Browning Steffan: Search and Surveillance Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Browning Steffan: Search and Surveillance Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 March 2012. Volume:677;Page:778. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 The Greens oppose this bill. This bill is downright excessive. Media freedom is essential as is a citizen’s right to silence and a reasonable expectation of privacy. Clause 108 allows the forensic copying of material from personal computers of those who are not actually accused of a crime. The bill lacks controls over privacy of material beyond those specified in a search warrant. Clause 119 allows use of other material and this range of material can be found anywhere on a computer not necessarily the material that is the subject of that search warrant. And worse clause 101(4)(k) allows hacking by police.  
Under the Operation Eight situation that was under another bill but with similar types of powers there were innocent people who had their computers confiscated for many many months. Transferring that into this situation the other material on that computer that was totally irrelevant—if any was relevant to the issue at stake there—would be held by the police and could be looked at in a way that is a total invasion of privacy. Not only this but the bill allows very broad powers to require the spouses friends and colleagues of a suspect to answer questions or produce documents or maybe face a term of imprisonment if they decide not to cooperate.  
My own experiences in advocacy in non-governmental organisation association and networking make me very alarmed at the suggested provisions. Some spurious accusation or politically motivated investigation could have my computer or my colleagues’ computer hacked or my friends a girlfriend and their friends quizzed. And not only this— 
Scott Simpson 
: What’s her name? 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: Too many. Not only this but these production orders can be enforced by a range of State agencies other than the police. So would it be the Ministry of Economic Development looking out for Solid Energy because of the Happy Valley protesters or maybe Scion or Plant and Food Research when direct action has been used to point out significant environmental shortcomings or even significant non-compliance in those organisations that risks New Zealand’s biosecurity and in fact international reputation? My colleague who was here earlier Catherine Delahunty was under surveillance from the age of 14 as a student activist by the SIS. This bill would allow that sort of thing to happen under police situations. This bill brings the scenario into the power of the police and other unrelated State agencies.  
I have been accused in this House of being an ecoterrorist—a term that should never be used in this House. Terrorism relates to harm physical injury and/or even death. The issues that I was involved with were absolutely genuine and I have faced no charge and nor has my colleague been charged. But because of the activities we could come under this sort of bill. There are many in the non-governmental organisation world who are absolutely concerned for New Zealand who would come under this. The Greens will oppose this bill.