Borrows Chester: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5402] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 As the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee which will be considering the Search and Surveillance Bill I rise to take a call on its first reading. It will be very interesting legislation to have a look at and to consider over time. I want to reiterate a number of points that have been made by the previous speaker the Hon Lianne Dalziel especially as they relate to fairness in justice and access to justice within our community. The point she made around the law changing over time and getting out of step with where the community is is very real. It bothers me that we live in an age where whoever squawks the loudest can tend to have an effect on things that impact on access to justice and that have been held as tenets of the rule of law. It bothers me that we may see over time justice attrit for those who are most vulnerable to that. 
I am drawn to a comment made in the explanatory note under the heading “Objectives”. It states: The principal objective of the proposals contained in the suite of Cabinet papers is to provide coherent and effective powers of search and surveillance which will increase certainty in law enforcement and allow use of available technologies to tackle crime in the 21st century while at the same time recognising human rights values.” I believe that the principles of certainty and clarity that will inevitably come from dragging together all those powers of search seizure and surveillance which are right across our legislation at the moment and some of which as has been said earlier are up to 50 years old are very important. 
I recall sitting in the back of a court one day in New Plymouth and listening to a prosecution of a person we had had a number of problems with over many years who was a burglar and a thief. He preferred to break into veterinary clinics and doctors’ surgeries to obtain hard drugs and he had been tipped out on to Broadway Stratford with six police. He was prosecuted for possession of a firearm possession of cannabis possession of burglary tools for being disguised by night and a number of other charges that related to his activity and behaviour that night. But the thing that was comical at the time and gives me pause for thought now is that the six different officers who gave evidence in the court case all gave a different reason for searching the car and a different source for their powers. One was searching without warrant pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act. One was searching without warrant pursuant to the Arms Act. One was searching with consent although he found difficulty in explaining how the defendant could continue to give his consent while he was across the bonnet of the car with his arm up his back. One was searching pursuant to the Transport Act. One was searching in respect of the burglary tools and one was searching because he believed it was just good police work. 
It was hugely embarrassing to be sitting in the back of the court and listening to those six policemen giving six different reasons—all very colourful—that could all be applied to the circumstances: a sawn-off firearm a pistol was found; ammunition was found; drugs were found; a gas torch and tools for burglary were found; and the person was disguised during the period of night. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Was he speeding? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: No he was not speeding. In fact he was doing all he could to remain within the speed limit but it did not help him. Eventually he went down for all the right reasons. But that example explains very clearly why we need to have some certainty and clarity around our law not only for those who may have the force of the law impacted upon them as those charged before the court but also so that those who have to enforce the law can have some clarity and certainty around what they are doing as they exercise their duties on behalf of the rest of us. 
 I look forward to hearing the submissions that come before the select committee and exploring the bill’s powers as they take account of where we are at this stage in our development and the technologies that are available to us. It is also important to note that the bill extends surveillance powers to those regulatory agencies that already have the ability to inspect and search a person’s home. Most regulatory agencies can search homes as a number of small businesses in New Zealand keep business records in individual homes and enter the regulated industry with the full knowledge of the regulators’ powers. So there is a mixture of what would be the minutiae I suppose that will affect people’s ability to withhold records that may be sought under a number of different provisions—some criminal some administrative—and using various technologies. It is interesting legislation. A lot of excellent work has been done by the Law Commission over an extended period of time and I look forward to the select committee process. I commend the bill to the House.