Bridges Simon: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21469] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I have listened very carefully to the debate and take seriously the concerns I have heard from Nanaia Mahuta Rodney Hide Keith Locke and Shane Jones. The police should not be able to do as they like. They should be held to high standards. But as I read the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill it is a fair and modest bill. Defence counsel in this country will be free to pursue any pre-trial argument they like to take the police on in terms of irregularities illegalities and improprieties and to attempt to have evidence thrown out and if they are successful and significant enough evidence is thrown out to have the charges dismissed. I say again that this is in my view a modest bill. It does one thing: it says that covert video surveillance is not unlawful in and of itself. 
In the case of trespass bad faith trickery irregularities of any kind people—through their lawyers or indeed in person—will be able to make applications to the court but video surveillance in and of itself is not the problem. Given what I have heard from other members—that indeed they do not believe that covert video surveillance in and of itself should be a problem that they believe that it should be permissible in this country—I suggest that many should be supporting this bill when it comes back to this Parliament. 
I want to very briefly give a practitioner’s viewpoint having argued in many many cases the admissibility of evidence and to say that frankly from my view and from the view of other practitioners I have talked to to the Supreme Court’s decision has changed the commonly understood position in regard to covert video surveillance in this country. I mean absolutely no criticism whatsoever of the Supreme Court and its decision but as a practitioner and from talking to very experienced practitioners I know that there is some confusion about whether the decision—or decisions I should properly say because there are a number from the Supreme Court from differing judges—is restrictive; whether all it is saying is that where there is trespassory covert video surveillance the evidence is out or whether it is much more expansive than that as perhaps some of the comments from the Chief Justice would indicate and evidence from covert video surveillance is always out. That confusion among very experienced practitioners in this country is reason enough for quick clarification of this legislation to be required—so that we know so that practitioners know and so that accused know that covert video surveillance in and of itself will not be illegal. 
I say to this House that Supreme Court cases this case and this bill before the House need to be put into a proper context. Covert video surveillance has long been a critical tool for law enforcement agencies particularly regarding serious drug cases. There is no question that in Auckland—and probably in the rest of the country but certainly in Auckland—enforcement agencies have been using covert video surveillance in ongoing criminal investigations and that prosecutors are relying on it in current large-scale commercial drug cases involving cannabis or methamphetamine. I say to this House and I do not say it in an overly emotional way that the kind of havoc that large-scale methamphetamine operations wreak in this country in terms of the potential dangers to those involved from explosions to the police and to the people who have to go in but also in terms of the misery peddled on our streets should be taken into account when we consider this issue. Those sorts of cases are predominantly the cases we are concerned with when we talk about covert video surveillance and its day-to-day use in this country. 
I say again that in practice counsel and accused will be able to argue evidence in or out on the basis of as Wayne Mapp has said the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but also section 30 of the Evidence Act. Judges will be enjoined to balance factors to take into account what has happened to go into a quite detailed and unique case-by-case factual analysis of the circumstances before they decide whether evidence is in or out. That is not for us to adjudicate on. The courts can and will do that. But I offer this: it may well be that in cannabis cases with a 7-year maximum term of imprisonment—of all cannabis offending the most serious—where the evidence has come from covert video surveillance where it has been obtained by trespass that evidence ultimately is held to be inadmissible by a court. It may also be that in more serious cases—methamphetamine cases large-scale commercial ones where the maximum term of imprisonment is life—in that sort of scenario on considering the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and section 30 and weighing up all matters the evidence may well in the public interest stay in. Those are matters for judges but this bill is modest and fair. It simply says one thing: in and of itself covert video surveillance evidence can be admissible. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This debate has concluded. [ 
Interruption 
] Is this a point of order? 
Hone Harawira 
: No no. I would like to speak to this bill Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; the debate has concluded. All 12 speeches have been taken; the debate is concluded. 
Hone Harawira 
: Well I would like to seek the leave of the House. Could I seek the leave of the House to speak on this issue? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to make a speech. Is there any objection? There is objection.