Robertson Grant: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12591. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):I rise to speak in support of Mr Mallard’s motion. I am going to make three points around the three parts of the motion. The first part of the motion is the notion of an instruction to the Committee of the whole House the second part of the motion is around the question of that instruction being the reconsideration of Part 1 and then the third part of the motion is the specific amendment for which there would be a motion of reconsideration. To talk to the first of those three elements of Mr Mallard’s motion the instruction to the Committee of the whole House it is unusual for Parliament to issue an instruction to the Committee of the whole House. The Committee as most members will be aware and people watching may be aware operates quite independently from the operations of this House when we sit here with the Mace in place ready to do our work as a Parliament. We act as a Committee. In order for this Parliament acting as it is now with the Mace on the Table to issue an instruction as Mr Mallard is asking in his motion is unusual. That is because the business of the Committee of the whole House normally takes place in an orderly fashion and in such a way that it proceeds through and returns to us with a report back to this House on the activities of the Committee.The reason an unusual event like this instruction occurs is that often something occurs between when the Committee deals with something and then when the House next comes to deal with the matter. That is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today where it is necessary to undertake the unusual move of instructing the Committee because in the time since the Committee dealt with Part 1 the Prime Minister has made a very definitive statement about the meaning of a clause within Part 1—section 8A inserted by clause 6 within Part 1 of the bill.Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s right and he’s correct.GRANT ROBERTSON: He has made a very definitive statement. That definitive statement was not made before the Committee considered Part 1. So the unusual experience—and I can see it is disturbing for Mr Brownlee—of the House issuing an instruction to the Committee has to be justified. It is not something we would undertake lightly but we do so because there has been a significant development in the meaning and the interpretation of a clause within Part 1. Therefore Mr Mallard’s motion to move an instruction to the Committee is justified in this instance in my point of view.The question then in the instruction is should we reconsider Part 1. Just to recap—and it is important to do this—Part 1 of this bill is the substantive section of this bill. It is the part of the bill that amends the Government Communications Security Bureau Act. The other two parts of the bill actually amend other Acts so Part 1 is the substance of this bill. The section that is addressed within Supplementary Order Paper 305 is around the functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) so it is absolutely core to the purpose of this legislation to the whole legislation itself. This is not a trivial matter we are asking to be reconsidered by the Committee; it is the core of the functions of the GCSB. So when we are issuing here the idea to reconsider Part 1 the only way that we can provide clarity about an essential part of this bill is to go back and reconsider Part 1.We are unable now—as we are in the Committee of the whole House up to Part 3—to amend Part 1. There is only one option for this and that is to go back and reconsider Part 1. When we were considering Part 1 there was no definitive statement in the public arena of the fact that the content of New Zealanders’ communications including emails were not able to be looked at under section 8A inserted by clause 6. That statement was made by John Key to Audrey Young—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s in the bill.GRANT ROBERTSON: Gerry Brownlee interjects and says that it is in the bill. It is not in the bill. That is the whole point of this exercise. It is not in section 8A. It does not make that clear. It is not in section 15A inserted by clause 14. It is not in section 15C. It is nowhere in those places. When John Key makes a definitive statement that New Zealanders’ communications—the content of them—cannot be accessed we on this side of the House say “All right. Put it in the law. Do not just say it to Audrey Young in an email; put it in the law. Make it clear.”Hon Anne Tolley: It is in the law.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not in the law Mrs Tolley.Hon Anne Tolley: It is in the law.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not in the law. What clause? What clause is it in Mrs Tolley? What clause? She cannot answer because it is not. That is why we have to ask the Committee of the whole House to reconsider Part 1 because the Prime Minister has moved from a situation when this Committee was originally debating Part 1 where there was no definitive statement about whether or not the content of New Zealanders’ communications including emails would be possible. He made those statements after the Committee went through Part 1 and then said it on television after Part 1 had been debated. He then repeated it. It was then printed in the newspaper on the basis of a written email—a communication from John Key to Audrey Young. That is new information about Part 1. That means that the Committee of the whole House has not been able to fully consider Part 1 when the Committee went past that last week. That is why our submission and Mr Mallard’s motion say that we should be reconsidering Part 1.It is not good lawmaking for this House to find out that there is something definitive about Part 1 that is not expressed in the law at this time. Mr Mallard and others havealready mentioned the fact that Mr Key has subsequently said that he will make statements in his third reading speech and that that will make sure that the interpretation of Part 1 is clear. That is not good lawmaking. It is a far better practice and a far clearer practice to write down in law what is meant. The Prime Minister could not have been more definitive over the weekend when he said the content of New Zealanders’ communications would not be accessed as a result of section 8A. He made that clear after the House had gone through Part 1 and we on this side of the House submit that that means we should be reconsidering Part 1 because we cannot do that.Hon Gerry Brownlee: 8CA covers it.GRANT ROBERTSON: Gerry Brownlee has found 8CA. I very very much doubt section 8C could have anything to do with this because that is not about cyber-security Mr Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not. Section 8C is about assisting other agencies. It is a different clause Mr Brownlee. Section 8C is a different clause. We are talking about section 8A. Mr Brownlee has no idea about the structure of this bill whatsoever—no idea. Section 8A is cyber-security section 8B is the foreign intelligence function and section 8C is assisting other agencies Mr Brownlee—Hon Gerry Brownlee: No it’s not.GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes it is. That is what it is. Gerry is wrong once again.I come to the third point which is the specific amendment that is included in Mr Mallard’s motion. The need for the specific amendment is because the people of New Zealand have been told by John Key that we have to trust him in order for their communications including emails to be protected. Mr Mallard’s motion says that we need to consider the Supplementary Order Paper from David Shearer that says that just having someone like John Key say “Trust me.” is not good law. What we need in the law is a statement. David Shearer’s Supplementary Order Paper 331 begins with the words “For the avoidance of doubt …”. It is quite clear that there is considerable doubt. John Key claims that it is all fine—trust him the content of communications will not be looked at. The Law Society Geoffrey Palmer and all sorts of other people have come forward and said: “We are seriously concerned here about whether the content of New Zealanders’ communications including email can be accessed.”This Supplementary Order Paper 305 covered by Mr Mallard’s motion says that for the avoidance of doubt let us say once and for all that the content of New Zealanders’ communications is not covered under section 8A. That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion—to go back and do something that apparently the National Government already agrees with. Well for the avoidance of doubt let us put that into the law. Mr Mallard’s motion should be supported. The Committee should reconsider Part 1 because John Key cannot make up the law as he goes along.