1. A minimum 12 week period for submissions to select committees
2. Establishing a dedicated Human Rights Select Committee
3. All international reports and recommendations on human rights be tabled in Parliament and referred to this select committee
4. Standing Orders to forbid major legislative provisions by way of Supplementary Order Paper
5. Amend Standing Order 246 to make it a right for dissenting members to publish a minority report

I broadly support (1) as I think a minimum time for submission to be open would be helpful for the public. You would need some mechanism where this could be shortened when absolutely necessary.

(2) and (3) sort of go together. I’d love a focus on how to better protect our right to free speech.

(4) is well intentioned but probably unworkable. I support the principle but I’m not sure who could decide what is or is not major except the House itself.

(5) is a good idea. Minority reports should not need the permission of the majority.

I’d go further than the HRC in some areas. I would like the Attorney-General’s obligation to report on bills which may breach the Bill of Rights Act to not only apply for introduction/first reading but also to apply at second and third readings so NZers can know if an amended bill is deemed a breach of the Bill of Rights Act.

Human Rights Commission adviser Marama Davidson has withdrawn an apology she made to David Rankin over swearing at him in te reo. …

On Friday, Ms Davidson apologised in writing to Mr Rankin. At that point the commission said its investigation was complete and that appropriate disciplinary action had been taken, although it declined to say what that amounted too.

A day after Ms Davidson’s apology, she allegedly rescinded it in a private email to Mr Rankin, who claims leadership of the Matarahurahu subtribe.

The email stated the issue between them was “confidential” and no media should be involved. It was from a “home computer in my own time and involving no one else except you and I”, she wrote.

“In my personal capacity, I completely withdraw in full the apology that i have made to you in public.”

I think Mr Rankin is right on this issue (I am not a fan of most of what he says). The private e-mail saying you withdraw the public apology, does totally undermine the public apology. What Davidson doesn’t seem to understand is that the sincerity of an apology matters. No one says she has to change her private opinion of anyone – but she should be genuinely sorry that she doesn’t regret the impact on the Human Rights Commission by her behaviour.

I don’t know Ms Davidson, but she seems to be rather stupid. What did she think would happen if she sent that e-mail retracting her public apology. That he wouldn’t complain again? If she ends up getting sacked over this, she’ll only have herself to blame.

The Human Rights Commission says Maori Party MP Hone Harawira needs to consider whether his personal feelings are helpful to race relations.

Good to have the HRC comment.

Mr Harawira said in a weekend newspaper interview he would not feel comfortable if one of his seven children brought home a Pakeha partner, and believed many Pakeha would feel the same about Maori.

Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres said members of the public had contacted the Human Rights Commission about the remarks.

He said Mr Harawira’s comments reflected an “unwelcome prejudice” toward Pakeha, adding that census statistics on babies’ ethnicities contradicted Mr Harawira’s views.

It is prejudice. Especially as it was painted purely negatively towards Pakeha. If Hone had said he prefers his children to date Maori as it helps keeps the Maori culture alive, that would be somewhat different. But he basically said he does not want them dating whiteys – would have no problems with Pacific Islanders.

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said the remarks were not racist and probably mirrored the feelings of many people. …

“I think it’s just not divisive at all. It’s a view point.”

Not racist and not divisive?

So if a Caucasian Member of Parliament came out and said that he would not want his children to date Maori or Pacific Islanders, that would not be racist, and that would not be divisive?

I’m very disappointed. If the Maori Party ever talk about prejudice or racism, then their words are going to be rather hollow in future.

Freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly and association and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure are fundamental human rights that are essential to the functioning of a democratic society. For this reason the State’s power to intrude on those freedoms, including through surveillance of its citizens and interception of their conversations and other communications, is necessarily constrained. It is a question of striking an appropriate balance between the public interest and individual liberty.

And the balance we had, appears to be tipping into the direction of greater state powers to intercept.

While none of these rights are absolute, a high threshold is necessary to justify any restriction. As the Attorney-General’s advice notes, “the greater the degree of intrusiveness, the greater the justification that is required and, further, the greater the attendant safeguards to ensure that justification is present”

Covert surveillance is probably the most intrusive thing the state can do, so the justification should be great indeed. And it should primarily be restricted to criminal law enforcement by the Police, and security agencies. Not open to local Councils, the Commerce Commission etc.

While it is correct that the Bill stipulates that a search warrant can only be issued under specific conditions, the powers that are authorised as a result are extensive and will apply not only to the Police but to a wide variety of other enforcement agencies . It is concerning both that an issuing officer no longer needs to be a Judge but can be any “… other person” (provided they have sufficient knowledge, skill and experience) and that the threshold for seeking a warrant is that the officer only needs to have a “reasonable suspicion” that an offence is being, has been, or will be, committed . For these reasons, the Commission is not convinced that the powers in the Bill are necessarily consistent with the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

The Privacy Commission made this point also.

The Bill not only consolidates existing police search powers in one Act but extends either all or aspects of the search and surveillance powers in Part 4 to a wide variety of non-police enforcement agencies .

The Commission questions the rationale for extending some of the powers created by the Bill to agencies such as the Commerce Commission which already has the power under s.98A of the Commerce Act 1986 to issue search warrants. If the legislation is enacted in its present form, employees of the Commerce Commission will be able detain people to determine if they are connected with the search or apply for a surveillance warrant to use interception or tracking devices. Or Dog Control officers (who already have a power of entry under s.14 of the Dog Control Act 1996) being able to enter premises to install a surveillance device.

This is the problem of trying to have a one size fit all law. Just because an agency may require the power of entry doesn’t mean they should be eligible to gain surveillance warrants.

The wide reach of the Bill means that it could have a disproportionate impact on journalists. Private homes and offices will not be exempt. An item in plain view may be taken the course of a search even if not identified in the warrant if the enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe he or she could have got a search warrant had they wanted to: cl.119. An external IT provider could be required to assist a person holding a search warrant to access and copy material held on a computer: c1.125 and computers will be able to be accessed remotely, or hacked into: cl.108(i).

The only protection for confidential journalistic sources is cl.130 which reinforces the qualified protection provided by s.68 of the Evidence Act but a Court may order disclosure of material that would disclose the identify of a source or enable it to be discovered, if it would be in the public interest to do so: s.68(2). This effectively modifies the presumption against disclosure in ss(1).

I wonder if the Commonwealth Press Union put in a submission?

Sweeping powers to spy, bug conversations and hack into private computers could be given to a web of state agencies as diverse as Inland Revenue and the Meat Board.

The Human Rights Commission yesterday warned Parliament of the “chilling” implications of a proposed law that would see the intrusive powers usually only available to the police extended to all agencies with enforcement responsibilities.

It said that under the law, council dog control officers would be able to enter homes to install a surveillance device and the Commerce Commission would be able to detain people.

Inland Revenue would get the powers to assist its tax investigations, while the Meat Board would get them to enforce breaches of export rules.

The Human Rights Commission chief commissioner, Rosslyn Noonan, said the Search Surveillance Bill was giving the powers away to a “grab-bag of every possible agency”.

This summary sounds very bad:

WHAT’S IN THE BILL

THE POWERS:

Video surveillance, watching private activity on private property, installing tracking devices, detaining people during a search, power to stop vehicles without a warrant for a search, warrantless seizure of “items in plain view”, power to hack into computers remotely, power to detain anyone at scene of search.

WHO WILL GET THEM:

Every agency with enforcement responsibilities, such as: Inland Revenue, Meat Board, local councils, Overseas Investment Office, Accident Compensation Corporation, Environment Risk Management Authority, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Pork Industry Board.

I feel bad I haven’t been more up to date on this issue. At first glance it looks pretty horrific. Select Committee submissions have already closed but if the Select Committee doesn’t pare back the range of agencies and powers, then amendments can be done at the Committee of the Whole stage.