Calder Cam: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1116. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take a brief call on the Search and Surveillance Bill on Part 4 particularly. It is worthwhile recognising that Part 4 is to do with the general provisions in relation to search and surveillance powers and possibly to remind the previous speaker David Clendon of the purpose of this bill. I crave the indulgence of the honourable member Charles Chauvel because I am actually going to take a couple of words from the introduction here just to remind Mr Clendon that we are dealing with search and surveillance powers and inspection powers amended by the bill which go across 69 Acts—69 Acts. It is obviously going to deal with arcane officers to do with veterinary medicine and fisheries etc. as he pointed out. It is intended as a comprehensive reform of search and surveillance legislation. 
Part 4 is a good case in point. It deals with consent searches application for search warrants issuing of search warrants search powers detention of persons at the search scene and of course we have heard that it deals with examination orders production orders and surveillance. I would like to come back briefly to examination orders. This bill does have an examination order regime. We have heard quite exhaustively from the Opposition about how the Serious Fraud Office currently has the power to apply for an examination order. We heard from the Minister of Justice that this in fact is a power that it has had since 1990. The bill will also allow the police to apply for them. 
We know that examination orders are recognised as a serious power and that additional safeguards will be in place. What will these safeguards be? The police may apply for an examination order in a business context to investigate an offence punishable by 5 years’ or more imprisonment. Examination orders allow the police to require people who acquire information in the course of business such as accountants to cooperate with the police without being guilty of breaching professional or fiduciary obligations. In a non-business context the examination orders may be applied for to investigate serious fraud punishable by 7 years’ or more imprisonment. 
It is important to respond to some concerns—and I do acknowledge how open-minded the Minister has been to concerns that have been raised; she has specifically mentioned the Hon David Parker and Charles Chauvel for some of the help that they have given on this bill—raised concerns about the impact of this on civil society and the right to protest. The 7-year threshold in non-business contexts means that examination orders are not available to investigate such crimes as protesting trespass disorderly behaviour or unlawful assembly—a very good point I thought. 
In addition only a judge can make an examination order upon application from a police officer of the rank of police inspector or above. This is a tangible acknowledgment of the seriousness of this. This ensures that examination orders do not become a routine tool for investigation. 
The privilege against self-incrimination is something that was raised by a number of speakers. This has been the subject as we have heard of a particular Supplementary Order Paper 12 where we have dealt with this. We are particularly keen to defend media impartiality and media sources. A key change has been to significantly improve journalists’ ability to protect the identity of their sources and enhance their journalistic privilege. This has been made in recognition of the media’s role in a free and democratic society and the need to protect that role and preserve the important principle of media freedom. 
At the moment the media cannot prevent material from being seized during the search and therefore viewed and accessed. This Supplementary Order Paper will make that a lot less likely to occur. The bill will allow a journalist to claim privilege over information contained in documents preventing the documents from being searched. The documents would then be secured and taken to the High Court for safe keeping where the claim of privilege can be determined. Effectively the Search and Surveillance Bill recognises journalistic privilege and provides greater protection for journalists’ sources. Journalists can also refuse to answer questions.