O'Rourke Denis: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
O'Rourke Denis: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:958] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First still does not support this bill the Search and Surveillance Bill in its present form nor the amendments that have been put forward which we do not think have addressed the fundamental issues. It has been somewhat amusing to observe the jousting between the members of the Labour Party and the members of the National Party especially over the Serious Fraud Office. However New Zealand First does not regard that issue as being central to this legislation. It is rather peripheral and is not something that we wish to deal with at this stage although I think it is something that needs to be considered at some other time. 
New Zealand First does acknowledge however that the process has been comprehensive for this bill. Unfortunately many of us in New Zealand First were not here for most of that process. However we do think that the Justice and Electoral Committee in particular has done a good job of considering the safeguards to some of the personal rights and freedoms that are actually attacked by this bill. In particular I refer to the fact that it is good that the bill does consolidate and improve the powers that are current in 69 different Acts. It removes many inconsistencies. It is good that it codifies the existing law and clarifies powers that are often unclear it provides a regulatory regime for high-technology devices used in surveillance it seeks to ensure judicial oversight where it is needed it places issuing functions for warrants in experienced hands and it provides for public reporting. But none of that really is enough to ensure that New Zealanders’ fundamental rights are preserved and I refer in particular to the police powers for examination orders in the bill which are of particular concern to New Zealand First. 
Apart from the current Serious Fraud Office powers the law has protected the right to silence for a very long time and that right should continue to be protected. We do not want to move in New Zealand towards a police State. I refer to what I said in my earlier speech on this which is that requiring people to answer questions puts them in a difficult position—what has in the past been referred to as a cruel trilemma—because they may be punished for their silence they may be punished for perjury if they do not tell the truth or if they do tell the truth they may find themselves incriminating themselves or breaching the confidentiality of others. It is not right that that will not happen; even though the bill says that their right to avoid self-incrimination is protected the practical effect is not that. 
Apart from those powers of the Serious Fraud Office I read that clauses 31 and 32 of the bill would allow senior police officers to apply for examination in a business context on reasonable grounds if they believe that there is an offence punishable by more than 5 years’ imprisonment. Those are similar powers to the Serious Fraud Office’s powers in serious fraud cases but it is a serious step we think to extend those powers to the New Zealand Police. Clauses 33 and 34 extend the police powers even further to non-business cases involving serious or complex fraud punishable by imprisonment for a term of 7 years or more or if the offence has been committed by an organised criminal group as defined in the Crimes Act. This opens up a very wide area for police use of compulsory examination and for that reason it really does go too far to achieve the desired balance that many have talked about between the need for better police and agency enforcement of the law and the right to silence and other important rights. 
The line may already have been crossed with the Serious Fraud Office having rather Draconian compulsory examination powers but at least the Serious Fraud Office is experienced and is specialised in the area of serious fraud. The police are not as experienced in those areas and I believe there should be a distinction between the powers of the two. There are requirements in the bill of course for reporting on the use of these powers but I do not believe that they are likely to be a serious brake should the police over time get into the habit of using those powers.