CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Attorney-General: Does the Government support changes to the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Yes, and I hope the House does too.
Charles Chauvel: Does he intend to seek or make any further amendments to the bill when it returns to the House for debate?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.
Charles Chauvel: Why did it take him 17 days after the Supreme Court decision in R v Hamed to advise other political parties of his intention to introduce urgent legislation, and can he assure the House that he will approach his job in a less leisurely fashion from now on?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: When the—[Interruption] I have been told to be nice. When the judgment was released some time was required so that certain aspects of it could be redacted, and then I immediately got on to the task in my usual sedulous manner.
Charles Chauvel: Does he now regret the fact that he and his colleagues failed to take up Labour’s offer, made a year ago, to progress the Search and Surveillance Bill, and will he give the House an assurance that from now on he will be an advocate for expediting the provisions of that bill?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As to the first part, no. As to the second part, as I have said, the Government accepts the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee that after the new Parliament is formed everyone will have to get their skates on to deal with the issue of the Search and Surveillance Bill.
Rahui Katene: Does he agree with the assessment of lawyer Robert Lithgow QC, as told to the select committee, that “The Crown want to win when they lost.”, and what are the implications to our legal system when the Crown makes the non-criminal criminal through retrospective legislation?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I do not, because I think everyone in this House agrees that those who actually succeeded in the appeal should have the fruits of their victory. Quite frankly, I do not know what that gentleman is talking about.
Charles Chauvel: Does he intend to seek or make any further amendments to the bill when it returns to the House for debate?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.
Charles Chauvel: Why did it take him 17 days after the Supreme Court decision in R v Hamed to advise other political parties of his intention to introduce urgent legislation, and can he assure the House that he will approach his job in a less leisurely fashion from now on?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: When the—[Interruption] I have been told to be nice. When the judgment was released some time was required so that certain aspects of it could be redacted, and then I immediately got on to the task in my usual sedulous manner.
Charles Chauvel: Does he now regret the fact that he and his colleagues failed to take up Labour’s offer, made a year ago, to progress the Search and Surveillance Bill, and will he give the House an assurance that from now on he will be an advocate for expediting the provisions of that bill?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As to the first part, no. As to the second part, as I have said, the Government accepts the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee that after the new Parliament is formed everyone will have to get their skates on to deal with the issue of the Search and Surveillance Bill.
Rahui Katene: Does he agree with the assessment of lawyer Robert Lithgow QC, as told to the select committee, that “The Crown want to win when they lost.”, and what are the implications to our legal system when the Crown makes the non-criminal criminal through retrospective legislation?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I do not, because I think everyone in this House agrees that those who actually succeeded in the appeal should have the fruits of their victory. Quite frankly, I do not know what that gentleman is talking about.
