Editorial: Tighten security but uphold rights

Shortly after the attack on the United States a Herald-DigiPoll survey asked 550 New Zealanders whether they believed intelligence agencies needed more power to monitor people's movements and communications. The answer from a bare majority, 51 per cent, was "yes". In the circumstances a more decisive vote might have been expected. The result attested to the store New Zealanders place on their civil liberties.

The same survey asked whether they were willing to allow their telephone to be tapped and their mail, e-mail and bank accounts inspected if authorities said those measures were necessary for the fight against terrorism. To every suggestion a majority said "no". The inspection of bank accounts received the biggest rejection of all.

Quite rightly, the cabinet decided this week to strengthen the state's hand against terrorism. It intends to stiffen legislation in the form of a Terrorism (Bombing and Financing) Bill that was put to Parliament before the events of September 11. By the time it is passed, the bill will contain a wider definition of terrorism and give the authorities the ability to freeze the assets, including financial assets, of suspected terrorists. Further legislation is contemplated next year to give access to certain telephone and electronic networks.

The proposals are prompted by a general request from the United Nations but they have already encountered concern in this country about the definition of terrorism. There are fears that the definition will be wide enough to include all deliberate damage or disruption of property and public services, such as water and energy supplies. And the penalties for financial support of terrorism could conceivably apply to donations to political parties, outlawed by repressive states, that are using paramilitary means to oppose those regimes.

Governments engaged in the war against terrorism will have to refine that term somewhat. The task should not be difficult. Terrorism is easily distinguishable from guerrilla warfare against the forces and symbols of a repressive state. Terrorism deliberately takes aim at the lives and safety of civilians, and even of citizens in foreign countries, in the hope of forcing concessions to its cause.

In countries with a free press and unlimited rights of peaceful political organisation, there is no justification for acts of violence and disruption. In those countries, groups that resort to illegal activities because they cannot convince many voters to support them, deserve the attentions of security services. The extent to which their movements and communications can be monitored should depend upon the risk they pose to the lives and safety of law-abiding individuals or the public at large. Often that will require fine judgment. The Government's proposals, as outlined by the Justice Minister this week, would keep that judgment largely to itself.

Phil Goff says the authorities will need "reason to suspect" before designating someone an associate of terrorism in order to prevent the transfer of funds from his or her bank account. Officials will have a month to produce evidence to support the designation.

The person will be able to challenge the designation by an appeal to the responsible minister (usually the Prime Minister where the Security Intelligence Service is concerned) and, if that fails, the suspected terrorist can appeal to the Inspector General of Security and Intelligence, a retired High Court judge.

New Zealanders might not be satisfied with that. When rights to privacy and civil liberties are to be compromised, there ought to be an appeal beyond the Inspector General of Security and Intelligence. The courts are the proper place for judgments that may impinge on the rights and liberties of an individual. The consequences of a terrorist designation sound serious enough to warrant an appeal to two High Court judges or perhaps the Court of Appeal.

The appeals might have to be heard under reporting restrictions to safeguard the operational security of the enforcement agencies. We have to accept things we might have resisted before September 11. Security needs loom larger but human rights still count in the balance.