Nothing to hide but a lot to fear

The GCSB legislation should remind New Zealanders that human rights freedoms are hard-won and easily trampled on, writes The trick is to get the right balance between basic human rights like privacy and freedom of expression, and legitimate security needs

to get the right balance between basic human rights like privacy and freedom of expression, and legitimate security needs. This balance is not something plucked from the air. International law sets out guiding principles on applying human rights to communications surveillance. Governments must respect freedom of expression and privacy. They must consider the damaging effect that state surveillance can have on civil liberties. And government measures to increase their powers of surveillance must be demonstrated to be necessary, proportionate and pursue a legitimate goal.

This act, without doubt, affects fundamental freedoms. Legitimate concerns were continually raised over its broadly phrased and illdefined terms, the lack of independent judicial oversight, and the increasing ability of all government agencies to collect and keep personal information. Despite this, the legislation steamed ahead and the Government ignored or ridiculed sound objections from reputable submitters, and played the trump ‘‘imminent security risk’’ card.

Meaningful participation should always be at the heart of the democratic process, but never more so than when fundamental rights are at stake. It has been inspiring to see so many people standing up for their rights around New Zealand.

It is also crucially important that now, more than ever before, as the ease of access is all too apparent, that governments ensure they use their powers responsibly and strike the right balance.

Grant Bayldon is the executive director of Amnesty International New Zealand.