• Full Story

Surveillance bill to go to select committee

Print

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:08a.m.

Protesters call for the Urewera terror raid charges to be dropped

Protesters call for the Urewera terror raid charges to be dropped

The Government has agreed to demands from opposition parties and will send the covert surveillance bill to a select committee, Prime Minister John Key says.

But that might not be enough to ensure their support for it, and Mr Key said Attorney-General Chris Finlayson was still working through contentious issues.

The bill has been drafted to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling that covert video surveillance evidence was inadmissible inthe Urewera case and that led to the suspension of 50 police operations.

Mr Finlayson wanted to push the bill through under urgency, without sending it to a select committee where expert opinions on it could be heard, but opposition parties refused to accept that.

He needs at least 62 votes to pass the bill and so far has 59, with Labour and ACT the only ones still open to negotiation because the other three have rejected the bill.

"We're working on it," Mr Key said on NewstalkZB on Monday.

"We're making progress, and my advice is that it will go to a select committee."

ACT's five votes would give the Government a bare majority in the 122-seat parliament, while Labour's 42 would deliver strong support.

But Labour has problems with the bill apart from the select committee issue, and says it gives police stronger powers than they had before the court ruling.

Mr Finlayson disputes that and says he is simply restoring the situation to what it was before the ruling.

ACT says its support depends on what shape the bill is in when it comes out of the select committee, which has the power to change its provisions.

The Government intends introducing the bill when Parliament sits on Tuesday.

NZN
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

26 Oct 2011 01:51p.m.

middleschoolstudent wrote:

can someone explain to me what the surveillance bill is and why are people opposing it or why people want congress to pass it?

29 Sep 2011 07:03p.m.

Kat wrote:

When the search and surveillance bill was on the table last, I attended a protest about it. A friend of mine in her 30s said that her workmates opposed the bill, but didn't want to attend the protest/speak out because of fear that they could become the target of surveillance. Even the idea of that legislation, before it was passed, removed some people's freedom of speech.

There used to be a need for evidence before permission for surveillance was obtained. Now just a meer suspicion is enough.

How much legislation will they pass 'under urgency' that is not urgent? Why are they not giving the voters the right to have their say on what bills are going through?

To what extent is this surveilance being used for? Petty 'crimes' such as trading food with your neighbour? How much money is going into surveilance that isn't needed, which could be redirected to preventing violent crime?
Why should we allow video in our courts that was filmed illegally at the time to now be used legally as evidence? The cops were committing a crime at the time they took the film, why aren't they being trialled?

Regardless of 'if you've got nothing to hide you don't need to worry', how would you feel if you found out your actions in your own house were being monitered, as a law obiding citizen? I doubt anyone likes that idea.

Stop NZ becoming big brother.

26 Sep 2011 10:48p.m.

LB wrote:

Jan,
I see your point however video surveillance and abuse by Police are too completely different things. Overseas the use of video surveillance is standard New Zealand is behind the times. If by result of video surveillance a serious crimnal is put behind bars then stuff their rights. Would like a serious crimnal back out on the streets because police couldnt use video surveillance? how would you feel if that crimnal went out and raped or murdered someone?

26 Sep 2011 04:35p.m.

jan wrote:

hey LB you have missed the point, we are talking about police who should be upholding the law breaking it. the nothing to fear you trot out is ignorance of what is happening to our rights. I am not saying the police shouldn't do surveillence but if they do, stick to the law of the land. the police in one report states that they didn't realise it was illegal to do video surveillence, hell if we tried the "i didn't know it was illegal" stance no one would be going to prison. 20 years time LB if this forum to air what you think is still allowed, see how you feel when your rights have been abused. there was a news article last week saying some prisoners are being beaten up and even sexualy assaulted. is that ok with you?. probably is. get arrested once, go on get drunk and abuse a cop, see if you change how you see the cops. watch a mate get arrested, because at the time you were in the right. we all have something to fear, and don't forget it.

26 Sep 2011 02:48p.m.

LB wrote:

What all 3 of you are missing is if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. This law is designed to give the police more tools to put crimnals in jail which is a good thing last time i checked.

26 Sep 2011 01:55p.m.

Hamish wrote:

Wiseacre is correct, this situation is outragous! talk about looking like a bannana republic! Gee thanks national. We should be discussing who is going to head the royal commission of enquirey into criminal activities within the police force, not legalising criminal behavour! I still cant believe the prime minister told NZ that our police force have been systematically breaking the law and thats OK! This is the definition of police corruption! Criminals all over the country are laughing because now we are no better than them. Lets get this fixed, fire the corrupt cops, and get ourselves a legaly binding CONSTITUTION to protect the rights of all New Zealand citizens. No more bannana republic stuff, if I wanted to live in a police state I would move to North Korea.

26 Sep 2011 10:44a.m.

jan wrote:

if labour supports national to pass this law then don't vote. simple as that. the opposition is surposed to be in opposition. i am anti this law, but if it does get passed it should not be retrospective. all the cases that are using illegal surveilance now should be back to square one, and start again once the law has been passed, which it probably will. if they can do this, with this law, think about your kiwisaver, or anything you feel is safe "in law". no government can be trusted.

26 Sep 2011 10:40a.m.

Wiseacre wrote:

The Police are supposed to uphold the law; they do not get to make the law, or break the law. By looking to legitimise and legalise the intentional law-breaking of the New Zealand Police, this Government is demonstrating that it is not only soft on crime, but that it is also soft on human rights. We need an enforceable Bill of Rights, with supremacy over other legislation. If there is one thing this contemptible situation has shown us, it is that the police and the politicians cannot be trusted as guardians of our fundamental rights.