Street Maryan: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to take a short call on this issue because I think some things have been lost sight of in the course of some of the recent contributions. During the select committee deliberation on the whole of this bill great care was taken to balance rights and to balance those few occasions when rights were being infringed or curtailed in any way. That balance was set against the advantages that might accrue to New Zealand from being able to hold major events of the sort that this Major Events Management Bill envisages and provides for.It is true that the select committee unanimously decided to amend one of the enforcement provisions in clause 65 “Powers conferred by warrant” in Subpart 6. This is where we agreed that in order to perpetuate the kind of balance that New Zealanders would tolerate and expect under this legislation any search warrant should be exercised by an enforcement officer only when that officer was accompanied by a member of the police. The powers conferred by a search warrant under Subpart 6 are quite extensive. They are as we would expect the ability to enter and search the place vehicle or thing specified; to use any assistance that is reasonable in the circumstances; to use any force for gaining entry; to search for and seize any thing that the warrant authorises the person to search for and seize; to take copies of documents; and to require somebody to reproduce information recorded or stored in a document. Those search warrant provisions are quite far-reaching and the committee decided it was a step too far to have those powers only in the hands of enforcement officers who were recruited for the purpose of an event. But enabling those provisions to be exercised under the auspices and the close observation of a police officer simply makes them consistent with other similar provisions in the law.At every turn in this bill we were at pains to ensure that individual rights were balanced and that any curtailment of those rights was in fact prescribed and limited and that is what has happened in this subpart as well. So before people go sounding off about infringement of individual liberty and the extension of the coercive power of the State they need to understand that the police coverage provisions in clause 65 simply allow for the police to be able to accompany any enforcement officer whether it be an officer of a city council for example or an enforcement officer appointed for the purpose such as a security guard. Those people must be accompanied by police in order to exercise the search warrant provisions in the legislation.This is sensible legislation. It is not extreme one way or another. What it does in fact is limit powers that are given specifically under this legislation to particular circumstances at particular times and in particular places in respect of other provisions in this bill. It is perfectly clear that a good deal of thought has been given to the enforcement part of this bill. Across the select committee it was unanimously decided that the additional provision of observation and accompaniment by a police officer was sufficient to give comfort to the public of New Zealand that no excessive rights or powers were being granted indiscriminately.