anti-terrorism police staff planned the nationwide operations; and the new anti-terrorism boss Jon White oversaw it all. There has been a buzz around security circles in Wellington for the past year about them being on to something really big.  We can agree with the solicitor-general when he said that the police were right to investigate a group of political activists playing with guns in the mountains. But the police's commonsense quickly ran out as they turned it into a giant terrorism operation. The problem appears to be a mixture of poor judgement, preconceived ideas and organisational vested interest. Anti-terrorism staff arranged ill-fitting evidence, on people they'd already defined as threats, into the picture they were being paid to find.

It was inductive logic reinforced by group think, as NZ officials unthinkingly followed the American-style "security" model that's been so spectacularly bad at providing real security and peace elsewhere.  Sensible cops would have known radical talk is completely different to having real evidence of preparations for cold-blooded murder. In fact, the numerous police raids on and since October 15 appear to have been fishing trips by officers hoping to stumble over evidence of a plot that they had not managed to find in the previous year of intensive surveillance.

Sensible cops should understand the best defence against extremism and political violence is a tolerant, open society and freedom of political actions. Aggressive policing of ordinary healthy protest, heavy-handed intelligence targeting of ordinary people, stormtroopers smashing down doors, machine guns held to people's heads and military-style raids on rural communities are all unforgivably short-sighted.