Kiwiblog

The Belly Gully submission on the Search & Surveillance Bill makes some excellent points. It is attached here – Search&Surveillance_submission_Sep09[1]

Some extracts:

Bell Gully submits that the Bill’s premise that each of the government agencies to which it applies ought to share common search and surveillance powers is flawed. In particular, we are concerned that this approach grants broad powers of surveillance to some regulatory bodies where such powers are not justified by either the scope of their responsibilities or the nature of the offences that they are tasked with investigating. We consider that the investigative powers of a government agency should be appropriately tailored to the relevant regulatory context.

I think this is key. The Law Commission is generally very good at simplifying law, and in this case they have proposed a standard regime for all warrants and surveillance. But this is one of those areas where a standard regime may not be desirable – it is not a one size fits all.

Therefore the effect of Part 4 and Part 5 is to extend to non-police agencies (such as the Commerce Commission, the New Zealand Meat Board, the Ministry of Labour, and Local Authorities) the right to obtain a surveillance warrant, including the power to place a covert listening and/or recording device on private property.

Now these agencies already have the ability to get a search warrant. But this is also giving them the right to place covert listening or recording devices, and that is a step up from a search warrant. They note:

The installation involves the covert entry by a state agent into private property.

And I think Bell Gully make an excellent point about the difference between Police and other agencies:

The ability of a government agency to carry out surveillance in the ways contemplated by the Bill fundamentally changes the character of the relationship between the regulator and the regulated. Unlike the Police in their interaction with criminals, government agencies and regulators interact frequently with people and businesses in the relevant industry. It is therefore important that government agencies and those subject to their jurisdiction work to maintain goodwill.

The Police don’t have to maintain a relationship with the Mongrel Mob. But imagine what would happen if the Commerce Commission (legally) bugged Vodafone’s board room – there would be total hostility.

We note the Law Commission’s observation that, “the Police themselves expressed reservations to us about the desirability of this, believing that the activity might become too widespread and uncontrolled.” The Law Commission does not provide a detailed summary of the basis for the Police reservations. We suspect they reflect the fact that non-Police agencies do not have the checks and balances that exist in the Police culture of supervision, training and discipline, which constrain the misuse of surveillance powers. We share these reservations and suggest that the power to obtain surveillance warrants should only be granted where there is sufficient justification and robust supervision and training to minimise misuse.

So even the Police are not that keen on having a score of Govt agencies with the ability to bug people.

We believe that the better approach may be for non-Police agencies to refer serious offending to the Police and request that the Police obtain a warrant on their behalf.

Yes.

If any other submitters on the Bill want to send me their submissions, I’m happy to read them and as appropriate blog them. I think it s very important the Bill not be reported back without significant amendments.

I’ve not yet had time to read the Search Surveillance Bill, but have added it to my weekend reading, after viewing this story:

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.