Police powers law to be tweaked, implementation delayed

Legislation around police powers is set to be tweaked to give some more protection to the public and delay its implementation for six months.

Labour and the Greens remain opposed to the policing amendment bill but the justice select committee has reported back recommending by majority it be passed.

The committee's report recommends adding a constraint or two more around surveillance and privacy.

But it also shows police warned too many extra safeguards added would slow down the benefits they expect to get for intelligence-gathering for two years.

"Regulations would add operational, IT, and systems burdens ... The burdens are likely to be complex, expensive, and resource-intensive," the report quoted the police position.

Police and the government say the law change is essential to give officers back intelligence gathering powers.

But the opposition which includes the Privacy Commissioner say it delivers new powers and is police overreach.

Lobby group Pillar NZ said it was disappointed in the report back though "a small number of heartening and privacy-preserving amendments have been added to the legislation".

"Key terms such as 'intelligence purpose' remain undefined," it said.

The committee heard from 225 submitters, a large number of them concerned surveillance would expand and the Privacy Act be undermined.

"We think it would be beneficial to make clear that the police would continue to be subject to the Privacy Act," the committee reported back.

This would make clear the collection of personal information covered in the bill would be subject to the Privacy Act's principles.

Other concerns were that expanded police licence to collect visual images and sounds in public places might circumvent restrictions in the Search and Surveillance Act.

"Our proposed amendment would ensure that police employees could not make a recording in circumstances where a surveillance device warrant was needed."

'Test, update, and refine'

The report registered the Greens' ongoing strong opposition. "This bill enables over-surveillance of ordinary people by allowing the police to shirk privacy rights and common law regarding collecting photographs, audio, and biometric data of civilians."

Labour opposed it, too, and at the committee raised the prospect of police technology falling short in collecting, handling, retaining and deleting all the extra intelligence that would be gathered.

Police have spent years trying to get the right tech for meeting privacy demands around image collection, and though their digital notebooks are better at recording image data than before, they still have no clear path to acquiring the full digital evidence management system they have needed for years.

One reason to delay the bill's implementation by six months instead of one month was to give police more time on the tech front - "to test, update, and refine operational guidance, make IT changes, and provide training", said the justice committee.

Another was to make up for the lack of consultation before the bill was introduced. It was not consulted on with the public or Māori or chlidren-and-youth advocates because of time pressures, official documents said.

"We consider that the delay would allow time for the police to engage with key stakeholders, such as the Privacy Commissioner, when developing operational policies and training."

A review after three years should also consult with the commissioner, the independent police conduct authority and ministry of justice, the report said.

'No compelling reason'

The committee debated but rejected adding further safeguards into the legislation itself - as the Privacy Commissioner pushed for, including wanting them to "specify safeguards relating to the collection of information from children and young people" - or by way of adding secondary regulations.

Police argued there was no compelling reason for the regulations.

"Regulations would increase uncertainty and ongoing legal risk both before and after the bill commenced," the report said about the police view.

"This is because of the introduction of additional legal tests associated with information management. The additional tests would likely affect prosecutions.

Regulations "could delay the implementation of the information-collection provisions in the bill for at least two years, and new IT investment might be needed."

Police argued instead for controls via binding operational guidance and technical controls on top of existing rules.

"We seriously considered inserting a regulation-making power into the bill," said the justice committee.

"Although we have decided against doing so, we have recommended that the Minister of Police commission an independent statutory review of the legislation three years after its commencement."

The report barely mentions Part 2 of the bill which would expand police powers to close off areas ahead of anticipated public disorder, and to arrest and fine people in those areas.

Civil libertarians have voiced worries this will chill legitimate protest.

Part 2 is aimed to work in with the newly passed Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill with its new powers to crack down on boyracers.