Cosgrove Clayton: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):I found that speech when it talked about politicking and Ms Tolley talked about it as well quite astounding. The Attorney-General went to a Catholic school as did I. I am sure he remembers a biblical quote from Proverbs 26:11: “As a dogreturneth to his vomit so a foolreturneth to his folly.” That is what we have seen tonight from that member. That is what we have seen tonight from that member that Minister. A couple of colleagues have forgotten that one. Go to Sunday School. While we are in a sort of biblical frame of mind I must say after Peter Dunne sat down following his speech I was reminded of that piece in the Bible where the cock crowed thrice. The cock crowed thrice as Judas picked up his 30 pieces of silver.The question I have for the Attorney-General as he heaped praise on Mr Dunne’s amendments—if they tightened things up if they provided some balance if they improved this piece of legislation then why is it that the Attorney-General and his colleagues and the Prime Minister whose name this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is in did not propose those amendments themselves? Why did they not? Would the Attorney-General like to answer that question being a learned lawyer? Why they did not propose those amendments is quite simple. Because Judas picked up the pieces of silver—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I said earlier on and made a ruling that you will refer to members by their correct names.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I apologise to Judas.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have just made a ruling and I ask the member to abide by it. We refer to honourable members in this House by their correct names.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The Hon Peter Dunne. What I was saying as I apologise to a person who is mentioned in the Bible who is no longer with us—the person was Judas Iscariot who betrayed somebody quite formidable in history. You may want to have a look at that. The Hon Peter Dunne picked up the 30 pieces of silver. What that has translated into of course is some sort of guarantee in respect of his longevity—whether that be a political cup of tea to guarantee his seat whether that be some ambassadorial post to Beirut or Somalia or somewhere quiet or whether that be some sort of pay-off that the Government is going to give him. Because a couple of weeks beforehand he was in the dog box. He may have been closer to looking through the striped sunshine had the Prime Minister had his way. He was in the dog box. We know what he was accused of.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The last three Government speakers—the Attorney-General Minister Tolley—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Look I am the ruler of that. I am asking the member—he must refer back to Part 1. That is what we are on.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I will refer to Part 1. If you would like me to I will refer particularly to a clause that the Attorney-General did not address section 8B(1)(b) in clause 6 which my colleague Mr Parker alluded to specifically in respect of the gathering and analysis of intelligence about information infrastructures. My colleague Mr Parker—of course the Attorney-General did not address this—noted that any communication carried on those technology platforms would give the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) open slather. To the Attorney-General and to Mrs Tolley and others—the rocket scientists over there—that is not a widening of the legislation or the capability of an intelligence service.But I come back to this as we address Part 1. The question I raise with the Attorney-General is why he did not propose these amendments. What pay-off is Peter Dunne actually going to get? The last couple of weeks he was in the dog box; now of course he has come out with these so-called wonderful amendments that as my colleague MrGoff has aptly put it are diametrically the opposite of his position a couple of weeks ago. No way would he support this bill. No way would he support any enhancement of surveillance—Hon Phil Goff: Under no circumstances.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Under no circumstances even with or without a warrant there was no way he would do that. But oh no when his own political carcass is on the line when his own political hide is on the line oh no—anything is possible. The man who put the one vote over the top for asset sales is back there again—one vote to get this through. Mrs Tolley talked about politicking. Well is it politicking to not seek consensus? Is it politicking to not approach Opposition parties but to talk to the media about it and say “I want as wide a vote as possible.” as the Prime Minister did and behind the scenes to make no approach no phone calls no nothing because they had Mr Dunne right in their back pocket? That is the truth. That is the truth about this legislation.I would like to know from these geniuses why it was they did not put these amendments forward. According to Mr Finlayson the human rights commissioner the Privacy Commissioner the Law Society—everybody is wrong. Everybody is wrong. Yes he nods. Everybody is wrong and if Mr Finlayson had his way the deity would be four and he would be the fourth. Everybody is wrong except him—except him. Yet the Prime Minister does not come down to justify this legislation. The Prime Minister is not taking a call. The Prime Minister did not think of these amendments. It is about the dirty deed. It is “willing buyer willing seller”. It is 30 pieces of silver. It is the selling-out of any principle that Peter Dunne had. You have got to hand it to him—he is a survivor. He is a survivor. This boy will do anything to survive. He is a sort of political limbo dancer—how low can you go with Peter Dunne? He would sell his grandmother if he thought that would get him across the line and give him a couple of extra months. He has sold out New Zealanders with this in terms of Part 1. He has sold out New Zealanders because as Mr Parker pointed out section 8B(1)(b) does widen—does widen—the jurisdiction. If Mrs Tolley wants to argue that point I invite her to get up and address specifically the legal points that Mr Parker made.Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh no no no.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No no no—I think it would be worth a crack. It would be worth a crack because then you would pit one brain against something else—one brain against another. I would wager Mr Parker would win that argument.The other point I would make is that you see a pattern in select committees. When this bill went through the particular committee the Intelligence and Security Committee like a number of bills that go through committees in this House the particular agencies—in this case the Defence Force the Police the GCSB and the SIS; the key agencies that one would expect you would get in to give you authoritative advice about the nature and breadth and depth of this bill—were blocked by the Prime Minister. That has happened in a lot of committees. We have had bizarre situations where bills have come before committees and the key Government agency that will administer the bill will provide advice about the bill is blocked because they do not want to know. They do not want the agencies coming in even in private or in secret the highest classification a select committee can give. These people do not want these agencies to come in to be questioned by Opposition members. No no—they just want everybody to say yes and agree with them.One other point I would make is on an insulting point made by the Government. If the Government tries to make a proposition that we on this side do not believe in the security of our nation the security of our people and the need for intelligence services that is an insult that lacks credibility and it says more about Mrs Tolley and her ilkthan anyone else in this Parliament. Of course we believe in securing the citizenry of our country. We know and we understand that that requires a capable and quality but accountable Security Intelligence Service. We believe in that but it must be accountable. It must be accountable to the people through the Crown and it must act in an appropriate way. So for that mob over there to run that silly little spin line which no one in New Zealand believes no one in this Parliament believes apart from them is an insult. It is an insult to all New Zealanders.Hon Anne Tolley: I’m pleased you take it that way.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: So I say—what was that?Hon Anne Tolley: I said I’m pleased you take it that way. It is insulting your behaviour.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh it is insulting—my behaviour! I will say this: I hope New Zealanders listened to that member’s speech and that Minister’s speech as she made it up as that member got up and did not address Mr Parker’s point and as the Attorney-General got up and poured opprobrium over Mr Goff and others but did not address Mr Parker’s point of course. Oh no lawyer to lawyer he did not do that because even the Attorney-General knows he lacks credibility when you get right down to the nitty-gritty of this bill.This bill does widen the powers of those intelligence services. The Government can say it does not as often as it likes but when you actually look at the micro level and the clauses in this bill it does widen those. It does not provide the accountability that say for instance Mr Shearer’s Supplementary Order Paper 305 would provide. What I say to the Attorney-General is wrong with a review of legislation to ensure that you get it right before you actually enact it? We could not convince the Attorney-General of that so Mr Shearer put up a review with a sunset clause in the legislation. Mr Finlayson is a doyen of statutory interpretation—in his own mind at least anyway—Hon Trevor Mallard: Jurisprudential fetish.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I will not go there. I say this: can Mr Finlayson take a call and advise us the best way to form legislation? Surely an investigation a review an analysis of the facts with professional advice and then writing legislation is the way you do it logically or if you cannot do that my leader’s Supplementary Order Paper—