Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9370] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am concerned the Minister has simply relied— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry— 
Jill Pettis 
: Let him go. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s like a child. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I believe that the comment made by the junior Government whip in relation to a colleague was unparliamentary and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: I never thought that being a mother was objectionable but if it offends the member I withdraw and apologise. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Hon Phil Goff does the Committee the courtesy of explaining or responding to points raised in this debate and I appreciate that. However I am concerned that he has misled himself or has allowed himself to rely on the officials who are simply saying that because surveillance cameras generally are not covert then there is not a problem with the definition of “tracking device”. 
There is nothing in this legislation that states that this applies only to covert devices. If this tracking device definition stated “covert” then that might have been a relevant point. But it seems to apply to all tracking devices whether covert or overt. Indeed as I said in its terms it probably applies to officers who put a sticker on their suitcase so they can follow it on the baggage carousel. The select committee took the view that only the Police and the Customs Service seem to use tracking devices and the committee urged the Government to look at legislation to cover private use of tracking devices. Officials appear to have justified this weird definition solely on the grounds that it is done in Canada. This is hardly an encouragement to New Zealanders who look at the hoops that Canadians are now being put through by their weird Supreme Court. This is not a comfort to those who believe that people should be empowered to decide what they do with their own property and assets and how they track their own property. 
To be sure it is helpful to stop the police and others from inserting tracking devices that are not wanted. It is quite appropriate that the bill states what it does to govern the use of covert devices by the authorities. But it does not deal with the implication that there now is that if the police for example want to put one of their tracking devices—at the request of the owner of a vehicle or a shop—in that shop or vehicle then the police have to get a warrant. The police should not be under that burden. It is quite clear there is no exception in the legislation. There is nothing that states that the provision applies only where the tracking device is inserted where someone does not know or where someone does not approve. 
It is a shame the Minister is signalling that he is going to vote against an amendment that would have saved him from this difficulty. As I said to the Minister when someone has gone through $50000 worth of cost in trying to get the court to say what the officials say is common sense I hope the Minister will have the grace to feel embarrassed.