Bridges Simon: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:942] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
:  
I want to take I hope a reasonably short call just in regard to Part 1 of the Search and Surveillance Bill and really elaborate on the commonality National members have with Labour members but also I suppose underscore some of the differences. I want to start as I say by really agreeing with what the Hon David Parker said at the start of his contribution before the dinner break where he said that actually the Greens are entirely wrong to say that we are not united on most of this. The fact of the matter is that there was an exceptional select committee process. I know that this is the kind of thing that is often said in this House perhaps by some somewhat insincerely but it is true to say that when members of the Justice and Electoral Committee sat around—and I agree with David Parker on this and commend the then chair the now Hon Chester Borrows for the way it was handled—we went into it very much with a view that we were not going to increase the powers of the State. I remember sitting down with charts and diagrams and we went through the various agencies and their powers before and after and I think we were scrupulous in that regard to have here a bill that does not—and contrary to what the Greens say—essentially increase the powers of the State. To some extent— 
Hon David Parker 
: Except for production. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I will come to the Hon David Parker’s point; I am not going to short-change him on that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Because you are actually nailing the point. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I am going to come to that. The basic point still holds though that actually in relation to the vast majority of this bill most of this Parliament is united. We are not trying to increase powers. We are trying to bring this law into the modern day to as Cam Calder has spoken about keep up with this ever increasing flow of technology. 
I do want to deal with the Serious Fraud Office because yes there is some disagreement. David Parker and I do not criticise him for this has given can I say a Labour version of the history of the Serious Fraud Office. That is fine but the fact of the matter is the Serious Fraud Office was originally as I understand it set up by a Labour Government by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Actually it was Richard Prebble. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Back then they gave—OK Richard Prebble good friend of Lianne I am sure. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He is—we’re very close. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Lianne and Richard share the same sort of general philosophy of politics and life in general. Coming back to the point it was set up by a Labour Government. The powers that were given then were generally seen as right and they increased the powers for the Serious Fraud Office. They gave the Serious Fraud Office more powers—to do the sorts of things that David Parker was talking about—than were given to other authorities. I accept that Labour perhaps had a change of heart in Government and we know that David Parker’s Government with I think the assistance of New Zealand First wanted to disband the Serious Fraud Office. I am not going to go into the reasons for that but that is— 
Hon David Parker 
: No to merge it. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well they wanted to disband—they say merge with the police I say disband—the Serious Fraud Office and have the police running this sort of thing and as I recall it with the same powers that the Serious Fraud Office have actually. But in any event the point is that is the history. So I think we do need to be clear on the history. 
 But I want to say this: there are actually very good reasons—there is a strong rationale—for giving the Serious Fraud Office different and in fact increased powers than a whole lot of other State agencies such as the police have. And the reason for that is this. Day in day out the Serious Fraud Office is dealing with exceptionally complex white-collar crime that cannot easily be solved. It is being perpetrated by very sophisticated customers and the Serious Fraud Office does need I am sorry to say when it is dealing with these people the sorts of powers that it has had and I think should continue to have. 
I do not want to become a legal historian but I know that earlier when we debated I think the second reading of this bill Denis O’Rourke talked about the Star Chamber. I think it is right to remember that the rationale for the right to silence and many of the I suppose now fundamental tenets of our legal system came from a system where in the United Kingdom illiterate people could not defend themselves. They were being bamboozled they did not understand what was going on and from that we got a right to silence so they would not have words put in their mouths and they would not be signing things that they did not understand. That is a world away from what the Serious Fraud Office is dealing with day in day out. It is dealing with sophisticated white-collar criminals and the rationale for the right to silence and many of those things just does not hold up at quite the same level when we are talking about those kinds of people as it does when we are talking about the sorts of people Denis O’Rourke was talking about in his speech in the second reading. 
In summary what I am really saying to this Committee is that actually the vast majority of members in this Committee agree with most of this bill. They believe that we are not increasing vastly the powers of the State. I accept there are differences when it comes to the Serious Fraud Office’s powers but what I am saying is that when you look at the history you see that Labour in fact was the one that signed us up to a Serious Fraud Office with increased powers. The rationale for giving the Serious Fraud Office powers that other State agencies do not have is pretty strong.