The spectre of Big Brother lurks in the shadows after the Government's Search and Surveillance Act came into force yesterday. The Act, among a raft of other provisions, gives police and other officers powers to search or keep people under surveillance without a warrant in situations of emergency or urgency, and allows more government agencies to carry out surveillance operations.
Justice Minister Judith Collins has said the Act - whose powers replace those previously spread over 69 pieces of legislation - would bring "order, certainty, clarity and consistency" to "messy, unclear and outdated search and surveillance laws".
Opposition parties and other critics fear the legislation creates a police state and is a worrying direction in terms of issues of civil liberty and privacy.
New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties committee member Thomas Beagle said earlier this year the changes represented a dangerous invasion of privacy and it was "odd" agencies other than the police should be allowed the same powers. He was also concerned search warrants could be issued by - in addition to judges - GPs, registrars and others approved by the Attorney-general.
Civil rights lawyer Michael Bott said yesterday extending police powers to Government officials meant "the scope for the state to basically surveil citizens has been dramatically increased". He is concerned that, under the new Act, officials can carry out surveillance based on suspicion of an offence, rather than having reasonable grounds to believe an offence is being planned.
However, most relevant parts of the Act clearly state officers must have "reasonable grounds to suspect" or "reasonable grounds to believe" in relation to offences or evidence. Its stated purpose is "to facilitate the monitoring of compliance with the law and the investigation and prosecution of offences in a manner that is consistent with human rights". Police Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess says the changes do not mean a massive increase in police powers, and they make common sense as they are "either emergencies or where the destruction of evidence might occur in very serious cases".
The Act follows a 2007 Law Commission report that recommended search and surveillance powers be overhauled. In August 2011, the Supreme Court ruled the police illegally used hidden cameras to gather alleged evidence of paramilitary training camps in the Ureweras. The images of armed police raids in Ruatoki in 2007 will be ingrained in many New Zealanders' minds, and political fallout from that case - both in terms of civil liberties and the relationship between Maori and the Crown - is still settling. (While that took place under then prime minister Helen Clark's watch, the timing of the Act's enforcement is no small irony: Prime Minister John Key has recently faced some of the most difficult days of his tenure, including having the spotlight trained firmly on him regarding what he knew about the unlawful surveillance on internet millionaire Kim Dotcom by the Government Communications Security Bureau.
Dramatic replayed footage of the armed raid on Mr Dotcom's Auckland mansion, and the John Banks donations scandal to boot, is ensuring Mr Dotcom - charges against him aside - is attaining cult status. It seems there is considerable public sympathy for him and little public appetite for the kind of surveillance and heavy-handed response tactics to which he and those in Ruatoki were subjected - let alone a relaxing of laws around the issue.
Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell is adding to the heat on Mr Key by questioning why the Prime Minister made a very public apology last week to Mr Dotcom over that spying, when none was made to Ruatoki residents or Tuhoe.)Despite Ms Collins saying the Act is to give "clarity and consistency", it seems that if there is doubt about its wording or intent, the interpretation of the legislation will still need to be tested when cases reach court, which constitutional law specialist Grant Illingworth QC said yesterday would be a "huge task".
The legislation will be reviewed within the next four years. Given the debate around it, it seems certain until then the Act - along with police, the courts and the Government - will remain under intense scrutiny. If Big Brother is, in fact, watching, all eyes in the country are certainly looking back.
