Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I do happen to sit on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who had the privilege of hearing submissions on this bill and doing the examination. It's not often that that committee receives legislation to consider so we were all suitably excited. It does touch upon foreign affairs in a way but this is about our domestic rule of law. New Zealand—and I don't think most New Zealanders know or appreciate this but we have the job of patrolling about a fifth of the world's oceans. That's for environmental monitoring it's for criminal activity and it's for disaster relief.The Green Party whilst we agree with the intent of this law in terms of allowing for that monitoring to be extended in the case of some serious crimes—and I don't think that there's any debate about these crimes being crimes or these activities constituting crimes and things that we all want to stop like slavery people-trafficking and trafficking of drugs. In the case of the Green Party we're quite concerned about the trafficking of rare and endangered species which does happen at the high seas as well. The method by which the bill goes about doing that which is to expand the powers of board and search in a way that undermines as we see it the rule of law—and the New Zealand Law Society agrees it undermines the rule of law—is of concern to us because whilst it is important to monitor criminal activity and to enforce the law the way that we do that always contributes to the way that rule of law and human rights are protected across the globe including on the high seas.So obviously when you look at something like the illegal unlawful and overfishing inquiry in the Pacific which the foreign affairs committee is currently undertaking we know that there's a range of activities that both touches on undermining environmental protections and very much sits in what we might think comfortably doesn't ever happen in the modern world—but it does—like human trafficking and slavery. These things do happen. There is a need for that.But what this bill allows for—and it actually imports the exact language of the Search and Surveillance Act which I have quite a bit of experience in applying and dealing with in the domestic courts; what it imports is the exact wording of the warrantless search powers that police have under that Act and under some other acts like the firearms and prohibition Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. But it doesn't allow for any type of search or circumstance where a search happens to be judicially monitored. This bill doesn't allow for a search warrant to be sought or obtained in an ordinary circumstance.So while these other laws that guide enforcement officers in terms of search and seizure allow for a fast-moving situation where a warrantless search is required this bill only allows for warrantless discretionary searches. To put that into context it also allows for for example internal bodily searches for the collection of biometric data. So whether that's DNA or saliva testing it allows for the use of force but it doesn't allow for the challenge that comes with judicial monitoring. So when there is time and we can see a vessel approaching when we've had information from Interpol and we're about to disembark and leave our shores and go over to a vessel—and there is ample time because these aren't necessarily fast-moving vessels—we can actually require our enforcement officers to show reasonable cause for belief that a crime is happening as we require New Zealand police to do before they go ahead use force and collect internal bodily materials for example. If they are at high sea and things materialise quickly of course there could then be a discretionary warrant and a search power. The New Zealand Law Society who brought with them not one but two maritime law experts who had actually acted as maritime officers as well—both said that this is something that they would recommend for New Zealand to uphold the rule of law whilst we extend our powers to enforce the rules and to monitor criminal activity at the high sea.Now even the Search and Surveillance Act that does allow for search warrants to be issued in the opinion of the Green Party—a long-standing opinion that we've expressed through successive caucuses—goes well beyond what we would expect in its warrantless search powers that don't actually apply an objective standard and quite often don't apply a belief standard which a court would interpret to say that there has to be an objective level of evidential basis for a search to be triggered but often will come with an opinion-based or a subjective standard.So the Search and Surveillance Act itself is somewhat problematic and we have seen an absolute rise in police relying on warrantless search powers since that power has been made available to them which is understandable. But when you think about the level of prejudice that exists in our criminal justice system and will exist even at the high seas—we see it in international law we see it in the way that Interpol surveils those from certain backgrounds certain nationalities and certain flagships when we're talking about ships—we know that there is room for misuse of this type of incredibly broad discretion. So while the intention is good and while we are trying to monitor and apply the law and make the world safer the way that we do that has to be exemplary and in that way this law absolutely fails. So the Green Party and the New Zealand Law Society and the human rights - based framework can't support the law as it stands. So I don't commend this bill to the House.