Collins Judith: Search and Surveillance Bill — Second Reading 
Collins Judith: Search and Surveillance Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Search and Surveillance Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill provides a coherent consistent and certain approach to our search and surveillance laws. It modernises the law of search seizure and surveillance to take into account advances in technologies and regulate their use. The bill also provides rules that recognise the importance of the rights and the entitlements affirmed in other enactments including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 the Privacy Act 1993 and the Evidence Act 2006. The bill ensures that the investigative tools available to enforcement officers are effective and adequate for law enforcement purposes. 
I would like to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its thorough consideration of the bill and for the sensible amendments it has proposed. The committee received 478 written submissions on the bill across two separate rounds of consultation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! If members are having private conversations please do it in such a manner as not to disrupt. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —and heard 29 oral submissions. I note that many submitters were concerned about the bill. In particular many felt that the bill contained ineffective protections for human rights. The committee has vigilantly considered the concerns surrounding human rights and has recommended a number of changes to ensure the bill strikes a more appropriate balance between these rights and law enforcement needs. 
Two important areas where the committee has recommended amendments are examination orders and surveillance powers. The committee has recommended that the thresholds for the making of examination orders be raised to offending punishable by 5 years’ imprisonment or more in the business context and offending either punishable by 7 years’ imprisonment or more or committed by an organised criminal group in a non-business context. This means that examination orders will not be available for low-level offending such as trespass and disorderly behaviour. This was a major concern for a number of submitters. 
Additionally I have discussed with the Labour Party its proposal to raise the threshold for examination orders to offending punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment in both the business and non-business context. Doing so would substantially limit the types of offences for which examination orders are available. For example it would exclude offences such as engaging in money-laundering and accessing a computer system dishonestly. 
An offence like engaging in money-laundering often involves complex financial transactions and the examination power will ensure that those who have been involved such as an accountant will assist to unravel the documents relating to the transactions. It is also important that examination orders should be available in the business context to investigate offences committed by organised criminal groups. Raising the threshold to 10 years would undermine the effectiveness of examination orders the rationale for their existence and the purpose of the bill. 
The use of surveillance as an investigative tool has also been restricted. The committee has recommended that all audio surveillance and visual surveillance involving entry on to private property be restricted to the investigation of offences punishable by 7 years’ imprisonment or more with exceptions only for some offending under the Arms Act. These forms of surveillance have also been limited to police and authorised law enforcement agencies. Only the Customs Service and the Department of Internal Affairs may apply to be authorised by Order in Council to carry out visual surveillance or to use interception devices. 
To obtain authorisation an agency must have the technical capability to undertake these forms of surveillance and appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure the integrity of the information obtained in the use of these devices. The bill expressly recognises privileges protected under the Evidence Act such as medical privilege legal professional privilege and the rights of journalists to protect their sources. For instance under the bill a journalist may refuse to answer questions or produce documents that would reveal the identity of a source. A journalist may also refuse to allow an item to be searched by making a claim that it is subject to journalistic privilege. The bill contains a process for claims of such privilege to be determined by a court. 
A further concern among submitters was a lack of appropriate safeguards. The bill contains a number of safeguards which will mitigate the abuse of power by law enforcement agencies. These include requiring prior judicial approval for any law enforcement power unless there is sufficient reason for the power to be carried out immediately; a requirement that powers may be exercised only where there are both reasonable grounds to suspect relevant offending and reasonable grounds to believe the exercise of the power will obtain evidential material of the offending; detailed reporting requirements; and the ability to seek redress through the courts when the manner of execution of a search a seizure or surveillance is unreasonable. 
These numerous measures ensure that there are sufficient safeguards that will prevent unreasonable or unjustified use of the powers in the bill. I will be tabling a Supplementary Order Paper that will give effect to a number of further technical and policy amendments and I can advise the members of the House that as soon as that is ready I will get it available to the parties who have expressed interest. 
One of the changes in the Supplementary Order Paper alters the commencement of the bill so that it will commence in two parts. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in  
Hamed and Others  
in 2011 the surveillance device provisions contained within the bill will commence on the expiry of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act in April 2012. This is to ensure that the police will be able to continue to utilise surveillance as a crime-fighting tool. 
The main policy changes contained within the Supplementary Order Paper include restricting the determination of claims of journalistic protection made under section 68 of the Evidence Act to the High Court where such a claim has been made following the execution of search warrants production orders or examination orders; amending Acts not amended by the bill as introduced to bring them under the regime established by the bill; enabling police to search for and seize firearms or dealers’ licences where there is an existing power to search for and seize firearms; and enabling police to search for and seize firearms where a police safety order is in force. 
I believe that this bill strikes a necessary balance between law enforcement powers privacy and human rights. The bill ensures that the police and other agencies are able to investigate crime whilst preventing unlawful search and seizure and allowing the courts to examine the reasonableness of powers used. I believe that the amendments recommended by the committee effectively address the concerns raised and once again I thank the committee members for the work that they have done on this bill. I commend this bill to the House.