King Annette: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12373. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai):I want to pick up on comments made by the Attorney-General in his speech. He said there had been wilful misreading of this legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. He then went on and made a gratuitous attack on the Law Society. I thought it might be important to point out that at 3.48 p.m. today the Law Society issued a press statement regarding changes to this bill. We have heard tonight that the Law Society along with many other very good organisations respected organisations including the Privacy Commissioner MarieShroff and others made submissions to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Today the Law Society put out a press release that said: “GCSB Bill remains flawed despite proposed changes”. Whose name was that press release in? It was in the name of Austin Forbes QC Law Society rule of law committee chair. The Attorney-General slagged off the Law Society because some non-entity some person who had an axe to grind went to a public meeting—he had representedZaoui—and made a comment. He was another Queen’s Counsel I gather.However the point that I am making is that one Austin Forbes QC a former president of the Law Society was a person whom National members believed in verystrongly in 2008 when they were in Opposition and the electoral finance legislation was being debated in Parliament. Whatever Mr Austin Forbes said at that time was absolute gospel—it was gospel and they believed it. When he said “This bill has a chilling effect” they jumped on it and repeated it week after week after week. Well I think the Law Society in the name of Mr Austin Forbes has said much more about this bill and maybe the Attorney-General would like to apologise to this very well-known Queen’s Counsel—something the Attorney-General sought for a long time and found great difficulty in getting himself until he got into Parliament.But what did the Law Society say today at 3.48 p.m.? It said that “minor improvements” had been made but they “do not address the fundamental flaws in the bill”—Hon Trevor Mallard: Especially in Part 1.Hon ANNETTE KING: —especially in Part 1. It then went on to say: “the legislation should not proceed”. It said: “the idea of a set of guiding principles is potentially a step in the right direction but [it was] not convinced that the proposed wording … provides adequate … safeguards”.It was also very critical of the dropping of Supplementary Order Papers on any part of this bill at this time—dropped on this bill this day. None of us had seen them. We had Peter Dunne for days saying: “I’m going to bring in Supplementary Order Papers that are going to make a change because I sold my soul to the National Party and they’re going to accept my Supplementary Order Papers.” We did not know what they were the public did not know what they were and the Law Society did not know what they were but of course Peter Dunne did because he had done a dirty little deal. So we have the Law Society and Mr Austin Forbes QC saying that this bill is flawed. Well I would like to quote the Minister for Economic Development—the Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say when the Law Society makes a submission on one bill that suits the Government—when Mr Austin Forbes does—that it is a very good submission and then when it gets one it does not like say that it is no good. It cannot have it both ways.Another question I have in terms of this bill is a comment that Peter Dunne made when he said he would not support this bill until he knew what the cost would be if the SIS had the same equipment capacity and capability as the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). Do members remember that? It was only a couple of weeks ago. He would not support the bill until he got the costings and until he could look at the costings. Well Attorney-General what are the costings? What advice was given to Peter Dunne? What was he told would be in the costings in relation to the GCSB having the same capacity as the SIS? So I say to the Attorney-General—