Hide Rodney: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21830] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will take just a short call hopefully on the third reading of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. If the bill did what Ms Katene said and Mr Locke alleged I for one would not be voting for it. In fact the bill does no such thing. Previous to 1996 it will be remembered that MPs were not allowed to read speeches and I think that was a much better system. Those speeches have clearly been prepared before the Justice and Electoral Committee did its work and changed the bill; it is a substantially different bill we are talking about. 
Let me make just a couple of things clear. Firstly there is no retrospectivity in this legislation which is actually what was so upsetting to everyone bar for one point—that no one who currently has a conviction can use  
R v Hamed 
 as the basis of an appeal. I think that is a bit egregious but we made that decision on the basis that the submitters were very clear it would not affect anyone and in a way we were trying to quieten down our caucuses who were alarmed that that was the case. So in a way no harm has been done and we actually had a bit of comfort. I would make the point also that the legislation is for 6 months only. 
Secondly and this is the critical bit there is no retrospectivity for anyone in the system. I think that is a very very important achievement of this Parliament and indeed for the Attorney-General and for the executive. It would be shocking if we think about it to be before the courts the Supreme Court makes a decision and then Parliament comes along and retrospectively denies someone their rights and in fact their defence of criminal charges. Parliament has done no such thing with this legislation. Thirdly it is only going forward that this legislation applies to beyond that point made about those with a conviction. So it is entirely prospective and the Supreme Court decision stands. 
It is perfectly correct that Parliament makes the law. What it has done with this law is make a fix. The reason for that was there were a lot of dangers in running around trying to produce a warrantable procedure in a couple of days. We were likely to make more mischief than we actually saved. So essentially what we have done is codify the practice that was in place and allow it to go forward—confident by the way that no cases that are before the courts will fall over. If one or two do actually that is correct because the evidence was obtained unlawfully and improperly. And those cases should fall over because that was the law at the time the evidence was collected—clearly. 
Going forward we have to thank Chester Borrows for this. We were quite happy I believe that the police could get an ordinary search warrant and have video surveillance powers under that warrant for 6 months. I am going to lay this on Chester: it was Chester Borrows ex-policeman prominent lawyer and fantastic MP for Whanganui who suggested—and I was not up on the practicalities and I ask members to understand that this was moving pretty fast—that if the police were going to carry out surveillance they would need to put it in their application for a warrant and it would be noted on the warrant. That is a huge advance over our situation. 
It is not the case as I think Mr Locke suggested that people can just go along and get an everyday warrant and then undertake covert surveillance. They will not be able to do that in their application to the District Court. They will have to say they are applying for a search warrant and that they will be doing video surveillance. I think that is a very very important feature and I thank Chester Borrows for that suggestion. 
On over-the-wall surveillance—and I think Keith Locke accepts this—subject to section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act people can actually do over-the-wall surveillance because if they are out on the street they can film and that is what will continue. Crown Law wrote to all of the agencies and said people could not do that. This law makes clear that people can do that but members should understand—and again this is Parliament—that it is only for 6 months because there is not one member of this Parliament who thinks the present situation is satisfactory. We have a patch we have a fix-up it is there for 6 months and in 6 months this Parliament will have to come back and fix it. I think that is a great result and I am a bit sorry that Mr Locke and the Maori Party—and I understand that Maori Party members were not at the select committee—have actually given speeches on an earlier version of the bill. Thank you very much.