Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9367] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 3 is the part that really speaks to me of Government incompetence. After all the time the Government has had to get this bill right it is appalling that the bill is now so technically deficient. This is the part about which the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in its report made it plain that it thought that tracking devices are used by only the police and the Customs Service and therefore it had created a code to govern the use of tracking devices in New Zealand. 
When I look at the definition of “tracking device”—and I have drawn this to the attention of the Minister but have received no explanation worthy of that description—I see the definition is that it is a device that: “may be used to help ascertain by electronic or other means either or both of the following: (a) the location of a thing or person:”. That could be a pair of binoculars. A pair of binoculars is a tracking device as is a telescope a public surveillance camera and probably a flag attached to a bicycle if it helps one to locate a person or thing. It probably also applies to a sticker put on a suitcase so that one can identify it on a baggage carousel. What a stupid piece of law it is when all those things can be tracking devices and suddenly according to the select committee the only people who use them are the police and customs agencies and the committee then makes a set of rules that requires them to apply to a High Court or District Court judge for a warrant. 
This is the type of law we get when we rush through—under cover of a great need anti-terrorism—a complete new code to cover something that should be completely lawful. There is no reason on earth why ordinary citizens cannot decide to put surveillance cameras on their own properties to locate things or people entering their properties. There is no reason why people should have to apply to the police or customs to install global positioning system trackers in their trucks to see whether those trucks are going to unlawful locations. What about the expectation that an employer will keep his or her employees safe and free from harm and for example prevent the use of company vehicles for transporting drugs? There is no reason why a tracking device should not be used by any individual in relation to his or her own property. But this part does not cover that. I have talked to members of the select committee. Dr Mapp has offered no reason other than that it had not been thought of to explain why a police flag on a bicycle a sticker on a suitcase or a pair of binoculars should now require as the law provides for a warrant from a judge. 
When the select committee members said they thought that only the police and the Customs Service used tracking devices they were clearly wrong. When the select committee members thought they were rejecting the Privacy Commissioner’s nonsense—because the Privacy Commissioner did come up with his typical nonsense about another set of rules on tracking devices—they did not achieve that. The select committee may have thought it was leaving ordinary citizens and the police free to track their own property and to use surveillance cameras if they wished in their own stores or houses. But it appears to me that they have not done so. The commentary on the bill makes the situation worse. 
I have put forward a simple amendment. It is hastily drafted but I believe that it deals with 90 percent—not all but 90 percent—of the error in this part. The amendment simply provides that this part does not apply in a way that would restrict the owner or the user of a property from consenting to a tracking device on his or her own property. That should be absolutely self-evident. We have the Minister in the chair when the House is in Committee so that the Minister can respond to this kind of thing at the last minute. We have that precisely so that the Minister can apply common sense and the judgment of reality to law and Parliament can amend bills before it is too late.