Lees-Galloway Iain: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: 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:12628. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):We are debating Supplementary Order Paper 307. Interestingly the debate on the question of whether or not we should adopt the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 307 began before this Supplementary Order Paper was tabled so we started the debate before we even really knew what the question was. I think people who are watching the passage of this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill who are fearful for what this legislation does to the principles underpinning our democracy in New Zealand will question how it could possibly be that this Government would propose that we should debate something in Parliament when we have not even had the question put down on the Table before us. That is a fundamentally anti-democratic act the kind that people have come to expect from this Government.But I want people who are listening to this to understand that in all of these things it is always a question of whether it is a cock-up or a conspiracy. I think there is no doubt that this is a cock-up. The Government had only a week of adjournment to prepare this Supplementary Order Paper so it is understandable that it was not able to get it on the Table in time for the debate this evening. It is a 1½ page Supplementary Order Paper. Iam sure it took a considerable amount of work to add the words to the template which there will be for these types of Supplementary Order Papers because they occur so often. A whole week of adjournment on top of all the other time that we have been debating this legislation probably was too short a time for this dysfunctional and disorganised Government to prepare the words for this Supplementary Order Paper in time for us to begin debating them.As to the substance of the Supplementary Order Paper we have heard two different views from this side of the Chamber. One was from Trevor Mallard which was that this is a form—Hon Trevor Mallard: Open liberal and prepared to be convinced.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes I have always thought that Trevor Mallard is open liberal and prepared to be convinced. He takes the harm reduction approach and says that this is a Supplementary Order Paper that will make a bad bill slightly better because it will be slightly less incoherent than it currently is. On the other hand I heard a convincing argument I have to say from Grant Robertson that what we should do is vote against this bill. Trevor Mallard has also been convinced that we should vote against this bill.What we really ought to be doing the ideal is that we should not be debating the separation of this bill into three bills. We should actually be debating one of two singular pieces of legislation. The first that we could be debating is a piece of legislation that initiates an inquiry into our surveillance agencies. The Inquiries Bill I understand is now a matter of urgency for the Government even though it has been languishing on the Order Paper—Hon Trevor Mallard: Since 2008.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —since 2008. But post the Fonterra scandal it is now a matter of urgency for the Government. If the Inquiries Bill had been passed we would not need a separate piece of legislation to establish an inquiry into our surveillance agencies but it has not been so we are debating this. That would be the first piece of legislation we could—[Interruption ] There could be a royal commission. It is a matter of debate.Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s all nonsense.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Trevor Mallard says it is nonsense. I am sure he will get up and offer a different point of view.The other way we could go is to have a single piece of legislation that would be the result of that inquiry and that would be legislation that establishes our surveillance agencies and sets the parameters for our surveillance agencies in the 21st century. Let us face it: 1976 which was the last time our surveillance agencies were comprehensively reviewed from a first-principles basis was an awfully long time ago. It was an awfully long time ago. I was minus 2 when that was carried out.Hon Trevor Mallard: I was resident upstairs during the debate.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well you can tell us some more about that as well Mr Mallard. But anyway it was a long time ago and it is fair to say that the environment in which information can be gathered has changed a bit since 1976. So we should be debating a single piece of legislation that establishes the parameters for our surveillance agencies in the 21st century.The alternative way to go would be to split this piece of legislation—ad hoc inconsistent and ill-fit for purpose as it is—into the six or seven pieces of legislation that would accurately reflect the number of different agencies and the number of different Acts that it is amending. As it is what we have again—