Locke Keith: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Locke Keith: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14193] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 As members will gather from my colleague’s speech the Green Party is not directly opposed to all these issues even though we are dividing our vote. We just weigh the considerations a bit differently. We have to seriously weigh up the question when Parliament brings in measures that are intrusive of privacy of whether the benefit outweighs the cost to the community as a whole. Privacy is continually under challenge on two counts. There is a long-standing desire of State agencies—not just in New Zealand but also in other countries—to get greater surveillance powers. Unfortunately the speed of technological change and the efficiency of modern surveillance technology with satellites global positioning systems and computers make surveillance so much easier to do. But when one is bringing in an intrusive surveillance measure one has to judge it according to recognised privacy criteria. Tim McBride on behalf of the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties in his submission referred to the four-part test of the former Canadian Privacy Commissioner in 2002. He said that any new measure must meet the following requirements. It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need; it must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose; the intrusion of privacy must be proportional to the societal benefit to be derived; and it must be demonstrable that no other less privacy-intrusive measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose. 
Those who have promoted the electronic monitoring surveillance system have not justified it. It is not just about child sex offenders because now that the Minister’s amendment has passed it is even worse. It applies to all parolees and as amended it does not even need to meet the test of undue risk to the community on behalf of the parolee. It can apply more generally. If the special conditions are that the parolee should not go to a certain place or places at any particular time then that can be subject to the electronic monitoring by the global positioning system to test that the parolee is meeting that condition. 
That is a very general power. If we allow that to go through without any particular argument as to why we need it and without looking at the real balance we do not have any real defence against its extension beyond parolees to people on bail for all offences. It becomes an easy technology to use and we start to go down a very bad track. 
People have said in this debate that New Zealand is now at the cutting edge of this type of surveillance system. We are a test case for its international application. I do not think given that we are moving bit by bit towards a surveillance state in terms of ID card systems that are coming in one way or another and greater electronic interception systems that we should go down an extra surveillance path without a very good reason. 
There are other ways of going about the problem for the particular group that is discussed in this legislation—sex offenders. SAFE in its submission stated that there is a lot we can do to deal with the problem of recidivism in high-risk offenders by the agencies working together. 
 To move to a surveillance state does not make us safer because it only leads to a more anxious less-empowered populace who feel a sense of antagonism towards the State if they are under surveillance and that leads to insecurity and to more crime. It does not lead to a better society and of course despite what Lianne Dalziel states these provisions offend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Margaret Wilson said so in her very strong criticism of this legislation. She said very clearly that it offends section 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It also offends section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and there is absolutely no reason why Parliament should go ahead against Margaret Wilson on this issue and against all the other people who made submissions.