Parker David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1120. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Perhaps you are right in the Green Party to oppose the Search and Surveillance Bill Mr Browning but I hope you do not do it on the basis that this would affect Lucy Lawless because she was actually there publicly waving to be seen and there was no covert surveillance or search involved in that case. 
I want to further reply to the Hon Judith Collins’ statement about this being a late change and some assertion that there would somehow be a vacuum of powers in the meantime. Well there would not have been a vacuum of powers because until the bill was passed amending the powers of the Serious Fraud Office its existing powers would have carried on and there would have been not one iota of a vacuum. So that is with respect a vacuous argument rather than arguments about vacuums. 
 As to the point as to abuse of powers the only time that I am aware that the Serious Fraud Office has abused its powers in respect of the issue of a production order against the media is in respect of the  
National Business Review 
. But its abuse of its powers by using this short cut route where it whacks out a production order or an examination order rather than seeking a warrant or using normal investigative techniques is a more widespread abuse of its powers according to the advice that we received from the Law Commission when we were in Government and the advice that I received when concerns were raised about these issues. I visited Queen’s Counsel who were acting both for the Serious Fraud Office at times and for accused persons. They said whether they were Serious Fraud Office lawyers on occasions or defence counsel that the Serious Fraud Office was abusing its powers by using them when they ought not to or by using them too broadly. It is very easy for them to whack out a broad production order or an examination order and effectively go on a bit of a fishing expedition to see what is around rather than have a more specific production order or pursue normal investigative techniques. 
As to the suggestion that this would be a late on the hoof amendment this issue was raised at the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Hon Lianne Dalziel has already outlined that by reading from the select committee report. It was raised by me in communications with the Hon Simon Power with constant reminders and there was a somewhat cynically late reply designed not to be received until the days following the election. 
But also I note that the issue was raised with the now Minister of Justice in her role as the Serious Fraud Office Minister by the  
National Business Review  
and I read from the  
National Business Review  
of 9 March 2012 page 1 its article “Bill retains ‘draconian’ SFO Powers”: “Mr Gibson”—who is the editor of the  
National Business Review— 
“recalled that in 2010 he asked then SFO Minister Judith Collins to amend legislation empowering the SFO’s rights of seizure of media dossiers.” 
So the suggestion that this was raised late in the piece is wrong. The suggestion that it could not be fixed even though it is late in the piece is wrong because we put forward amendments that would fix it. The suggestion that this would be poor process is made to look pretty thin when we consider that there is a 100-page Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister brought forward which was produced and tabled I think the day before the Committee stage began—is that right Mr Chauvel? It was the day before this Committee stage began. The idea that even a week ago even the week before this they could not tidy up this particular part of the legislation and apply the same rules to the Serious Fraud Office as applied to other agencies of the Crown is nonsense and it ought not to be given any credibility.