Locke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLocke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11393. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEITH LOCKE (Green): I think that this part illustrates the problem with the bill as a whole in that when one imposes such restrictions on people over such a big area one has problems in enforcement which one would not have if one were not so heavy-handed as the State is. Under this provision there is the set-up of enforcement officers who are not police officers and do not have the normal statutory powers for search and seizure. As Alan Peachey has just said that is a problem and the select committee did put in a provision that when a search warrant is issued in relation to the bill the enforcement officer is to be accompanied by a police officer. As Alan Peachey said that is a good restraint in the situation and makes it more acceptable to most New Zealanders.Other powers and functions of the enforcement officer are detailed in clause 39 “Enforcement officer’s entry to premises restricted” and clause 40 “Power of enforcement officers to seize or cover things”. A lot of what is in those provisions relating to enforcement officers is not covered by the need to have an accompanying police officer. For example in relation to clause 9 only in clause 39(c): “when the entry is authorised by a search warrant issued under section 64.” is there the need for the accompaniment of a police officer. The other two subclauses in clause 39—“(a) when the place is part of a clean zone; or (b) when the place is outside a clean zone and it is a place that the enforcement officer may lawfully enter without a search warrant;”—clearly refer to somebody who is not a police officer conducting entry and—to follow up with the next clause—seizure outside of the functions of a police officer.When we get to clause 40 we see that it is also about seizing or covering things—the bill talks about covering things. Presumably it refers to for example covering adverts. If Air New Zealand is advertising when Emirates Airline is the official sponsor as is the case in the Rugby World Cup in France the enforcement officer would have the power to cover the Air New Zealand logo. An enforcement officer may seize or cover anything believed to breach the legislation that is either within the clean zone or as clause 40(1)(b) states “outside a clean zone and it is in a place that the enforcement officer may lawfully be without a search warrant.” Then we get into the sticky area added by the select committee. Consider this example. The clean zone extends to the road around the stadium and across the road there is private property and someone is trading off that private property. As I understand clause 40(1)(b) an enforcement officer—not a police officer—could come over on to that property and cover something up or seize something.I might be mistaken there in my interpretation. I am happy to be corrected. But it just shows the problems when we extend powers unnecessarily as has been done in this bill when there is no gigantic problem we need the heavy hand of the State to solve here.