Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I move, That the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be now read a second time. I begin by thanking my colleague Chester Borrows for his chairmanship of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the members of the committee for their work. The bill we debate this afternoon is a slightly modified form of the bill sent to the select committee last week. Clause 3 states the purpose of the Act, which is to preserve the rights of those persons who have the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court but otherwise to state the law as it was thought to be prior to 2 September, the date of the judgment in Hamed’s case.
As is now made explicit by clause 3(d), all of the protections available under section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are left intact. Additionally, clause 5 enacts that the provisions of the bill will expire 6 months from the date of commencement, rather than 12 months from the date as provided by the bill at the time of its introduction.
The term “search” is defined in clause 4. It is best expressed in broad terms. The intention is that the term applies to a search when done in connection with a search warrant, or otherwise in circumstances where no search warrant is necessary or available. Although the decision of the Supreme Court does not rule on covert surveillance from outside the boundary of a particular private property, it has been thought prudent to refer to that form of surveillance in the bill.
Clause 5 is really the essence of the bill. It provides that where covert video surveillance occurs as part of, or in connection with, a search, whether with a warrant or otherwise, the search is not an unlawful search only because of that feature.
The bill does not assert that a search with the use of covert video surveillance is always lawful. There is an argument that such a rule may have been extracted from the pre-Hamed case law. However, the committee has chosen the form of the words used in clause 5 as the least possible interference with the trial rights. The bill still preserves the ability for the police to continue to use the vital tools of covert surveillance in countering serious crime.
Clause 5A reflects a decision of the committee to make one exception to the rejection of any retrospective element in the bill. The purpose of the amendment is to preclude persons convicted on the basis of evidence to which Hamed applies from gaining an acquittal, new trial, or appeal for the reason only that evidence admitted at their trial was illegally obtained in terms of Hamed.
That covers the main points of the bill as it has returned from the select committee. I will make further comments in my third reading speech. I commend the bill to the House.
