Dalziel Lianne: Search and Surveillance Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Search and Surveillance Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The history of this bill the Search and Surveillance Bill has been well traversed by various members who have contributed to it. It started with a Law Commission report. It was followed up with a bill that was introduced that unfortunately was not dealt with before the 2008 election. That was discharged and then a new bill was introduced and that is the bill before us now. It was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was not on that select committee at the time—I am on that select committee now—but I do want to acknowledge the elevation of the then chair of that committee to his new position as Minister for Courts. I think it is a well-deserved appointment and I know from speaking to colleagues who were on the Justice and Electoral Committee in the last term that they too feel that it was a really well-deserved appointment because of the role that he played to facilitate engagement of all parties around that table and to try to get bills back to the House in a better shape than the bills as introduced. I think this bill is a case in point. It is definitely a better bill than the bill that was introduced; however there are still a few outstanding issues that we do want to raise and they have been very able raised by my colleague our shadow Attorney-General Charles Chauvel. 
The one good thing about the role that Chester Borrows has played and now plays in his new position as Minister for Courts is that he like the new Minister of Justice has shown he is willing to engage in a very meaningful way even after legislation is back in the House and also when dealing with issues relating to his portfolio as they impact on constituency MPs. I say “meaningful” because the Minister of Justice’s response to Charles Chauvel’s approach in the short time that she has been Minister and he has been the shadow Attorney-General contrasts with that of the former Minister of Justice who actually took an entire year to respond to the letter that the former shadow Attorney-General wrote to him in I believe 2010. In fact the reply was not received by our former shadow Attorney-General until after the 2011 general election which I believe is actually quite a travesty of process. I think it is not something that should be encouraged in this Parliament to have ministerial correspondence outstanding for such a significant period of time especially when it deals with such a fundamental issue. 
I want to repeat something that my colleague Charles Chauvel said and that is that legislation like this cannot afford to go through Parliament by a mere one or two votes; it really does require substantial support in the House for it to have meaning. It is an important piece of legislation. I do not say that for all pieces of legislation. With search and surveillance where we are dealing with fundamental human rights it is important that we ensure that substantial agreement is able to be accorded throughout Parliament. I do not think that there is much between us on this particular piece of legislation. 
I just want to comment on some of the issues that were raised by the member Denis O’Rourke for the New Zealand First Party because a lot of what he said related to matters that are not actually covered in the bill. It is relevant to the bill because the absence of any amendments to the Serious Fraud Office legislation is certainly relevant to the implications of an approach that we were adopting. Our former Attorney-General David Parker talked about how when we were in Government that was going to occur with the Serious Fraud Office function merging with the functions of the New Zealand Police therefore making sense that in fact the Serious Fraud Office provisions would stand as they were without being amended and allow for the police provisions to match an amended set of provisions for the police once that merger had occurred. So that is why the legislation as originally introduced by us did not include the Serious Fraud Office and that is why there were some tighter restrictions around the provisions relating to police powers to obtain examination orders. 
I think that the select committee has got it right for the police but the fact that it has not got it right for the Serious Fraud Office is actually a feature of the legislation. The fact is that without the unanimous agreement of this House we really cannot address these concerns in the Committee of the whole House. We would have to have an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that an amendment outside the scope of the bill would have to be agreed. An amendment outside the scope of the bill at this late stage in the piece I do not think would be a good process. The reason I do not think it would be a good process is that we actually have not heard specific evidence at the select committee on that particular issue. So perhaps I could just simply restate again the suggestion that has come from our two members who have spoken previously on the bill that perhaps this is an issue that the Minister responsible for the Serious Fraud Office could take on board. 
We acknowledge that the Minister of Justice has reported to us that the Serious Fraud Office will be requested to provide in its annual report to Parliament the number of examination orders made in the period covered by the report and the number of persons charged in criminal proceedings where the collection of evidential material relevant to those proceedings was significantly assisted by an examination conducted under an examination order in the period covered by the report. They are good measures but I think the Minister could take on board the need to go back and reflect on whether this is an area where there could be some further improvement. I think you have heard indicated on this side of the House that we certainly would be willing—and I think other parties would be willing too—to facilitate the passage of legislation actually bringing the powers of the Serious Fraud Office into the same context or the same arrangements as provided for police in the Search and Surveillance Bill. 
I just want to also comment on the Serious Fraud Office’s view on why it should not be covered by this bill when it was raised with the previous Minister of Justice Simon Power. I think I would like to put that on the record because I am a little bit concerned that its view is a little bit self-serving. This is a quote from a letter of 25 November which was received on 28 November and signed out by the then Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power who was the Minister of Justice when it was sent but not when it was received: “The SFO’s view is that their powers were enacted in the SFO Act with agreement by both sides of the House 20 years ago and have operated with relatively little controversy since. Accordingly the SFO does not consider that an ad hoc change to one very specific provision in its Act is desirable and could potentially have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of its wider operations. Coming at a time when the SFO is seeking to enhance its responsiveness to serious financial crime the Minister responsible for the SFO and the Director of the SFO consider any proposal to change its powers would be more appropriately achieved as part of a more comprehensive policy development process in relation to the SFO itself.” 
I think that that does perhaps give us a way forward and I do encourage the Minister now responsible for the Serious Fraud Office to take on board the recommendation certainly from many members of this House to have some limits placed on the powers of the Serious Fraud Office. I do think that to rely on the facts that it was enacted 20 years ago when our thinking on some of the human rights issues may not have been as advanced as it is today and that it has operated with relatively little controversy since shows that it forgot to notice the controversy surrounding its own use of its powers with the  
National Business Review 
 as my colleague has pointed out. 
The last thing I just want to mention very quickly is that this does make an important point in relation to press freedom. We rely on the media being able to report on things that need to be brought to the public’s attention. I know that in the financial markets area this is absolutely vital and I would not want to think that people would not bring things to the media’s attention— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but her time has expired.