Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 30 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12032. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.David Shearer: When he said critics of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) bill are “misinformed” is he saying that the Law Society the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commissioner are all misinformed by saying that the bill is rushed intrusive and inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In principle and in parts yes. If I go to the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 it states that the GCSB can assist “any public authority or other entity in New Zealand or abroad”. Further it allows it to do that “on any matter that is relevant (a) to the functions of the public authority or other entity”. That is extremely wide. As the member knows because he has heard the arguments in fact actually the new legislation not only significantly increases the oversight but also actually narrows the mandate that the GCSB can operate within.David Shearer: Will the bill govern the collection of metadata collected by the GCSB?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. The metadata is treated the same as the content of communication in the bill and there is no difference.David Shearer: In the light of his answer how will the collection of metadata of New Zealanders be regulated and in particular will there be a requirement for either an interception warrant or an access authorisation?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the last part of the question yes.David Shearer: Does he think there are adequate checks and balances of the GCSB given that as the Prime Minister he has the final say on the appointment of the head of the bureau who reports solely to him; he chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee which has oversight; he sets that committee’s agenda and he has the casting vote on that; and he recommends the appointment of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commissioner of Security Warrants; and does he not think that is a little too much power in one person’s hands?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I think the reality is that the oversight of the GCSB is as a result of the legislation significantly improved and enhanced and that includes everything from basically a three-person panel with two other people to assist with what is happening in terms of what the inspector-general does. It also includes registration annually of the amount of information that is collected by those agencies—and transparently. It includes changes to the Intelligence and Security Committee so that the inspector-general comes along once a year—and obviously others—and the committee can do its work. It includes a review starting in 2015 and a review every 5 to 7 years. What I have seen is members like Phil Goff going on about them not—David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] No I think the question has been adequately addressed.David Shearer: Why did he as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee oppose the opportunity for us to hear from the New Zealand Defence Force the SIS and the police about why they needed GCSB assistance rather than allowing them to give evidence before us?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly any of those organisations were free to put in a submission. We did not stop them doing that. Secondly I would have thought it is inherent in the legislation. The very purpose of the legislation is to re-implement the 2003 Act that Labour passed that allows assistance to those agencies except we are doing it up front in a way that it is transparent with much better oversight. I go back to the point I was about to make before. There are many people on the other side who used all of this information. They were more than happy when it was in a much broader framework but now they do not want it. I find myself looking at I think the only Leader of the Opposition around the world who does not think their citizens should have decent security and decent rights.David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is raising a point of order?David Shearer: Yes Mr Speaker. That last comment was out of line. We are here today to ask questions of that Government about the behaviour and the actions of a future GCSB which people have lost confidence in. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a perfect right to raise a point of order. On this occasion I do not agree with the member. I do not believe the answer given to the question that was raised was out of order at all.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It must have been obvious to the Speaker that throughout that point of order we had a barrage of interjection fromthe Government which the Speaker did not address. I am asking you why that was the case.Mr SPEAKER: It was certainly obvious to me that there was a barrage of interjection. I had difficulty hearing the member. I was concentrating on hearing him. The barrage was coming from I think a significant number of members. I would have been unable to identify a specific single member at all.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a further point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes Mr Speaker. I do not accept your explanation. If you looked to your right you would have seen the Prime Minister the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. If you picked just one or two you might have been able to stop it. You ignored it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance. I accept the point the member is making. If I had looked and attempted to identify a member I am sure I would have found plenty so I accept the point the Hon Trevor Mallard made. I was having difficulty hearing David Shearer and I was concentrating very much. I was looking at David Shearer trying to interpret him. But I do accept the point the member has made.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I make the point very simply. It is not a point of order that the Leader of the Opposition does not like something I say. If he does not like it he can take offence and ask me to withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a helpful point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Trevor Mallard raised a point of order with you and you accepted it. It therefore no longer existed. So why did you give the Prime Minister a chance to speak to it to reopen the point of order?Mr SPEAKER: Because at the time the Prime Minister raised it he said he wanted to speak to the point of order and I was unsure particularly what he was going to raise.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s words after you had accepted Mr Mallard’s explanation and agreed with him were “Speaking to the point of order”. It was not a new point of order but the point of order you had just disposed of. Why did you allow him this special privilege?Mr SPEAKER: Because I was not aware of what he would raise at the time he said he was going to speak to the point of order. [Interruption ] Order! This matter is now disrupting question time and the House is becoming disorderly. I will not take a further point of order.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last question that was asked by David Shearer asked why a certain group of organisations had not been brought in front of the select committee when they had been asked to be. The incident that caused disorder was the Prime Minister moving on to personally attack the Leader of the Opposition about his interests in security matters. That is what caused disorder in the House and that is why David Shearer took a point of order. That is the issue of order—the Prime Minister’s behaviour in going beyond the question.Mr SPEAKER: Except that the original question from David Shearer asked why did the Prime Minister as chair oppose so it was quite a direct question in my opinion to the Prime Minister himself.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I certainly hope that this is a fresh point of order that is being raised by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Could you tell us given that it was a direct question to the Prime Minister—if it was not a direct question should it have been directed atsomebody else and whom should that have been? It was a direct non-political question. Why did he oppose certain agencies coming before the select committee not political straight—Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member if he wants to raise a point of order to think carefully about it. That is not a legitimate point of order. It was a question that was directed to the Prime Minister as the chair. That is not out of order at all. It was a political question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister responded.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If this is a fresh point of order I will hear it but if it is relitigating this particular matter then I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber.Hon Trevor Mallard: Well Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order then I am happy to hear it.Hon Trevor Mallard: When you go to Government House you ask for freedom of speech and the right of members to speak in here. Included in that is the right of people to ask direct questions of the executive. The question that I have to you is when are we going to get an arrangement whereby when people have asked questions in an absolutely proper way in an area for which a Minister has responsibility even more responsibility than a normal select committee chair because they are the member in charge of a bill as well as being in charge of a statutory committee—what remedy do members have when they are accused of not taking into account the security of New Zealanders which is effectively treason? That is—Hon Members: Oh!Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: That is effectively the accusation and it is something that members on this side find very offensive. My question to you is what remedies do members have under these rulings.Hon Gerry Brownlee: If members are offended then they do have recourse under the Standing Orders to raise that matter and to have the offence struck out. That has long been established. But I think the bigger problem here is the failure on the part of questioners today—on numerous occasions I might say—to recognise that when some answers to questions that are asked stray into an area that points out some of the inconsistencies in the public view held by the person asking a question there is suddenly a leaping to the feet to in fact deny the very free speech that Mr Mallard is talking of. I think you have been right to rule that there are sometimes questions that are asked with a particular political outcome in mind or a particular answer in mind which does make it a much more political question than the obviously political questions asked each day. That is where we are getting into I think some difficulty. But it comes down to I think as you have previously ruled that if people want to go down that track then they should expect the sorts of answers that they are getting and finding very uncomfortable.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member makes. At this stage I do not intend to rule further on this matter. When the member the Hon Trevor Mallard raises an issue and suggests that what we have heard is actually going as far as treason that becomes in my mind a very very serious matter. On that basis I want to take the opportunity of reviewing theHansard  particularly in light of the whole of this question before I come back to the House.