9 July 2013

The circus surrounding Kim Dotcom’s appearance before the Intelligence and Security Committee dominated the debate over the GCSB legislation.   

But the issue goes beyond his confrontation with the Prime Minister. As current international events have shown, the extent and purpose of surveillance has become far more widespread that many of us would have previously contemplated. From Edward Snowden’s disclosures, to reports that the United States spied on the leaders of other countries at international gatherings, or even the local variant of the access given during the recent Henry inquiry to Andrea Vance’s and my metadata and movements in and around Parliament, the pervasive nature of surveillance has been thrust into the spotlight.

A couple of things emerge from this. First, there are very few people arguing that that such surveillance should never occur, especially in cases involving crime or national security. But second, and certainly more important is the reality that there needs to be greater awareness and tighter controls and accountability of what is going on. Surveillance, regardless of the agency undertaking it, has to be appropriate to the circumstances, and not just the default position. Keeping an eye on people who pose a genuine criminal or national security threat to the country arguably fits that bill, but snooping on MPs and journalists in a low-level inquiry into the early release of a report most definitely does not.

The Bill of Rights Act and the Privacy Act are supposed to protect personal privacy and the right to freedom of movement and communication, and that principle needs to be re-asserted strongly. As a start, Parliament needs to offer explicit protection to MPs, journalists and the public going about their normal business in the Parliamentary complex. The type of surveillance and intrusion recently experienced should never be allowed to happen again. And beyond that, all residents and citizens need to be protected from being casually spied upon as they go about their normal lives.

In this context, the “why worry if you have nothing to fear” argument is specious. Personal freedom is the most precious thing we have, and, as I said in my resignation press conference, we acquiesce to any assaults on that at our collective peril.

Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous lines from 1930s Germany powerfully state the challenge all democratic societies currently face in this space:

            “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist.

                Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.

                Then they came for me – and there was no-one left to speak for me.”

To ensure there is always some there to speak for us and that we can go about our lives freely and openly without the threat of unwarranted surveillance, our security services need to be made far more accountable, and the incidence of surveillance at all levels limited to cases of genuine threat, rather than continuing on a casual, low-level, “nothing to worry about” basis, as recent events here have shown.