Strong public backing for new surveillance powers, curbs to media freedom

Eight out of 10 New Zealanders support a proposed law which will require people to provide information to police or face penalties of up to $40,000 or a year in jail.

Although only 29.5% have heard of the Search and Surveillance Bill now before Parliament, 79.5% support its provisions to require people, whom the police and other Government agencies believe have knowledge of fraud or organised crime, to talk with police.  Only 8.9% oppose, according to an HorizonPoll survey of 2,068 New Zealanders.

The weighted survey was conducted between November 16 and 26 and has a maximum margin of error of 2.2%.

The bill is aimed and forcing information from people who may or may not have knowledge about offences punishable by more than five to seven years in prison.

New Zealanders support requiring those suspected of crime, their lawyers, accountants and the media to provide information if required – or face fines or jail.

However, when the proposed powers are expressed as requiring the spouse, friends and colleagues of someone suspected of a serious crime to answer questions or face fines of up to $40,000 or up to a year in jail, support falls to 45.2%. Opposition rises to 35.2%, while 17.3% are neutral and 2.3% don’t know.

On the question of forcing spouses, friends and colleagues to talk, more oppose than support the proposal among teachers, nurses, police and other trained service workers (45.3% against, 40.1% for); students (49.6% against, 24.4% for), and professionals and senior Government officials (40.5% against, 32.7% for).

The Government may have an issue among the 187,000 registered electors who did not vote at the 2008 general election: They firmly oppose forcing spouses, friends and colleagues to produce information (48.7% against, 32% for). National is on solid ground with its own voters, however.

Some 54.1% of those who voted National in 2008 support requiring spouses, friends and colleagues to produce information, 28.4% oppose and 18.5% are neutral.

A majority of New Zealanders (51.3%) think the media should be required to produce information to help reduce crime, while only 23.9% think news media should be able to keep their sources confidential at all times, even though 48.4% agree that people will be less likely to talk to the media if the media were required to produce information on their sources.

National and ACT voters least support media freedom to keep sources confidential. Green Party voters are the biggest supporters of media freedom on the issue.

Some 59.5% of National voters think the media should be required to produce information and only 17.5% view this as a breach of press freedom. Among ACT voters 53% support media being required to produce information, 23.5% think this would breach press freedom.

Among Green voters only 32.5 think the media should be forced to provide information and 28.7% think this breaches media freedom.

QUESTION AND RESULTS DETAIL:

Have you heard of the Search and Surveillance Bill now before Parliament?

Some brief background:

The Search and Surveillance Bill is now progressing through Parliament.

The bill has been proposed to provide police with more powers to investigate serious crime, punishable by more than 5 to 7 years in prison. It is being modified following submissions to a select committee.

The government believes the bill will give Police greater powers needed to operate in the modern environment, without impacting the public’s civil rights and liberties. Others argue it will expose innocent people to the risk of fines or jail if they fail to produce documents.

The bill allows for:

Examination orders:

These are Court orders allowing police to require a person to answer questions if investigating: business-related offences carrying a maximum penalty of five years' jail; non-business fraud offences carrying a maximum penalty of seven years' jail; non-business offences committed wholly or in part by organised criminal groups.

Production orders:

Police could require people to hand over documents related to specific offending.
Audio and visual surveillance in private homes by police (Customs or Internal Affairs also if approved by order-in-council).
For investigating offences that carry a penalty of at least seven years' jail, or offences against the Arms Act including the illegal sale, possession or supply of firearms.

Plain view:

Officers can seize evidence of other offending found in the course of carrying out their duties, without obtaining a search warrant.

Which of the following would you support or oppose in a new surveillance law?

Require people whom police believe have knowledge of fraud or organised crime to talk with the police

Remove the right to silence when accused of a serious crime

Allow police to require individuals or organisations to hand over materials that might or might not relate to an offence carrying 5 to 7 year jail penalties

An automatic fine of up to $40,000 or imprisonment for up to one year for individuals or organisations who refuse to hand over materials that might or might not relate to an offence carrying a 5 to 7 year jail penalty

Allow authorities to require the news media to hand over materials that might or might not relate to an offence carrying 5 to 7 year jail penalties

Require lawyers to hand over information relating to a client being investigated for an offence which might not relate to an offence carrying 5 to 7 year jail penalties

Require accountants and others to hand over information relating to a client being investigated for an offence which might not relate to an offence carrying 5 to 7 year jail penalties

Fine or jail lawyers, accountants and individuals or organisations who fail to produce materials that might or might not relate to an offence carrying 5 to 7 year jail penalties.

Require the spouse, friends and colleagues of someone suspected of a serious crime to answer questions or face fines of up to $40,000 or up to a year in jail

Some feel the new surveillance law should require news media to reveal information which would help people with serious crime inquiries. Some journalists feel this would be a breach of press freedom and result in fewer people coming to them to expose issues. Which of the following do you agree with…

Please select all that apply