Labour won't back law change under urgency

Print

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:47p.m.

Tame Iti, one of the Urewera accused, and Phil Goff

Tame Iti, one of the Urewera accused, and Phil Goff

By Lloyd Burr

The Labour Party says it will back the Government’s retrospective surveillance legislation to suspend a Supreme Court decision but only if it is referred to a select committee and not passed under urgency.

Prime Minister John Key announced yesterday that “almost all use of covert video surveillance by the police is rendered unlawful” after the Supreme Court ruled that evidence from secret video surveillance on Maori land in the Ureweras was illegally obtained.


  • Click on the video tab above to watch Janika ter Ellen's News at 12 story.

The ruling meant police dropped charges against 13 of the 17 people accused from the raids on supposed ‘military training camps’ in 2007.

The court did allow the illegally obtained evidence to be used for the remaining four defendants because their charges were serious enough.

National will take a piece of legislation to Parliament next week that temporarily suspends the decision and reinstates secret filming by the police.

Labour leader Phil Goff says his party supports the idea of the legislation but refused to support National’s proposal because they haven’t been given a copy.

“We haven’t seen the law yet, we haven’t seen the bill and I’m not going to support anything that I haven’t seen,” he says.

“We know the law has to be fixed and we believe the law should be fixed. We are not going to let criminals out of jail, we are not going to have people having big compensation cases because the law isn’t as it should have been.

“But I want to do it right and you are not going to do it right if you rush something through without evidence yet that it needs to be rushed through and without any select committee process.

“The bottom line is that it must go through a select committee process,” Mr Goff says, “I have seen too much urgency in this House where Parliament rushes stuff through, doesn’t think it through, creates more problems than it solves so let’s do it as properly as we can”.

Mr Goff says he wants consultation of the legislation from experts including the law commission, the law society and “other players in this game”.

He says if National thought the legislation was so urgent, they should have given all the parties a copy of it already.

“We need to have all of the information that the Government has if they have any expectation at all that we will support this legislation.

“We will make a decision based on the evidence we see and the acceptability of the legislation… I’m not going to speculate and comment on something I haven’t yet seen,” he says.

“With a proper warrant process, so there is no abuse of powers, there should be the power of video surveillance where a proper threshold is met. I have no problem with that, no New Zealanders would either,” Mr Goff says.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

21 Sep 2011 11:21a.m.

ian wrote:

Come come now Phil-- you know you are wrong here!
Dont be stupid and let [some of] these guilty as sin A/holes get away with their criminal actions, and intentions.
If you were in Govt you would do the same.
The Police here are made to look silly, although clear of fault themselves.

20 Sep 2011 08:31p.m.

jude wrote:

correct me if I am wrong but I thought Labour introduced laws to enable the police to covertly monitor this group and I thought Labour legislated so there could be arrests made? Helen Clark was privy to info under anti terror legislation. Is this the law that now needs amending? I thought police had permission to covertly record i.e there was just cause?

20 Sep 2011 06:50p.m.

Kelly wrote:

Good on you Phil. Well done. Logic must prevail.

20 Sep 2011 05:52p.m.

eddie wrote:

"retrospective legislation"...remember the pledge card lefties, was OK then to make it legal to spend $800,000 of taxpayers $$$ eh?...hypocritical labour party.

20 Sep 2011 05:23p.m.

Dan wrote:

@ James: the only alternative should be allowing civil action against the Police for the commission of torts and violations of the NZBORA. We actually expect the Police to conform to higher standards of behaviour than the general public and at the very least to obey the law of the land. I truly hope the Courts rush all these cases through under "urgency" so the defendants can avail themselves of double jeopardy.. unless National is thinking of retrospectively doing away with that fundamental protection too.

20 Sep 2011 05:06p.m.

Hamish wrote:

Good on you mr Goff, there is a reason that there is a proper way to pass laws, its to protect the people. The police have a responsibility to operate within the law as well as every one else, so 50 cases investigated illegaly? surely it is their job to know the law!! Change it if the proper authority finds that it needs changing, if 50 cases are compromised then heads should roll!!

20 Sep 2011 02:48p.m.

James J.Read wrote:

The decision of Labour to only back the law change if it not passed under urgency is deplorable. 50 cases are likely to be thrown out by the courts and this will occur before the legislation has been studied by a select committee.Nobody likes retrospective legislation, but Labour has not offered a better alternative, or indeed any alternative at all.

20 Sep 2011 02:28p.m.

Fellowes wrote:

Interesting choice of side-by-side file photos. Media bias noted.

20 Sep 2011 02:06p.m.

Wolfman wrote:

Of course they won't, they need to suck up to their Bro's.

20 Sep 2011 01:34p.m.

heather wrote:

national critisize labour for doing things under urgency and have used this procedure more than labour ever did .wake up people , well they do say the masses are easy to fool aint that the truth .