Parker David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:964] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
:  
I was going to on this call address a different issue and that was just to emphasise that the Justice and Electoral Committee has been careful to limit some of the powers that were proposed in this Part 2 of the Search and Surveillance Bill. I will mention a couple of examples. 
As the Greens have acknowledged in one of their recent contributions there are occasions where there are things that are going down that require the police to do things in a shorthand way without actually going through the formalities of getting a warrant. I thought that was a proper acknowledgment by the Greens. The bill allows warrantless surveillance in some situations. The bill came to the select committee recommending that it could happen for up to 3 days—72 hours. The select committee said: “No that is too long; the police should be able to get a warrant within 48 hours. If they cannot get a warrant within 48 hours they should desist.” So that was changed in the bill; it was shortened from 72 hours to 48 hours and at the same time it was made clear that the 48 hours had to start from the time of the surveillance. That would mean that they could not have repetitious 47-hour periods. The way it was drafted when it came to select committee you could monitor for 47 hours turn the camera off for an hour and you had not breached the 48-hour period. You could start again and do it for another 48 hours. The select committee really was alert to trying to limit these matters. 
In terms of the retention of data when you have a surveillance operation you do not catch just the criminal—or the alleged criminal he or she might not even be a criminal they are an alleged criminal. You do not get just them on their tape; you gets lots of other people. So if this is in a private situation or even if it is in a public situation people have got a right not to be under surveillance by the State and that sort of thing ought not to be kept for ever. So again the select committee— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Wind it up mate. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Wind it up Mr Hayes says. 
John Hayes 
: It was Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It was Hayes. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh Mr Henare. Oh well wind it up. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: He wants to get on with his honeymoon. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is right; he wants to get on with something that to him is more important than the proper balance between civil liberties and State powers. I suspect— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’m with you bro. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh you are with us? OK I thought you might want to have a debate on the Sale of Liquor Act or something like that tonight instead. In terms of the retention on data the select committee has said that there should be further limitations on the period for which that data can be kept. That is strengthened as well. 
There are a number of other strengthening measures. The reporting requirements for surveillance device warrants have been strengthened by the select committee. Again the Government cooperated on these things and therefore I find it absolutely impossible to understand why it will not tighten up the Serious Fraud Office powers. Can I acknowledge the contribution from New Zealand First. I actually agree with a lot of what New Zealand First said there in respect of examination orders. It is a line call as to whether they should be permitted at all. I agree with that. I can actually argue both sides of that case because it is a line call. 
Simon Bridges 
: That’s a flip-flop. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No it is not a flip-flop. It is actually acknowledging that in this Parliament we have to draw very difficult lines on difficult issues and we can actually agree to disagree as to where that line can be drawn. I respect the views which I thought were quite principled and I admire that principle. I could actually see the Minister coming out here and arguing for matters of principle that I would disagree with her on and I could have a reasoned discussion with her. What I cannot understand is that in the case of media freedoms we are not protecting the media in respect of the issue of examination orders that require the media to talk to the police but with protections. Why can we not have those same protections afforded to the Serious Fraud Office? 
So Minister I ask you again to respond—because you were not in the chair when I took my last call. In your call prior to my last call you accused us of effectively being soft on crime because we will not back these unprincipled changes to the law when you will not move on the tightening up of the Serious Fraud Office. I suggest to the Minister that it is inappropriate to make that accusation because there is a serious debate going on here as to the proper balance between civil liberties and State powers.