Parker David: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21807] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to catalogue some of the areas where I was unhappy with this process. I think we came close to getting it wrong in this Parliament and we would have but for the circumstances that Charles Chauvel has already outlined which involved all of the minor parties lining up with Labour to stop National pushing through this Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill under urgency without a select committee process. 
The Supreme Court decision threw up three issues which the Government conflated. Those three issues were firstly whether the police and some other agencies needed a prospective power of surveillance which the Supreme Court found does not exist until this legislation is passed; secondly what the effect of the decision would be on prior convictions; and thirdly what the effect of the Supreme Court decision would be on illegally obtained evidence in respect of trials that are yet to take place. It was not until we got to the Justice and Electoral Committee and had input from other parties including Labour that light started to be shone on those three issues. Once we did that it was easier to cure the problem. 
I am disappointed and extremely surprised that yet again we have had a failure of Parliament’s processes in respect of the vet in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That Act requires the Attorney-General to report to Parliament when any legislation breaches it. We have adverted to this in our minority report. On this occasion we did not have a report from the Attorney-General signalling that this legislation infringed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It has taken Labour to elucidate that in our minority report. 
The Supreme Court found that the police acting without express authority in the use of surveillance devices was in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that stands as the ratio of the court’s decision. This legislation as it was introduced to the House retrospectively made that illegal evidence legal. That must—must—infringe the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions in respect of freedom from inappropriate search and surveillance. How could the Government conclude that no warning was necessary for this House? It would have highlighted to the House that care needed to be taken in respect of the retrospective application of this legislation. The select committee did get to the bottom of it but it was no thanks to any warning which was properly required under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
That is not a fault of the Attorney-General because in respect of this legislation he had delegated it to Kate Wilkinson. In fairness to her she acted on advice from the Ministry of Justice. But that is the third instance in this Parliament where in my opinion we have had poor process within the ministry and it has advised Ministers that no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet was necessary. We had it in respect of the earlier attempt to remove the unconditional right of accused persons to appear at their own defence when they wanted to. We also had it in respect of some of the provisions that would effectively abrogate part of the right of silence of defendants. In the criminal procedure legislation the defence was going to be required to disclose the nature of its defence to the prosecution. And we have had it again in respect of this legislation. I say to the Attorney-General that there is a need to review that office because these are three instances where I think complications in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act ought to have been brought to the attention of this House. 
In respect of the prospective power of the police I am disappointed with the attitude of the Greens. It is absolutely clear that the police on some occasions need the right to surveillance techniques—it is absolutely clear. The select committee was told of one example that speaks volumes which is that drug dealers who know they might be subject to listening devices close the curtains and write instructions on whiteboards. The only way the police can gather evidence in respect of that situation is through the use of cameras. That is the only way so for the Greens to deny that a prospective power is necessary for the police is quite wrong. 
The other point I raise is that it is true also of the SIS. The SIS is affected by this legislation. I was disappointed that I learnt that only at the select committee. It might have been raised with some other people at briefings prior to that but it was not raised with me and it was not raised in any of the Minister’s speeches in the first reading. This legislation does not apply just to the police; it applies to other agencies. 
This legislation could have been better. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer said within a day’s drafting we could have specified that it was to be a warrant only from judges we could have listed the level of seriousness needed before the police could exercise this sort of warrant and we could have had a list of the agencies to which it applied. If we had had those things we would have greater protections than this bill provides. 
Having said that Labour is satisfied to vote for this bill because we accept that a prospective power is needed for the police. We are pleased that there is not retrospectivity in respect of the trials yet to take place and we think it is appropriate that we not reopen convictions that have previously been entered. We will be supporting this legislation with those reservations.