And interestingly, their opinions are completely the opposite of what we expected! They begin with an explanation:
We can't agree on the Government's approach to dealing with the Supreme Court ruling in the Urewera case. So here's our split decision - Andrea first, then John.
Andrea Vance outlines the situation then concludes:
The Government and the police have known about the need to update the regulations around surveillance on private property for at least five years. It came up in debate on the pending Search and Surveillance Bill. The draft was rewritten in August last year to specifically include a provision for surveillance device warrants.
The Law Commission raised the problem in a report tabled in Parliament back in 2007.
But this Government - and the previous Labour administration - just crossed their fingers and hoped it wouldn't come up before now. Last week it did, in the form of the Supreme Court Urewera judgment.
Police and Crown Law (the losing parties in this case, let's not forget) insisted speed was of the essence to stop the bad guys winning.
Is it? Both the Greens and Maori parties say absolutely not, Labour remains to be convinced. And legal professionals are lining up to criticise the ''kneejerk'' move.
And let's not forget that the Evidence Act already allows for evidence collected unlawfully to be admitted in serious cases. This arguably makes the case for urgency, well, less urgent.
I accept the Government needs to be decisive and show leadership. But circumventing the usual processes of Parliament to rush through an expansion of police powers is terrifying.This move is the most alarming example yet of this Government's crazed approach to using urgency to push through controversial or unpopular changes.
Over to John Hartevelt; surprisingly, he gives the Government some kudos:
At the very heart of any government's role is to maintain law and order and to prosecute injustice. The police have effectively been prosecuted for their injustice - according to the Supreme Court's view of the law - against people they accused of plotting terrorism and such. Police and the state stuffed that up and they've paid the price at the hands of the court.
But it's not just the Supreme Court that makes law. Parliament does too.
Cabinet, after what we hope would have been some robust debate yesterday, has decided it will take to Parliament a proposal to make some new law of its own.
It has judged that the public would not wish to see the prosecutions for up to 90 cases of alleged criminal offending tipped over by the use of video surveillance techniques that were not, it turns out, legal.
Cabinet will, as usual, have to be accountable to the public for its proposed new law. It will have to convince a majority of MPs to back its new law. The media will be expected to examine its new law and to facilitate discussion about it. Will the electorate be comfortable with a law that once again (this time legally) empowers the police to use video surveillance when they have a warrant?
We're told the law will be brief and that it will include a sunset clause one year from when it takes effect. A more considered and properly debated law will replace it after that.
The Government can, in the meantime, justifiably cop criticism for allowing it to come to this. It can rightly cop flak for using and abusing urgency all too often.
But, in this case, it cannot be accused of a lack of decisiveness or leadership. Governments are elected to make laws and to lead. It's right that we scrutinise them for their laws and for their leadership. It would also be right to criticise them where they failed to move decisively to make the necessary laws that are the will of the people.
If you stuffed it up the first time, make it right - don't just walk away.
We're on Hartevelt's side (sorry Andrea!); the Supreme Court decision has exposed a glaring hole in the law, and the Government is moving to patch the hole. Urgency is required because there are only six sitting days remaining before the 49th Parliament is dissolved in advance of the General Election. With the election so close, the Key government must have been sorely tempted to park this and take the path of least resistance. Clearly though, a majority in Cabinet has supported the proposed solution, despite the risk of fall-out.
From what I heard this morning, the proposed legislation will be brief, explicit and time-bound. We are not a fan of undue urgency; nor should retrospective legislation become a default setting. However we agree with Hartevelt's assessment that the Government is elected to lead and govern.
Neither National nor Labour emerge from this mess with much credit, but that is the reality of politics. We hope now that whoever the incoming government is after the election, the Search and Surveillance Bill is moved up the Order Paper so that a proper solution can be found by way of a proper parliamentary process.