Dalziel Lianne: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:966] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I was just going to give a very good quote from Justice Tipping so I am pleased that— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: Well in that case carry on! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes he is a very special individual. He was talking about the reason for the court case decision going the way that it did. He spoke of “a deliberate or at the very least a reckless disregard for the boundaries of legal power …”. You know it was the correct decision to make on the basis of what had occurred. What I am worried about here is that when the bill was originally introduced into Parliament we were going to fold the Serious Fraud Office into the police. There was going to be the Organised and Financial Crime Agency or OFCANZ. 
Simon Bridges 
: The CIS. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was not the SIS was it? But it was a particular structure at the head of the police and I know that the police were very pleased to be taking over that role because of so much of the organised crime swaying into this financial area for a whole lot of different reasons. 
But the point that I want to make is that that is why the legislation was framed as it was—without the Serious Fraud Office—and that is actually now why the Serious Fraud Office must be brought within the range. We are not objecting to the extension of powers to the police; we just believe that the powers for the Serious Fraud Office need to be brought within the framework of this legislation. The whole purpose of the Law Commission review of all of these matters—I cannot remember the exact words. I cannot imagine that Sir Geoffrey Palmer used the words “dog’s breakfast” but all of the different laws that existed around the place made no sense. It needed some clarity brought to the picture so that we could get some consistency across the search and surveillance provisions. That was what the legislation was designed to do. 
And I think that unfortunately at the time our Standing Orders prevented the select committee from doing the job that I actually believe it would have done. I believe that the Justice and Electoral Committee would have recommended the extension of this bill to the Serious Fraud Office. It would have dealt with that issue at the select committee and it would have come back in that frame except that it could not do that simply because it was advised at the time that the Standing Orders prevented it because it was out of scope. But actually if we fast forward to today that out of scope question would not exist. The debate would have occurred in a much more robust way and there would have been a decision made not on procedural grounds but on whether or not there was enough power of persuasion at that select committee to get that changed. I think that the process of the select committee has actually been extraordinarily good and the ongoing engagement between the Minister and our spokesperson on justice has also been good. We have acknowledged how well the Minister has been prepared to engage on these issues and we pay credit to her for adopting that approach. This is a good way for Parliament to do the right thing. 
If we are not going to be back in this Parliament looking at this issue again for a long time which is the Minister’s argument for not having a schedule of offences then why would we let this opportunity go by and not address the question of the Serious Fraud Office coverage? I am afraid the Serious Fraud Office has not served us well in terms of this Parliament’s expectations of its role and the way that it has used that power on a far more frequent and actually spurious basis than it ought to have used it. I believe we almost would not be having this argument if it had not used its powers in the way that it had. That has been the primary objection that we have had: holding this back for another opportunity for the House to look at it some time in the future. I think this is the opportunity that the House has to fix this problem and to fix it now and then we get agreement across the House.