October 15th Solidarity

The Search and Surveillance bill is currently considered by Parliament. This massive new law would substantially increase State powers to search, surveil people and places. It also allows expanded powers to set up roadblocks, like the one set up in Ruatoki on 15 October 2007. The law effectively removes the right to silence and allows for covert surveillance on private property. Members of the October 15th Solidarity crew in Wellington made submissions on the bill, and are undertaking a campaign to stop it.

Ever since public submissions were heard in October, Warren Young, Deputy Commissioner of the Law Commission and main author of the Search and Surveillance Bill, has been busy responding to criticism of the bill. Young keeps re-iterating that the bill does not extend powers, that it does not give new powers to police or other agencies. He claims that everyone who says differently can’t understand the bill. This is a remarkable claim, given that the list of those who have voiced serious concerns over the new powers includes several law firms, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Law Society and the Chief Justice. All of these have made written submissions to the select committee.

Of the 42 submissions the select committee received, only one was unreservedly supportive of the bill. A few asked for minor alterations, the Police Association wants yet even more powers, but the overwhelming majority of submitters raised serious concerns. The Law Society argues that the bill is “a dramatic expansion of powers for other Agencies” and calls it a constitutional change. The NZ Council for Civil Liberties calls it “law by stealth”. The law firm Bell Gully says the bill “erodes the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure” and that the aim for all agencies to “share common search and surveillance powers is flawed”.

The Chief Justice (whose submission is on behalf of all Supreme Court, Appeal Court and High Court Judges) is concerned about the easy access police have to Examination Orders. She is also concerned about the granting of search warrants via the phone and says that a lot of provisions apply to too wide a range of offences. Claiming that the opinion of the Chief Justice – arguably the most experienced lawyer in the country – is “based upon a remarkable misunderstanding of both the current law and the provisions of the bill” (Young) is a tall order. Even if it was true, it would be a bad sign. If the Chief Justice doesn’t understand the law, what are the chances that a District Court Judge, a police officer or a WINZ case manager will? Warren Young’s arguments are tightly coupled with his view of the world. It is nothing more than a small minded bureaucrat’s view of law and order.

Download Issue 16 of the October 15th Solidarity newsletter for more information.