First Reading Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (14:59): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 August 2026. It’s estimated that crime results in billions of dollars in losses every year and causes untold harm to countless hard-working New Zealanders and businesses. It is not uncommon to read media stories of retirees deprived of their savings or businesses destroyed by the actions of fraudsters. The scale and complexity of fraud is increasing. It challenges the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute the fraudsters who commit this crime. It is critical that our laws adapt to this change in context, including advances in technology and how fraud is committed. This Government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order. Doing so requires penalties to reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and ensuring offenders are held accountable for the harm they cause to their victims. It also means ensuring law enforcement agencies have the t…
Read full Hansard debate
First Reading
Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (14:59): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 August 2026.
It’s estimated that crime results in billions of dollars in losses every year and causes untold harm to countless hard-working New Zealanders and businesses. It is not uncommon to read media stories of retirees deprived of their savings or businesses destroyed by the actions of fraudsters. The scale and complexity of fraud is increasing. It challenges the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute the fraudsters who commit this crime. It is critical that our laws adapt to this change in context, including advances in technology and how fraud is committed.
This Government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order. Doing so requires penalties to reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and ensuring offenders are held accountable for the harm they cause to their victims. It also means ensuring law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to hold criminals to account and to prevent more New Zealanders from becoming victims of fraud and corruption.
The Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill aims to do just that. The bill amends the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990, which established the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and gives it the modern powers it needs to investigate serious and complex fraud and corruption. The SFO Act has not been substantively updated since it passed 36 years ago. Since then, the technological environment has changed; evidence of fraud is increasingly digital, meaning investigations involve information stored on devices and in the cloud.
Criminal justice legislation has also moved on, with modern approaches to law enforcement agencies, undertaking searches, and how the courts consider evidence. The SFO Act has simply not kept up. Outdated parts of the Act are directly affecting the ability of the SFO to fulfil its functions: to address fraud and corruption in New Zealand.
The bill is targeted to act quickly and address the issues that are creating the biggest challenges for the SFO. These are to do with search warrant powers and the legal test for evidence admissibility in the Act. The bill updates three key elements of the search warrant framework. First, the bill ensures the SFO can obtain the types of evidence it needs in an investigation. When the SFO Act was passed in 1990, evidence of fraud was almost exclusively paper based. Searches tended to be for documents, papers, and ledgers stored in filing cabinets in offices. However, evidence of fraud today is increasingly digital—on computers and smartphones, in accounting software, and stored in the cloud. The current settings mean the SFO faces unhelpful barriers to obtaining important digital evidence from devices and the cloud. The bill addresses this.
Second, the bill makes the search warrant application process more efficient. Under the existing process, a warrant application can only be made in writing and to a judge. This takes time and means the SFO cannot always act quickly enough to preserve evidence that might be at risk of being destroyed or tampered with before a search is executed. The bill enables the SFO to act quickly and efficiently, to do its searches by empowering oral warrant applications, and allowing these to be made to an issuing officer, such as a community magistrate or other judicial officer who has been authorised by the Attorney-General.
Third, the bill ensures the SFO can manage a physical warrant scene, like a residence or office. Right now, it can be difficult for the SFO to manage its warrant scenes and access important things like electricity or internet on site. This risks the integrity of the evidence and can endanger investigators. These changes make it clear that investigators can give reasonable directions to exclude people from a warrant site and to access electricity or an internet connection if needed in the search.
The bill also makes it clear that police can use all their usual powers under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 when assisting the SFO to execute a warrant. This ensures police have all the tools they need to help the SFO do its searches safely and effectively. The changes to the warrant settings bring SFO search powers to the same level as similar enforcement agencies, like the Financial Markets Authority. We’ve modelled the changes on the comparable provisions in the Search and Surveillance Act, which is where those other enforcement agencies’ powers sit.
The bill also updates the evidence test used in the SFO Act. The courts use the test to determine whether certain evidence can be used in a case. The test is used when a law enforcement agency may not have followed all the rules when gathering the evidence. The existing test in the Act reflects the approach taken in 1990. The law has since moved on. The bill changes the legal test to reflect the more recent and widely applied test from the Evidence Act 2006. We’re confident that the approach in the Evidence Act provides a more balanced legal test. It allows the court to consider a range of important factors when considering if evidence should be admissible. Those factors include whether urgency or safety was a factor in obtaining the evidence and the seriousness of the offending. Changing the test in this way brings the SFO into line with the standard approach and ensures its Act is consistent with other criminal justice legislation.
This bill gives the SFO the powers it needs to investigate and prosecute serious fraud and corruption in the digital age. They are powers held and used regularly by other enforcement agencies. Central to this is ensuring law enforcement agencies, such as the SFO, have the tools they need to hold fraudsters to account for their crimes and the harm they cause to their victims. I commend this bill to the House.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:06): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are going to support that this bill go to select committee for examination. We agree that the Serious Fraud Office does a very important job, and we are heartened that the Government wants to make sure that, essentially, white-collar criminals—fraudsters, people engaging in corruption—are subject to the full force of the law, because it’s an important part of our law enforcement framework.
We have some concerns. Every time a court criticises the conduct of a law enforcement agency, the response of the Government is to broaden the powers of that agency. We’re seeing that in respect of the Policing Amendment Bill and the illegal taking of photographs. Now what we are seeing here is that the Court of Appeal on R v Pikia found that the Serious Fraud Office was exercising powers that it simply didn’t have in demanding the delivery of devices by various notices under the Act.
It’s worth observing that it’s a somewhat unusual situation where you have almost every enforcement agency having powers of search and surveillance under the Search and Surveillance Act. The very purpose of that Act when it was passed was to bring together search and surveillance powers from all kinds of enforcement agencies—whether it be Agriculture or Fisheries or Police or Customs—to make sure they had one consistent set of principles. Now, we’ve got this outlier organisation, the Serious Fraud Office, which has retained quite extensive but differently framed powers. We agree that it’s appropriate to look at this to make sure they do have the powers which are appropriate so that they can do their job. Clearly, as the Minister noted, the ability to search electronic devices and to demand the production of documents that are stored electronically is part of that.
I was also interested to hear the Minister talk about the test for wrongfully obtained evidence. In fact, New Zealand is an outlier, because in most jurisdictions, if evidence is obtained illegally, it can’t be used in a proceeding. In the United States, this is called the “fruit of the poisoned tree” doctrine, where you can’t go and illegally enter a property, find a document or a bloodied weapon, knowing that you’re not allowed to be there, and then turn up to court and present it as evidence. New Zealand takes not a slightly different—a radically different—approach. It basically says, in the Search and Surveillance Act, “Well, how good is the evidence? How serious is the crime? What were the circumstances when you chose not to follow the law and illegally seized that evidence?”, and balances that up and says, “Well, that’s a pretty serious thing. All you did was enter an open back door without an invitation, and, therefore, we think you should allow it in.”
That’s actually conceptually a very challenging thing to do. Steven Joyce would be proud of a search being a little bit illegal. But we are going to have a look at that at select committee, at least in respect of Serious Fraud Office searches. I do have concerns that any situation where enforcement officers know that if they act illegally, the consequences will not be significant—they’ll probably still be allowed to use that evidence—raises real problems about the incentives that that sets.
But as we said, we think this is a bill that deserves scrutiny. We do want to make sure that it isn’t just giving them more powers because they haven’t got enough money. That’s a genuine question for the Serious Fraud Office, which is a tiny institution, given the magnitude of its task.
With that, we look forward to a thorough examination of this bill before committee.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:11): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support this bill through its first reading. For you, Mr Speaker, you’re going to be hearing a reasonably similar speech to the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.
In terms of the context, the bill itself, in terms of the expanded scope of the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO’s) search abilities, and particularly the ability to enable the SFO to obtain necessary digital evidence and apply the more modern evidence test in terms of evidence admissibility, is an important aspect, as we heard from the Minister, in being able to keep up with other areas and other agencies.
I do think that the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, has raised a couple of issues that are quite important. The first one is that we do see this sort of continuous catch-up game in terms of something that was ruled in court and then the Government catching up in terms of the admissibility of evidence or the expanded scope required to ensure that something like that doesn’t happen again. I think, as part of the select committee process, we’ll be really interested to know whether the Minister of Justice is doing any proactive work to anticipate something that happens rather than continuously being reactive and rather than taking a proactive approach.
But just on the case I was referring to here, I think it is important to raise that part of this bill did come about in the 2024 Court of Appeal case with Crown and Pikia, and particularly around the way that the evidence was being collected. I think it is important to mention that case in conjunction with a number of other cases, because while we see certain agencies—like the Police, which has far greater resources—as part of the review process or Estimates hearings, we do constantly hear from SFO, and we as a select committee question SFO, in terms of the ability for them to undertake the job that they’re doing with the limited resources that they have.
What we also saw previously when we had the justice cluster, for example, where SFO was able to work more collaboratively with other agencies in terms of a more coordinated approach—we do see that justice cluster has also wrapped up. Now we don’t know what the next necessary step is for SFO, the Minister of Justice, Police, Corrections, etc., to actually all come together to address some of these issues as well.
With that, I think what is important to note, and something to tease out as part of the select committee stage, is this idea of evidence admissibility. I want to raise the particular example I think the previous speakers mentioned in terms of the fruit of the poisoned tree. Particularly, we saw that in the case of Hamed and Ors and Crown in the 2011 Supreme Court ruling, where evidence was collected incorrectly under the then Search and Surveillance Act, which then was amended in 2012. That admissibility is going to be a key factor if you have an agency who has limited resources to be able to undertake some of that. So it is whether, then, as part of this bill, although there is the expanded scope, the SFO is able to ensure that we don’t see that evidence inadmissibility as we go through the court system. Because, again, the cases the SFO deals with, on average, are those kinds of white-collar crimes and are the kind of things that are incredibly complex and, also, incredibly costly to go through. It’s one of the reasons why this country, Aotearoa New Zealand, doesn’t see many successful convictions when it comes to white-collar crimes; because it’s incredibly costly for the Crown to actually undertake some of those trials and some of those court processes.
Finally, part of that is how is this potentially—you know, seeing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) report. It has passed the Attorney-General’s BORA report, but there’s always this idea that—you know, we’re now looking at this expanded scope of search and the collection of evidence around privilege against self-incrimination, so I think that’s also an important factor to consider as we’re going through the select committee process.
The Green Party does support this bill at present, and we look forward to additional contributions from officials, Ministers, and the submitters on this bill during the select committee.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:16): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I rise take a short call on behalf of ACT on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. This is a bill to modernise some aspects of the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990. The Minister has well traversed the details and, since I’m on the Justice Committee, I will get to well traverse those details in a lot of detail when it comes before the committee. It sounds like parties across Parliament are actually going to support it to the select committee, which is great, because that will allow us to do that work.
Obviously, financial crimes are serious. We want to make sure we give the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) the tools to tackle those crimes, and it is really making sure that the legislation keeps up with modern technologies and things that they need to be doing to collect evidence and surveillance, etc. From ACT’s perspective, this is going to be potentially fixing what matters: a loophole in the current powers of the SFO. Financial or white-collar crime isn’t victimless. It does undermine trust. It does actually drive up costs, and we want to make sure our hard-working New Zealanders aren’t hit in the pocket.
I look forward to discussing this further at the select committee, but I commend this bill to the House.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (15:17): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. This bill helps fulfil our coalition agreement commitments to restore law and order. It gives the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) the necessary tools to address financial crime—and that’s what we are talking about within this bill, financial crime. It gives search powers into a modern world, and this world is changing quickly, especially in this space, around the digital nature. So giving the required search powers that are required to the Serious Fraud Office is very important.
What I did want to discuss a little bit was that just prior to Christmas, the Serious Fraud Office came and spoke to the Justice Committee. it was their Long-term Insights Briefing. They did talk a lot about the explosion—what they really said, the explosion—of fraud around the world. But we can stand—I can stand—here in this House, and New Zealand is classed across the world as having very low levels of corruption and fraud, and all of us in this House want to keep that this way. So giving the Serious Fraud Office this ability in today’s world is only sensible.
We realise, also, that often the Serious Fraud Office deal with very serious and complex fraud, bribery, and corruption. It’s not just in the public sector it works in but it also works across the private sector, as well. One thing, also, is the role of the Serious Fraud Office is about preventing fraud and corruption, and giving it the right tools will detract these people from actually even thinking about entering into these types of crimes.
The bill deals with two pressing issues around the search warrants and evidence admissibility. As previous speakers have said, the select committee process—and I’m a member of the Justice Committee—will be the right place to examine those issues. I commend this bill to the House.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (15:20): Thanks, Mr Speaker. Restoring law and order in New Zealand is more than just removing gang patches, which we’ve done, and sorting out antisocial road-users, which is in progress. It’s also about supporting those constituents who come into our offices and tell us about the stories of how they have been scammed online and the difficulties that have occurred in trying to catch the criminals that have scammed them and taken away their money and their mana. This bill is going to support actually finding those people, capturing them, and making sure they are held accountable for their actions. I therefore commend it to the House.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (15:21): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s very good to follow the call of Carl Bates, the member for Whanganui, because the tone of Mr Bates’ contribution says something about this Government’s approach to the politics of law and order, which I want to say something about.
As my colleagues have said, the Labour Party is supporting this bill to select committee for further examination. You can read that as a kind of qualified, time-bound support to send this bill off so we can look under the hood and give critical scrutiny to the provisions of this bill. On the surface of it, at face value, and from what we’ve heard from the Minister and Government members today, it would seem to be simply a modernisation of the legal framework that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) operates under, particularly in relation to powers of search and surveillance and, secondly, the admissibility of evidence—but is it?
We’ve heard from a number of colleagues, and we’ve heard the story of the Court of Appeal’s findings in relation to the case of Roger Pikia, which was really the thing that instigated the policy process that led to this bill coming to the House today. The Court of Appeal was scathing, I think it’s fair to say, about the Serious Fraud Office acting beyond its powers. The court said that the SFO “gathered more than a million documents relating to Mr Pikia’s dealings over a seven-year period, few of which were relevant to the organisation … The indiscriminate use of warrants was the antithesis of the correct approach, which requires the provision of as much specificity as is reasonably possible in the circumstances and targeting only information relevant to the frauds under investigation”. It was a fishing trip of industrial scale.
My colleague Duncan Webb talked about the habit that the current Government has whenever a court criticises a law enforcement agency for the way they do their work and with regard to their powers under the law. The response of this Government is simply to retrospectively make all that legal by expanding the powers. I’ll be interested to hear how the Justice Committee get on with teasing out whether this is, in fact, a justified codification and setting out of the specific powers that the Serious Fraud Office needs, in the digital age, to do their job properly. A cursory reading of the new search provisions, which allow digital items to be the subject of a warrant, and so on, makes sense, but I’ll be very interested to hear the select committees report back to the House on whether or not it is simply that, or is it just an expansion and a loosening of the controls?
When you read the provisions in this bill, it would be an understatement to say they’re comprehensive. These provisions would allow the Serious Fraud Office to go to the doctor, and woe betide anyone who finds themselves on the receiving end of an SFO search warrant, because if they use all of their powers, there won’t be much left of the place or the person that’s being searched.
Finally, I want to just make this point: the Serious Fraud Office is a tiny organisation. The question that I have for Government members is, yep, you want to expand the powers available to the Serious Fraud Office, but do you think the office is adequately funded to do its work? Or is this bill just another example of performative politics by the Government in relation to law and order—of being seen to be on the job by changing the law and expanding powers but not actually—
Rima Nakhle: Mr Speaker—Mr Speaker.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —but not actually resourcing the agency to do its job properly.
Rima Nakhle: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, no. Hang on a minute. I decide when he’s finished—no one else.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (15:26): Sorry—thank you, Mr Speaker. Fraud is the fastest-growing crime in New Zealand, amounting to almost 30 percent of all crime committed. Although we’ve been in Government for less than three years, we recognised very quickly that something needed to be done to give the Serious Fraud Office the authority to tackle this fastest-growing crime. It’s incumbent on us, and I commend this bill to the House.
DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (15:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill at its first reading. As mentioned by my colleagues, Labour will be supporting this bill to the select committee. Being new to the Justice Committee, I’m looking forward to fleshing out this bill and learning about its implications.
When I was doing study for this bill, I came across this graph. It shows that, in 2003, the Serious Fraud Office reported expected serious fraud levels at $200 million. By 2023, this figure had risen to $5 billion. This 25-fold increase over two decades illustrates the consequences of the Serious Fraud Office and other Government agencies failing to adopt technology-driven fraud prevention strategies and maintain continuous vigilance amongst emerging threats. It’s very, very important that we address this, and we do so because serious fraud is not a victimless crime. It is not some fringe offence that only happens on spreadsheets or in boardrooms. It hurts real people, it can wipe out savings, destroy trust and undermine confidence in our institutions, and leave ordinary New Zealanders paying the price.
When a worker loses retirement savings through an investment scheme, that matters. When a small business is undercut by dishonest competitors, that matters. When the public loses confidence that the rules apply equally to everyone, that also matters as well. Labour supports strong enforcement against serious crime, we support agencies having fit-for-purpose tools, and we support modern laws that keep pace with technology. We also want to ensure that those who think they can cheat the system are held to account just as much as any other crime we see in our communities. That’s why we’re supporting this bill.
The Serious Fraud Office Act dates back to 1990. Back then, the world looked very different. Records were on paper, filing cabinets filled offices across New Zealand, and letters were posted. Computers did exist, but nothing like the digital world we live in now. Today, evidence sits in cloud storage; it may be in encrypted accounts, and it may be spread across multiple devices—across multiple jurisdictions, actually—and across multiple platforms. Fraudsters can move money with a few clicks and hide communications behind multiple layers of technology. So it makes sense that the law should catch up with that.
This bill modernises search warrant provisions so they better reflect the way information is now stored and accessed. It recognises that evidence may longer be sitting in a desk drawer or in a hard drive physically located in one office. It may be remote, it may be digital, it could be intangible, and it’s also fast moving. So addressing this is a sensible objective.
This bill also seeks to align the admissibility of evidence provisions in the Serious Fraud Office Act with the broader and more modern framework under the Evidence Act 2006. Again, on the face of it, this is a sensible direction. Consistency across the legal system matters, clarity matters, and modern evidential standards matter. So there are many useful and practical elements within this legislation.
But supporting the bill to select committee is not the same as writing a blank cheque, and this is where Labour’s role is important, because while the goal of tackling serious fraud is right, the powers given to the State must always be balanced with safeguards, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. That balance matters in everyday democracy, as we all know, and whenever Parliament gives search powers, surveillance powers, or remote access powers, or, for that matter, expanded evidential pathways, we should do that very carefully. We should ask the hard questions and test whether the drafting is proportionate in a way that the public will expect. So, for that reason, we commend the bill to the House.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (15:31): Excellent. It is my privilege to rise and speak in favour of the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill in this first reading, and it’s great to see support across the House for this bill. As already has been mentioned, fraud is one of the fastest growing crimes here in New Zealand, and we are definitely doing something about it. It’s estimated to cost billions of dollars. Of course, our Serious Fraud Office Act is over 36 years old; it’s time for it to be modified. Things have changed. The way crimes are happening is changing. This bill does that. Therefore, I commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.