Borrows Chester: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6825] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I too rise in support of the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill. I am pleased to be able to support the bill. It deals with a situation whereby technology has enabled people to create or take advantage of opportunities to offend just as innovative New Zealanders have been quick in other fields where technology has moved on to use that technology to offend. 
I am reminded of the first piece of technology for peeping and peering that I became acquainted with—a mirror stuck on the bottom of a walking stick. That was 30 years ago of course. Deputy Speaker Simich may remember seeing that during a trip to the Police College museum in the early 1960s. It is a famous piece of equipment. However we have moved along. 
Brian Connell 
: Is that where I left it? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Yes one would certainly need to have reasonable eyesight to take advantage of a mirror on the bottom of a walking stick. 
One of the things that really bothers me is something that was raised by my colleague Brian Connell. It concerns two instances raised at the select committee. After initially being pooh-poohed we were given an assurance or at least an undertaking from the Minister of Justice that these things would be looked at. 
Members may recall an incident that I recounted to the House during the second reading whereby a young farm lad with a crush on the neighbour’s wife crawled under the neighbours’ house drilled a hole in the floor of the bedroom and audiotaped the night-time discussions that went on therein. Apparently he got his jollies from listening to that. 
Covert audiotaping of intimate transactions is a reality. It does go on. We can imagine the embarrassment if such things were published. Given the opportunity with the formulation of this legislation and the fact that the issue was raised with the Minister and an undertaking was given that it would be looked into and addressed it seems a real shame to me that that never happened. 
I also raised another example during the second reading in respect of constituents. A young boyfriend and girlfriend had taken intimate photographs of each other on a digital camera—something they had both consented to do. Then the relationship fell over and what do you know the intimate photographs that had been taken with consent were published on the World Wide Web. The young woman who had moved away from home and into a hostel was confronted with the fact that other boys living at the hostel had seen photographs of her. She had consented to those photos being taken for the particular purpose of her boyfriend having them but now everyone was able to see them. Members can imagine how she felt about that. That issue was raised with the Minister and again an undertaking was given that it would be looked at and considered in the final drafting of this legislation. 
 The reason why that action is not against the law in respect of this legislation is that an intimate covert video or image is defined as one made without consent. In the example I have just given photographs were taken with consent but published without consent. It does not seem that anyone has broken any laws in respect of that example. I find it quite surprising that given the simplicity of making a couple of amendments altering just a few words to account for that that was not done. 
Having been in the House only about 12 months I find it a bit hard to get my head round exactly how this place works all the time but I find it really quite amazing that our having been given those undertakings and knowing that people were looking at it no one got back to us to explain why it had not been included or was not going to go any further. If we want to do something about it we have to set about creating a new piece of legislation and that seems to be a bit of a waste of time. Addressing issues is exactly the reason why things are debated in the House and people bat issues backwards and forwards. 
The National Party agreed right from the start that we would support this legislation because it was addressing something that needed to be addressed. But having raised through the course of debate other points that needed addressing too—and given that in the experience of some of us in the House they were quite glaring omissions and could have been easily fixed—we have to ask why they were not fixed. Was it just a matter of climbing over the ego was it a genuine oversight or was there a serious look at the proposals and they were discounted by the officials and advisers and thus the Minister? 
Having said all that the National Party will be supporting the bill. It is timely. I attended a police symposium yesterday on how we will be policing in the future. Several points were made about how the role of the police had changed over time and the fact that when the Police Act 1958 was drafted there was only one bunch of people doing policing in this country and that was the New Zealand Police. Nowadays every piece of core business of the New Zealand Police is being replicated by some private operator in this country and for certain a number of different agencies both public and private will be policing and enforcing the issues in this bill. We need to take account not only of changes in technology and the way that people offend but of changes in technology and sociology I guess in respect of those who will be enforcing it. 
In closing I note it is a shame the Minister and the ministry have not taken heed of advice that was passed on in the course of the debate. There was the opportunity to deal with at least another two areas of offending. That is obvious and a real concern for people out there. They have missed that opportunity and it is a shame.