Proposed spy legislation endangers human rights

The Government is fast-tracking the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill (GCSB Bill) and the Maori Party will continue to oppose it. We will never agree that New Zealand citizens should be under surveillance by the GCSB because clearly it is intrusive and lacks justification for what we believe is an extraordinary extension of their powers.

The GCSB Bill is inconsistent with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom from unreasonable search or seizure under New Zealand law and will merely validate actions like those of the police during the raid on Kim Dotcom's property, which have now been deemed unjust.

In 2011 we opposed the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill which was being pushed through under urgency and called for our constituents and the public to make submissions. Such an issue of importance - but the citizens of New Zealand were given only 24 hours to have their say.

We also opposed the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act 2007 introduced by Labour, which was passed post Operation 8 to justify and validate the actions of the police during Operation 8. Last month an Independent Police Conduct Authority report on Operation 8 found in some areas police acted "unlawfully, unjustifiably and unreasonably" during those raids.

Last year we opposed the Search and Surveillance Bill for similar reasons because we believed the search powers vested in police officers under the bill were too broad and were concerned that they did not require a search warrant. That bill allowed more government agencies to carry out surveillance operations, changed the right to silence and allowed judges to decide whether journalists can protect their sources or not. Earlier this year the Kitteridge Report revealed that 88 New Zealand citizens were subjected to surveillance by the GCSB. In the interests of transparency the Maori Party requested that these names be revealed, however, this request was declined.

The current surveillance regimes have already been used to intervene in the lives of some New Zealanders in an invasive, intrusive way which has not always been warranted. The Maori Party has called for a review of all of our surveillance agencies. The fact is that in New Zealand we already have surveillance laws allowing the NZSIS and the police to track our citizens.

The Government does not need any more surveillance powers to keep an eye on its citizens. Maori are disproportionately affected by laws on offending and arrest.

Would the people of Remuera have been subjected to a lock down of their community in the same way that Ruatoki was in 2007?

I think not.

If Maori were unjustly treated in those raids we can reasonably expect that we will be similarly affected by these new spy laws and who would ever know?

Extending powers of search and arrest to the police is not new to our country. During the 1951 Waterfront Strike emergency regulations gave police sweeping powers of search and arrest and made it an offence for citizens to assist strikers - even giving food to their children was outlawed.

We are a country that has always been politically active.

Ordinary New Zealanders have always taken part in political protests such as the Maori language petition of 1972; the Maori Land March of 1975; the Springbok Tour of 1981 and, of course, the 2004 hikoi against the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. We know that the GCSB legislation has widespread implications for everyone and that it is not just Maori who will be unfairly targeted by this new law. Those objecting to economic activity or protesting against trade agreements and other regulations and legislation will also be adversely affected and will have their political activity more closely scrutinised.

We understand that in some cases there is a need for surveillance and searches. But this should be carried out in a transparent manner. We should also be able to ensure our citizens their right to privacy and free speech. While the Government may not always agree with the views of its citizens, privacy, freedom of association and freedom of speech are fundamentals of any democratic society. This proposed law threatens these basic human rights.