Chauvel Charles: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21805] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make just a couple of points in this second reading speech on the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. I differ from the Attorney-General in that I think it is fair to say that on any objective reading of the bill it is significantly reworked as a result of the scrutiny it received in the select committee process. It is by no means accurate to say it is somewhat or slightly modified. Let us be clear about just what changes were made in the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
First the powers of law enforcement are strictly confined to what they were prior to the Hamed decision in the Supreme Court not the enormous grab for power that was represented in the Attorney-General’s first effort on this matter. There is a significant narrowing down of the definition of the term “search” a removal of the outrageous reference that first appeared to the collection of information about any place person or thing—that is the breadth of the power that would originally have been allowed under the National Government’s initial proposal. There is an express preservation of the section 21 power in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 that any search must be subject to the reasonableness criterion contained in that section. If it is not the courts will not uphold it. Again that is another protection inserted by the select committee and it would not have been there had National had its way originally. Also there is a removal of the Attorney-General’s attempt to nullify the discretion of the courts under section 30 to receive such evidence as they think fit under the Evidence Act notwithstanding the manner in which that evidence was obtained. We should leave these matters to the courts not try to interfere with them as a Parliament. 
The second most significant change wrought by and in the select committee is that the retrospective nature of the powers contained in Mr Finlayson’s original bill has been completely removed. Existing investigations and cases before the courts will be and must be untouched by this Parliament. 
The third significant change created by the select committee was to insist that the bill not apply for any longer than 6 months. The original proposal was 12 months. Parliament will have to get its skates on do what it should have done a year ago and pass the Search and Surveillance Bill which sets out powers of search and also protections for those who are subject to those powers. It is outrageous that that has not yet been done by this Parliament and by this Government. 
Finally the select committee insisted that as far as past court decisions were concerned where evidence had been admitted in good faith by a judge on the basis of good law applicable at the time those decisions should not be able to be disturbed. There are some who do not like that exercise of authority or recommendation by the select committee. They think that it should be possible to relitigate actions taken by law enforcement on the basis of an ex post facto application of the Hamed decision. I say to those people that that would be “dog law”. That would be like saying to one’s dog “Bad dog bad dog” after it had done something it did not know was wrong at the time. Either we oppose retrospective application of the law or we do not. 
In that regard I quote what a human rights commissioner said to the select committee. When asked whether existing court decisions ought to be preserved one of the human rights commissioners replied: “Well my view would be that the cases that have concluded have concluded. If the lawyers haven’t raised the point then it’s past and there would be no avenue to reopen the case. It presupposes of course behind your question that the only evidence was the video evidence. So I can’t see the Court of Appeal entertaining appeals on that basis.” So it is not in respect of that particular aspect of the recasting of the Government’s original bill any sort of offence to human rights to have protected existing court decisions in that way. 
I conclude this second reading speech by paying a tribute—but a limited tribute—to the parties in the House that like Labour were not willing to simply write the National Government the blank cheque that it sought on this legislation a couple of weeks ago. Obviously the Green Party the Maori Party and the Mana party are in that category but not Peter Dunne as was asserted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today in its editorial. I was at a public meeting with Peter Dunne on the night of the bill’s tabling when he was quite happy to write that blank cheque to the Government so we should get the record straight on that. I pay significantly more tribute to the ACT Party for remembering its traditions and protecting civil liberties. I hope that with Mr Banks and Mr Brash in prospect as potential future MPs that tradition is not in significant danger. But I want to pay the most tribute to my Labour colleagues for respecting the traditions of limited Government. They could have chosen to leave law enforcement with no surveillance powers. That would have been the easy option and it was the one urged by the Greens the Maori Party and the Mana party. But my colleagues avoided that trap. It would have been irresponsible at the time of the largest international event New Zealand has ever hosted to leave law enforcement powerless in that respect. 
So the least-worst outcome will be achieved out of this legislation. As a result of the select committee process that the Government was required to undergo police will get only the limited powers that they formerly held for 6 months only and Parliament will be prevented from doing something constitutionally repugnant—that is legislating retrospectively. Labour stood firm and achieved that outcome and for that I express the deepest respect gratitude and thanks to my Labour colleagues on this side of the House.