Because if this government will use an IGA and IRD’s Orwellian powers outside New Zealand’s privacy legislation for purposes which don’t involve that department’s collection of tax, but only for the spying on private citizens whom have done no proven wrong, every other future government can, and will, act as corruptly, conveniently, based on the precedent set.
So given this comment, can I assume David Cunliffe will have 'deep concern' at our tax surveillance state which operates totally outside of our privacy legislation and essentially gives IRD officers open slather on our lives? Because government bureaucrats who can read our financial transactions and other essential communications, who data mine NBR daily as well as social media, and whom are almost unrestricted from doing so, including raiding business premises without need of a warrant, can read our lives in far more detail than a Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) officer can. That is, our politicians are concerned with our privacy to the point of weakening the protection of Kiwis from terrorism, but the total stripping of our privacy and right to be left alone, (so long as we do no harm), in order our own government can plunder the private property of its own citizens is fine? How and where did the concept of the importance of privacy in a free society change? Perhaps David could answer to that. What is the difference between an IRD officer being able to read my life in order to take my income, and a GCSB officer being able to read my life to protect me from Al Qaeda?
I've never understood the (im)moral underpinning of the tax state in this regard.
Worse, via the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) pulling together the various information sharing double tax agreements around the world, we now have a truly Orwellian global tax surveillance state that turns New Zealand citizens with US passports into second class citizens in NZ and every country in the world that sets out otherwise to protect privacy, and which deems the privacy abuses of NSA, PRISM, GCSB a mere sideshow. Indeed, regarding this article, I note in the current whitewash report on the submissions against NZ's appalling intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the US government to implement FATCA there is no submission on such privacy concerns from Labour, as expressed by Cunliffe here, or any party in the sandpit at the Fortress of Legislation; even more surprising given Labour and Green MP’s, along with Left bloggers, were out on the streets protesting against much lesser privacy breaches by GCSB, and despite the fact that IGA cynically uses IRD's God-like powers above our privacy legislation to deliberately circumvent that legislation for reasons that have absolutely nothing, repeat nothing, to do with collecting the New Zealand tax take, and thus everything to do with government being able to avoid an otherwise embarrassing political mess. Why is Cunliffe not using this NBR space to speak out against such rank corruption? Because if one government will use an IGA and IRD’s powers above New Zealand’s privacy legislation for purposes that don’t involve that department’s collection of tax, but only for the spying on private citizens whom have done no proven wrong, every other future government can.