KEY POINTS:
New Zealand has a strong tradition of activism. Over the past century activists have been powerful agents for positive social change.
They have influenced Government policy on issues as diverse as women's suffrage, workers' rights, South Africa's apartheid regime, and nuclear weapons. At times activists have lobbied Government and protested in support of social change.
The right to participate in these activities is a well-established hallmark of this country's democratic tradition. But that tradition may now be under threat.
A range of activists have recently been raided and/or arrested by the police. Among those raided have been:
* A married couple who are prominent environmentalists. They were served with a search warrant specifying a long list of firearms and military equipment, outdoor and army-style clothing and computer hardware and software. A four-hour search was conducted.
Their computer gear was seized. It has not been returned. No charges were laid. The couple are finding it difficult to run their environmental education business without their computer equipment.
* The home of an elderly political activist who had earlier handed out leaflets protesting against recent "anti-terror" raids was searched by the police. The warrant said police had reasonable cause to believe several items were at the house - including weapons - said to be evidence of kidnapping, firearms and other offences.
Police said the warrant followed the earlier arrest of another man who had given the activist's address on his bail form. The elderly activist said that although he did not know the arrested man, he had received mail addressed to a person who did not live at his address. It was not clear if it was the same person who had been arrested. Again no charges were laid.
* An animal-rights activist who dumped straw in the foyer of the offices of an Auckland poultry processing company as part of a protest against the use of battery hens was arrested and charged by the police under a new law intended to prevent home invasions. Police confiscated his car.
They raided his house, seizing anything that could possibly relate to the protest, such as phones, computers and books. He was refused bail but finally released on strict bail conditions. Nearly a year later all charges were dropped but in the meantime he had lost the use of his phone and computer.
These are but three examples of raids on political activists throughout New Zealand. Those targeted include environmental groups and peace and social justice groups. Typically the raids took three to four hours but police made no arrests.
A common feature was the removal of activists' computers. The day-to-day business activities of those affected have undoubtedly been hampered by the seizures.
Further, police have been able to access sensitive and personal business information stored on these computers.
No one knows the extent of surveillance on New Zealanders by police and the Security Intelligence Service.
It now emerges that before the raids, a wide range of activists had been under police surveillance for 22 months as a result of warrants obtained by the police and the SIS. No one knows the extent of the surveillance on New Zealanders at present.
We do know that since the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, the Government has equipped both services with the tougher laws and bigger budgets needed to increase such surveillance dramatically. The news that both services were involved in the recent raids suggests they have been working to justify their greatly boosted resources.
The Police Criminal Intelligence Service appears to believe that it has been given a broad mandate to collect information about people on the basis of political beliefs and sympathies. The apparent readiness of politicians from the two major parties to use legislation to erode citizens' rights suggests the Government believes it is acceptable to give the police a broad range of powers that can be used to target activists involved in protest and lobbying activities.
As the writer Nicky Hager has noted, when you build up security forces with dramatically increased budgets, you tend to find terrorists.
Was the roadblock at Ruatoki justifiable?
The police have begun to use their powers to target ordinary citizens who have not been engaged in activism or involved in illegal activities. At Ruatoki, in the Ureweras, there is widespread anger and concern over police treatment of local people in the raids of October 15.
Police in black gear stopped about 100 people at a road block, demanded they step out of their cars and stand on the side of the road to be photographed. Cars were searched. Police held people in their homes at gunpoint.
The police justified their actions by attempting to make a connection between the people stopped at Ruatoki and those arrested and charged as a consequence of the so called "terror raids".
This justification has no legal basis.
The police do have power under the Transport Act to stop vehicles without giving a reason. They can set up a roadblock if they suspect on reasonable grounds that a person suspected of committing a serious offence (that is, carrying at least seven years' imprisonment) is in the car. But there is no general power to order people to step out of their cars and then be photographed. Nor do the police have a general power to conduct random searches of cars.
The Terrorism Suppression Act does not confer such powers on the police. It has been argued that those people stopped consented to the police actions.
This overlooks the question of informed consent - namely, did those involved know they had the right to refuse? This is unlikely.
It does appear those who were dealt with by the police at the roadblocks were subjected to serious breaches of basic freedoms that New Zealanders have until now taken to be sacrosanct - namely an unlawful search and seizure and an arbitrary detention.
Some conclusions the events of recent weeks suggest:
1. Activists are providing police with an opportunity to rehearse anti-terrorist strategies to justify their budgets, in the absence of any designated terrorist groups in New Zealand.
2. At the same time ordinary citizens are being dragged into police investigations that have nothing to do with them.
Activism is a hallmark of a healthy society. There is widespread concern that politicians are passing laws undermining our civil liberties. It remains to be seen whether any of these concerns will be addressed as a result of the Solicitor-General's decision not to lay charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act against those who were recently arrested in the Ureweras.
Given the police activities of the past year or so, it seems doubtful that development will change their approach to the way they have been dealing with activists.
* Barry Wilson is president and Ian McIntosh an executive member of the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties. Both are barristers.
