Parker David: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21829] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I think that some of the misrepresentations of the legislation by the last speaker Rahui Katene are regrettable. With respect to her she should know better. Her irresponsible conduct is one of the things that undermines public confidence in our important democratic institutions. Labour is already on record and in fact I am on record in the first reading of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill as saying that I too was dissatisfied with some of the police conduct in respect of the Tuhoe raids. They were wrong. I still think there is a need for us to scrutinise whether it was right to have black-suited men with high-powered rifles crawling over school buses. I thought that was an overreaction by the State. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sure the member is aware of something that is sub judice. I want the member to talk in principle without referring to the level of specifics he is getting into. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I was referring to things that were on the news and I was not held up in the first reading debate. I do not need to take it any further but with respect— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: It is a different rule for the media. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —I am quite entitled to say what I have said. For the member of the Maori Party to then go on to suggest that this legislation is making the unlawful lawful is not correct. What is actually being done here is the giving of a prospective power legally as this Parliament is entitled to do. 
I take issue also with something Mr Locke said. I have considerable respect for Mr Locke and I wish him well in his retirement but to use the example of Europe as if it is some reason that New Zealand law enforcement officers ought not to have a prospective power of surveillance appropriately prescribed is plain wrong. I would be surprised if there is one country in Europe where the police or the security agency does not have a power of covert surveillance albeit with judicial— 
Keith Locke 
: With trespass. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Trespass; getting a warrant and going into someone’s house or into business premises and putting in a video camera to surveil people who are alleged to be conducting very serious crimes. I am sure that those powers are held in just about every European country. To suggest that the European experience is a reason why New Zealand ought not to have appropriately prescribed powers for our police and security agency is wrong. 
I refer to something the Attorney-General said. He took a flick at my colleague Charles Chauvel. I have to give credit to Charles Chauvel for having actually put the welly in. He did more work on this bill than anyone else in this House—and that is giving due respect to the attention it was paid by those in minor parties including Rodney Hide. It was Charles Chauvel who stayed up to 3 a.m. to draft a Supplementary Order Paper that listed powers for the police appropriately prescribed requiring a warrant having a minimum level of seriousness of offence and prescribing a list of agencies to which the legislation applied. 
I do not accept what the Attorney-General said—that there was an impossible attempt to lift powers from the Search and Surveillance Bill. Yes it is true that Sir Geoffrey Palmer says the Search and Surveillance Bill powers could not be lifted holus-bolus because there are things like training regimes and reporting regimes. Well we did not have to lift those provisions. The Parliamentary Counsel Office had no other drafting on its books Parliament is about to rise there was no other legislation required to be drafted and this was the most important constitutional issue to arise. In a matter of days the office could have done the appropriate drafting of the legislation—which was quite simple and which Charles Chauvel had done the bulk of anyway—to list that agencies had to get a warrant the warrant had to be from a judge there had to be a minimum level of seriousness of offending before agencies got it and there had to be a list of agencies to which it applied. If that list was short and it missed out an agency those people could get a warrant through the police if it were a serious matter. 
So this legislation is not as good as it could have been. It is better than it was. It does leave to the courts the exercise of their discretion with illegally obtained evidence and I trust them to exercise that discretion wisely. We have given that discretion so that they have the ability to exercise it if necessary. 
I am not going to say anything else. I think it is unfortunate that we have not passed the Search and Surveillance Bill. I have a suspicion that the reason it has not been passed is the three conditions Labour raised. One is that we need to constrain the powers which are currently too broad of the Serious Fraud Office which has at times abused those powers. Given that we are giving examination order powers under the Search and Surveillance Bill that override the right to silence that should be more prescribed. We also need to be clear about press freedoms. I have a suspicion that the intention of the Government is to ignore those three reasonable conditions and try to whack the bill through after the election. I invite the media to watch this space in respect of that because I can see no other reason why we have not had a response to the letter I sent on behalf of Labour a year ago. With those reservations I am happy to record that Labour is supporting this bill.