Locke Keith: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
Locke Keith: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
[Volume:630;Page:2083] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be opposing this motion. Wayne Mapp pointed out the security issues of terrorism etc. and stressed the importance of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think it is for that very reason—that it is an important committee—that we should oppose the motion on its membership. It is not like a select committee. It is made up only of nominees of the Labour leader and the National leader. The National Party leader is described in this motion as the Leader of the Opposition. That is not a term that the Greens like. We have criticised it ever since we have been in Parliament. It is a pre-MMP term. There are a number of parties in this House. There is not just one Labour Party and one party the National Party heading an Opposition. We all have our different politics and it is not right to have a committee that gives only the leader of the National Party the authority to offer nominations from parties such as ours or from the Maori Party whose members are sitting behind me today. 
We have a problem here because I would like to replace some of these nominations. The motion itself is to endorse all the nominations. I understand that we cannot just offer an amendment. [ 
Interruption 
] I might take advice from the National member but I understand that I cannot just put in an amendment to replace one of the members with another member. But I think there is a case for doing that. I asked written questions of the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service Helen Clark. She replied a week ago and informed me that in 2005 the committee met on only one occasion for 43 minutes. I do not think that is good enough and I will be explaining the situation regarding the whole parliamentary term further in my second speech which will be on Government notice of motion No. 2. The committee’s record has got worse year by year in terms of the amount of time it has met. I think one of the problems to give the members some benefit of the doubt—and I am not giving them the full benefit—is that they are busy people. The Prime Minister is busy Don Brash is busy and the other members on the committee including Michael Cullen and Winston Peters who have been renominated are busy people. I think we should try to change the composition from that which is in this motion. 
It is a bit difficult I think to take the Prime Minister away from the committee particularly when she is in charge of the Security Intelligence Service. I think it would also be a bit difficult to take away Don Brash. I would give Rodney Hide a chance because this is his first time on the committee. He is not responsible for the failings of the committee in the last Parliament. I think Richard Prebble was a member previously. Was he a nominee last time? I am not sure. Rodney Hide certainly was not. But Michael Cullen and Winston Peters were on the committee previously. I think the technique of individual nominations and hopefully the House will agree with this would improve the workings of the committee. 
Later on at the end of my speech I will seek leave for the House to vote separately on those nominations. If that is the case I will propose that we do not vote Michael Cullen or Winston Peters on to the committee. Clearly they do not have the time or there is something wrong with their involvement with the committee or it would have met more than once last year. I think it would serve the interests of the House and the interests of the committee if we have on it people with previous ministerial experience who are less busy. I will be proposing that instead of Michael Cullen and Winston Peters we have two former Ministers namely Marian Hobbs and David Parker. I think it would be a good challenge for David Parker to take up now that unfortunately he has been relieved of his other responsibilities. 
If we have a better committee and it has a better composition it might deal with some of the issues that Wayne Mapp talked about because clearly it did not in the last Parliament. The committee had to do reviews of the estimates and financial reviews in the 43 minutes that it sat in the whole of last year. I do not think its members would have had time to do much more than make themselves a cup of coffee and do a very quick job on those financial reviews. I do not think they really got into the issues of terrorism etc. that Wayne Mapp talked about. That is my proposal.