Clendon David: Search and Surveillance Bill — Second Reading 
Clendon David: Search and Surveillance Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Tena koutou. I am pleased to take the opportunity for the first time to speak to the Search and Surveillance Bill. The Green Party’s view on this proposed legislation was formerly represented by our now departed colleague and friend Keith Locke—departed in the parliamentary sense of course—but I am pleased to pick up the cudgels from Keith and to endeavour to do at least half as good a job as he has done on what is a very complex and far-reaching piece of legislation. 
 It is to be acknowledged as it has been that the Justice and Electoral Committee clearly has taken its responsibilities seriously. I do not know how often committees open up a second round of submission. Clearly this committee chose to do that to its credit. If one looks at the list of submitters the depth the quality and the range of the submissions that were made largely in opposition to the original draft of this bill I think one can see there very clearly why the step was made to have a much closer look. Generally we will acknowledge that the committee process has delivered a better bill but still not one that is sufficiently advanced that we can support it. We still consider that this bill on the whole represents a major erosion of civil liberties. We do not concede that the extreme steps taken in this bill are warranted in the current climate that we have in this country and we will continue to oppose this bill. 
There are a number of examples issues and provisions we could take. I will focus on just some of the more serious and clearly the issue of examination and production orders come to the fore in that list. These are clearly a violation of a traditional long-held right to silence a right for people not to speak with some exceptions. There are virtually no exemptions in this bill. People who may be required to give evidence against a suspect could be close family members friends spouses civil union partners or people living in the nature of marriage. We believe that that spousal relationship or its equivalent has an integrity—almost a sanctity—that ought to be recognised and honoured. It is unacceptable that a spouse can under this legislation be obliged to give evidence against their partner in ways that could lead to prison sentences. It is compromising a relationship that ought not to be compromised by anything we do in this House. It is unacceptable and we continue to argue strongly against that. 
We are concerned similarly that production orders can be enforced by a whole host of State agencies other than the police Customs Service or indeed the Serious Fraud Office. It is instructive to look at column 2 of the schedule and just to start ticking off the number of individuals the various officers and the appointees of a whole host of Government agencies that would have the power to enforce these orders. We think it goes far too wide. It will enable all sorts of abuses; it will almost invite abuse by agencies that the average New Zealanders would think have no part in investigating the privacy or compromising the privacy of New Zealanders. 
We note that some of the offences where an examination order may be deemed appropriate include such things as intentional damage. It is not desirable that people damage property but these charges of intentional damage are often linked to civil disobedience to peaceful non-violent protest. In the course of appropriate people asserting their right to protest intentional damage is not an uncommon charge that is brought and although it is fair that people should suffer the consequences if that is deemed to have occurred we do not believe that in that context a person exercising their right to protest should be left vulnerable to these orders at a later date. Again there seems to be no end point at which that liability to these examination orders would halt. 
The question of a dissenting group who might be deemed by police to be an organised criminal group also opens the way for an examination order to be granted. Not wishing to comment on an issue currently before the court but we are extremely uneasy about the apparent ease with which a group of individuals might be described or deemed to be an organised criminal group. We think that has yet to be tested by the courts and we think it is a step too far at this point to have that as a provision of this bill. Clearly the provisions of this bill move us much closer to what could be called a surveillance State with extensive provision for visual and for audio surveillance for tracking people for intercepting their communications and for looking at their relationships and we think that is many many steps too far. There is simply not the need in New Zealand society for such extraordinarily invasive measures to be applied. 
We are concerned that judges will be given the power to issue warrants for as yet untried surveillance techniques or mechanisms—those novel forms of surveillance perhaps not even developed yet or invented dare I say. Is it conceivable that we might have a monitoring device disguised cunningly as a teapot which would be acceptable at some future time? We believe that if novel forms of surveillance of monitoring of tracking are to be included in the arsenal of weapons that matter should come to this Parliament. It should not be left with all due respect to the judiciary. It ought not to be its role to make decisions that ought to be the domain of this Parliament particularly given the severity of some of the sentences that are considered in this bill. 
The point is well made that some of the existing legislation that this bill seeks to amend and in some cases to repeal is sometimes 50 years old and we know that technological advances have been extraordinary. We see technology advancing almost by the month certainly by the year and five decades is too long a time. That however does not in any way justify the provisions of this bill that would enable the use of very easily concealed surveillance devices. Tracking devices now can be very small. Devices that can intercept people’s communications equally can be very small and can be remote from the point at which information is found. Facial recognition technology and all of these technologies—arguably yes Parliament needs to have some serious thought about how we can manage the existence the reality of these technologies. This bill fails to do that. All it does is seek to utilise existing and indeed yet to be developed forms of technology in ways that we do not think are acceptable in a free and liberal democratic State. 
I have made the point that we are very concerned that there is a very long list of State agencies that would be given powers under this bill and it is important to note that very few of these State agencies have any forms of independent complaint authority. If a person has a concern with the actions of the police for example about whatever matter then there is a clear line of accountability through the Independent Police Conduct Authority. Any citizen can take a complaint to that authority with a fair expectation it will be heard. Many of the State agencies listed in this bill have no such remedy for citizens who feel that their rights have been compromised or abused and we ask the question: where are those people to go if indeed they feel they have been mistreated by these agencies? 
 One of the most offensive surveillance warrants made possible by this bill is that which will allow State agents to trespass into a private home in order to insert surveillance equipment that can spy on people’s kitchens bedrooms and bathrooms. This is beyond the pale. People have a right to expect their homes to be inviolate. The notion of these representing only very serious crime and criminal offending is not borne out by the fact that some of the provisions of this bill could be imposed on people who have been found guilty of relatively minor offences against the Arms Act. The Greens are no friends of weapons. We are on record many times as being very conservative on the availability and use of weapons and firearms but it is possible for example that somebody found guilty of ownership of an air gun or a replica pistol—which are not desirable things indeed and the ownership of which constitutes relatively low-level offending—could be vulnerable to this legislation. It is not necessary legislation. We will oppose its progression through the House. Thank you.