As of November 2011, this website is no longer being kept uptodate. It contains NZ Parliament debates from November 2005 to November 2011. is volunteer run, and has been in operation since November 2006.

Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill—Justice and Electoral Committee Recommendations

Tuesday 4 October 2011 (advance copy) Hansard source (external site)

Chauvel11. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
to the Attorney-General

Does the Government support changes to the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee?

FinlaysonHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this

Yes, and I hope the House does too.

ChauvelCharles Chauvel Link to this

Does he intend to seek or make any further amendments to the bill when it returns to the House for debate?

ChauvelCharles Chauvel Link to this

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?

FinlaysonHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this

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.

ChauvelCharles Chauvel Link to this

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?

FinlaysonHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this

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.

KateneRahui Katene Link to this

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?

FinlaysonHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this

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.