(Deputy Leader—Labour) gave the National government
a “score card on how it has done over the last three years.
THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND
Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill had its first reading on 27 September 2011. The background to the legislation went back several years. In October 2007 a series of armed police raids were carried out in response to the discovery of an alleged paramilitary training camp in the Urewera mountain range, near the town of Ruatoki in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Guns and ammunition were seized, and 17 people arrested, all but one charged with firearms offences, and all granted bail within a month. According to the police the raids were the culmination of more than a year of surveillance. Search warrants were issued under the Summary Proceedings Act to search for evidence relating to potential breaches of the Terrorism Suppression Act and the Arms Act. On 8 November 2007 the Solicitor-General declined to press charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act, because of the inadequacies of the legislation, describing it as “complex and incoherent”, and “almost impossible to apply to domestic circumstances”. In September 2011 the Crown dropped the
charges for 13 of the 17 defendants after the Supreme Court ruled certain evidence inadmissible. The remaining four still faced charges of participating in a criminal gang and unlawful possession of a firearm. A 3-2 verdict of the court overturned previous rulings by the High Court and Court of Appeal that cameras installed by the police to record the defendants engaging in military-style training were lawful. However, it found that offending by the remaining defendants was so serious that the evidence collected by the cameras could be used. The Attorney-General, Hon. Chris Finlayson, MP, speaking on the first reading of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill, explained that “for the last 17 years the police have used covert video surveillance cameras…to help investigate serious crimes. Contrary to some public comment, the police were…justified in their belief that the use of this surveillance in connection with a search warrant was not unlawful. Last month the
354 | The Parliamentarian | 2011: Issue Four
Supreme Court retrospectively altered the law. It ruled that in the absence of specific statutory authorization the use of covert video surveillance amounting to a search, and conducted in tandem with a Summary Proceedings Act search warrant, was unlawful. The decision of the court affects approximately 40 criminal cases now before the courts and at least the same number of current police criminal investigations. The Bill…[preserves] the legal position as it was before 2 September 2011”.
Mr Chauvel complained about the way the legislation was being rushed through, although a “truncated” select committee process would allow some scrutiny of the Bill: “It is a small mercy, but at least it is happening.” The Bill passed through its remaining stages under urgency on 6 October. In its second reading Mr Chauvel said “the least-worst outcome will be achieved by this legislation. As a result of the select committee process that the government was required to undergo, police will get only the limited powers that they formerly held, for six months only, and Parliament will be prevented from doing something constitutionally repugnant—that is, legislating retrospectively. Labour stood firm and achieved that outcome”.
In the Committee of the whole House stage, Mr
Keith Locke (Green) called the Bill “legislation that has been looking for a problem”, and concluded: “there is no reason at all why we could not have gone for another six months under the present system.”
In the third reading Mr Finlayson called the Bill “the result of political parties working together to find a solution to a problem. The Bill we debate today is, to all intents and purposes, the Bill sent to the select committee. The difference is that certain elements of retrospectivity have been removed”. Hon. Rodney Hide, MP, (ACT Party) said: “We have a patch, we have a fix-up, it is there for six months, and in six months this Parliament will have to come back and fix it. I think that is a great result.” The Bill passed by 105 votes to 14, with the
Green Party, the Maori Party, and Mana voting against it.
I have measured it by three main measures: are we better off; are there more jobs; and does it have a plan to manage the economy”? Ms King concluded: “This government has borrowed 437 billion for no growth. We have 56,000 more unemployed, and National is too timid to tackle the real policies that this country needs.”
Dr Norman described “the
recent double downgrade by Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings” as “a vote of no confidence in the government’s management of the economy”. He continued: “We believe that the government has not delivered a plan that seizes the economic opportunities of tomorrow, particularly in the space of the smart Green economy. “For a decade now the
Greens have shown that we can make a change as an independent party in Parliament. The next Parliament, we hope, will be an opportunity for more Green change. “Our vision is for a New Zealand that is richer in things that matter: strong communities, a beautiful environment, and a clean, green economy that works for everyone. I believe that New Zealand can be this country, and that we can lead the change to a better world.” The Speaker described the forty-ninth Parliament as “a busy one. You have sat for 1,650 hours, approximately, which is 150 hours more than the forty-eighth Parliament. I must say, though, that a quarter of those hours were under urgency, and I hope that the proposals to our Standing Orders adopted by this House will facilitate less reliance on urgency to advance the legislative programme in the future”.