NZ POLITICS DAILY: Danger, and opportunity, in covert surveillance debate

What on the surface might seem arcane, complicated and dry – the debate over the police’s legal ability to undertake covert surveillance and parliament’s ability to retrospective enable it – is actually a fascinating and hugely important issue.

For the best in-depth analysis of it all, you have to read Andrew Geddis’ Once upon a time in te Urewera ..., Dean Knight’s Covert video surveillance and the (c)overt erosion of the Rule of Law, and Gordon Campbell’s On the Police surveillance bailout.

With patience to delve through this analysis, anyone should be able see that the police modus operandi and the government’s attempts to help the police out are rather outrageous.

With very good reason, various commentators are using rather strong language to condemn both the police and National’s response to the Supreme Court ruling.

No Right Turn says its a "gross assault on the rule of law’ and ‘absolutely obscene;" Morgan Godfery says National shows contempt for our democracy, Imperator Fish says Law And Order Trumps Civil Rights Again, and so forth.

The whole issue is heavily political.

So the above condemnations won’t be obviously appropriate to everyone. How such an ideological issue is evaluated depends much on your orientations toward the institutions of the state – and particularly that of the Police.

If you believe that the state is inherently politically neutral, reliable and exists for good of all in society, and if you believe that the police are fundamentally a force for what is good and right, you might be inclined to overlook the criticism of all of this. If, however, you regard the state as being reflective of the strongest forces in society, and as part of an Establishment that has its own interests, then you will be very receptive toward the above criticisms.

This means that there tends to be a left-right element to the political reactions to the police’s role in the Ureweras and the government’s determination to retrospectively bail them out.

In parliamentary terms, the Greens, Mana and the Maori Party have fallen into the opposition to what’s going on. (The Maori Party’s opposition says less about the party’s current political positioning and more about it origins among lower socio-economic Maori.)

Meanwhile, the political right is clearly supportive of the institutions of the Establishment, the Police, and the need for a strong stance on issues of law and order. For them the rules – and their own principles – can apparently be bent to ensure a pragmatic outcome that favours the status quo.

This leaves Labour stuck in the middle, which lends it both danger and opportunity.

In the past on similar matters the Labour Party has sided firmly on with the Police and in favour of hardline law and order. So, for example, in the similar case of the SIS’ bungled and illegal behaviour over Aziz Choudry in 1996, Labour supported the SIS and increasing the agencies draconian powers. And in Government, of course, Helen Clark’s Labour was very socially conservative on law and order – doubling the prison population in just nine years.

But with an election-year opinion poll gap of 20+ points behind National, Labour will be tempted to differentiate itself from National and refuse to support the government’s hardline rushed legislation. For the moment, Labour is sitting on the fence, with Phil Goff declaring that they might be willing to support National’s rushed legislation "if the Government can make a case for urgency" – see: Surveillance law scrutiny needed: Labour.

Labour’s newly announced Christchurch recovery package is also looking increasingly half-hearted and middling. A close look at the difference between National’s status quo and what Labour is proposing shows that there’s less differentiation than either party suggests. For example, on the issue of the state entering the insurance market, both parties emphasise that they would only do so as a last resort.

And in terms of the quake payments, Labour isn’t proposing the expenditure of any different amounts to red-zone residents, only shifting the figures around. Therefore headlines such as Political parties at odds over quake gridlock, appear to exaggerate the difference between Labour and National.

Of course, National is equally reliant on painting Labour’s Christchurch policy as extreme. And so although National won’t rule out getting involved in the insurance industry, John Key has scorned Labour’s openness to that possibility. Hence, Goff has rightly said, "It is nonsense for John Key to condemn Labour for intervening when he is not ruling out making exactly the same decision" – see: Labour defends Christchurch rebuild plan. Of course, election campaigns are all about exaggeration, but it appears that in 2011 there’s going to be a lot more of it than usual.

Bryce Edwards, NZPD Editor (bryce.edwards@otago.ac.nz)

Today’s content:

Covert state surveillance

Andrew Geddis (Pundit): Once upon a time in te Urewera ...

Dean Knight: Covert video surveillance and the (c)overt erosion of the Rule of Law

Gordon Campbell (scoop): On the Police surveillance bailout...

Stuff: Surveillance law scrutiny needed: Labour

No Right Turn: Pissing on the rule of law

Morgan Godfery (Maui Street): National shows contempt for our democracy

The Dim-Post: Bureaucratic capture

Imperator Fish: Law And Order Trumps Civil Rights Again

Lloyd Burr (TV3): Maori Party won't back Govt's covert video bill