Katene Rahui: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21816] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I will start with the notion of police impropriety within the context of the rule of law. Clause 5 of the very brief Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill deals with the “Temporary continuation of lawfulness of certain uses of video camera surveillance”. I am fascinated by the use of legislation to create lawfulness for agencies that are charged with implementing and monitoring the law in the first place. The starting place for all criminal law is to protect the rights of an individual against the State lest the individual become oppressed. That is why one does not allow Parliament to take away a person’s rights lightly which is why there are real restrictions on the police in the way of search warrants. With this new bill we now have before us provisions that “The use of covert video camera surveillance as part of or in connection with a search does not of itself render the search unlawful.” 
I refer to an article by Dean Knight entitled “Elephants and the Law” which tells us that although the Supreme Court did not rule that the police acted with bad faith the majority indicated that the police’s attitude to the unlawfulness of the covert surveillance was at best reckless and perhaps deliberate. 
I will read from the actual ruling of the Chief Justice in paragraph 73 of the Urewera case of  
R v Hamed 
: “In circumstances where the police officer in charge of the inquiry knew that there was no authority to be obtained for such filmed surveillance the deliberate unlawfulness of the police conduct in the covert filming maintained over many entries and over a period of some 10 months is destructive of an effective and credible system of justice.” 
Justice Blanchard went even further in describing this deliberate unlawfulness and the detail around the activities which served to destroy the credibility and effectiveness of the system of justice: “Despite being aware that they lacked statutory authority for the surveillance they proceeded without taking legal advice which they had plenty of time to obtain. Having failed to get advice the police cannot rely on the fact that they were operating in circumstances of legal uncertainty and argue that they should be cut some slack. Their conduct was reckless in the sense that they took the risk that it might be found to be unlawful.” 
No one can read through those words—failure to get advice reckless risk deliberate unlawfulness—without a sense of horror that we are not talking about criminals. They are not those whom society should fear; these are the very agents of the State who are meant to uphold the rule of law. 
I cannot ignore the findings of a PricewaterhouseCoopers report released in February last year that found that the police had made little progress in implementing Dame Margaret Bazley’s findings. PricewaterhouseCoopers referred to the in-house engagement survey that confirmed that 67 percent of police employees are ambivalent about their job and 16 percent are completely disengaged. I do not know exactly— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I just remind the member that you must be more succinct. Although you can refer to the case you must keep it within the confines of what this bill is. I ask the member to come back. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I am pointing out that this bill is making lawful what was unlawful and we cannot have that. We cannot allow that. We cannot have Parliament make lawful something that was unlawful. Where do our constitutional rights stand? 
I go back to what the police were doing; they were ambivalent and disengaged. The Maori Party does not want people with that sort of attitude having prospective surveillance powers let alone police officers who promote one another who cover for one another and who allow sexual predators to prosper. This Parliament cannot let the New Zealand Police continue in the way that it is. The Maori Party for one is prepared to do something about it. We have— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I just remind the member. I mentioned before that you must come back. There is a very narrow scope to this bill and although you can refer to the case remembering that it is still before the courts we must be very careful that we just stay within the scope of what this bill is about. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I make the point that this bill should not be making lawful that which was unlawful.