Menu:

 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I move, That the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be now read a third time. I endorse what Mr Hide said; I think this bill is the result of political parties working together to find a solution to a problem. It is not the result of any one individual, it is not the result of any one party; it is the work of Parliament.
 
 
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.

 
 
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) : I move, That the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee, that the committee report to the House on or before 3 October 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet tomorrow and at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).
 
 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) on behalf of Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Attorney-General: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “there are at least 40 trials and 50 investigations where those investigations currently - the video surveillance equipment’s been turned off and yeah I don’t think - that will harm those trials in my view”, and in how many of those cases does the prosecution rely on evidence from warrantless filming from private property without the owner’s consent?
 
 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Attorney-General: Will he meet with earthquake victims’ families to hear directly why they need independent legal representation; if not, why not?
 
 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I begin by thanking Mr Henare for his outstanding chairing of the Māori Affairs Committee. Business is always conducted very efficiently through that committee and it reports back to the House as quickly as possible, and I acknowledge his leadership in that regard.
 
 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Attorney-General: Why has he refused to provide funding to the earthquake victims’ families who want legal representation at the Royal Commission of Inquiry?
 
 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I move, That the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill be now read a third time. As the introduction to the commentary to the bill says, this is an on-account settlement bill. It is intended to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of on-account settlement relating to the transfer of assets in an on-account settlement of the historic claims of Whanganui iwi. The river and the land claims are yet to be negotiated, although I am hopeful that we will do that very soon, because Whanganui iwi have been waiting for a just and durable settlement of their grievances—particularly in relation to the river—for many years. It is interesting to look at the history of the river claim. It began in about 1887. Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of their case to the Court of Appeal. They desperately deserve a good settlement.
 
 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Does the Government have any plans to disestablish separate Māori electorates; if not, why not?