Connell Brian: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6690] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill. This bill is one I feel very strongly about. In the past I had been critical of engaging Parliament in unwarranted legislation but not this time. This time I believe that Parliament has got it dead right and accordingly National will strongly support the passage of this bill. 
I want to take a couple of moments to set out exactly what we are discussing. Intimate covert filming is the making of a surreptitious visual recording of another person in intimate circumstances without—and these are the key components—that person’s consent or knowledge and in circumstances in which he or she would reasonably expect to be private. So what are we talking about? Essentially we are talking about putting away modern-day peeping Toms. That is all we are talking about—people who are using modern technology to engage in old-fashioned peeping at other people in intimate positions. 
I along with my colleagues believe extremely strongly that we need to stamp out this type of behaviour. I have a concern however that I want to raise now. There is absolutely no point in making this behaviour a criminal offence enabling the police to intervene if the police cannot organise their resources to take the appropriate action. The police have to look to their laurels on this issue. I am a strong supporter of the New Zealand Police but sometimes the police make it very difficult for one to support them. It comes down to a clear resourcing issue. 
Two examples come to the top of my mind. One is the incident where two women were involved in a car accident on the West Coast. They lay trapped in their car for 2 days and the police in their wisdom decided to take a prosecution. I ask my colleagues how the public good was being addressed by taking that type of prosecution. My second example around police resourcing is to do with the issue of the gun shop owner who is now being prosecuted because someone took a knife to a gunfight. How ridiculous is that? And the hypocrisy— 
Anne Tolley 
: It was a machete. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: A machete is a knife. It is a big knife. That person took a knife to a gunfight and amazingly was shot. The police in their wisdom decided to take a prosecution. However Police Constable Abbott can shoot a citizen in Hawera who is carrying a golf club and of course there is no prosecution. The police took care of that issue themselves. I do not want to go off on a tangent but just make the point there is no use in putting legislation in place unless the police can get their resources properly organised. 
During the second reading debate my colleague Chester Borrows raised the issue of whether intimate audio recordings should be included in the bill and I have to ask why not. I am sure Mr Borrows will address this issue himself when he takes a call but I have to ask why not. Is someone less invaded if they are listened to rather than watched? 
Debate interrupted.