Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:676;Page:21401] 
2. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 on behalf of  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “there are at least 40 trials and 50 investigations where those investigations currently - the video surveillance equipment’s been turned off and yeah I don’t think - that will harm those trials in my view” and in how many of those cases does the prosecution rely on evidence from warrantless filming from private property without the owner’s consent? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 As to the first part of the question yes I agree with the Prime Minister’s full statement. As to the second part of the question the phrase “evidence from warrantless filming on private property without the owner’s consent” could refer to evidence obtained either by so-called over-the-fence filming from private property into a suspect’s property or filming carried out on a suspect’s private property without a warrant to enter that property. It is highly unlikely that any of the cases mentioned rely on evidence from warrantless filming from private property without the owner’s consent. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Attorney-General know why a response was never forthcoming to the written offer made by Labour in November 2010 to facilitate the passage of the Search and Surveillance Bill which conferred powers subject to the better protection of press freedoms and the tidying-up of Serious Fraud Office powers? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I do. I have made very detailed inquiries because I was quite hurt by the statement made by Mr Chauvel on  
Morning Report 
 that I was lazy and indifferent. The record— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh you sensitive wee flower. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am a sensitive soul as Mr Mallard says. The letter was actually sent— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Man up. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Man up. The letter was sent to Mr Power. It was copied to Ms Collins and me. It is not customary practice at least on this side of the House for those who are sent copies to respond. It was also blind copied to a fellow from the media freedom committee but Mr Parker inadvertently sent us a copy of that reference as well. The reality of the matter I say to Mr Parker is that Mr Power did answer the letter and said he would get back to him. 
Hon David Parker 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I did. I said I’d got it and I’d get back to you. 
Hon David Parker 
: Get back to me—a year later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the Hon David Parker please ask his question. 
Hon David Parker 
: What advice if any did he give to his ministerial colleagues about the desirability of progressing the Search and Surveillance Bill which provides the necessary statutory authority for surveillance rather than letting it languish on the Order Paper for 11 months? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: My colleague Mr Power has been an excellent Minister of Justice and we will all greatly miss him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Blame Simon—he’s going. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am not blaming Simon at all; I am proud of him. He is a valued friend and parliamentary colleague. The reality of the matter is that until the Supreme Court decision was released there was no appreciation of the issue of lawfulness having been raised particularly— 
Charles Chauvel 
: That’s nonsense. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —I say to Mr Chauvel—given 15 years of Court of Appeal jurisprudence that upheld this particular activity. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the discretion the court already has to admit illegally obtained evidence in serious cases will the Attorney-General undertake that he will interfere with the Supreme Court precedent as little as possible and consider the approach favoured by Labour? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I can certainly undertake that what we are doing here is dealing with the issue of lawfulness. Admittedly an earlier draft that was sent to Mr Chauvel and uploaded 5 seconds later on Red Alert did refer to the issue of reasonableness. What we are dealing with here is that very limited question of lawfulness. It will still be open to people to object under section 30 on the grounds of reasonableness. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can the Minister confirm the advice of officials this morning that the consultation draft of his Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill has been substantially redrafted in response to reaction to it; if so when does he think he will make available a copy so that people can submit intelligently on it at the select committee at 9 a.m. tomorrow? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The answer is yes. Last week which was an adjournment week quite apart from signing a number of deeds of settlement to advance our excellent progress on Treaty settlements I consulted widely a number of interest groups including the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society. As a result of that I did respond. I will talk to the member after question time to facilitate that provided he gives me an undertaking that he will not upload it on to Red Alert before it is formally tabled in the House tonight. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member unless I heard totally incorrectly the question asked was not unreasonable. It contained an allegation that the bill had been redrafted but asked when a redrafted version might be available. If there is no redrafted version it would be helpful for the House to know but it was a fair question. It would be reasonable for the House to be told when the bill might be available. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Actually the Attorney-General unless I completely misheard him said he was happy to meet with the member after question time and go through the issues with him. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not think I need any help. This is a matter that I am dealing with. That does not help the House in terms of when the bill might be available. It is certainly a generous offer of the Attorney-General but this is a matter in which there is significant public interest and it would be helpful for the House to know when a bill if it has been redrafted—it may not have been redrafted—might be available. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There were two parts to the supplementary question. I answered the first part fully. I am not required to answer the second part but I did say to Mr Chauvel that I will consult him after question time with a view to making a copy of the bill available to him. As I said my concern is compliance with the Standing Orders and ensuring that they are followed. I make that— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Point of order— 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Sit down; I have not finished. I am quite happy to make that offer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Chris Finlayson will get to his feet and apologise for that comment. He must not use the point of order procedure to attack the member like that. 
Keith Locke 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with this first matter. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I apologise. But I was not raising a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member doing that. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Attorney-General has not really addressed your point about when the bill will be made available to the House. There are more parties in the House than Labour and National and we want to know—and I think the question addressed that—when it will be available to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise for taking the time of the House on this but it is a matter of public interest. It seems the Attorney-General has indicated that when the bill is tabled in the House it will be available and if there is any departure from that I should stand corrected. It would appear that that is when it will become available to the member. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This relates to the issue that you raised with the Attorney-General. The select committee is due to meet as we understand at 9 a.m. tomorrow. We have learnt from the Attorney-General that a substantially redrafted bill now exists. No one has seen that bill. If you could just hear me out Mr Speaker. I accept that he answered the first part of my question as he was required to do but he chose to go on and address the second part. I think there is a strong public interest in people knowing given that they will be before a select committee at 9 a.m. tomorrow what they will be submitting on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard briefly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think we run the risk of being tied up in our own rules here. We are aware that there is a high likelihood of the House taking urgency on this legislation at some stage this afternoon or this evening in order to get the bill on to the Table and off to the select committee. For that reason it cannot be tabled according to our rules until urgency is taken. I wonder whether you could ask the Attorney-General whether he would be prepared either through the National Party website or Red Alert to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows I cannot do that. Further questions can be asked of the Attorney-General about what he might be prepared to do. It was just that on the basis of that supplementary question I wanted to make sure the issue of whether a copy of the bill might be made available to members—that part of the question—could be answered. But the Attorney-General has undoubtedly satisfied that part of the question and the House should now move on. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can he confirm the advice of officials this morning that the principal reason for not inserting the relevant safeguard sections from the Search and Surveillance Bill into his temporary measures bill is that the drafting exercise is too complicated to complete in the time available? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I can. It is my understanding that the cross-referencing involved would result in a 20-page bill and I am advised by the officials including parliamentary counsel who I do not think spoke to Mr Chauvel and Mr Parker this morning that that is the case. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will the Minister seek in any way to prevent the select committee from considering the idea of inserting the relevant safeguard sections of the Search and Surveillance Bill into the temporary measures bill so as to provide a statutory basis for police video surveillance given that that bill has been through a proper select committee process and has the support of a majority of members of Parliament? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: With respect I do not think that is a matter for me; I think that is a matter for the committee. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister will have carriage of the bill and my question was quite precise: will he do anything to seek to prevent the select committee from considering the issue I raised? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister in answering said that was a matter for the committee and that is a reasonable answer. He has indicated he is not going to do anything to interfere with the committee in that regard. 
Charles Chauvel 
: With respect I am not sure that is an entirely accurate summary of the answer. But I wonder whether I could raise a question of leave of the House. I seek leave to table a Supplementary Order Paper I have drafted that would insert the relevant provisions of the Search and Surveillance Bill into the temporary measures bill. Further I ask the leave of the House that the Supplementary Order Paper be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the same basis as the temporary measures bill may be referred to it in light of the Attorney-General’s undertaking to do nothing to obstruct— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is being sought for two purposes here: first for the tabling of this draft Supplementary Order Paper. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.