Blue Jackie: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:971] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on Part 3 of the Search and Surveillance Bill. I would like to congratulate the officials and the Justice and Electoral Committee because again this is another substantial part of this very good bill. Going through and looking at the changes the select committee made changes in the Supplementary Order Paper and changes that have been made by officials it is clear that it has been very carefully scrutinised. It is also clear that there has been a concern about getting that balance right between privacy and using the powers in an appropriate way. I am very pleased to see that that has been addressed. 
There are four subparts to Part 3: Subpart 1 “Surveillance device warrants and declaratory orders”; Subpart 2 “Production orders”—which I will talk about a little bit later on—Subpart 3 “Police and Customs officer powers to search in relation to delivery under section 12 of Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978”; and the last subpart Subpart 4 “Warrantless powers of entry and search incidental to arrest or detention”. 
Just talking about the bill’s surveillance regime initially this covers the interception devices that can interpret communications otherwise known as audio surveillance; tracking devices that can detect where things are located or whether a thing can be opened or tampered with; and visual surveillance. Only a judge importantly can issue a surveillance order a warrant and they have got to be satisfied that all the conditions are met. I think the thing that impresses me in this particular bill is that it is very prescriptive. There is a recipe you have got to follow there are criteria that have to be met and there is a high level of scrutiny. I am very pleased to see that. 
Not being a legal person and speaking as a member of the public as I am when I am not in Parliament I am pleased to know that we have these protections here. I think the degree of intrusiveness of surveillance will depend on obviously the circumstances. So for example video surveillance will not always be more intrusive than searching a house under a warrant but there are significant privacy concerns with regard to visual surveillance involving trespass and audio surveillance so these methods are limited to very serious offending. I think it is entirely appropriate that they are used only in very serious situations and are not used frivolously or with a very low-level hurdle to cross. 
I will speak a little bit about production orders. This part of the bill also introduces the production order regime and that means really that when a person is presented with a production order they have got to produce the goods that are described in that particular document. It is something that the Serious Fraud Office has been able to do but this is now going to be extended to the police. Importantly there is going to be provision for people who feel that they cannot comply and that they must refuse for reasons such as self-incrimination or recognised privilege. 
We talked before in the debate on Part 2 about journalists and about how they want to protect their sources of information. New Zealand is a country of free speech and I feel that all of us here if we were in a situation where someone had to blow a whistle or wanted to say something using anonymity would respect that. 
Similarly I know that it will be welcomed by journalists that they can protect their sources. Indeed there has been a real improvement in that power for journalists to protect their sources. So in a situation where there is a production order the journalist can invoke this situation and not divulge their source at all. Again I think that this is another substantial part. There are a number of subparts. It is very prescriptive and very comprehensive and I applaud the committee and the officials in respect of this section. Thank you.