The Search and Surveillance Act is to be reviewed and a one-stop intelligence shop could come closer to realisation. One of the terms of references for the review is that it must look at whether the Act (or any related legislation) needs to be amended to enable broader use of the capabilities of the GCSB and /or NZSIS to support police investigations.
This would tie in nicely with the recommendations by Michael Cullen and Helen Reddy in their ‘Intelligence Review’ that the intelligence community operate under one Act, that is, in all but name there be a merge of the intelligence agencies.
The review of the Search and Surveillance Act is a statutory one required by law to look at the ‘operation of the provisions’ of the Act since it began, to see ‘whether those provisions should be retained or repealed’, and ‘if they should be retained, whether any amendments to the Act are necessary or desirable.’
Implicit in Amy Adams announcing of the review however, is that the agencies and institutions covered by the Act need more powers.
Amy Adams (Minister of Justice and member of the Intelligence and Security Committee) states in her press release that technology has changed and therefore the powers of the Search and Surveillance Act need to also change.
A spokesperson for Amy Adams further said, “We can't anticipate the outcomes of the Search and Surveillance review so don't know what new search powers they might look at, or privacy considerations.”
What Amy did not cover in her press release though was the fact that the terms of reference also state that the review must look at the use of the Act (or any related legislation) in relation to the GCSB and /or NZSIS.
The Search and Surveillance Act has been around since it was passed in March 2012 by a narrow majority. But the Bill took a long time to weave its way through parliament - it was introduced first by Labour in 2007 before finally being passed by National. Throughout that time there were wide-spread protests against its passing; the Act drastically extended the powers of not only police but many state agencies to spy and surveil. They gained more power to do unwarranted searches and surveillances. The Act also legalised past police practice that had been illegal, including the police illegal use of hidden cameras during Operation 8 (the operation that resulted in the October 15th 2007 police raids and the jailing of Tame Iti and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara for two and a half years).
The Act also removed the right to silence and the right not to self-incriminate through the introduction of Examination and Production Orders.
When the Bill was going through parliament (there were two rounds of submissions), many people protested and spoke against a ‘Residual Warrant’ clause in the Bill. Residual Warrants were to cover as yet uninvented, unknown things - for example, it could use a technique not yet invented to surveil data stored in a way not yet known. Residual Warrants were removed in its final reading and replaced by ‘Declaratory Orders’ (clauses 65-69). At the time Judith Collins, then Minister of Justice, described Declaratory Orders as “an innovative regime that recognises the pace at which technology is advancing … Declaratory orders allow agencies to obtain a judicial view as to the reasonableness of a new device, technique, or procedure before using it…” Maybe Amy and Judith need to talk.
An overview of the Act can be read here.
Public submissions will be called for and along with consulting various government and private sector agencies and organisations there will also be an expert advisory panel. The brand new Auckland University Law School’s ICT Law Centre is assumed to be one of these ‘experts’. The Law Commission and Ministry of Justice will present the final report on or by 28 June 2017.