Macindoe Tim: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:961] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I would just like to return to the contribution from the New Zealand First member who spoke a few minutes ago Denis O’Rourke and put two things on the record. The first thing is that I emphatically reject the idea that this Search and Surveillance Bill in any way moves New Zealand towards the concept of becoming a police State. That is an utterly ridiculous suggestion and the member said nothing at all to substantiate that claim. 
The second thing I would like to point out to that member is that through successive elections the party that he represents New Zealand First has lectured the electorate continuously on law and order issues and consistently told the rest of us that we are not strong enough on law and order; that we need to give the police more powers; and that we need to crack down on this that and the other thing. And when they get their first opportunity in the new Parliament to demonstrate their convictions what happens? They run the other way. They completely turn tail on it and I hope that the electorate is listening to them because when they get given the chance to demonstrate the courage of their convictions they are shown not to have it. 
We have had a number of Opposition speakers this evening especially those from Labour telling us that they are concerned about what New Zealanders will perceive of their stance on this bill. They are particularly concerned that they might be portrayed as being soft on crime. Well I want to make a point that if there are intelligent people listening they will reach their own conclusions about that without us having to tell them. But what is really significant is that this was a bill that largely originated on Labour’s watch and they suddenly turn out now and are distancing themselves as far as possible from it. They forget that this originated as a result of a very clear recommendation from the Law Commission back in 2007 while Labour was in Government and that much of the work we are seeing through to its completion now originated on its watch. 
I want to correct David Parker’s assertion that the member for Tauranga when he was speaking earlier suggested that the bill does not extend police powers. In fact the point that Mr Bridges was making was that the Government has been at pains throughout this process and in the Justice and Electoral Committee to avoid extending police powers unjustifiably and without adequate constraints. That is a very different position from the one that Mr Parker was trying to pin on to Mr Bridges because that is exactly what Part 2 of this bill is all about. 
I want to place on record for those who are listening what some of those powers are and to return to Mr Parker’s concern about the examination orders. I think that when New Zealanders understand what the powers in Part 2 are they will be very supportive of them. Let me just give you a few examples. Clause 6 provides that an issuing officer may issue a search warrant for a place vehicle or other thing on application by a constable if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect offending punishable by imprisonment and reasonable grounds to believe that the search will find evidential material related to the offending. 
Clause 7 specifies that a constable who has reasonable grounds to suspect a person is unlawfully at large may enter any place or vehicle without a warrant in order to search for and arrest that person if they have reasonable grounds to believe that that person is there. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Get on to the real issues. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Clause 8—Mr O’Rourke I am dealing with the clauses of this part. That is what we are debating at this stage in the debate. That is what you have just spoken in opposition to and I am letting New Zealanders know what you have just opposed. 
Clause 8 authorises a constable to enter a place or vehicle without a warrant to search for and arrest a person if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is there and reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed an imprisonable offence and believes that immediate entry is necessary to prevent the person from leaving or interfering with evidential material. And so it goes on. That is what this part is all about. That is what we are debating at this point in the debate. 
New Zealanders will welcome these measures as sensible and appropriate for public safety and the effective administration of justice. So let me turn to the examination orders that Mr Parker was so concerned about. The bill has an examination order regime that allows the police to apply for a court order requiring a person to answer questions where they have previously refused to do so. Examination orders are intended for use to investigate particularly complex crimes and we have had some discussion of what some of those are in our recent history and just how important that issue is. The Serious Fraud Office currently has the power to apply for examination orders and the bill will also allow police—