Mahuta Nanaia: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21467] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. We have heard in this debate on the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill Minister after Minister after Minister justify why it is necessary. They have not justified to members of the House why they are rushing it through. They have not justified to the Kiwis who are listening to this debate who feel concerned about civil liberties why this type of legislation is being rushed through. And to put a fine point on it members of Parliament received this bill only just before the dinner break—incredible. Even though we are told there have been many iterations of the bill members of Parliament received it only just before the dinner break and we are concerned. True to form Mr Mapp gave a very precise legal rationale for why the bill is being introduced but Kiwis out there who are listening to the debate are wondering how their civil liberties are being affected and they have some real concerns. The concerns we are raising in the House are the types of issues that I think we should continue to ensure are heard by the public on such an important bill. 
Labour believes we need to test the extent of the Government’s call to introduce retrospective legislation—precisely the extent to which retrospective powers apply. On principle I believe that a very high threshold must be passed if retrospective legislation can even be entertained. I am not convinced by any argument that has been raised by Government members in the House as to what that is. We do not know how many cases we are talking about. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: She told you 39. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: That might be the case but members have asked time and time again and we need to know the exact reasons for why retrospective legislation should be introduced. 
The other point I might make by the way is that this is a temporary measure. So if it is such an important bill why do we not look for a type of solution that has broad parliamentary consensus that is not a temporary bill and that cuts to some of the core issues? We need to test the extent of the Government’s call to introduce retrospective legislation. We need to test the Government’s assertion about the existing cases that will be released if these law changes do not go ahead. We need to challenge the rushed manner in which the Government is proposing to push through these law changes. I say again that on principle I believe that retrospective legislation to sanction the long arm of the law is not good lawmaking in itself and must be scrutinised thoroughly by Parliament. It concerns me that members across the rest of the House have not only unanimously expressed their concerns but also expressed their opposition to what the Government is trying to do today. 
When all is said and done people listening to the debate need to be aware that the bill we are discussing was tabled just before the dinner break tonight. It is important for the bill to go through a select committee process to ensure transparent and public scrutiny on the issues being raised in the House tonight. There is nothing to gain if the bill falls victim to political spin-doctoring by the Government which wedges good lawmaking and means more criminals in the public domain. If that is the wedge that this Government is spinning to rush this law through then it does not give the public confidence and it certainly does not give me confidence. Every politician in this House advocates very strongly for safer communities but we cannot fudge political judgment with good lawmaking and good law enforcement to achieve that outcome. There is a clear misfit with those objectives in this bill. 
Political parties across the House have highlighted several deficiencies in the Government’s argument. I am concerned about the lack of public transparency and accountability on such an important issue as the search and surveillance powers of the police. The public and Maori are all the more wary of police powers because of the excessive manner in which the Tuhoe raids were carried out. New Zealand is a small country made up of small communities of people who by and large want to lead safe and peaceful lives. They trust the police to do their job and carry out their responsibilities with the support of the law. Kiwis are concerned if Parliament seeks to change the law retrospectively to sanction unlawful actions of the police. Yes it is a matter of trusting our law enforcers; yes it is a matter of civil liberties of Kiwi citizens; and it is about lawmaking. It is not about rushing through our parliamentary process the types of proposals that the Government is making tonight. Yes for very good reasons Labour wants the bill to go to a select committee. I am pleased that Labour has not given the Government a free pass to ram through legislation in order to ensure that the public has a say on this very important matter. I am concerned—like Green Party members actually—that the haste in progressing this matter through a select committee process will not build public confidence in the lawmaking process and the Government needs to carry the entire burden of that criticism. 
I have also heard arguments from Government members that by not making the change now more crimes will be committed. I doubt very much whether that will be the case and the Government is not in a position to prove that statement. So the Government should not make those types of statements to fearmonger people into supporting its position. I have also heard from the Government that criminals currently in jail are the real targets for the proposed changes. It is my strong view that rather than fearmongering the good citizens of New Zealand the Government should clarify the extent as I said before to which retrospective powers are necessary—if at all. I am very concerned about this single issue. Parliamentarians do not have any detailed information about how many cases require the types of changes that are being called for. 
In part a select committee process will be an opportunity to penetrate the legislative motivations for law changes like the ones being proposed tonight. Labour has played a constructive role in the Search and Surveillance Bill which has not been given any priority by the Government on the Order Paper. Both my colleagues Charles Chauvel and David Parker have outlined the starting point to work through some of those issues but let us be under no shadow of a doubt that we in Labour favour a thorough select committee process where the public have an opportunity to consider any proposed law change of this significance. I am concerned like many others that a rushed law is a bad law. This is an important issue that intersects with civil liberties and the extent of lawful actions of the police. The Government should consider the timing of this legislation. Rather than driving a wedge against every political party in this House the Government should seek a broader consensus that tackles the issues Labour has put centre and front before the Government tonight. 
I do not support the bill in its current form. I have some very severe reservations. I am wary of a rushed process. I am challenged by any argument that proposes retrospective law changes to police powers because my gut tells me to think again. But through all of that I do have faith in the public scrutiny of the select committee process common sense and ensuring that time plays its part. There were members in the House who made the comment that the perception of this law being rushed through in such a manner is targeted to one specific event. My main concern is that perceptions aside the Government takes heed of all the concerns that have been raised by members of Parliament because we reflect not the legal minds in the House but the public sentiment and will of people—normal people—in our communities. Those people who suffered the long arm of the law when powers were used at an excessive level—out there in Tuhoe—I think deserve our erring on the side of caution to ensure that firstly at the forefront of any decision making we are trying to address tonight in relation to the powers of the police the retrospective powers are a matter of such significant issue that we are not going to treat it lightly and ram them through the House; secondly that there is greater information to the public about the reasoning and justifications of the Government for trying to propose anything; but thirdly and most important that we look for a long-term solution and not a temporary measure. Thank you.