A controversial bill changing search and surveillance powers
does not extend them the way critics say it does, Law
Commission deputy president Warren Young says.
Lawyers, the Privacy Commissioner, Human Rights Commissioner
and activists have spoken out against the Search and
Surveillance Bill which is based on a 2007 Law Commission
report.
Parliament's justice and electoral select committee has
extended out to next May its consideration of the bill after
the intense public reaction.
Dr Young told Radio New Zealand this morning that much of the
focus of the criticism was on part four of the bill which
opponents said extended powers of non police agencies in an
unwarranted way.
"Part four does no such thing, part four simply spells out
how agencies are to execute a power if their own statute has
already given them the power," he said.
"It doesn't give them any independent powers at all and the
bill is very clear about that."
In many areas of search and surveillance law at the moment
decisions were made case by case by the courts over
individual searches, Dr Young said.
"That's very unsatisfactory because it creates uncertainty
for law enforcement officers, it often means cases are lost
before the courts because people don't know what the law
actually was."
He said part four drew on existing case law to spell out what
agencies could do when carrying out a search power they
already have.
Far from extending powers, it provided many safeguards for
individual citizens.
Concerns had also been raised about visual surveillance but
again Dr Young said new powers had not been added and the
area was "completely unregulated" at the moment.
He gave the example of a video being trained on a suspect's
window 24 hours a day without any prior judicial approval.
Dr Young also disputed that the bill gave police powers to
conduct fishing operations when searching computers and
warrants had to be specific.
"We certainly in the bill have done nothing to change the law
in that respect."
