Garrett David: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5407] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Search and Surveillance Bill. Let me say first that ACT will support this bill going to a select committee but not necessarily beyond that point. It is always pleasant as a new member—one who is still somewhat wet behind the ears—to find oneself in agreement with members on other sides of the House. To take the comments of the previous speaker Keith Locke first though I will make the point that the removal of the right to silence which is one of the bogeys that are often brought up is often misunderstood. It is not and never will be in my view a situation where the police or anyone else can tie persons to racks or Taser them or put them in a choker hold and force them to speak. No it is about inferences to be taken. But other than that a great deal of what my colleague Keith Locke said is worthy of further examination. When I was much younger than I am now I believed that the police were always right. But I am of that generation who remembers the Arthur Allan Thomas case and I am probably one of the very few people who have read the 1981 royal commission report on the Thomas case. After that I never believed again that the police were always right that they always acted with integrity and that they always told the truth. So I share with Mr Locke some of those concerns as do many members of our party. 
The speaker before Mr Locke Charles Chauvel raised the very good point in my view of the possibility of a sunset clause applying to all or some of the provisions of this bill. Again I am conscious of being wet behind the ears in this House but it seems to me that a sunset clause could be of great benefit perhaps not in all but in many if not most pieces of legislation that come through this House. Then we would not have perhaps the situation described by Chester Borrows whereby six policemen gave six different reasons under six different Acts. In one case simply police practice was used as justification for what was being done. It would not lead to lawyers having to conduct extensive searches through both paper and electronic formats to work out just what the law was. 
This bill is lengthy. Its powers are extensive and serious and it certainly requires extensive scrutiny at select committee which is why we support it to that point. As other speakers have noted it arises from a Law Commission report in 2007 which identified a number of weaknesses and issues contained in laws relating to search and seizure. The Law Commission found that powers of not only the police but also non - police agencies had been granted in an ad hoc piecemeal and scattered fashion through various Acts as several prior speakers have noted. This dog’s breakfast of legislation in case law has led to inconsistencies and a lack of coherency. It is no wonder that the commissioners in their careful and considered way found the situation to be quite simply a dog’s breakfast. I join the two previous speakers or at least Mr Chauvel in particular in noting with reverence the work of the Law Commission in this kind of legislation. I venture to say that this is exactly the kind of role that the Law Commission should play. 
The commission identified worrying anomalies for example whereby non - police agencies have greater powers than the police to investigate offences for which those agencies are responsible. To take just one non - police agency let us look at the powers of the Inland Revenue Department. As I understand the law the Inland Revenue Department can bust into any New Zealander’s home business or farm. Unlike the police it can do so without a warrant. After requiring a person to answer every question that it puts—which is another power the police do not have as most or all members are aware—the Inland Revenue Department can allege that the person in question or the person subject to its scrutiny owes a debt and that person has to prove otherwise. Therefore there is reversal of the long-cherished presumption of innocence and such a person becomes guilty until proven innocent. Even with a change of Government that situation—the piecemeal nature of powers—seems to be getting worse as our Parliament passes more and more legislation. In my very short time here I have wondered how many of my colleagues in the law would have any idea as to just what has been passed in 7 months. But to return to the Inland Revenue Department this bill as I read it will give it and others even more power; the powers that agency has and will have are a perfect illustration of the mess referred to by the Law Commission. 
ACT has a number of concerns with the bill as drafted. We feel that some of the provisions are overly Draconian. I note that many sections refer to warrantless searches which vest arguably too much trust and control with State agencies—including the police I am sad to say—who have shown themselves and not just in recent times to be far from up to the task. Other aspects that are troubling for the younger generation—and here I am surprised to differ from Mr Chauvel who if I am not mistaken is somewhat younger than me—are the provisions about the electronic use of warrants. That sounds sensible but members’ attention has been drawn indeed in my time here to the perils of the Internet. Phantom Twitter and Facebook pages have been set up with the appearance of being legitimate pages of MPs from both sides of the House. One of our concerns is that this bill will open the door to allow what we have seen abroad whereby warrants have been issued via these very social networking sites such as Facebook among other things. 
ACT will support the passage of this bill to a select committee solely for the purpose of a comprehensive review of the law in this area. As it has been said legislation in respect of search seizure and surveillance as it stands is a hodgepodge of thrown-together statutes and case law. At best it is outdated; at worst it contains glaring and dangerous anomalies. I will take this opportunity to urge the many people who have contacted our party and I am sure other members of Parliament with concerns about this bill to make those concerns known by making a submission to the select committee. That is the place to do it; that is the way to do it. Writing to or emailing one’s MP is one thing but making a formal submission to a select committee is the correct process and we will be following the deliberations of the select committee with interest. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.