Ngaro Alfred: Search and Surveillance Bill — Third Reading 
Ngaro Alfred: Search and Surveillance Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1260] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I stand in support of the Search and Surveillance Bill which has been significantly amended and improved. I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and officials in addressing the broad sweeping concerns. I too have just signed up to the Facebook page in regard to my colleague Denis O’Rourke and the comments that he has made especially about the word “trilemma”. In quick researching I found out that the word “trilemma” means a situation where it is difficult to make a choice. Three options can be chosen from each of which is unacceptable and unfavourable. Further research shows that the earliest use of this term was by the British preacher William Henry in 1672—Denis—and then by Isaac Watts in 1725. But most important the word “trilemma” comes from the Greek philosopher Epicurus. Epicurus was a philosopher who was to attain a happy tranquil life characterised by peace and freedom. I think the thing is that this word “trilemma” used by Denis reflects also some of the choices that were made and the comments made by the Labour Party as well—the Hon David Parker—when they were saying this: “This is a good bill but maybe not a great bill.” So those members are in a difficult situation where they applaud the work of the bill but at the same time they are not quite sure. So I would like to affirm for them that the fact is that we get to a point where we say it is good enough to serve the needs of the people of this community.  
I want to just make this point. Recently I was facilitating a community session where we talked about the agenda for children and we talked about the rights of children in our communities. The adults in the room talked about the children’s right to a good education the right to appropriate health care services and the right to feel safe and secure in their own community. One of the children put their hand up and said: “Mr Ngaro with all these rights then who will be responsible?”. Out of the mouth of babes wisdom abounds. Who will be responsible? This bill seeks to strike a balance between the need for responsibility of effective law enforcement tools and the need to protect the rights of citizens and children as set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.  
I love the way that children have a way of cutting through the complexity often created by adults and saying it simply. The current laws we have got on search and surveillance are messy unclear and outdated. This bill will provide what the Law Commission called for to bring order and what might be called the “CCCs” of the law: consistency clarity and certainty. It will put all our law about search and surveillance in one place rather than being scattered throughout numerous statutes as it currently is. This bill will take responsibility for effective law enforcement tools by consolidating police powers from several different pieces of legislation as well as case law and by introducing some new powers such as examination orders production orders surveillance device warrants and a warrantless power to preserve evidence of serious offences punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment or more.  
But these new powers are also about balancing the protection of human rights. The bill explicitly states that its purpose is to balance law enforcement and investigation powers with human rights values. There are a number of safeguards in the bill to achieve this. First the bill adheres to the basic concept that independent authorisation is needed before exercising search powers. Enforcement officers must justify the exercise of search powers to neutral issuing officers. Second there are detailed reporting requirements to the issuing officer the chief executive of the relevant agency and to Parliament on the exercise of search and surveillance powers. These allow search powers to be monitored to ensure that they are being used properly and are not being abused. The most important thing is that the Act will be reviewed in 2016 to ensure it is being operated properly. Third the bill does not affect the New Zealander’s right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Finally safeguards include that enforcement officers who make false search warrant or surveillance warrant applications will be penalised. More serious powers like examination orders may be authorised only by judges and not by just any issuing officer. Issuing officers from any agency cannot issue warrants to enforcement officers from the same agency to ensure neutrality and impartiality. Issuing officers may be removed from office for neglect or misconduct.  
So not only do I support this bill but also I have full confidence that this bill will be well received through the law enforcement community through the justice community and most important through the residential community of New Zealand where ordinary Kiwis and especially our children want to know that they can trust in the powers that be to ensure their safety and well-being.