Chauvel Charles: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:957] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I just want to respond to some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker Jackie Blue because a lot of what she said was absolutely right but there is a falsehood woven through the debate and it is this: that the Serious Fraud Office already has production and examination powers so it is all right for it to keep those powers and it is all right for us to give those powers to the police and other enforcement agencies. What Jackie Blue just said was “It’s all right because of all the safeguards that are in the Search and Surveillance Bill.” The problem with that argument is that the Serious Fraud Office continues right outside the parameters of this legislation and it does not have any of the safeguards that are being put in place for the other agencies. 
I agree that the Minister of Justice has done a good job—she knows that; I have told her that and I have said it publicly—in terms of putting safeguards in Supplementary Order Paper 12 that are better than what was there in the past. She knows that I think that is a forward step and I am pleased that we are where we are with that. But before I come to explain why it is fallacious to pursue the argument that the member did I do want to respond to another point that she made and that is for her to somehow be critical that we are where we are and yet the Labour Party the major Opposition party retains its objection to the legislation because of its failure to deal with the Serious Fraud Office. This is an objection that has been known and on the record now for more than a year and it has been the subject of many attempts from our point of view to resolve the matter in good faith. We tried with the Minister’s predecessor and we were stonewalled. So notwithstanding the progress that the Minister and I have managed to make on a host of issues responsibility for the fact that we are now at the threshold and still cannot agree does not lie with the Labour Party and that is an important point to put on the record. 
I want to explain once and for all I hope why it is not accurate to say “Oh well the Serious Fraud Office has already got extensive powers but the bill puts safeguards in place so everything is all right.” As I said before the safeguards do not apply to the Serious Fraud Office. We have already heard from David Parker that there is concern real concern about the way in which the Serious Fraud Office has used its powers in the past particularly in respect of the media. Mrs Tolley can smile and scoff all she likes but that is the case and we are serious about making sure that the media can do their job in this country. This is a Government that has presided over declining media freedoms—we are 13th now internationally whereas we were eighth the year before. She has sat on the Treasury benches in senior ministerial positions while that has happened. This is our opportunity as a House of Representatives to fix the matter and I would have thought we might have actually had a bit more good-faith debate across the House in the sort of spirit that I have tried to have with the Minister. 
Here are the powers that the Serious Fraud Office has got now which it will keep because we are not dealing with the Serious Fraud Office powers in this legislation. Under section 5(1) of its Act the director may write to any person and at the time and place specified in the notice that the director writes require that person (“(a) to produce for inspection any documents which are specified in the notice and which the Director has reason to believe may be relevant to any suspected case of serious or complex fraud: (b) to answer to the best of that person’s knowledge and belief questions with respect to the whereabouts or existence of any further documents that may be relevant to the investigation.” So there we are. This is the only example that we are going to have assuming that this bill passes in our law and on our statute book of an official an appointed official accountable politically to no one able to write to anybody and say: “You must appear at my office at 2 o’clock tomorrow and you must produce the following documents.” There is nothing anybody can do about it. That has to happen. There is no way to meaningfully object to it and there are no safeguards around it in the way that there will be when this bill if it becomes law is enacted. 
Section 9 goes even further. It actually does away with the right to silence when it comes to—