By Lloyd Burr
The Government has left the Labour Party out of any discussions about the temporary surveillance bill that will be introduced to Parliament under urgency tomorrow, despite Labour supporting the bill’s first reading.
Attorney-General Chris Finlayson will introduce the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill which will suspend a Supreme Court decision which made illegally-obtained video surveillance by the police inadmissible as evidence.
The National Party says they have the numbers from ACT and United Future for the bill to pass its first reading before it is referred to a special select committee.
Even though Labour support the first reading, they have been left out of any discussions about the bill, with leader Phil Goff saying the Government has “ceased communication” with his party on the issue.
“They have made no effort to talk with us about their legislation and about what they are proposing.
“If it goes to the select committee, we will vote for the first reading of the bill and then we will leave it over to the select committee to hear the evidence,” Mr Goff says.
The Government says the bill will “express Parliament’s intent that any lawful search in which covert video surveillance is used is not unlawful just because of that surveillance”.
The bill will be introduced to the House under urgency and have its first reading tomorrow, and will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee which will report back next Monday.
Mr Finlayson says the bill does not provide any legal power that did not exist before the Supreme Court decision nor does it overturn the decision.
“It will also preserve the result in that decision for the 13 accused, so that Parliament is not reversing the judgment of any court in a particular case.”
“The Bill is a necessary patch-up to allow surveillance operations involving serious wrong-doing to continue,” he says.
“However, it is important that we do not rush the legislation and we agree with ACT’s proposal for a Select Committee process to allow further input from experts and the public.”
And Mr Goff says he does not want a rushed process either.
“The case for prospective use of the legislation is quite clear, that with proper approval and in warranted circumstances, the police should have covert surveillance powers,” he says.
“Retrospectively, I would be reluctant to do so, I would be particularly reluctant to do it under urgency – I think that makes for bad law – and I would be reluctant to do it unless there was very strong evidence that serious criminal offenders would get off the hook.
“I have seen no such evidence, only that claim that that might be the case,” he says.
Mr Finlayson says the 50 police operations that were discontinued after the Supreme Court’s decision will be allowed to resume when the bill is passed.
3 News