O'Rourke Denis: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First does not oppose the intent of Part 3 of the Search and Surveillance Bill relating to surveillance powers and declaratory orders. But New Zealand First certainly does have some reservations about the manner in which those powers will be used and those have been referred to already by some of the previous speakers. 
As some previous speakers have already said there does need to be a balance between enforcement especially using modern techniques—and bearing in mind some of the crime that today the community is facing—on the one hand and also the right to privacy on the other. That is a very difficult balance to reach and requires very careful consideration. In particular this is necessary where trespass surveillance is to be authorised and of course the bill takes some trouble to address that. However I note that only offences punishable by a period of imprisonment of 7 years or more will be subject to those provisions. So on balance the New Zealand First position would be that subject to some of the reservations that have been expressed and which I express here as to the methodology by which these powers are to be enforced New Zealand First would say that in respect of this part of the bill the balance has probably been correctly arrived at. So we would not for that reason oppose that part of the bill. 
We note also that the bill now provides some protection for the freedom of the press especially by confirming the privilege to protect sources contained in clause 130 but I would have to ask does that really in practice provide a significant protection? It is all very well for clause 130 to simply state that that privilege exists. However the reality is that if a search was conducted of a news media organisation and information about the sources of information was uncovered there would have to be a period of time within which the news media organisation could challenge that search and the use of that information. 
I am not satisfied that in practice therefore the bill actually does protect the freedom of the press in respect of the media’s need to protect their sources and I would like to have seen the bill go somewhat further than it does. So I would have to agree with some of the previous speakers when they say that the bill goes too far in some of the methods it authorises and some of the agencies that it authorises to have some of these powers. 
However much New Zealand First supports the need for effective enforcement we cannot agree with the bill overall simply because as I have said in previous speeches it includes a very serious issue which is examination orders and production orders that seriously breach the ancient right to silence. That is not something that New Zealand First could agree with. That has compromised the whole bill and as a result New Zealand First is unable to support it overall. 
You see it is not just a matter of balance when it comes to the protection of very important democratic rights such as the right to silence. No form of balance no consideration of balance is relevant to that. It is quite simple: rights of that magnitude must be protected. People have fought wars to protect rights of that kind and our democracy as a whole and there is no way that this should be chipped away at in the form it is in this bill and in similar sorts of legislation. I would remind the Committee that in clauses 31 and 32 a senior police officer is given the right— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! That is Part 2. We are on Part 3. You cannot— 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: I was just moving on to that Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Just stay on Part 3. That is what we are debating—Part 3. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Well Part 3 cannot be agreed to simply because the bill as a whole cannot be agreed to. I would have to repeat that in a non-business context where those rights—