Katene Rahui: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21814] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 In speaking to the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill I want to first acknowledge the incredible act of democracy demonstrated by the fact that 438 submissions were received in the space of 24 hours. This bill was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee last Tuesday 27 September and a day later submissions closed. Our appreciation as a House must be expressed to those ordinary New Zealanders who made considerable efforts to provide comments despite the difficulties associated with rushed legislation. 
A common theme throughout many of the submissions was to draw on the advice and counsel of Dean Knight who suggests that claims about the implications of the ruling for other cases are overstated. Mr Knight’s view is that although the Government claims there may be about 40 current cases that will be prejudiced by the ruling the Supreme Court’s decision is relatively nuanced and will allow for the admission of unlawfully obtained evidence in serious cases. In the purpose expressed in clause 3 of this bill we read that the legislation is required “(b) to provide a temporary period that will enable Parliament to address … the matters raised in the decision regarding the lawful and appropriate use of video camera surveillance as part of law enforcement;”. And although the bill itself does not mention the current cases the threat of these cases certainly looms large through the framework of the bill. 
I want to bring to the Committee the expert view of barrister Tavake Barron Afeaki who urged Parliament to consider that the voice of reason must resound. In his email he made some extremely salient points which I wish to lay on the floor for further debate. I quote: “The presumption of innocence must remain for those who are entitled to it and it is not for the police and politicians alone without the independence of the judiciary overseeing the process to merely deem that the 40 cases before courts and 50 current investigations are justified in having law-breaking surveillance. The law should be certain and the police should get it right when they exercise the powers we the electorate give them.” 
I think these points are really critical and I am in full agreement with Mr Afeaki that injustice is the price of making laws that break laws. I remind the Committee of some statements made earlier in the debates this week around public confidence and trust in the police. If two out of three victims will not go to the police then surely we have a problem. 
I return again to the words of Mr Afeaki to place on record another interpretation that might fit within the purpose statement of this bill. “Police powers should be used for serious crimes: nasty evil violent acts; P dealers real gangs robbers murderers and rapists not for stifling political dissent by Maori political activists greenies animal rights people and the like.” 
The law already has safeguards which the operation and Supreme Court judgment demonstrate. Mr Key in his initial comments on this new law made the broad claim that if the Government could not get the numbers that would mean there would be some serious criminals who would not be brought to justice. I think it is really disturbing to note that the initial thought was not about developing a workable solution to a problem but more akin to a crude ultimatum: all other parties would have to support ramming through the legislation or they would be soft on crime. I have to conclude that this legislation is politicking by both National and Labour to create a perception for voters that they are actually acting in the interests of the electorate by putting up this legislation. The Maori Party says that is absolutely blatantly untrue and we continue to oppose this bill at every step that we can.