• Full Story

Surveillance bill 'too much police power' - Labour

Email
Print

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:31p.m.

Labour's justice spokesman Charles Chauvel

Labour's justice spokesman Charles Chauvel

The covert surveillance bill would give police unnecessarily strong powers, the Labour Party has told Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.

Mr Finlayson will bring the bill to Parliament on Tuesday to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling and ensure police have authority to conduct covert video surveillance on private property, but it has yet to secure enough votes to ensure it will be passed.

He needs at least 62 and so far has 59, with Labour and ACT refusing to back it unless it goes to a select committee so expert evidence can be given on its provisions.

But Labour's justice spokesman Charles Chauvel has now raised problems that involve the provisions of the bill itself.

"It appears to authorise more or less all covert video surveillance in the course of a warrantless search," Mr Chauvel says in a letter to the Attorney-General.

"You have not explained why the bill would take police powers so far beyond the scope of what you have contended is necessary."

Parliament has only six sitting days left before adjourning for the election and Mr Finlayson wants the bill through quickly.

He has been talking to opposition parties but three - the Greens, the Mana Party and the Maori Party - have rejected the bill outright.

Now he has only Labour and ACT left, and has to persuade at least one of them to back the bill.

ACT's five votes would give him a bare majority while support from Labour would deliver strong support in Parliament.

Mr Finlayson was on Friday briefing the Bar Association, which also has concerns about the bill's provisions.

Prime Minister John Key said on Monday police had suspended 50 covert surveillance operations and 40 pending court cases could be affected unless Parliament acted quickly.

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

09 Oct 2011 08:46a.m.

geoffrey wrote:

The police in wellington have coverd up things a few times.Its good to be rich in new zealand

26 Sep 2011 06:31p.m.

Dan wrote:

@ Paradox: I think you're very confused.. the entire concept of the rule of law is that all are amenable to it including our politicians and the police. You may think the police are uniformly "good" but that is an incredibly subjective view and there is also plenty of evidence to the contrary. Objectively, they broke the law and must be held accountable otherwise we're just condoning thugs with badges.

25 Sep 2011 02:14p.m.

Wills wrote:

A fine day it will be if we have to go to Zimbabwe for a better democracy.

25 Sep 2011 01:25p.m.

Carlos wrote:

Far Goff !

25 Sep 2011 08:24a.m.

Paradox wrote:

The police are good and criminals are bad. The good police need to be able to break laws so that the rule of law can be enforced. The Government for whom the police are employed by, need to make laws that authorises police lawbreaking so that we can be safe.

24 Sep 2011 10:05a.m.

Mat wrote:

I imagine many New Zealanders like myself have been pulled over by the police and had their cars searched (particularly in summer beach spots with liquor bans), knowing that if I refused, all it would result in was my car being searched anyway and me getting a visit to the local police station. As New Zealanders, we have rights to not be searched or filmed by Police without just cause, however just cause seems to have been eroded to "He isn't doing anything illegal, but who knows what I might find if I look". This isn't about letting crims walk free- this is about letting New Zealanders walk free unless it is lawfully proven they have committed a crime. I am all for police having surveillance powers- if it is justified that the person in question should be watched, not as a mandatory measure just in case someone plays up. We could take the attitude of "If you're not breaking the law, then you shouldn't be concerned", but that is the mentality which leads to organisations like the East-German Stasi during the cold war.

24 Sep 2011 05:29a.m.

Glenn wrote:

More powers in the hands of our inexperienced police force? I don't think so.

23 Sep 2011 06:47p.m.

Warren wrote:

It seems that some in these comments are trying to make this out to be a left right thing but forget that ACT, a right wing party, is also holding reservations about this. Both ACT and Labour have taken the same stance so why put this on Labour. There must be some substance to their reservations considering ACTs previous tough stance on law and order, that is causing them to not give National the usual tick of approval. Keep that in mind before trying to make out that all lefties are criminal loving P cooks.

23 Sep 2011 06:42p.m.

Davina wrote:

The police have and will always unlawfully spy on NZders. Technology aside, that is the reality. What this emergency bill will give them is unlimited powers to be able to lawfully use any of the circumstantial evidence that they could conjour up from their unlawful surveillance, against their intended victim in a court of law.

23 Sep 2011 04:36p.m.

Hamish wrote:

Come on Chris, the cops can do their jobs without having the right to film in peoples houses or on private property, without even justifying it to a judge, wake up ! warrantless search and surveilance is police state stuff and doesn't belong in NZ. Labour have the common sense to protect our civil liberties when they are under attack, YOUR civil liberties and your childeren,s as well. And it actually seems that the cops have been engaging in CRIMINAL behavour themselves! Go live in russia!! Or North Korea!!