Beware the contagion of stupidity in new powers
Idon’t like the idea of people I don’t know barging into my house uninvited. If they feel they have to, I’d like them to have, at the very least, a warrant signed by a judge.
Should we be worried, then, that the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act, rushed through Parliament this week in 48 hours, gives police the ability to force their way on to your property and into your house if they believe you are breaching an order under the act?
It’s comforting to know the power to enter private homes under the act is reasonably restricted. For instance, enforcement officers can enter land or buildings without a warrant but only police officers can go into a private dwelling house or marae.
The constable must have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered there in breach of an order and ‘‘entry is necessary for the purpose of giving a direction under section 21’’. The officer is also required to quickly provide a written report on the raid to their superiors.
So what sort of orders can be made under the act that concern us in our own homes?
First the order must be made by the minister or the director-general of health. Not unexpectedly, such orders can require people to refrain from, or do, a range of things as long as those things are likely to contribute to preventing the risk of an outbreak or spread of Covid-19.
In practice, the orders can, among other things, compel you not to associate with certain people or stop you gathering in certain places.
A direction under section 21 is simply an instruction telling someone to stop an activity that breaches an order or is likely to do so.
The direction is important because without it the alleged athome culprit cannot be charged with an offence. Such offences carry jail terms not exceeding six months or fines of up to $4000.
The act has a sort of self-destruct mechanism that means it is repealed after 90 days.
So all well and good. In our present climate, it’s not hard to see how the invasion of your home without a warrant can be justified on a number of grounds.
It must be accepted the threat Covid-19 poses to public health is such that some draconian measures are needed to stop risky activities quickly.
For instance, if a large number of people gather in a private home to bid farewell to someone dying of Covid-19, those gathered could easily go into the community and spread the illness even if they took some precautions. Police need to take action immediately and can’t wait for a warrant.
We cannot have people being irresponsible at home and putting everyone else at risk. Some are never going to take the risks of Covid-19 to themselves and to others seriously.
It appears the powers would be used carefully and only in very few cases. After all, most people want to do the right thing if only to ensure their own survival.
And with all the paperwork required, police are unlikely to be too keen to enter houses and lay down the Covid-19 law.
And warrants are of course not foolproof. They are not infrequently abused, as we saw during police searches of properties after the new gun laws were passed following the mosque shootings in March last year.
There’s also the argument that you have nothing to worry about if you’re obeying the rules.
Nevertheless, I can’t help feeling a little queasy about the new powers. For a start the legislation was passed in a hurry without any input from the public. The democratic process can be slow but the passing of draconian laws should be done very carefully.
Quick law is often bad law, and the more normal processes are suspended, the more we become inured to risks to our rights and freedoms.
We keep being told these are desperate times requiring desperate measures, and it’s hard to argue with that. I’m not sure, however, they are so desperate that we need to dispense with warrants when police want to enter your home.
It’s possible to justify just about any measure under the ‘‘desperate times’’ argument and that should make us even more vigilant.
In emergencies, it’s easy to give up hard-won freedoms and rights, and opposing voices tend to be drowned out until it’s too late. We are lucky that in New Zealand we can still trust our police and government to act carefully and responsibly, but in emergencies people always get carried away.
That makes them dangerous times to be giving people more powers. Over-zealous officials are not exactly a terrible threat to democracy, but we should all be wary of the contagion of stupidity in the fevered atmosphere of group think.
Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt wanted to include a provision to ensure those making decisions, and exercising powers, under the new law would abide by national and international human rights commitments and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
‘‘Human rights can help to ensure all measures are effective, balanced, fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, proportionate and subject to independent review,’’ he said. ‘‘If the Government wishes to retain the public’s trust and confidence, it must honour human rights and Te Tiriti.’’
We should listen to him.
The more normal processes are suspended, the more we become inured to risks to our rights and freedoms.