Editorial: Trick to keeping society safe

OPINION: As the second anniversary passes of the so-called "terror" raids by police, MPs are considering legislation that worries not only activists and civil libertarians.

Several of those arrested in October 2007 told Parliament's justice and electoral select committee last week that the law, if enacted, would border on creating a "police state".

Their concern is understandable. Some of those now facing Arms Act charges know that, if their cases are ever heard, many people will be unimpressed – even angry – at what police found before, and during, the arrests. Solicitor-General David Collins, QC, has spoken of "very disturbing activities".

The legislation the Government hopes to pass is wide-ranging in scope and will confer on police and other enforcement agencies extremely broad powers to stop, search and monitor those whom they believe to be acting contrary to law. The Search and Surveillance Bill has its provenance in a Law Commission report and consolidates, as well as develops, legislation that is more than 50 years old, strewn across a swath of agencies, and outdated in terms of technology's advance.

Though it is miles from creating the kind of surveillance society that Britain has become in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7 – today, it reportedly has more CCTV cameras than the rest of Europe combined – the measure would, if passed, give police greater powers to go after criminals – and those they deem might be criminals. It will, for example, enable what the bill calls "law enforcement and regulatory agencies" to extract electronic information and use surveil- lance devices to investigate and combat crime.

Drawing a line between human rights and keeping society safe is always a tricky balance. The British Government has opted for public safety. Here, the Government obviously believes the bill will reform the law in a way that balances "the complementary values of law enforcement and human rights". It has heavyweight, if guarded, backing from the privacy commissioner. Marie Shroff told the committee that though she supports the measure, more safeguards are needed to protect people's privacy.

It is no surprise that those who dwell on society's fringes agree. However, they seem often to want to reserve unto themselves the right to protest about issues that rile them, but object loudly when they are thwarted and when those whom they oppose wish to protest, too.

The ordinary Kiwi, like his or her British counterpart, does not usually bother too much about the civil rights of protesters – at least, not until statutes begin to impinge upon aspects of life about which they or their families feel strongly.

Democracies need openness to function well and fairly. Those who police such democracies need sufficient leeway – and sometimes leeway that must be used surreptitiously – to glean the evidence necessary to bring to book those acting criminally.

The point at which these tenets intersect can be problematic. That puts a heavy responsibility on MPs to grant law enforcement agencies the freedom to go only so far, insisting, as far as possible, that the courts be involved when these competing interests collide.