Policing Amendment Bill
Iâm very pleased to be leading the Policing Amendment Bill through the committee stage. The bill amends the Policing Act 2008, with two principal objectives: to confirm policeâs ability to record images and sounds in public places and in private places where police are lawfully present, and to collect personal information for lawful purposes, including intelligence; and to expand policeâs temporary road closure powers to include a broader range of areas and provide police with the necessary powers to deter and enforce non-compliance with temporary area closures.
Iâm also introducing a Government Amendment Paper that makes minor and technical amendments to Part 2 of the bill. These amendments will ensure the bill is consistent with the temporary closure grounds contained in the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Act 2026. The change will also bring the area closure powers into force on a single date, excluding the provisions related to the infringement notice. I acknowledge that the Justice Committee was unable to recommend either amendment in their report, as the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Act 2026 had not passed at that stage. With the recent enactment of this transport law, the Government can now make the required amendments. These amendments will ensure that police have the necessary tools to fight crime and keep New Zealanders safe without unfairly affecting the everyday lives of New Zealanders.
I look forward to hearing the views from fellow members as we debate the bill at this committee stage. Iâm very happy to answer any questions on the bill now.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for his comments, and thank you for explaining the basis of the Amendment Paper. I just seek some guidance from the Chair. The Amendment Paper appears to cover both Part 1 and the commencement provisions, and Iâll just check where clause 14 is, because it might beâyes, itâs in Part 2 as well. Is the Chairâs expectation that we speak to the Amendment Paper in one provision or as the clausesâ
CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The clauses go on both parts and also on the commencement, but if members stray into the part that isnât relevant to what weâre talking about, then obviously I will be looking to move the debate on. As long as we stay relevant to the part that the Amendment Paper is relevant to, thatâs absolutely fine.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Thatâs really helpful. Weâll just speak to those clauses as they occur, because it seems to cover the whole bill.
Iâll start with Part 1, and this is a part of the bill which has been particularly contentious. If we look at clause 4, which has new section 45A as the first part of it, we look at the reasons that Police may collect information. In my reading, this is quite a broad provision, and in my last contribution, in the second reading, you may have heard that one of the reasons thereâs some hesitation to support this bill is the fact that the purposes for collection are so broad. We can see that they are for âsafetyâ, âintegrity of policingâ, âan intelligence purposeâ, or âany other lawful purpose connected with a function, or an activity, of the Police.â
My question to the Minister of Police is: can he explain what is included in this? Also, maybe an easier question would be: whatâs not included? It seems so broad that itâs almost anything connected to policing that would be able to be covered by new section 45A. I think itâs important to know if there is a limitation to it. We did discuss this a little bit with officials in the select committee, and it was not really satisfied that there was sufficient narrowness in that clause, because it just appears to cover everything. I suppose that is the concern: that a constable would be able to, essentially, have any purpose to collect it.
Obviously, we assume itâs lawfulâif it wasnât lawful, that would be a separate reason for not allowing itâbut it just appears that everything else is covered. So, first of all, thatâs my first question for the Minister on that section.
Thank you for the question from the member Camilla Belich. There are no new powers enabled through Part 1. Nothing in Part 1 permits Police to exercise powers over members of the public or requires the public to cooperate with Police. Itâs intended to confirm the circumstances and purposes for collecting information within a privacy framework, and low privacy expectations obviously exist in public places. In private places, they can collect what can be seen or they can hear for policing functions or activities.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Just continuing on from Camilla Belichâs question, my question is around new section 45A, but just with âintelligence purposeâ. Letâs put this into everyday terms: if someoneâs casing a house for burglaries, most people would expect that the Police gather information, but what about someone standing around a train station looking a bit out of place, or what about someone attending a protest, or a young person hanging around a shopping precinct with mates?
Thatâs the concern I have, and thatâs why Iâve submitted an amendment in my name to define the meaning of âintelligence purposeâ, and the time stamp for that is 15Â September, 8.52.02. Thatâs the addition of section 45AA. This amendment doesnât stop Police gathering intelligence; it just ensures that intelligence gathering is reasonably necessary, proportionate, and connected to preventing or investigating offending.
If that is already the Governmentâs intention, there should be no difficulty in putting that into the bill. The concern isnât that Police would act in bad faith; the concern is that broad powers operate differently over time, particularly when technology makes collecting and storing information easier than ever before.
Just combining that with a question to the Minister of Police, alongside that amendment, what objective limits exist within section 45A to prevent intelligence-gathering powers gradually expanding beyond what Parliament intends today? Thank you.
Thank you. First of all, can I just thank the member Dan Rosewarne and his interest in the bill, and also acknowledge his comments during the second reading, in relation to acknowledging the outstanding work that our police officers do every day in keeping their communities safe.
His amendment, which is to insert new section 45AA, âMeaning of intelligence purposeââI donât support this tabled amendment. This would undermine the purpose of the bill. It would limit collection to offending, whether a wider collection and use of intelligence information is needed. It creates a new threshold of âreasonably necessaryâ, would create uncertainty for front-line staff, and end consistency with information privacy principle 1 of the Privacy Act.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Kia ora to the Minister of Policeâlooking forward to a robust session together.
My question is on clause 4, new section 45A, and Iâm going to start with new section 45A(a). I wanted to ask for clarification from the Minister around supporting the safety of a Police employee while they are performing their duties as a Police employee. I wanted to ask particularly around that word âsafetyâ, âthe safety of a Police employeeâ, and I wondered if the Minister might be able to assist me in understanding, potentially with hypothetical situations, or maybe drawing on his experience within the police forceâwhat would be an example of somebody needing to collect that information while they are performing their duties? Iâm just trying to understand what forms of information might be helpful to that police officer in a way that protects them, essentially. This bit is around supporting that safety while this officer is in the middle of carrying out that duty, so Iâm just trying to understand what kind of information might fall into that remit.
The second question I had is in relation to new section 45A(b), around supporting the integrity of policing. Obviously, this is a bill that is weighing up the consideration of police carrying out their job and gathering intelligence and gathering that information, but it also weighs that up with individualsâ rights and citizensâ privacy rights and rights to not interact with the Police if theyâre a law-abiding citizen that isnât raising any concerns. I wanted to ask the Minister: when it comes to the purpose of supporting the integrity of policing, why is it that we are reducing the threshold by which this information can be collected, rather than increasing the threshold by which Police operate?
One of the findings in the joint inquiry by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Privacy Commissioner was a widespread lack of understanding of the privacy principles by officers on the front line. As I said in my second reading speech, which Iâm not sure if the Minister was in here to hear, I think that that reflection within the joint inquiry was not a reflection, necessarily, of individual police officersâ competency or knowledge, but rather may be identifying a gap in the education and training of police officers and whether there is that adequate education around the privacy rights and principles that theyâre operating under. My question is: why is it that we are, I guess, bringing the bar down by being more permissive in terms of the collection of information, as opposed to bringing the bar up in terms of educating police officers about what their obligations and responsibilities are under the Privacy Act, and why we took that pathway over the other one?
Itâs a really good point. I guess, to the member Tamatha Paul, Iâd say that there are no new powers. The Police have had these powers for decades, but obviously the Tamiefuna case has brought it into sharp focus. I think the good thing about going through this process now is that it is going to provide a really clear framework for police officers to work from, which will be followed up by a review three years after the legislation is passed. I just want to reassure the committee and the member that there are no new powers; these were existing powers that the Police already had before they were challenged through the Tamiefuna case.
Mr Chair, Iâm new to this bill; I did watch all the second reading speeches to get my head around some of the issues.
Iâve risen to speak to an amendment that has been proposed by my colleague Ginny Andersen, and itâs around the new section 45A, inserted by clause 4. If we look at 45A(c), itâs the words âan intelligence purposeâ. I think one of the concerns from the Privacy Commissioner was that leaving the words âintelligence purposeâ undefined creates a very broad capacity to collect information. Now, obviously, police need to collect information, but there does need to be a good purpose for it. What the amendment suggests is putting in a definition of âintelligence purposeâ, which might just help to create a little bit of a boundary there, which people might find reassuring. The definition she proposes is â âintelligence purposeâ means the collection of information by the police for a purpose that is directly connected with a specified current policing activity or investigation.â, so a specified investigation or a current policing activityâso thatâs not just an investigation of a particular crime that may have occurred, or something like that; itâs saying, âActually, we need to be keeping an eye on this activity; this is a policing activity.â It links it to the police work in a way that just not defining âintelligence purposeâ doesnât really do.
It does draw it in a bit and creates just a few boundaries on it. I see that as going to increase the integrity of the policeâthatâs not quite the words I want. I think it increases the assurance of average citizens, who donât especially want to have police gathering information when they may not really need to, or just on a random basis. Even if that definition is not preferred, perhaps the Minister of Police has some words that we could insert that would create that boundary around âintelligence purposeâ.
Iâd just like to come back to the honourable member Tamatha Paul; the experts have given meâshe asked for an example, and theyâve provided me one. She asked: what is a real-life example of what kind of info would be important whilst performing their duties? For example, information relating to previous violence towards police; or in the case of body-worn cameras if introduced, this would deter aggressive behaviour towards police. I hope that helps.
Coming to the member Hon Dr Deborah Russell in terms of speaking about the amendment thatâs been put forward bythe Hon Ginny Andersen, with a new definition of intelligence. I wonât be supporting the amendment, and itâs quite simply because defining the intelligence is problematic, and itâs not defined in statutes such as the Intelligence and Security Act 2017 because of this, and it could have unintended consequences for other agencies. Information will always be collected for a policing purpose. This is not limited to a current police activity or investigation, as the information may also have an unknown future value. That was the case inTamiefuna.
Well, thank you, Mr Chair. Thanks, Minister, for your comments on that. I do, just in passing, note that no oneâs actually quite sure what intelligence purposes are, and it does seem that you could have a van going around just photographing everyone to see where they are, so that you can collate all the information and see whether anyoneâs activities add up to suspicious conduct. Itâs just a bit of a concern.
But what I really wanted to talk about was recording things from public places. This is new section 45B(1)(a) and (b), inserted by clause 4, although âsoundsâ are a little different. Itâs interesting, in fact, that the sounds have to be able to be heard, presumably that means by a normal, functioning human ear. So you can sort of lean against a fence and hear whatâs going on in the backyard and record that on your phone or whatever, but Iâm assuming that you canât use a device to enhance that, and if all you can hear is sort of mumblings, you canât sit there and use some additional device.
In terms of a thing that can be observed from a public place, I guess Iâm a little concerned, and Iâd be interested in the Ministerâs comments, because you can, for example, stand on the top of a truck deck or a double-decker bus and look into a fence; or, as has been done, a lamp post is a public place, therefore if you put a camera on the top of the lamp post, itâs in a public place, and it could be looking over a very high fence and into someoneâs kitchen. In fact, I think thereâs been cases where the cameraâs looked over the fence and taken photographs of notes on fridges in the kitchen, which might have been a bit incriminating, in terms of orders of the day that were going to be fulfilled in the criminal activity.
I think the idea that the police, for intelligence purposesânot for a criminal investigation; two quite different thingsâcould put a camera in a public place but an unexpected public place, on the top of a lamp post or on the top of a truck that theyâve parked outside the house, and take photos when theyâre not investigating a crimeâthe real distinction here, and you will know this Minister, is that this is not that there has been a crime committed or that thereâs information that a crime is being planned, thereâs not an actual thing youâre investigating; itâs information to create a collage, a picture of bits of information that you want to know to pre-emptively know whatâs going on in what you think is a criminal community. Might not be, but might be.
If you are looking at something and think, âIâve seen them wearing a gang patch, so therefore I think theyâre part of a criminal enterprise. For intelligence purposes, Iâm going to peer into their kitchen and see what theyâre doing and whatâs on the laptop.ââbecause youâve got an excellent camera thereâthat is highly invasive. If you go to a judge and say, âI want a warrant to do this because weâve heard, through reliable sources, theyâre doing a big drug deal.â, all well and good. But to do this because you just want to get intelligence and see whatâs going on in a community that you think is a criminal community, thatâs quite troubling. Iâm not talking about standing on the front picket fence and looking over and going, oh, I can see the car parked up the drive, snapâI get that; anyone can do that. But this is a little more invasive than that, so Iâd be interested inâyou know, I might want to take advice because I do I think itâs a really good thing that New Zealand needs to knowâis whether this, for intelligence purposes, will allow that kind of placement of cameras that peer into private dwellings from unexpected places in the public realm.
So thereâs a few issues raised there, Iâll try to cover them all off, if I donât, then come back to me.
Around the mass surveillance, I want to address that early on. The bill does not enable mass surveillance. There must always be a lawful purpose, and their collection must be necessary for that purpose. Police can only collect the information for intelligence purposes where it will or may support a policing function or activity. Indiscriminate collection, or collection in the absence of a lawful purpose, is unlawful. I just wanted to make that very clear from the outset. Look, to be honest with you, to have police set up cameras that are invasive in terms of on someoneâs private property, that would require a warrant to be able to do that. I know from personal experience that, even my time in the dog section, we did have cameras that we could install in peopleâs private residencesâthey were always by their consent, and it normally related to serious stalking or domestic violence situations.
It allowed us to have real-life information, and also, we would get an alert if a geofence had been broken, so we could respond and get there quickly to support the victim. Iâm just using it as an example, that police now have got the ability to do that, but it either requires a warrant, or it requires the consent of the household.
Minister, just for clarity, I wasnât talking about placement of cameras in private dwellings; I was talking about placement of cameras in public places, but places that most people would expect not to be able to be intruded from. My two examples that I gave were: the top of a truck parked outside, so itâs a public space; or on the top of a lamp post [looking into your house. Both public spaces. This would seem to allow that kind of intrusion, unexpected intrusion, simply because itâs from a public space. So that was my question.
Thank you, Mr Chair. OK, thank you for clarifying. The legislation is very clear, and if the police were setting up cameras to surveil someoneâs private property, then they would have to seek a warrant to be able to do that. That would cover that off. Weâre talking about the general collection of intelligence and photographs, whether in public or private places. A private place relates to a police presence.
Thank you, Mr Chair. And thank you to the Minister for providing that example in your answers a few answers ago. It is helpful to have that real-life practical example provided, so thank you.
Just following on from Dr Duncan Webbâs contributions and questions around public place, I wanted to ask the Minister whether he might consider adopting my Amendment Paper, which is a tabled amendment dated 15 September 2026, and it is at the back of that stack of amendments. The timestamp is 9.45.13.
What that amendment does is it provides specificity about the public place, which there seems to be a little bit of uncertainty aroundâwhat thatâs defined as. So Iâve put forward an amendment that asks whether we could define a public place as âa public place means a place that at any material time is open to, or is being used by, the public, whether free, or on payment of charge, and whether any owner or occupier of the place is lawfully entitled to exclude or reject any person from that place, and includes any aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry, or other vessel, train or vehicle, carrying, or available to carry passengers for reward.â Thatâs one amendment Iâve brought to clause 4, new sections 45A, to bring a little bit of clarity, so Iâm keen to understand if the Minister might entertain narrowing the scope and definition of a public place.
While Iâm taking a call, I also wanted to ask the Minister whether he might support my other tabled amendments following that one, which are timestamped 9.45.14 and 9.45.15. Amendment 9.45.15 is simply deleting new section 45AC, which is, I think, probably the most broad of those purposes, which is: âAllows police to collect information for an intelligence purpose connected with a function or an activity of the police.â So that amendment deletes that clause.
One of the reasons I thought that it might be of some value isâI have made these statements, but I think Iâve heard the Minister make sentiments of a similar vein, in that there is certainly an expectation within society that police do everything. I think that can create problems where there are only so many people in the world, and there are only so many things that can be responded to at one time, and when you pile upânot that heâs doing thisâbut when society piles all these expectations on one workforce, that can just become untenable, which is related to that announcement where the police are going to withdraw from some of the mental health call outs, just simply due to potential incapacity but also knowing that there might be other professions that are good at doing that, and just the fact that we canât expect any profession to do absolutely everything. I wondered whether the Minister might have some views on that Amendment Paper, it narrows that really broad information collection function, given the broad remit and responsibilities of police officers.
The last Amendment Paper I wanted to speak to in relation to this part of this new section 45A, is my amendment which is timetabled 9.45.14. That one is all about, again, narrowing the scope. A lot of my amendments are around just trying to provide a bit of specificity. This one is around narrowing the scope of the defined purposes for which police may collect information, to ensure the threshold is not overly broad. This one amends the first point, and says âPolice constables may make recordings in public without a warrant only when there are reasonable grounds to believe there will be use of force or violence.â So, again, itâs just attempting to put a bit more specificity into the bill, because one of our primary concerns is the broadness of the bill.
To the memberâs point around police taking a lot on, I agree with you completely. Weâve seen that for decades. Often our police officers are the only 24/7 social service that weâve got, and just to acknowledge that theyâre actually very good at dealing with a whole different array of issues. But definitely, we have tried to get the focus back on their core role. I think everyone will agree. The example used is mental health; we want to see a health response to that, not a law enforcement one. Weâre making some good progress on that, without a doubt.
Thank you for the memberâs Amendment papers (APs). You have put thought into this, I can see that, particularly on 14. But in terms of 13, no, sorry, I donât support the AP, the bill relies on existing definitions across a range of existing statutes and common law. In relation to 14, sorry, no, this would undermine the intention of the bill. It would be highly impractical and problematic, and would prevent the collection of information for other policing purposes. It is also inconsistent with the other sections. And 15, Iâm sorry again, no, this would undermine the core objective of the bill.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to speak to an issue of using technology to collect information from a public place. Iâd just say to the Minister, weâve had an example of this very recently in Parliament, where there are rules around where photographs may be taken of members, and where the press may take photographs fromâand thatâs the tiles; we all know that. Some enterprising photographer, from some news organisation, snapped a long-distance shot of a Minister, right down through the hall, and used it to imply that she was running away from questions. And it was a space where, as a member of Parliament, or as a Minister, one would never ordinarily expect to be photographed. Yet it was taken from a public place, or whatâs technically a public place in Parliament.
So there is a little bit of an issue there that we do need to sort. I heard the Ministerâs answer around not being able to set up a camera that surveils a private property, unless thereâs a proper warrant going on. But thereâs still a little bit of a grey area there. I donât think weâve quite cleared it up, and Iâm not quite sure how weâre going to.
The issue I was particularly thinking about wasâit goes back to when I was an officialâand one of the things we learnt as officials is: if we want to have a conversation with another official, ring them up and have a phone call or go and have a chat. Particularly, we used it, not necessarily for nefarious purposes, but if we were just trying to sort out an ideaâtechnically it was subject to a request under the Official Information Act (OIA) , but very hard to OIA itâand you could at least have a very free and frank exchange of views, without creating trouble, and then reaching a bit more of an understanding.
So youâd walk down the street and talk, in person, to the other official. But it just strikes me, in a public place too, you could quite reasonably expect to be talking to someone, sitting on a park bench, no one else around you, not going to be heard. But technology now enables it to be heard, with the use of microphones, and the like.
Iâm just a little concerned that there are places where people have a reasonable expectation that their interactions will be private, even though theyâre in a public space. I wouldnât expect my conversation with my husband as we walk the Zig Zag track in Titirangi to beânot that I expect to be the subject of surveillance anyway; I have had one speeding fine in my life, and thatâs about it.
Can the Minister of Police see the problem? Thereâs a very reasonable expectation of privacy, and I would be, I think, quite startled to find that the conversation that Iâd had, or the interaction that Iâd had, through the use of technology was suddenly sitting in Police information. Is there a way that we can tighten that up so thatâagain, Police can reasonably have reasonable access to reasonable tools to use for their intelligence gathering purposes, but where is the line to be drawn on what they can and they canât use, and what protections are there, particularly for ordinary individuals, or particularly for someone who might be associating? Maybe thereâs someone that Police are keeping an eye on and they have an entirely innocent conversation with their brother, their kidâthis, that, and the otherâwho then ends up in the Police files.
I can see the Minister nodding, so I know he can see the problem. If he could perhaps have a bit korero.
I mean, we could have a long discussion and debate around that. In relation to Parliament and access to our press gallery and our journalists, I mean, I think that we should celebrate the fact that we are one of the most open democracies in the world and that our media has got good access to us, and that shouldnât change. But, on saying that, there should be an expectation, too, for members, whether itâs members of Parliament or other staff members or anyone in this place, that if they donât want to talk to the media, there should be some rules aroundâweâve had examples of MPs where theyâve had to climb out of windows to try and get away from that.
đŹ Tamatha Paul: Where is the window? Where is it? I need to find it.
Believe me, I ainât ever going to be climbing out of a window, trust me.
The reality is this: what youâre talking about, and Iâll use an example that I can relate to personally that happened to me a week ago, at what was a private function, but you could argue it was in a public place because it was in quite a big restaurant, and it was political. We had multiple political parties there, and whilst I was delivering a speech, one of the members of that political party was videoing me during the speech, but we were in a public place. That is going to happen. Some people would feel uncomfortable with that. Some people would say, âWhatâs that footage going to be used for? Whereâs it going to go?â I think those are always legitimate concerns; but the reality of it is that, if youâre in a public place, there is an expectation that you may have your image recorded.
The good thing is that, in the public at the moment, everyoneâs got far more powers and far more ability to do that than what our police do. Our police are now going to have the ability to do that to keep the public safe, but they are actually going to have some very strict rules put around them in terms of how they do that. Can we regulate the public and everyone else in that way? Probably not, but we can with the Police. We do understand that theyâve actually got powers that no one else has, so, actually, that is the right thing to do.
CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Before I take the next call, Iâll just flag that we have canvassed new sections 45A and 45B, inserted by clause 4, to a reasonable point, so Iâm looking for members to move on potentially to new section 45C.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have one question on new section 45B, inserted by clause 4, if I may. Weâve had a really fulsome discussion around setting up cameras, taking images and recordings, and also videoing in public spaces. I actually want to get into the aspect of the retention of those images and recordings, because the issue today isnât just that observation piece; itâs the ability to record, upload, catalogue, and retain that information, potentially for a very long time.
Like a person attending a public meeting today, as the Minister of Police highlighted, you might find that image stored on the system long after that event has actually ended. My question to the Minister is around what safeguards stop recordings made under new section 45B from being retained indefinitely where the person recorded is not suspected of any offending. Thatâs my main question there, Minister.
Thank you to the officials who have responded to this one very quickly. In terms of conversations in public places caught by microphone, the rule is: if you can hear it, there are no reasonable expectations of privacy. If the conversation is intercepted using a device, it could constitute an offence under section 216B of the Crimes Act.
Just to continue on from my colleague Dan Rosewarneâs questions around retention, Iâm also really interested in that, and not just the retention and how that information is stored but also the destruction of that information once it is no longer relevant to Police any more.
I think that is quite important following the Privacy Commissionerâs instructions to delete all of the illegal photos that were discovered during the joint inquiry between the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Privacy Commissioner. I understand that Police didnât follow the orders to destroy the photos, but I also recall reading some reporting that it was technically or logistically impossible to find and delete all of the photos in the first instance. I guess I am really keen to hear what the retention aspects are in relation to that previous call, but also the destruction mechanisms by which that information will be destroyed if it is no longer needed and if it is not needed for any kind of investigation or court proceedings or anything like that.
I only have one small thing left on new section 45B, inserted by clause 4, but feel free to stop me if you think that this has already been covered. Iâm quite interested in the term âby any meansâ, which obviously refers to the means by which police gather that intelligence. I am really interested in it because the kind of spyware and surveillance technology is rapidly evolving, as heâs probably already aware. Meta, the people that run Facebook and Instagram, now have these glasses. Iâm not sure if the Minister of Police has seen them, but they have cameras in them, and thatâs caused a lot of angst for a lot of people, particularly, speaking as a young woman, thinking, âOh my gosh, what if thereâs some creep thatâs recording people against their consent?â And, because this technology is still so new, itâs still not well understood, so I suppose my question is: with that âby any meansâ, does that include future technologies? And have the Police had any conversations in terms of the operational aspect around what those means include?
I understand âby any meansâ is an unlimited kind of phrasing, but it also reminded me of body cameras. In the Ministerâs other portfolio, in Corrections, as he knows, all of the guards wear body cameras. I think thatâs a really good thing because, when there are interactions, theyâre able to review the footage and see what went wrong. I do think itâs really good that corrections officers do have those body cameras, but that isnât something that is formalised throughout the front line of policing, as my understanding. I wondered whether this bill, and in particular in relation to new section 45B(1) âby any meansâ, could mean that there will be more prominence of body cameras on front-line police officers? That is actually one of our Green Party policies, requiring body cameras on all police, and wraps up my questions around new section 45B.
Thank you. Look, really quickly, in terms of body cameras, I think that is an operational matter for the Commissioner, but he is looking at that without a doubt, in terms of whether our police officers should be wearing body cameras.
In relation to the member Dan RosewarneââWhat safeguards stop recordings being retained indefinitely when thereâs no offending?ââit must be collected for lawful purposes and be necessary for that purpose. That is the test, and Police are subject to existing statutory requirements regarding retention of information.
Coming back to the member Tamatha PaulââWhat are the retention aspects and destruction aspects if theyâre not relevant?ââPolice are subject to existing statutory requirements regarding retention and disposal, and Police continues to work with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on that.
CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Thanks, members. Iâm looking for us to move to new section 45C.
Thank you, Mr Chair. That is helpful, because I have a question around new section 45C. The question I have is the interaction between section 45C, which is âRecording by Police employee: private propertyâ, and the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
The reason I ask this question is that I had a look at the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which is referenced in an earlier clause, and that Search and Surveillance Act has quite detailed information around warrants that are required for surveillance purposes. The question I had is: the Justice Committee has added section 46(1) of the Search and Surveillance Act into new section 45B, but we donât have that in new section 45C. Iâm just wondering if maybe we should have that, because, when I read section 46(1), I see thatâone of the things I was particularly concerned about, which I mentioned a couple of times, is recording from a public place of a private activity. When I read the Search and Surveillance Act, section 46(1), I see that a warrant is required for observation of a private activity in a private premises. Then it also uses âprivate activityâ in a later partâIâm referring to section 46(1)(c) there, and also to paragraph (e).
Essentially, what I understand new section 45B to do is to allow observation from public places but not if itâs covered by the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Iâm interested to know if that is correct. If it is correct, it seems that it should also apply to new section 45C, because that covers private property. I do think the inclusion of that in new section 45B is a good thing, but the issue about it not being in new section 45C is: does that mean that those same restrictions donât apply to private property, when, in my view, it should be that they should apply more so on private property than in public property?
It may be just a heading thing, and I know that headings are not meant to be the substantive part of the statutory interpretation, but I suppose, really, the question is: the contention that it is possibleâand Dr Duncan Webb mentioned this, tooâto be in a public place and to have surveillance of private property. What are the limits on that? If I look at that in new section 45B, I see that thatâs limited by the Search and Surveillance Actâso you canât observe private activities, and if you did, you would need a warrantâbut would, say, being in the front garden of your house or walking up to your gate, which is still on private property, be prohibited surveillance? My fear is that that would be allowed, that you would be able to have, under this billâand I appreciate the Minister of Policeâs experience under previous legislation. I suppose what we are wanting to avoid is that what he sees as and is experienced in, through regular policing up until this point, changed in a way which is not as stringent in terms of privacy standards in this new bill.
It appears to me that there may be an issue with when the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and the warrant provisions come into place and their interaction between public and private property and what is observable there. I think the private activity insertion in there is good. I think that is a limit, and hopefully officials can confirm that may limit that, but I think it should also, or could also, apply to new section 45C as well, which is when weâre talking about private property.
The last thingâbecause I just havenât been able to have a call since my first oneâis that I appreciate the Minister has been saying there hasnât been a change to this, but, of course, because of Tamiefuna v R, there must be a change in this legislation, otherwise we wouldnât require it to be the case. It would be good to have an acknowledgment of what Tamiefuna states the law is, which is the status quo to date and what the Minister sees these changes then allowing. I appreciate that the current practice may not change, but certainly the law as in the status quo may have may be changed slightly by this. I suppose what weâre concerned about is that itâs going too far in that instance. Hopefully, those questions made sense for the Minister.
If I can just address the question from Tamatha PaulââDoes âby any meansâ include future tech, and has Police indicated what future tech could be?ââusing the example, and I have seen them, of the glasses with a very small camera where, obviously, you can be recorded, the term âby any meansâ is futureproofing to enable the use of new technology such as body cameras. There must always be a lawful purpose for the collection, and the collection must be necessary.
Coming back to Camilla Belichâs question, on new section 45C and the interaction between new section 45C and the Search and Surveillance Actâthe reference in new section 45B(2) not being in new section 45Câabsolutely that is a very relevant question. Because they can only record what they can see or hear, it is not a private activity if Police can see it while lawfully on the property or on the private property. The Search and Surveillance Act does not apply in these circumstances, if they are lawfully there and can lawfully see or hear it.
I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Weâre making quite good progress. I would, obviously, keep looking for members to keep progressing through the bill as we go onâon new section 45C at the moment.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually want to jump on to clause 4A, with the insertion of new section 100A; just noting some of my colleagues might not be finished in some of those earlier sections. My question is around the review in three yearsâ time.
Weâve got a couple of key safeguards within that section, but we have also covered, in previous contributions throughout the urgency, the Inspector-General of Police, and I was wonderingâbecause, in three yearsâ time, if Iâm doing my maths right, the Inspector-General of Police will be in placeâhow the Inspector-General of Police would interface with this review, if at all. Thank you.
Very quickly on that one, itâs too early to say, because there is work being done around the Inspector-General of Police and how theyâre, obviously, going to interact with agencies like the Independent Police Conduct Authority and Police, and other agencies that they may interact with.
Just coming back to and finishing that last question by the honourable member Camilla BelichââHow does the bill respond to Tamiefuna?ââit is quite simple, and the reality of it is, as I said, that it wasnât that we didnât need to clarify and use the legislation to be able to clarify, as a result of that case; it was just that there were no new powers being introduced. Thatâs exactly what it does; it clarifies that Police collecting information for intelligence purposes is a lawful policing function and is subject to limitations.
Thank you, Mr Chair, and just as you indicated, Iâm stepping through some of these things, and certainly new section 45DâIâll preface that, when we get to that, I want to talk about âwill or mayâ and how that ties in with the privacy principles.
Just on new section 45C, because this is quite important, this is taking recordings on private property. Now, the police are very good at their job, and Iâve seen them operate, right, when they come to your door and they knock on your door and they say, âOh, can you help us?â Then they say, âDo you mind if we come in?â Of course, the natural human reaction is to say yes. Now, Iâll advise my clients: âDonât say âYesâ, say âNo, Iâm happy to talk on the doorstep.â â Of course, once theyâre in, theyâre there by invitation. The general invitation is âYes, come in and chatâ, but, again, police are very good: if they see some stuff, if they see some photos on the pin board and they think âThatâs interestingâânow, theyâre unlikely to get out their phone and just click them right there and then in front of the occupant, but they probably might say, âOh, could you get me a glass of water?â Off you go to the kitchen and, before you know it, the officer has taken photos of the photos that are on the pin board.
Now, Minister, if you could confirm that thatâs exactly whatâs intendedâthat that scenario is in fact exactly whatâs intended. I think a lot of New Zealanders would be surprised that on inviting a police officer or allowing a police officer to come into their houseâso they go into the house; itâs a house which has gang affiliations. They see some photos of groups of people, perhaps by a car that they think might be involved in a criminal enterprise, and off they goâjust your confirmation that, when people invite an officer into their house, the officer can take those photos.
Iâd also just be interested if you could talk about the limits to that: if they come and they sit at the kitchen table and thereâs a notebook open on the table and they say, âCan you get me a glass of water?â, they can take a photo of the notebook. Would it be right to say they couldnât turn the page, or could they flip over the page and see if thereâs a few phone numbers on the next page that are of help to them? I do think that being invited into a house is not usually seen as an invitation to come and take photos of stuff thatâs there on the fridge, in a notebook, on the pinboard. If weâre going to permit this, and we are, I think the limits of that need to be made very clear.
So youâve got flipping a notebook; the other one would be walking around. Perhaps, you know, youâre walking around and, on your way out, you look into a bedroom and you see something of interest in the bedroom. Could you quickly duck in there and take a photo on your way out? Or does the invitation not extend that far? I would invite the Minister, not necessarily right now, to explain to New Zealand exactly what the rights of a constable are in terms of taking photographs and recording things in a private dwelling, and, in particular, what, according to this piece of legislation, the limits are, because, at the moment, the limits on the words arenât that clear. Itâs just âanythingâ that they can see or hear. And see or hear, I guess, is where I get âyou canât flip the pageââbecause you canât see whatâs on the next page, and youâre not allowed to touch things, because that becomes a searchâbut walking past a bedroom and saying, âOh, look, thereâs something on the bed there; thatâs interesting.ââor someone asleep on the bed. Iâd be interested in the Ministerâs thoughts on that.
I think I can talk with some confidence and say from experience, having had a career in the police force, that police officers donât turn up to houses, knock on the door, and say, âOh, can I just come in and hang out with you?â Theyâre normally there for some purpose.
Normally, if they want to go into your home, itâs because theyâre checking on reports of a violent domestic or family violence. They may be there to inform the family of a sudden death, which, of course, is a tragedy. Theyâll go in there, and theyâll try and comfort them while they give them that horrible news. They donât just arrive on a doorstep, randomly at someoneâs house, knock on the door, and expect to be going there to just hang out. Theyâre there for a purpose.
In terms of, if they are in the house and they do collect some information, the test is very simple, and itâs in the bill: itâs that the recording must be for a lawful purpose and be necessary for that purpose. That is in the legislation, and that is the rule, and that is the test that has to be applied.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Taking your guidance around this new section, I thought Iâd use the opportunity to briefly ask the Minister of Police about my two tabled amendments. They are both dated 15 September 2026âoneâs 9.45.08, and oneâs 9.45.09âand they both apply to clause 4, new section 45C. One of them is about deleting new section 45C altogether, and that is in order to address concerns regarding the lack of safeguards in the bill.
Then the second tabled amendment is in relation to new section 45C(1A) specifically, and inserts a new subsection (1B), which says police must have permission of the people present to record on private property without a warrant. The purpose for that is to provide a layer of safeguard. I would appreciate the Ministerâs thoughts on those two tabled amendments before we move on from that part.
My thanks to the member Tamatha Paul. In relation to tabled amendment 9.45.08, no, we donât support this. This would prevent police from collecting information on private property when they are lawfully there. In the absence of a statutory power, this would be extremely limiting for police.
In terms of tabled amendment 9.45.09, clause 4, inserting new section 45C(1A), you wish to insert âPolice must have permission of the people present to record on private property without a warrant.â No, I donât support this. This is completely impractical and completely undermines the billâs intent. This would prevent the use of body-worn cameras, which is the example weâve already spoken about. We create issues if there is no one present at the time, or if any of the people present do not agree. Police wouldnât be able to record information when entering private property without warranted powers.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to move on to new section 45E, inserted by clause 4 of the bill, if I can. Iâve just got some questions around the Justice Committeeâs inclusion of the new provision in new section 45E(1), which outlines that the privacy principles in the Privacy Act 2020 apply. Iâve just been reading through those, and, really, a question I had for the Minister of Police is: how does he seeâand he may want to ask officials about thisâthis particular provision interacting with the rest of the bill? I appreciate that new section 45E actually applies to new sections 45A to 45D as well. So itâs still relevant to these clauses that are proceeding.
When thereâs a conflict, I supposeâbecause weâre, basically, saying, and the select committee has put in there, and I think itâs a good change, after discussion with the Privacy Commissioner, that the privacy principles do apply in this. It says, âsubject to information privacy principlesâ. Now, if you look at the information privacy principles in the Privacy Act, they state things like âthe information must be collected from the personâ or âthe person must be informedâ. Thereâs some law enforcement carve-outs for that, which I imagine would be utilised by the police in some instances. My question is: generally, does he have some advice on whether there was a breach? Itâs quite complicated to think of all of the different situations where that might occur, but itâd be good to get some advice on that.
Then Iâve got a specific question as well. In our select committee change, we say âsubject to information privacy principles 1 to 4â. There is an information privacy principle 3A in the Privacy Act. I assume that that will cover privacy principle 3A as well? I just wanted to know, because itâs kind of a numerically out-of-sequence privacy principle, whether thatâand he may want advice on this as wellâwould be covered. It just stuck out to me as potentially not being specifically outlined in that new section 45E(1).
Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, I will get some advice on that from the officials.
Just coming back to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, weâve really covered it off, but you gave the example of ducking into a bedroom. There would be no lawful purpose for going into the bedroom to record information. If thereâs no lawful purpose to do that, they canât do it.
CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford) (17:58): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The house will resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The committee is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were on Part 1, I believe, of the Policing Amendment Bill. The question is, still, that Part 1 stand part.
Thank you, Mr Chair. We were, as Iâm sure your notes show, stepping through these provisions. My last contribution was on clause 4, new section 45C; I will now move to new section 45D. This is framed as âRestrictions on Police employee collecting information for intelligence purposeâ.
Now, thereâs actually quite a complicated interplay between this piece of legislation and the Privacy Act, because, as the next section says, this legislation is subject to the Privacy Act. We talk a little bit about lawful purpose, and what this bill does, as I see it, is make intelligence gathering a lawful purpose. Whereas, previously, under the Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court said that just simply getting information, without knowing exactly what it was for, was not lawful. I think thatâs the main legal change here.
One of the privacy principles is that the information must be for a legitimate and lawful purpose, and the way in which you get it must be necessary for that purpose, which brings me to new section 45D(a), which, basically, says you canât collect information for intelligence purposesâitâs actually a permissive sectionââunless they considerââthe police officer or employeeââthat the information will or may support the Police in performing a function, or carrying out an activity, of the Policeâ. I get âwillââthat the information will support the Police in performing a function of the Policeâbut âmayâ?
I just want to challenge the Minister of Police a bit on that âmayâ, because itâs actually a really low threshold. Itâs not even âis likely toâ or âprobably willâ; itâs âit mightâ. And to be honest, we wrestled with this at the Justice Committee. Iâm imagining that officials reported to the Minister on discussions at select committee. We did discuss whether it should be the officer âconsiders that the information will support the Policeâ, because youâve got âconsiderâ as well. Itâs not a factual test; itâs a test of what theyâre thinking in their headââin my reasonable belief, I think this will help the Police in this programme.â
I think having âit might helpâ is actually a really low threshold for collecting. Youâve got to remember this is intelligence information. This is information which isnât about any suspected offence or offence thatâs been committed, or offence that might be committed in the future; itâs about gathering information to assist the Police in its wider enforcement and prevention activities. My question, Minister, is: why is it such a low threshold? They donât even have to have a positive belief that it will help; they can have a much lower belief that it âmightâ support the Police. Given that theyâre collecting information about, you know, general citizensâ data, and donât have to link it to any particular proposed or historic crime, isnât it a bit too generous to say that they only have to consider it âmayâ support the Police, not that it actually âwillâ support the Police?
Thank you, Mr Chair. I have been watching parts of this committee from upstairs, so I feel like Iâm across whatâs been canvassed today.
Iâm also interested in clause 4, new section 45âwell, basically, A through Câbut I wonder whether the Minister of Police, in regard to the right of the Police to record information, could express how that relates, or if there are any different parameters around, where that information is in regard to a person whose interest to the Police is to do with protest activity as opposed to criminal activity; somebody who, perhaps, has a history or is a part of an organisation, say a non-governmental environmental organisation for example, who has no record of crimes of moral turpitude but has a history of protest activity that is deemed legal under our New Zealand Bill of Rights Actâthe right to protestâand whether there are any differentiations with somebody the Police suspect may be undertaking criminal activity or somebody that Police suspect may be undertaking organised protest activity, and what guidance the Minister might give us on that differentiation.
The reason thatâs an important differentiation, I think, Minister, is that our right to protest is a very important part of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and is recognised as a very important part of a democratic society. Of course, we all know that in societies where there is a shut down of democratic rights, and at the most extreme police States, one of the first things that gets taken out is political dissent and the right of those to protest against the incumbent political power. Itâs very important that we protect that right of protest, and where the Police may be acting on behalf of a Government of the day, that may not always be consistent with that important New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protection around the right to protest.
My other question is in terms of the mechanics of how the recording is done, and forgive me if this has been asked earlier, but I understandâI havenât heard this expressedâthereâs no obligation on the police to inform somebody that theyâre being recorded. Can you clarify that for us? Is it conceivable that the police could, whatever recording device they haveâand it could be as simple as their phone, and they could turn on their voice memo and have it in their pocket and be recording an entire interaction, potentially. Or is there any obligation on the police to inform a person when theyâve been welcomed into that personâs premises that they are recording the interactionâwhether thatâs audio or visual?
The next part of that question is: is there a component of this, Minister, that is to do with the expectation that there will be greater use of body cams by police, or body recording devices that are in a permanent âonâ status, or at least in a permanent status of being able to be triggered? Therefore, does that serve the practical challenge of the right of police to be recording at all times, given they might be carrying body recording equipment that is triggered by noise or movement? There are quite a few questions. I would appreciate any informationâthe Minister can come back. Thank you.
Iâll get some advice on the second part of your question. To the first part of it, in terms of public protests: I agree with you completely. Itâs a fundamental of the open and free democracy that we enjoy, and should never take for granted, in our country. The police take their responsibility very seriously too, in terms of allowing people to be able to come out and participate in protestsâas long as itâs peaceful protest and as long as youâre balancing up, also, the rights of other members of the public, and that theyâre not being prevented or stopped from being able to carry out their daily lives.
This legislation, here, does not relate at all, nor is it connectedâI did listen to your second reading speech, where you related a very personal situation to you. I canât talk to that; those are privateâwell, not private individuals but a company, and so that would be treated very differently. I think, if youâd been in the Chamber earlier tonight, I would haveâwe actually had a conversation around saying that, actually, the public have got far more rights and ability to collect video, photos, and recordings than the police have. The police are getting the powers that they always used to have. There are no additional powers, but they are heavily regulated and they should be, too, because theyâve got powers that no one else has. I will get the answer to the second part of your question.
Coming back to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the use of âmayâ enables the potential future use of information to support a function or activity of police. That basically addresses one of the issues that was raised through the Tamiefuna case. There are a number of conditions that must be met before that information can be collected.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, just to note that members have been moving through quite methodically, and Iâm just noting the notes left by the previous presiding officer in the Chair that new sections 45A, 45B, 45Câand the Hon Dr Duncan Webb touched on new section 45Dâright up to new section 45E, inserted by clause 4, have been canvassed, so if I could encourage members to continue to move forward, that would be useful for the committee.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, I just wanted to move on to the review section, which comes after new section 45E, inserted by clause 4. The layoutâs a little bit unusual in terms of the numbering there, but Iâm sure the Minister of Police can find the part that Iâm speaking to at the top of page 5.
Minister, through the Chair, the review section is quite broad and I just wondered if you could reflect on what your position would be if there were substantive issues. If you are Minister of Police in three years and the review comes back and it shows substantive issues with this bill, is this a policy position that you would be willing to change based on the information provided in the review? Or is it that the review would be more informative as to how the policy was going? Iâm just quite interested in how you would approach it if the review findings were critical of the bill or if they were supportive. What would your approach be to that?
Thatâs a really good question. I mean, itâs difficult to say. The premise of the question is if we did the reviewâthe review will happen. Of course, the three participants are the Police, the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. If it came back with recommendations that required strengthening of the legislation, then the Minister of the day, of course, would have to respond to those recommendations, but my expectation is that we should always be looking for continual improvement. We should always be strengthening our legislation and improving it. If there were recommendations to come back in line with thatâand again, weâre looking into the future, but I think that everyone would agree that we should always be looking for continual improvement.
The reviewer must consult the Police, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Iâm assuming that the reviewer can or may consult other people as well, in her or his discretion. That does seem to be a reasonable thing for the reviewer to be able to do, but I guess Iâm a little disconcerted that the people who may be the subject of these new laws are not being consulted.
Now, I guess they maybe get consulted via the Office of the Privacy Commissioner or via the IPCA, but it does seem that there should be some capacity for members of the public or, at least, representative bodies that might have some insight into how the law has been operating to participate in the review as well. Iâm thinking of, I guess, the Law Society, who might have some insights into how the law is actually operating in practice or might be able to gather that insight from some of its members, or the Citizens Advice Bureau.
Iâm just trying to think of whereâeven members of this committee might be good people to consult. As a constituency MP, I do recall members of the public coming to me to say that they had not been as well treated by the police as they would have liked to have been, although mostly in those cases I felt perhaps their expectations were a little unrealistic. I was very proud of the local police we had in New Lynn and Avondale and I thought they did a really good job.
I just want some reassurance that the reviewer would be able to consult more widely than just the three bodies that are named. I donât want to use the word âvictimsâ in advance of the law being deployed, but people who perhaps have been subject to it in some way would want to have some way of feeding into that review. My experience is that most of the time, the police, like most people, do a pretty good job. Every now and again, you get someone who stuffs up, because the police are human beings too, but they do a pretty good job, but nevertheless, there needs to be some avenue in there.
Thank you. Going back to the honourable member Steve Abel, just very quickly on the question around whether police are required to inform the person that they are recording audio or video. Police are subject to the information privacy principles, including information privacy principle 3, which requires notifying where reasonable in the circumstances. How could collecting information relate to protest activity rather than criminal activity, including no criminal history? There would need to be a lawful purpose and it would need to be necessary for any images or recordings to be made in that circumstance.
Coming back to the question around whether the Minister can actually seek some other advice, we have codified in the legislation in terms of Police, the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, but there is nothing stopping the Minister from seeking broader advice on that review.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to touch on the rather complicated interplay between the Privacy Act and these powers. Weâve got these fourâor five privacy principles, in fact, if you count 3A, but 3A is a bit odd because itâs about collecting information from a third party and then confirming it. But youâve got new section 45D, inserted by clause 4, that weâve discussed. Thank you for your answer to that.
Then youâve got new section 45E(1), which says, âThe collection of personal information ⌠is subject to information privacy principles 1 to 4â. Information privacy principle 1 has kind of two legs. It must be for a lawful purposeâthis Act makes it lawfulâthen the collection of the information is necessary for that purpose. I guess the complex interplay that I referred to is youâve got this quite low bar in new section 45D(a), but then youâve got this high bar in privacy principle 1, which says it must be necessary.
In particular, there may be a number of different ways to obtain private information. In terms taking these photographs or recordings, thatâs one way, but if there was another way to get the same informationâthe information youâre after might be what people are associated with this known offender. Now, you could take photographs in public places of them meeting or you could have long-term surveillance. Now, thereâs an argument there that putting a camera up and taking photographs isnât necessary because you could run a surveillance programme, so thereâs that question as well.
I guess if you step through those privacy principles, youâve actually gotâI guess this is my point. My wider point is that youâve got two layers of regulation. New section 45E(1) says that this legislation is subject to the information privacy principles. It strikes me that youâve got to meet the information privacy principlesâfor example, principle 4 I think it is, which says that the method of collecting information must be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Youâve got to meet that threshold before you come to say, âAnd then weâre authorised under this.â I suspectâyou know, this is the criminal law weâre dealing with; people will be asking these questions in courtâit would be really useful to understand from the Minister whether thatâs the threshold thatâs understood to be the caseâthe police first have to address privacy principles 1 to 4, and then if they meet those, then and only then can they say, âAnd weâre authorised to do this under this piece of legislation here.â
Thank you for those answers, Minister. Thatâs much appreciated. I think I correctly interpreted from your one on the need to inform the person being recorded that they were that they did need to be informed, if I interpret that answer correctly. At that pointâIâm talking about the instance where somebody has come into somebodyâs private space, or perhaps itâs not even then; perhaps itâs in any instanceâdoes a citizen at any point have a right to express to the police that they do not wish to be recorded? Do they have an ability to exercise their right to, as they see it, their privacyâso to say to the police, âI donât consent to being recorded aurally or visually.â? Thatâs one question. And can the police override that right through this legislation?
Then my second question is in a different realm, in a sense. Itâs to do with the term âreasonableâ in new section 45D, inserted by clause 4. New section 45D(b): âmay make a continuous sound or video recording solely for an intelligence purpose only ifâ(i) paragraph (a) does not prevent them from making the recording for that purpose; and (ii) making the recording solely for that purpose is reasonable in the circumstances;â, and then (iii) has, âthe duration of the recording is not longer than is reasonable in the circumstances.â What are the parameters of âreasonableâ? What is the extent of what is reasonable? What guidelines are there in jurisprudence or in definitions that the police would be applying in how they interpret the meaning of that word âreasonableâ in new section 45D? Thank you.
Yeah, thank you. In answer to the first part of your question, Iâll wait for the officials just to confirm it for me, but I think the legislation is clear that, of course, any member of the public can seek and say, âI donât want my image recorded.â, but the legislation provides very strict rules and regulations around what the police can record and how they do that. Thereâs no reference to someone, a member of the public, telling them they canât do that.
In relation to the reasonableness test, the high-level summary is circumstance specific. It recognises that intelligence recordings are essential to policing but there are limitations. Mass surveillance is not enabled. Itâs subject to assessments by courts, if used in evidence, and can be scrutinised by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Privacy Commissioner. The reasonableness test only relates to continuous recording for intelligence purposes onlyânew section 45D(b). The length of the recording and the circumstancesâit must be reasonable to record. Policeâs ability to undertake continuous recording solely for intelligence purpose is restricted by the reasonableness test: making a recording solely for that purpose, it is reasonable in the circumstances, and the duration of the recording is no longer than is reasonable in the circumstances. How will it be measured? Police practice and application of the reasonableness test threshold will be open to review by the Privacy Commissioner, both on a case-by-case basis and at a systemic level. In the event that evidence is challenged, it will be subject to assessments by the court.
đŹ Steve Abel: Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got a quick response to the question?
đŹ Steve Abel: Iâve got a follow-up, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): If itâs a quick one, thatâs good, because we do want to move forward.
I understand that. My question that I asked earlier, which I didnât get a clear answer on, was to do with the use of body recording equipment, which we know is increasingly used in cars and so forth.
đŹ Hon Mark Mitchell: Sorry, Mr Chair, if I can just interrupt. I realise the member wasnât here earlier. That was covered off by his colleague, so we have covered that.
Oh, pardon me. OK. So then my follow-up to that is that I imagineâand I wonder if you can reflect on this with your experience as wellâthere would be an element of an expectation that if a police officer was going into a situation where there was potential intelligence to be gathered and they failed to record, and something that turned out, in retrospect, to be very useful for them in terms of their intelligence gathering wasnât captured, in fact, the default would be for police to always record to cover their backs, for want of a better term, to make sure that they didnât miss out on anything that could be useful, as they see it, from an intelligence point of view. Hence this word âmayâ would lend itself to make the police, as a default, make sure they were recording in case something was said or something occurred that they then could interpret as being useful and could then be defined as intelligence that was gathered. I imagine there are instances where police would kick themselves for not having recorded an interaction where information was conveyed that was useful.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Good question, but the reality of it is that is that weâre going to have to deal with that if and when police officers start wearing body-worn cameras. Then itâll have to be looked at. The officials will have to look at it and decide whether or not the legislation that weâre passing here is sufficient or whether or not it might need some more legislation to deal with that. In terms of capturing images or recordings and their evidential value, that is very operational for police. But in terms of if and when they begin to wear body cameras, then weâd have to work out whether or not we need new legislation or the existing legislation would cover that.
Sorry, just before we finish, Mr Chair, coming back to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the test for collection of personal info sits in the Privacy Act. This bill clarifies what lawful purposes are, i.e., for the purposes of information privacy principles (IPPs)â(a); and police must then satisfy that the collection is necessary subject to IPPsâ(b).
I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersenâs tabled amendment inserting new clause 4AA be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Tamatha Paul tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace new section 45A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Tamatha Paulâs tabled amendment to clause 4 to delete new section 45A(c) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te PÄti MÄori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Duncan Webbâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45A(2) and (3) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Dan Rosewarneâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45AA be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8;
Amendment no agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Tamatha Paulâs tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace new section 45B be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Tamatha Paulâs tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 45B(1), to delete the words âby any meansâ be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersenâs tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 45B(1), relating to âtechnologically-enhanced collectionâ be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersenâs tabled to clause 4 inserting new section 45B(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Tamatha Paulâs tabled amendment to clause 4 deleting new section 45C be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Ginny Andersenâs tabled amendment to clause 4 deleting new section 45C is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
The question is that Tamatha Paulâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45C(1B) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Tamatha Paulâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new subsection (1) after new section 45C is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that the Hon Duncan Webbâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45CA relating to facial recognition and biometric databases be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersenâs tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 45D(a), deleting âor mayâ be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Duncan Webbâs tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 45D(a), relating to reasonable grounds be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webbâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45D(ab) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Dr Duncan Webbâs tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 45D(a), replacing everything after the word âunlessâ is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersenâs table amendment to clause 4 new section 45D(b)(ii) replacing âreasonableâ with ânecessaryâ be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersenâs tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 45D, inserting new subsection (2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersenâs tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 45D, inserting new subsections (2) and (3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersenâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45DA be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webbâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45DA, relating to the meaning of âintelligence purposesâ, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webbâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45DC, relating to prohibiting discriminatory collections, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Dr Duncan Webbâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45DB is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Dan Rosewarneâs tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 45E(1A) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Dr Duncan Webbâs tabled amendment to insert new section 100B is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 32
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 1 agreed to.
Committee of the whole House
Part 2 Amendments relating to temporary closing of accessible areas
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 5 to 14, âAmendments relating to temporary closing of accessible areasâ. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
đŁď¸ Spoke in this debate (9)
- Steve Abel (Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand â List Member)
- Camilla Belich (New Zealand Labour Party â List Member)
- Ryan Hamilton (New Zealand National Party â Member for Hamilton East)
- Hon Mark Mitchell (New Zealand National Party â Member for WhangaparÄoa)
- Rima Nakhle (New Zealand National Party â Member for Takanini)
- Tamatha Paul (Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand â Member for Wellington Central)
- Dan Rosewarne
- Dr Deborah Russell (New Zealand Labour Party â List Member)
- Dr Duncan Webb (New Zealand Labour Party â Member for Christchurch Central)