Locke Keith: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21824] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I am very sad; I seem to have lost one vote in that correction. I will go home very sad. 
I think this has been a very intelligent debate on the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill and I commend all the members who have spoken for addressing the issues in a very good way. I thank Chester Borrows Rodney Hide Chris Finlayson and Charles Chauvel for their comments about me and this being my last afternoon in Parliament. I also agree with the  
New Zealand Herald 
 editorial even though I did not entirely agree—it was a bit too positive about the resulting bill. But I think it did highlight a point about the importance of MMP in resolving issues in this House and the role that smaller parties play in resolving those issues. I think that all of the parties represented including the Green Party made some contribution to the positive changes that happened in relation to the bill. 
I did a bit of arithmetic about how the 12 months could be changed to 6 months. I might not have been the only one doing the arithmetic but I think it all helped to shorten the time frame of this particular bill. I thank Christopher Finlayson for reminding me and us here that the bill lasts for 6 months so the question of appeal rights being not available because of clause 5A—unfortunately my amendment to omit it went down in the vote—lasts for only 6 months. 
I will make one or two more general points. I made some points about what could happen with agencies—the fisheries ministry the Commerce Commission the Customs Service etc. etc.—leaving covert video cameras as a result of exercising search warrants on private property and Hone Harawira talked about the possibility of video cameras on marae and all the rest of it. That might seem a bit extreme and one might think it would never happen. I think that reflects a problem we have in some of the debate in this Parliament in terms of two things. 
First I say that a lot of MPs get emails from people who are quite paranoid already and think that people are spying on them following them and all the rest of it. I think that response in terms of the number of such emails would increase if we give State agencies the power to put covert video cameras in private houses or private offices so that would be a downside. 
The other side to it is that often we think in terms of our current Government and the political character of our current Government. When Labour was in Government I often used to get: “Oh Helen Clark would never do that.” in response to my criticisms of some increase in State powers. I said that the issue was not whether Helen Clark would do it; the issue was whether a more repressive Government say a Muldoon-type Government or whatever would do it. Similarly it is not a question of whether a John Key Government would do it; it is a question of whether a more repressive Government might do it. So we always must frame laws with the idea that some nastier Government might come into office and use these laws in a more repressive way. 
I think one of the reasons why in Europe there is quite a consciousness—possibly a stronger consciousness—of civil liberties is that they have been through some quite repressive government situations and they hold on jealously to their human rights and have European human rights courts and all kinds of things. I take Chris Finlayson’s point that stuff can go through the British Parliament pretty quickly as well but I think we have to bear that in mind much more. Tony Ellis talked about international law and the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the human rights cases he had taken and won there. When he said that a case relating to this bill could go before the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights he was trying to look at our law—and I think that is useful; Tony Ellis is a respected lawyer—in an international context. 
This relates to what Charles Chauvel just said: it may be true that there are some criminals who write things on whiteboards and escape the attention of the law because of it and they might be serious criminals but the fundamental issue that we have to always bear in mind is that the protection of civil liberties—and keeping the State out of people’s bedrooms and offices with its video cameras is part of it—does mean some guilty people some criminals some serious criminals go free. But it is a balance. It is a balance of the rights one applies to the total population which might diminish to some extent the powers the police and other State agencies have but that is the balance we should have in a free and democratic society. I appeal to future parliaments to really look closely at that balance and where it should lie. 
There was a reference by Charles Chauvel about entrenching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I constructed a member’s bill with the help of various members of this House from other parties—I am very pleased they engaged in that process with me—to try to strengthen the section 7 process of checking legislation and strengthen up the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the judicial system. The bill has languished because there have not been many members’ bill ballots if any for several months so my bill did not come out into the public space to the extent that I would have liked. I invite any other member of this House to pick it up and carry it in either its present or an amended form in the next Parliament. 
I think the fact that we have had such a discussion of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act around this bill is very valuable. I appreciate what Chris Finlayson said about there being a bill of rights clause in this particular bill. I look forward to the next Parliament really taking up these issues in a serious way. Thank you.