Dalziel Lianne: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:965] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I was going to comment on the Minister of Justice’s comments on the contribution from New Zealand First because probably there was no one more surprised than me to hear the contribution. It did surprise me somewhat that that really strict line had been taken particularly in relation to the Serious Fraud Office and the production of documents. I seem to recall that the leader of their party himself voluntarily produced documents that the Serious Fraud Office did not want in a wine box. Perhaps that is a long time ago and it is something that may have been lost in the annals of time. But I was here in the House when those documents were finally tabled in Parliament after several attempts and I know that there were some very interesting views expressed about the lack of use of particular powers at that stage. 
Charles Chauvel 
: A non-production order. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes a non-production order might have been a little bit more on the mark in that particular case. 
But I am possibly making light of what is an underlying serious issue—that is why the Serious Fraud Office had the particular examination order powers. I think they were expressed quite well by a couple of colleagues who have commented on why the Serious Fraud Office was able to call upon these powers in circumstances that the police were not. In fact the very best summary of the reason for it is in the letter that we received from the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power back in—when was it? It must have been November last year. 
Hon David Parker 
: Received the day after the election. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Oh that is right—received the day after the election. That is right. But it was quite good. What he said was this: “One of the primary rationales for examination orders is that investigations involving complex financial transactions will benefit from requiring a person involved (such as an accountant) to assist Police in unravelling the documents that relate to those transactions.” The whole purpose of it is that in order to break some of those lines of accountability within organisations where you have people with other obligations such as an accountant you can actually require them to explain the detailed transactions to the police—well in this case the Serious Fraud Office—in order to assist them with their investigations. The letter goes on to say: “It is also important that examination orders should be available in the business context to investigate offences committed by organised criminal groups. Offences that may be committed by such groups … are punishable by 5 years’ imprisonment”—and obviously there have been some changes in that regard in the bill; in the non-business context it talks about 7 years’ imprisonment. But it does actually identify in here what the history was for the use of examination orders which are now being expanded to the police. 
I acknowledge that both the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Minister herself by way of a Supplementary Order Paper have been open and able to address some of the concerns that we have raised. But it still leaves us with this sense of disquiet about why the Serious Fraud Office then sits outside the structure that is being put in place. It is an opportunity to get this right. I think it is important to remember that the Justice and Electoral Committee reported this bill back from the select committee back in 2010 so it actually sat on the Order Paper for months on end. In fact we were going to go into the 2011 general election with it still sitting on the Order Paper with nothing having occurred in between. But then there was the Supreme Court decision which required Parliament to take some action in order to prevent what would have been well a travesty really in that situation: existing cases could not proceed in those circumstances. 
The law was basically suspended for a period of time—I think 6 months was the period—which is why we are under some pressure now to pass this bill by mid-April. So I think it is a bit unfair to say that the reason we are under pressure to pass it is because we will be exposing the situation where all the cameras will have to be switched off. Actually all the cameras had to be switched off because of a court case.