National announced yesterday that it will introduce legislation under urgency to overturn the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Hamed v R – the appeal concerning the charges against the so-called “Urewera defendants”. The proposal is not to disturb the dismissal of charges against most defendants, or the confirmation of charges against the remaining 4. It is to suspend the general effect of the decision concerning police surveillance for a year. Under the proposal, Parliament would have the opportunity over the year to consider whether to legislate to further define what surveillance powers police should have, while the law reverted temporarily to the state it was in before the Supreme Court decision.
National didn’t consult any other parties, including Labour, over this proposal, or ask in advance for support for the decision. There is no legislation published or available for comment or review. If the proposal for urgency means not sending a bill to a select committee, there will be no opportunity for expert or public comment on whatever bill does get drafted.
Clearly there are issues arising out of the Supreme Court decision that Parliament needs to look at. The Court said as much. One of them is the extent to which Police should be able to engage in video surveillance, and then use the results of that surveillance. (Personally, I think they should have the power, at least for serious allegations, but that it should always be exercised under a warrant granted by a judicial officer that defines the extent and length of the surveillance permissible.)
Another is whether those powers should be conferred prospectively only. (I think they should be, although I need to get my head fully around exactly what powers that would leave the police with between now and whenever any new legislation came into force; whether those powers are sufficient to deal with allegations of serious offending; and where that leaves cases already in the courts or under investigation – and on these we clearly need much more and better information than what John Key seemed to be equipped with post Cabinet yesterday).
A further one is what should happen if people convicted of serious crimes on the basis of what would now be classed as illegally obtained evidence applied to overturn their convictions, or compensation. (Presumably, if their convictions were based on serious enough charges, the courts would find that the evidence was properly admitted – as they did for Iti and the 3 remaining Urewera defendants – so this is something we can and should leave to the courts to sort out).
So apart from the question of whether the police will have the necessary powers to gather evidence relating to serious offending between now and whenever Parliament can review that issue, and just maybe what should happen to cases already in train, it seems to me there is no possible case here for legislating urgently, and certainly no case for preventing legislation going to a select committee for scrutiny and public and expert input.
It is the height of arrogance for National to assume that there is such a case, and to announce that it will put the House into urgency to deal with it. I doubt they will get the support they think they will to do this.
We have a Supreme Court now. National need to learn not to engage in knee-jerk, urgent legislation to overturn its decisions if we don’t like them. The debate here need only be about the position we should put the Police in until we have had time to consider the Court’s decision and work out whether their powers need to be supplemented, better regulated, or both.
@Curious – the difference is that Labour didn’t have the temerity to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act under urgency…
I realise it is not exactly analagous (its consequences were less far-reaching), but wasn’t Labour holding up recent quick-fix changes to youth justice legislation done in co-operation with National as an appropriate use of urgency?
Whatever the case, I think it is clear there are WAY too many downstream consequences to deal with this issue under urgency.
With that said – I wouldn’t be surprised if National attempt it (they seem to be doing the PR groundwork with the “40 cases will fall over” slogan), and make it look like a another good-natured Key compromise by brokering it with a sunset clause and promising to pass a more substantive bill following the election.
Agreed Ianmac!
!
BWS look here , the biggest newspaper says the government is …. well read it.
“Only an exceedingly strong argument could justify taking the step of temporarily suspending the effect of the judgment through an urgent law change. The Government has failed to supply this”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10753185
We can see that its yet again a shambles from Key and his crew running a jackboot state
“BWS says:
September 20, 2011 at 8:33 pm
So let me get this straight, Charles, you’re saying that your party will oppose this law and let 40 cases currently before the Courts fall over because of it?”
Can you post your proof that 40 cases will “fall over” because of this? I await it with interest.
Do people understand that a judge can permit illegally obtained material to stand in certain circumstances?
Oh cool, now the Government supporters believe two wrongs make for a great future…
We don’t have a democracy!
!
Urgency abuse!
!
There is one other problem by allowing video surveillance without warrants but require all other interceptions with a warrant ie search etc, is that this will be the police’s preferred method.
Come into your house to install cameras but then say look what else we found.
Who knows what other methods they have devised that they have free reign to intrude in peoples privacy.
Hi Charles, thanks for your interesting response. Again a lot of rhetoric, but you refused to say whether your party would definitely be opposing the Bill being put under urgency.
Why oh why do you put yourself into corners like this? Do you really think that voters are so stupid, that when you stand up and give every indication that you’re opposing something, but are very careful not to actually say you’re opposing it, that we don’t realise you’re giving yourself an out?
Give us some credit, Charles. We watched your former Foreign Minister talk through both sides of his mouth for all his political career. I think the fact you’re not willing to say that you will oppose this Bill now speaks volumes.
Why did my last comment go into a hole?
BWS , its called the rubbish bin
Please have the courage to oppose this Bill.
Still waiting for the arrests of the police who knowingly broke the law against invading the privacy of NZ citizens.
And Spud. We have never had a democracy. That is the main part of the problem. The majority of us are totally subject to the whims and ideological manias of a small number of “group-thinkers”.
In Switzerland any proposed laws have to be well thought out and explained, to avoid being voted out in a referendum.
Speaking of refusing and rhetoric BWS…
““BWS says:
September 20, 2011 at 8:33 pm
So let me get this straight, Charles, you’re saying that your party will oppose this law and let 40 cases currently before the Courts fall over because of it?”
Can you post your proof that 40 cases will “fall over” because of this? I await it with interest.”
Labour should do what is right for the Country and not try and score political points on this issue. Support the temporary legislation (it’s only for 1 year, and after the election National will probably be able to shove this through anyways) and then let the issue go through the proper processes next year.
This is about holding Criminals to account for their actions. Opposition to this indicates that illegal activity is ok.
@Jake: “Opposition to this indicates that illegal activity is ok.”
You do realise that the Police acted illegally in doing the videotaping? So passing National’s law would be to condone illegal actions? That doesn’t bother you at all?