Clendon David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Clendon David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:959] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
Hon Member 
: He’s been waiting as well. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: I certainly have. I would like to just begin by reflecting on a couple of comments from the Government speakers who have referred to the timing of this debate. The fact is yes we understand that on 17 April the police lose the powers they currently have under the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act. Apparently if that happens anarchy will run loose in the world and it will be a tragic thing. 
I think it is worth commenting on the fact that this Government set the timing for this shift—for the 17 April changeover—but this Search and Surveillance Bill has been around in some form or other for quite a number of years. I do not suggest it is not a complex bill—it is. We absolutely support the notion of bringing together what has been described as a jumble of legislation. Bits and pieces of rules and provisions spread across what 50-odd pieces of legislation is seldom helpful. Nevertheless there has been significant time available to the Government and I think I object to the fact that somehow the Opposition speakers are having blame sheeted home to them because this Government now has only a couple of weeks to sort itself out and get some legislation in place. I do not personally feel any responsibility for that. This Government has been in control of the House programme for over 3 years and I think it would do well to recall that. 
This part deals substantially with police powers—the powers the police will have under this legislation. A great deal of this part refers to the actions that the police may perform without warrants. It is entirely appropriate that the police should of course be able to conduct some activities to act on the spur of the moment. Crime and offending does act in real time and it is inappropriate to constrain the police too much but it is all about the question of balance. How much is too much? As I have said all the way through this bill seems to lean towards enabling the diminishing of people’s rights rather than having a clear sense that there are some absolute limits to that. 
I was concerned by an earlier speaker from the Government who made a comment in passing to the effect that he did not have a lot of interest in the human rights of those who are not interested in obeying the law. A similar sentiment seems to pervade this bill—that somehow people who offend or even who are accused of offending should have their basic human rights compromised. Of course when people have offended or are accused of serious offences we do put limits on their liberties. We collectively exercise the right to restrain them and in some cases to imprison them—take away their personal liberty—and that is as it should be. But the notion that somehow even people who are imprisoned do not retain human rights is absolutely anathema to me and I suspect to most other people in this House. I suspect that if we found ourselves one day in a society where people’s rights are diminished simply because they have committed crime I think that is a society none of us would actually want to live in. Human rights are fundamental to being human. We need to recognise that and understand that and act accordingly in all of these legislative measures that we are putting through. 
I would like briefly to reflect on one particular clause in this part—clause 5—which is a couple of paragraphs. The heading of clause 5 is “Internal searches generally prohibited” and then subclause (1) goes on to say: “A constable must not conduct an internal search of any part of the body of any person except for with the person’s consent” the constable may look into the person’s mouth when looking for presumably concealed drugs or whatever it may be. I note that the Minister of Justice’s Supplementary Order Paper omits that clause in its entirety. It takes away the general prohibition on internal body searches and I would be very interested in finding out from the Minister why she has chosen to do that. I would hope it is for the reason that the prohibition on internal searches is covered off in some other provision. I would hope that she has found it is unnecessary. I sincerely hope the Minister is not proposing that constables should have the right to conduct internal searches of people in the way that is prohibited currently in the bill and I would be very interested in hearing some commentary on that. 
The extent of the warrantless provisions in this section is extensive. They are comprehensive. There is reference to issues about weapons—about knives guns and all the rest of it—and I think generally yes we can accede to that.