Volume 692 Week 50 - Tuesday 6 August 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 692 Week 50 - Tuesday 6 August 2013[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12293. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 6 August 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Ministerial StatementsDairy Products Whey Protein—Contamination IncidentRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 352 in relation to Fonterra and the potential contamination issue. Last Friday the Ministry for Primary Industries received notification from Fonterra about a potential contamination issue relating to whey protein concentrate manufactured at itsHautapu plant that had tested positive for the food poisoning bacteria that could cause botulism. Officials immediately swung into action and they have been working around the clock since then to give us certainty and clarification on the extent of the potential contamination.I would like to reassure all New Zealanders as well as our international trading partners that the Government has all possible resources focused on this issue. We have established a ministerial response team and a number of briefings meetings and teleconferences have been held over the days since the issue first came to the regulator’s attention. Our main priority at this point is public safety. There are a number of questions that need to be answered by Fonterra and it is likely that both Fonterra and the Ministry for Primary Industries will hold inquiries after this situation has been resolved but those questions are for another day. As I said yesterday now is not the time for recrimination. Now is the time to make sure that consumers have the best information.The Ministry for Primary Industries has had staff inFonterra’sHautapu plant the site of the contamination conducting testing and has also had staff inNutricia’s offices assisting with the tracking of infant formula products that may contain the contaminated whey protein. It has also put officials intoFonterra’s data centres with its agreement to assist in getting absolute clarity on the situation. However the situation remains fluid. The information changed a number of times over the first 72 hours. That is why officials and the Government have been taking and will continue to take a conservative precautionary approach until we get absolute certainty.This issue will obviously have implications for our export markets. We are working closely with our trading partners to keep them informed and to get them the latest information as soon as it comes to hand. Overall to date the response from international markets has on balance been measured. We have received mixed messages from Russia and we are working with the Russian authorities to clarify the situation. China has suspended imports ofFonterra’s produced whey powder and dairy base powder from New Zealand and Australia and has increased inspection and supervision at the border for New Zealand dairy products. However that has not stopped imports of our two biggest exports whole-milk powder and skim-milk powder at this stage. Together these two exports to China were worth around about $2.37 billion over the past year.Yesterday after the Ministry for Primary Industries had issued earlier precautionary advice regarding two ofNutricia’s infant formula productsNutricia decided to issue a voluntary recall for those two affected product lines:NutriciaKaricare Infant Formula Stage 1 for babies from birth all batches; andNutriciaKaricare Gold Plus Stage 2 Follow-on for babies from 6 months all batches. It is important to note the recall does not affect any otherNutriciaKaricare products. As I said earlier the health of consumers is of the utmost importance and it is critical that these products are recalleduntil any contamination can be ruled out. Parents and caregivers should move to alternative brands in the meantime until we can get absolute clarity on the situation.The Government and officials are working closely with the Food and Grocery Council and retailers to ensure that the two affected product lines are removed from the shelves and to ensure an adequate supply of alternative brands. If any parents or caregivers have any of the recalled product lines at home they should return it to the shop they bought it from for a refund or dispose of it. Officials and the Government will be keeping the New Zealand public completely up to date with all information as it arrives and further clarification is received. In the meantime I urge all parents and caregivers to refer to the Ministry for Primary Industries website for the latest and most up-to-date information on the situation.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition):Our priority today and over the next few days is making sure that parents here and abroad have the accurate information they need to ensure that their children are safe. As a parent I understand how anxious they might be feeling. They are confused and worried about whether there is a risk to the health of their kids. Their questions must be answered in full. They must have access to accurate and timely advice and nothing must be held back from them. The safety of our children and children abroad is paramount.We are standing alongside the Government as it works with Fonterra to provide answers for parents. We will also support its efforts to protect our export markets and the international reputation that we have from further damage. When the time is right we will also be demanding answers as many New Zealanders will be. Why did the potential contamination take so long to detect? Why did it take so long to tell people about it? Why has the Ministry of Health not played a major role in getting information to parents? What protocols do the Ministry for Primary Industries and Fonterra have for handling these situations and have they followed them? And what can we do to prevent this kind of shambles ever happening again?Fonterra is New Zealand’s largest company. It came into existence under law under a previous Labour Government. It was given special rights to operate largely outside the Commerce Act to maximise our nation’s wealth and we are proud of its achievements. But with rights comes enormous responsibility. As our only truly global companyFonterra’s responsibility includes protecting our reputation as a source of safe high-quality food. This is built as much on trust as it is on technology but the quality of trust disappears as transparency fades. Fonterra in this case has let us down. Its strategic communications have been hugely lacking. People understand that things can go wrong but they expect to be told the truth and given the full facts. That is what this country is known for around the world—our honesty and our transparency. That must never be put at risk.Hard questions must also be asked about the role of the Government. Have Ministers done enough? Has the Ministry for Primary Industries been too hands-off? The Ministry for Primary Industries’ mission statement is to grow and protect New Zealand but has the push for growing exports overshadowed the critical focus on protection—in this case the protection of families and their children of our international standing as a safe food exporter and of our nation’s overall reputation?We must work harder than ever to safeguard our valuable relationship with our trading partners including China. China is right to be asking questions of us given events such as the dicyandiamide scare and the problems with meat certification. It is devastating today to see the Chinese media describing our “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign as a festering sore and claiming that our food safety issues are systemic. This shows that the “she’ll be right” attitude simply does not cut it in our global market place. We must be more vigilant than that. This issue is bigger than politics butFonterra is not bigger than Parliament. It is up to us in this House to come together and make sure that everything that happens from this moment on happens in the best interests of parents and of our country.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I rise to say just a few words on behalf of the Green Party. The Greens will be playing our part as a part of this Parliament to find out what happened. I think that is important because we are doing it on behalf of New Zealand parents but we are also doing it on behalf of parents all around the world and that needs to be our No. 1 priority.Mums and dads both here in New Zealand but elsewhere as well in other parts of the world need to be sure that the food they are feeding their kids is safe. That needs to be the fundamental starting point for anything that we do and anything that we say as a Parliament. I believe that around this Chamber today that is a common understanding. I believe that we will all do everything we can to ensure in the first instance that we locate all the contaminated ingredients and that we provide all the information necessary to the parents so that they can be aware of that.I would also say that I think there is a much more important role for the Ministry of Health. I would like to see the Ministry of Health stepping up and providing advice to parents. The Ministry for Primary Industries is fine but it is the Ministry of Health that I think should be playing a bigger role in this. We need more information and a much larger campaign to get that information out than what we have seen to date.I would also say that there are a number of critical questions that we are going to need answers to when we go forward and deal with this issue. Are our food regulations adequate? Does the regulator have a sufficiently independent and powerful position in regard to the industry? It is very important I believe that the regulator in this case the Ministry for Primary Industries is in a position where it can control the industry and if necessary enforce standards and make sure that the industry is operating within the rules that the regulator sets rather than the other way round. We need to make sure that that is exactly what has happened here.We also have a question about whether the lessons from the dicyandiamide scare have been learnt. We know that that was in some ways the first concern that came up a number of months ago and we want to make sure that we have learnt the lessons from the dicyandiamide scare.This is not just a Fonterra problem and it is not just a Ministry for Primary Industries problem; it is a problem for all of us. I think that we as a Parliament need to reinforce the fundamental values that underpin Parliament. It seems to me that there is a place for the nanny State and there is a time for the nanny State and if that is not protecting the safety of food that we feed to our children then I do not know when else we would have the nanny State. This is exactly when we need that kind of State to protect the well-being of our children.We have some fundamental questions to ask about the time lag between the discovering of theClostridium and the determination that it wasClostridiumbotulinum . The number of months between those two points in the time line seems to me particularly critical. I think I have now got my head around whyClostridium was not found at the beginning. It was found only when it was tested later to go into the baby-formula food stream. That makes sense to me but why the gap between the identification that there wasClostridium there and that it wasC.botulinum ? It seems to me that those months there need more explaining as to why there was such a big gap between those two points in the time line. I hope that the Government puts that as a priority in the inquiries that follow this.Federated Farmers’ WillyLeferink said in theDominion Post today: “If there’s any break in this pasture to plate chain then product does not go or rather that is how thingsare meant to work”. That chain of custody seems to me critical to the food security issues that we need to get right. I look forward to the Government inquiry that comes once we have got through this initial period of making sure that people and children are safe.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):We thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the Fonterra contamination scare. This is surely not a time for political point-scoring and no one in New Zealand First misunderstands the gravity of this issue. This country has always had a reputation for the purity of its food and nothing must be allowed to compromise that reputation not even statements of human error. Systems are put in place to eliminate human error when the consequences of such mistakes can be so dramatic. Our prosperity as a nation depends on it. This food contamination scare reminds us of how vulnerable our economy is and how vulnerable the consumers of our products may have been.Over the coming weeks and months much investigation will go into the how and why of this contamination scare—how it happened and why it happened. That investigation must be comprehensive and thorough. But what we know already is that a critical market has been hurt as have others and second that the restoration of our product reputation will nevertheless probably result—almost inevitably result—in a price reduction for this product. We also need to do some serious thinking on the wider implications of putting excessive reliance on a handful of economic sectors and ways to reduce exposure to risk.We are also reminded in this crisis that for our society and economy to succeed the private and public sectors must work together and not just in a time of crisis. Ultimately we are after all in the same boat. No one wanted the crisis. It has had great potential to damage New Zealand’s credibility as a food source but as a nation we must use this crisis to learn and build better and safer systems to ensure it does not happen again.Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I thank the other political leaders for joining with the Government in having as the No. 1 priority that the security and safety of consumers and particularly their babies is paramount. I happen to agree with other political leaders there are plenty of questions that will need to be answered and in the fullness of time we will get those answers. I am confident that the Government is putting all the resources necessary into this issue and over the next few weeks and months we will be doing everything we can to restore New Zealand’s reputation in the international market place.Sittings of the HouseHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):In accordance with a decision of the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break following the maiden statement of Meka Whaitiri today.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.Extended SittingsHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I moveThat the sitting of the House on Tuesday 6 August 2013 be extended from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Wednesday 7 August 2013 for consideration of the interrupted debate on the third reading of the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill the second and third readings of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2013/14) Bill the first reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill and its referral to a select committee and the first reading of the SubordinateLegislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) and its referral to a select committee.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fact I have two points of order. The first is a question as to whether this is a debatable motion.Mr SPEAKER: This is a non-debatable motion.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My second point of order goes to the order of dealing with matters in the House. It is my understanding that under Speaker’s ruling 179/3 the Prime Minister’s correction to statements he made in relation to a Fairfax journalist and communications should have occurred before this motion. It is to be done at the first opportunity. I can understand it going after the Fonterra matter because that can take even further priority but my question is why that has not been dealt with before this motion.Mr SPEAKER: That is a matter for any Minister or in this case the Prime Minister who so wishes to correct any answers.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.Points of OrderQuestions for Oral Answer—Amended AnswersHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I now want to refer you again to Speaker’s ruling 179/3. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not making any allegation of breach of privilege here. I am going to take the Prime Minister at his public word last week that he was wrongly advised and that the errors he made in answering questions in the House were accidents rather than anything that was deliberate. Notwithstanding that the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings make it absolutely clear that when an error has been made in answer to an oral question there is an obligation on the Minister to correct his answer to the House. I know that you are in a somewhat uncomfortable position yourself because you are not subject to oral questions and assurances that you gave in the Committee stage are somewhat of a problem to be sorted. But the obligation of the Prime Minister is absolutely clear. He must come to the House and he must correct his answer.Mr SPEAKER: Order! In effect the member is now re-raising the same point of order a second time but reinforced with a Speaker’s ruling. My ruling still stands. It is a matter now for any Minister—or in this case the Prime Minister—to determine whether there is an answer to be corrected. If the member thinks the course of action charted by the Prime Minister or any Minister is unsatisfactory the member has alternative means to raise the matter.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a further point of order?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes and it goes to what the alternative methods are. I understand—again taking the Prime Minister at his word that he was in error in thestatements he made last week—that that is not a breach of privilege. Can you inform the House whether in fact it is a matter of privilege not to do a correction in these circumstances? Is that the method you are recommending that I take up?Mr SPEAKER: No the member can decide what action he wishes to take. If he wishes to write to me to allege a breach of privilege then I would certainly have a look at that and consider it as I do any application for a breach of privilege. But I am certainly not going to rule on that matter at this time in front of the House without a formal application from the member.Questions to MinistersGCSB Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak and Authorisation for Release of DataRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):This question is to the Prime Minister and asks: does he stand by all of the answers given on his behalf to Oral Question No. 5 on 29 May 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I think the member has got the question wrong.Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion could the member please repeat the question as worded on the Order Paper.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I made the mistake of using the draft.Mr SPEAKER: Order! We all on occasion make mistakes. We do not often expect many from the right honourable member.1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all of the answers given on his behalf to Oral Question No. 5 on 30 May 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Now that the member asks yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that his chief of staff MrEagleson told him as Prime Minister on 29 May of email correspondence between Peter Dunne and Andrea Vance and that Mr Dunne was not complying with the inquiry why did the Prime Minister state on 30 May that “I do not how Mr Henry is conducting his inquiry.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because that was correct.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was his chief of staff MrEagleson telling the truth last Friday when MrEagleson said that he had subsequent to 23 May “no further role in authorising or influencing the release of any further information”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can that answer possibly be correct when it is a matter of public record that MrEagleson was in frequent contact with Mr Dunne’s office in the period 27 May to 4 June regarding the release of email correspondence—a fact that the Prime Minister has confirmed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What is clear is that whether the emails were released by Mr Dunne’s office was a matter for Mr Dunne and a matter for his chief of staff. What my chief of staff made clear was that my expectations were that all Ministers would comply with the inquiry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That last question challenged the answer to the previous question as to its correctness. The previous question was related to MrEagleson’s claim of having no further role in authorising or influencing the release of any further information. That is the gist of it and that is what I am asking. How can you reconcile what he said with the prime ministerial information released to the public of the 27 May to 4 June contact and role and involvement? Hisanswer has no connection to that though it would superficially seem like he had given some answer.Mr SPEAKER: The essence of the question is how that answer can be correct given some further information the member asked. Does the Prime Minister have anything further to add to the answer?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: At the start of the inquiry MrEagleson wrote on my behalf to all Ministers and staff advising that the expectation was that they would comply. That position never changed. If MrEagleson did that he did that some time before when the member is asking about.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are allowed in our system of government and constitution to ask questions to seek to get at the truth. You have the chief of staff saying he had no role at all after 23 May and the Prime Minister on record saying that between 27 May to 4 June all this involvement was participated in by his chief of staff. One of those statements cannot be true and the Prime Minister is making no attempt to tell us which one is true.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I do not agree with the final point that the member is raising. The member’s question asked how that answer could be true. On two occasions now the Prime Minister has attempted to justify how he thinks that answer can be correct and that is for the Prime Minister’s responsibility not mine. On this occasion the member I understand has one further supplementary question left. I will give him an additional supplementary question to see whether he can tease out the answer he may require.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you Mr Speaker. I do appreciate that. Does he truly expect the public to believe that the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet AndrewKibblewhite was involved in Henry inquiry - related discussions to facilitate the release of phone records and email correspondence but did not tell him as Prime Minister about this for a whole month?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When MrEagleson said that he had no further role in authorising or influencing the release of any further information after 23 May how was it that he got involved in the frequent contact with Mr Dunne’s office in the period 27 May to 4 June?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite clear. The statement made by MrEagleson was in relation to asking Parliamentary Service to authorise the data not correspondence or the discussion between MrEagleson and MrEaddy.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that I used the phrase “authorising or influencing the release”. The Prime Minister goes straight for “authorising” and we all know it was about influencing the release that we are after. [Interruption ] Well OK—Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The reality of it all is that one MrEagleson is admitting that he was authorising or influencing at a certain date—23 May—and then he says that neither authorisation or influence according to the Prime Minister affected his 27 May to 4 June relations with Mr Dunne’s office. That is just beyond credibility.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given a good amount of time for the member to raise a point of order which was in effect a debate on the answer that has been given. I rule that the Prime Minister has adequately addressed the question that was raised.Dairy Products Whey Protein—Contamination Incident2.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that he is “deeply concerned” about the Fonterra whey proteinscare and if so is he satisfied that parents in New Zealand and overseas now have accurate information on this issue?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes. I am satisfied that Government agencies are working hard to provide New Zealand parents and caregivers with the utmost up-to-date information that they have. Parents should continue to monitor the Ministry for Primary Industries website and callHealthline andPlunketLine for further advice. In respect of overseas customers their respective regulatory agencies are responsible for providing information to their consumers. The Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade are giving those regulators the latest information as they have it.David Shearer: What role is the Ministry of Health taking to reassure parents that the baby formula they are feeding their child is safe?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My understanding is that the Ministry of Health has been involved with the response group that was established by the Government. The Minister of Health has been involved in every teleconference that I was involved in over the weekend. I might stand corrected but his director-general was involved right through the weekend in terms of all of the information. The Ministry of Health website has been updated and we have been monitoring admissions to hospitals around the country for any signs that might indicate that a baby has consumed infant formula that is tainted.David Shearer: Were Ministers told of the issue before the Ministry for Primary Industries; if so what actions did those Ministers take?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My understanding is that at 12.35 on Friday Fonterra advised the Ministry for Primary Industries and then from there the other contact flowed with Ministers.David Shearer: Is he satisfied that the protocols—if those protocols exist—between the Ministry for Primary Industries and Fonterra resulted in timely disclosure?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it would be very difficult for me to actually give an answer to that today. I think we do need to go and have a full inquiry. I mean we have made it quite clear—or I think the company has made it quite clear—that it was aware on the Wednesday and yet the Ministry for Primary Industries was not aware until Friday lunchtime. I cannot explain that gap in time. I think that is one of the very real issues that needs to be looked at.David Shearer: Given that the Chinese media is calling the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand “a festering sore” what urgent action is he taking today to limit the fallout for New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I think that in reality the first issue we need to do is actually identify all of the potentially contaminated product and make sure it is off the shelves and not accessible to consumers. I think secondly from there we need to be transparent actually with all countries that trade with us that we have actually gone and looked at what went wrong and ensured that it will not happen again and then ultimately we need to continue to communicate with our customer markets. But I do think a bit of perspective needs to be put on this. I am not in any way downplaying the very seriousness of what has taken place but I think we can also look back on 100 years of trading food internationally and we have generally speaking very very safe and high-quality standards.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister in a position to tell us whether the tests in March 2013 that foundClostridium in those ingredients—and at that point we did not know whether it was a toxic form ofClostridium —triggered some kind of notification to the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Minister for Primary Industries?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Authoritatively I cannot be sure but I think it is fairly unlikely that it did trigger a response to the Ministry for Primary Industries. My understanding ofthe way things went is that when they did the tests in March I think it was partly done in Australia withNutricia. That showed up they spoke to the company and the company did a series of other tests but it was only really on Wednesday of last week when the company was sure as a result of all of its testing that it had a potentially very serious problem.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister in a position to tell us why there was a 5-month delay between the identification of some kind ofClostridium and the final identification that it was actuallyClostridiumbotulinum ?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I think the member asks a very good question and it will be part of the review that will be undertaken.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister believe that there should be some kind of automatic process whereby when a food manufacturer like Fonterra but any other as well findsClostridium in their product particularly a product that is destined for infant formula the Ministry for Primary Industries should immediately be told that there is a potential problem?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That might be something that can form part of the review. I suspect that Fonterra may argue or other manufacturers may argue that that actually shows up more regularly than we think but in fact it depends on the circumstances. One can only assume that Fonterra itself certainly does not want to do damage to its markets and its customers and therefore if that had really sent the alarm bells ringing back in March 2013 one would assume that it would have acted much faster than it did. So it obviously believed that it was not a serious enough threat to stop the production of that infant baby formula.Dr Russel Norman: Accepting that answer does the Minister agree that having foundClostridium  it should have been an urgent question that needed answering very quickly as to whether that wasClostridiumbotulinum rather than just a harmless kind ofClostridium  because the answer to that question was critical to whether it should have allowed more of the product to go forward into the food chain?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well again I think the member makes exactly the right point. We just cannot answer that question today. But it does seem very very odd that Fonterra allowed production to carry on and for that infant baby formula to go into the supply chain or into the distribution chain. So one can only assume that it believed right up until Wednesday of last week that that was not an issue. I cannot explain why it did not think that that was an issue but their scientists in the fullness of time may be able to.Dr Russel Norman: Has the Minister put this question to the Ministry for Primary Industries rather than just Fonterra as to whether the Ministry for Primary Industries believes that there should have been much quicker action on having found the generic kind ofClostridium ?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I personally have not although there was a sort of round-table discussion yesterday with the acting director-general which sort of broadly traversed these kinds of topics. I suspect those sorts of questions have been asked but the acting director-general has been extremely focused on trying to understand and quantify exactly the issue and where the product actually is. So as I have sort of said on numerous occasions there will be plenty of time to look at these questions but it probably has not been the top of priority in the last 48-odd hours.Dairy Products Whey Protein—Economic Impact of Contamination Incident3.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National)to theMinister of Finance: What are the expected economic consequences of the potential whey protein contamination issue?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The Government’s immediate priority is to protect families and consumers in all markets from the potentially affected products to share information and to work closely with our trading partners. In the year to June 2013 New Zealand exported $45 billion worth of product. Of this around a quarter was dairy and of that around a quarter was exported to China. In the year to June 2013 the export value of the two products potentially affected by contamination whey protein concentrate and dairy-based powder to our largest market in China totalled $125 million. That is around 1 percent of dairy exports or 0.25 percent of total exports. Only a fraction of that $125 million of value is currently subject to restrictions into the Chinese market. Products not affected include whole and skim-milk powders fresh and UHT milk butter cheese and yoghurt. There is some longer-term risk of course of effects to our reputation but if these circumstances are managed transparently and effectively we ought to be able to reduce those risks. The economic impact of the amount of product currently under restrictions is sufficiently small and would not have a discernible impact on our GDP.Paul Goldsmith: What preliminary assessments has he seen of the possible economic consequences of the issue?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well there would not be a detailed assessment of economic consequences until or unless there was a likelihood of a significant impact. At this stage there is no indication that the issue has escalated to the point where it could have that significant impact. Treasury advises that macroeconomic effects will depend largely on the extent of response from our international trading partners and of course that is why we need to work so closely and transparently with our trading partners.Paul Goldsmith: What do financial market indicators suggest about the longer-term effects on the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the last few days I think we saw initially and understandably some reaction both in the price of Fonterra shares and the New Zealand dollar both of which declined. We will learn more tonight at the next global dairy trade auction. Prices for delivery later this year will provide an early indication of whether the market expects any longer-term effects. Important to avoiding any wider economic slow-down is of course to live up to our reputation as honest open transparent and trusted operators of food safety.GCSB Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak and Prime Ministerial Responsibility4.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: Does he stand by his answers to this House on 31 July when he said: “… the inquiry at no point asked for a journalist’s records …” given that the emails released on Friday evening show that phone access and email records of Andrea Vance were sought by the Henry inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I stand by that and the fully corrected answer I gave. The member cut short my quote which was: “… either access records or phone records.” I later went on and corrected my answer when I said that he did request them meaning the access records.David Shearer: When he said to the House on 31 July: “I am more than happy to show the email traffic that supports the view of the Government.” why did he not table emails from 20 May that show that the Key-Henry inquiry sought both phone and email records for Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am pretty sure the member is referring to emails that I did not have. They were the emails that came out later on.David Shearer: I seek leave to table three emails that refer to the correspondence between the head of the inquiry or the administrator of the inquiry and Parliamentary Service—two on 20 May and two on 27 May—which cover emails phone logs and swipe access card logs.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The easiest way is for me to put the leave. I understand that they may well be in the public arena but I will put the leave. Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There is objection. [Interruption ] Order!David Shearer: Why did he seek to blame a Parliamentary Service contractor for the release of email and phone records between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne when in fact those records were actually requested by the Key-Henry inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is confusing a number of different issues but in fact it is quite correct. They were released by Parliamentary Service’s operator.David Shearer: Does the Prime Minister expect the House to believe that with all the questions and Official Information Act requests being made his chief executive officer and his chief of staff did not inform him that the inquiry had requested and received the email and phone records of Peter Dunne and Andrea Vance?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. In the case of my chief of staff he was not aware of that until I think last Thursday night. I was made aware of it on the Friday. In the case of my chief executive officer I have already publicly said that he knew about that a month earlier and arguably he should have put that into the public domain earlier.David Shearer: In light of the last answer did AndrewKibblewhite offer a briefing or was a briefing sought by the Prime Minister on what information was requested by the Key-Henry inquiry before last Friday?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I did not seek a briefing and the reason for that is that I set up the terms of reference and the inquiry was run by Mr Henry.David Shearer: Can he guarantee to the House that the email correspondence between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne was not opened by anyone in his office his department or his agency that he is responsible for?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is the advice that I have received. The advice I have received is that when it was sent by Parliamentary Service it was sent to an email system where it could not have been opened and it was recalled within an hour.David Shearer: Does he agree with the statement made by Steven Joyce that he accepts David Henry’s word over that of Peter Dunne that he never said he wanted access to Mr Dunne’s phone logs so as to compare them with Andrea Vance’s—Hon Steven Joyce: That’s not what I said actually. Show me the actual quote.David Shearer: That is onThe Nation  Mr Joyce.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to see the full statement by Mr Joyce because as we just saw right before Mr Shearer doctored a quote from me and conveniently left a bit out.David Shearer: Is the fact that he does not know about the emails from his chief of staff or his chief executive officer a result of the fact that he did not ask or was not told or simply that he does not want to know the real questions and the real answers about the Henry inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is relatively simple. The inquiry was established under the authority of my name and was to be independently run by Mr Henry. If I was in this House now answering some of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition wants me to answer he would be saying that my mitts were all over it and it was not an independent inquiry. Some time ago he was saying that I did not try hard enough. Then by the way the Labour members were on the Privileges Committee. They are claiming to be holier than thou but by the way they wanted Andrea Vance’s emails. It is quite remarkable if we go through all of the events in this saga.David Shearer: Given that he cannot answer something as simple as that question why should anyone trust him on his ability on behalf of New Zealanders to provide the oversight to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is rather interesting is it not because on Sunday I happened to watchQ+A —actually I have got to say on display was the real leader of the Labour Party. Anyway—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As everyone will know the oversight of the GCSB under the proposed legislation is a lot stronger than what was put in place under a Labour Government. We all know that the reason the Leader of the Opposition is not supporting the legislation is that he is having his string pulled by themuppet that is sitting next to him—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was quite a sufficient answer. [Interruption ] Order!Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not becoming of the Prime Minister in respect of this serious issue to describe members of the Opposition asmuppets. I would expect you in the Chair to protect the decorum of this place by calling the Prime Minister to order.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member might want to have a look at the proceedings later on today to see that I immediately did call the Prime Minister to order. I thought that was quite sufficient. I am certainly not about to rule the word “muppet” out of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Point of order—[Interruption ] Order! This is a point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: I am standing to agree with you. You did call the Prime Minister to order—in fact before he used that word—when he headed in that direction. He ignored you and you did not reprimand him.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I rose to my feet and tried to catch the Prime Minister’s eye. I called “point of order” to him and it would be within seconds that he ceased his answer.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a related point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Let us hear it.Hon Trevor Mallard: You called “Order!”. He is meant to be looking at you and listening to you. He took no notice. That is different from your account.Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption ] Order! On many many occasions when Ministers are giving answers they often direct them to the person who asked the question. They do not necessarily spend the whole of their answer looking at the Speaker.Hon Trevor Mallard: Listen—just listen.Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to stay in the House he had better not suggest that I be listening. I am doing my very best.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes it is.Mr SPEAKER: If we are going to have more time-wasting that we are getting from the member then he will not get to stay in the House. I will hear a fresh point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I want to apologise if I gave the impression that you were not listening. You were; the Prime Minister was not.Mr SPEAKER: I am very pleased to accept that point of order.Police—TeinaPora CaseTE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):My question is to the Minister of Police. Is the Government taking any action in response to the unprecedented recommendation from the Police Association—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. This question was transferred so it is not to the Minister of Police. It is to the Minister of Justice. Would the member like to start his question again. It is to the Minister of Justice.5.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party)to theMinister of Justice: Is the Government taking any action in response to the unprecedented recommendation from the Police Association to call for an independent inquiry into the conviction ofTeinaPora; and does she agree with what President Greg O’Connor describes as significant disquiet among police who are uncomfortable with the fact thatTeinaPora is in prison for this crime?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):There are two legal avenues for MrPora. In 2011 he lodged an application with the Governor-General for the royal prerogative of mercy or a pardon. This application has been on hold as MrPora’s lawyer wished to provide additional evidence to be considered. So that is still open. The second avenue is for MrPora to appeal to the Privy Council. The Privy Council may either quash MrPora’s convictions or order a retrial which could result in MrPora being found not guilty. MrPora’s lawyer has advised that he intends to apply to the Privy Council and he is currently finalising papers for this. It is for the courts to decide whether a person is guilty of any crime—not the Government. It would not be constitutionally appropriate for the Government to launch yet another Government inquiry into the police investigation or any other aspects of MrPora’s convictions until MrPora has completed his legal options. If MrPora has new and compelling evidence then that needs to be presented by his lawyer in the proper way to the proper authorities—that is to the courts or the Governor-General. The third avenue of inquiry that could be initiated by the Police Association or any other affected person including MrPora is to lodge a complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority which exists for the purpose of independently inquiring into any allegations of police misconduct.Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate the explanation given by the Minister—it was pretty full—but I did ask a question around whose responsibility this is. She did explain that it fell within the avenues available to MrPora and of course to his supporters but the question starts “Is the Government taking any action …”. I am just seeking clarification as to whether the Government under the Minister’s realm has any plans has any action can take any action over this case. I am just seeking some clarification around that.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister might like to elaborate but it was pretty clear to me in the answer that the Minister was saying it is not the role of the Government at this stage because there are two other courses of action available.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can add I think. I am happy to add for the member’s benefit that there already is an inquiry and that is the inquiry under the royal prerogative of mercy which is for a pardon. That inquiry has not progressed further since 2011 because MrPora’s lawyer has said that he wants to present more evidence to it. Until he does then it really cannot progress further. So there already is an inquiry.Te Ururoa Flavell: Thanks to the Minister. What impact does she think the accumulated impact of the police conduct the police investigation and their very public call for an inquiry into the conviction ofTeinaPora has on the general confidence and trust of New Zealanders in the justice system?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well I think it is a very good point that the member has raised. The fact is though that at the moment the ministry is administering 12 applications for pardons and three applications for compensation claims. So at any time—and this is a pretty normal time in these matters—we have 15 claims either for a pardon or for compensation. This is quite a publicly heard matter but it is absolutely right in a democracy that people should be able to state what they think. If they want to and if they have concerns about any police conduct in MrPora’s case then I will repeat what I have said before today—that they should make a complaint to the Independent Police Conduct Authority which is the body that has statutory authority and power to investigate. I would suggest that if anyone has any genuine concerns that is exactly what they should do.Andrew Little: Given that neither an appeal to the Privy Council nor an application for the royal prerogative of mercy can deal with the serious allegations now being made about the police investigation and the handling of the case by the prosecuting counsel and that the Independent Police Conduct Authority cannot deal with both does she not see that an inquiry into this matter is now urgently required?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe that the member is getting ahead of himself. This matter still has an appeal right to the Privy Council and it also has an open application for a pardon. So the normal course of events would be that a complaint is made to the Independent Police Conduct Authority which would normally deal with these matters post any court proceedings which I think is the correct order. But also if the member has any concerns as to the prosecution behaviour in terms of Crown Law then I would have thought that a letter of complaint on those lines to the Attorney-General would be the correct course of action.GCSB Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak and Release of Data6.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to one of my supplementary questions on 31 July 2013 that “the inquiry at no point asked for a journalist’s records either access records or phone records”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I stand by my corrected answer. If the member reads the full transcript of that question he will note that I later clarified my response to the member’s supplementary question. In relation to the building access records I stated that “he did request that.” meaning Mr Henry. I also stated that I thought it was wrong and that the inquiry should not have asked for that information.Grant Robertson: What about the phone records? Answer the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the phone records the Henry inquiry did not request Miss Vance’s records.Dr Russel Norman: Given that the Prime Minister has now told us that Mr Henry did request the journalist’s access records is he concerned about the email sent by his chief of staff on 9 May which asked Parliamentary Service to provide to the inquiry any relevant material requested given that those access records were requested by the inquiry and the inquiry had the authority of his chief of staff to ask for them?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the emails with me but from memory they state quite clearly “for Ministers and staff”.Dr Russel Norman: Given that the email on 20 May goes from the inquiry to Parliamentary Service and specifically asks for all emails between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne is it not the case that the inquiry asked for the content not just the metadata of those emails and it did so on the authority of his chief of staff?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the second part of the question no it was not on the authority of my chief of staff.Dr Russel Norman: How can it not have been on the authority of his chief of staff when his chief of staff wrote to Parliamentary Service on 9 May and asked Parliamentary Service to provide any relevant material requested by the inquiry and then the inquiry requested the material?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the email on 9 May was in relation to Ministers and their staff not journalists.Dr Russel Norman: Then in reference to the email of 20 May from the inquiry to Parliamentary Service it was asking for emails between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne. Hence does it not meet the criteria that he has just laid out? It was in relation to Ministers that the Henry inquiry sought the information and hence it was authorised by the email from MrEagleson on 9 May asking Parliamentary Service to provide any information requested from the inquiry.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No because what happened was the authorisation was in relation to metadata. When the actual contents of the emails were requested that was the very point that my chief of staff made—that in fact he was not authorised he believed to do that. He said he needed to ponder that for a day. He did so. He went back the next day and said: “No I don’t believe I have the authorisation to do that for a support party Minister.” He referred it to Mr Dunne’s office. Mr Dunne said that no he would not release the content of the emails but he was happy to “have a discussion with Mr Henry”.Dr Russel Norman: In relation to that point I seek leave to table the email trail that shows that it was a request for the content of the emails. This is the email of 20 May from the inquiry.Mr SPEAKER: Again I suspect that that email has been released but I will put the question. Is there objection to that email trail being tabled? There is objection.Grant Robertson: In light of the Prime Minister’s answer to Dr Norman’s first supplementary question I seek leave of the House to table an email from Monday 20 May timed at 5.53 p.m. where the inquiry seeks the phone logs between the listed extensions of Peter Dunne and the numbers of interest being Andrea Vance to and from those—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? Yes there is.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I seek leave to table the statement from David Henry in relation to the Henry inquiry where he quotes: “The inquiry I led never requested the phone records of journalist Ms Andrea Vance. The inquiry reported the fact immediately the information was received.”Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought—Hon Trevor Mallard: Can I seek an assurance from the Prime Minister that it has not been previously published?Mr SPEAKER: Well the member has the ability to deny leave if he so wants. The Prime Minister sought leave to table—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have I think on at least three occasions—Mr SPEAKER: And I will do the same on this occasion. I assume that if it is a media release it has probably been published but on the same basis as I have treated all the others I will put leave to the House. Is there any objection to that particular statement from David Henry being tabled? There is not.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Robertson concluded his last submission to the House by talking about the Prime Minister lying. That usually is found to be an offence in this House by all manner of members including the person who is the subject of the allegation. Of course it does not happen when it is true.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not believe that we are getting a point of order on this occasion.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well he said it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member also wants to stay for the balance of question time he is quite OK to raise legitimate points of order but raising points of order either to waste time or to make political statements will not be tolerated.Dairy Products Whey Protein—Contamination Incident and Safety of Infant Formula7.KATRINA SHANKS (National)to theMinister for Food Safety: What information can she provide to the public regarding the safety of infant formula?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety):Ministers have been advised thatNutricia has voluntarily recalled a number of its products to ensure that potentially affected stock is off the shelves until there can be complete confidence as to whether or not these products are contaminated. Last nightNutricia initiated a voluntary recall ofKaricare Stage 1 New Baby Infant Formula from birth andKaricare Gold+ Stage 2 Follow-on Formula from 6 months. The Government welcomesNutricia’s decision. Now that there is a definitive recall across the two product lines the Ministry for Primary Industries is assistingNutricia to ramp up public information. This includes national advertising of a statutory recall notice: radio advertising social networking advertising and online advertising. People can get information and advice fromHealthlinePlunketLine and the Ministry for Primary Industries consumer helpline. The Ministry for Primary Industries is continuing to work round the clock on this issue. Parents and caregivers should continue to regularly check the Ministry for Primary Industries website for any updates and callHealthline andPlunketLine if they have any health concerns.Katrina Shanks: What are the main actions the Government has taken to address the immediate issues raised with regard to the safety of infant formula?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Some of the actions that we have been taking include placing officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries at Fonterra sites in Auckland Hamilton and Australia to verify information and to obtain a complete picture of the products and locations affected by the contamination. Ministry officials have conducted a physical check of the plant in the Waikato to confirm the pipe suspected of causing the contamination has been changed. A ministerial response team has been established for a whole-of-Government approach on this issue and we have been meeting regularly. Ministers have spoken with food and grocery industry representative members and have been assured that they have no immediate concerns about the ability to supply existing alternative infant formula. Ministers have also been advised that the industry is putting in place arrangements to secure the ongoing supply of alternative infant formula products. From a public health perspective health officials have been an active part of the response team. The Director-General of Health has been working closely with the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. There has been increased surveillance for any symptoms that could possibly result from exposure of this bacteria. The surveillance has been in district health board baby units paediatric wards and general practices. I am also advised that the Ministry of Health has utilised its system of conveying urgent messages to general practices. This has been a whole-of-Government response. Ministers and agencies are working round the clock to ensure that the public are protected.Housing Affordable—Investment Properties First-home Buyers and Mortgages8.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour)to theMinister of Finance: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank that house price inflation in our largest city Auckland is “rapid”; if so what is the Government doing to deal with the demand and price pressures caused by speculators?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Yes I do agree with the Reserve Bank but I do not agree with the member’s habit of calling everyone who wants to buy a house a speculator; many buyers if not most are not. Of course speculators who buy and sell houses with the aim of making a profit are already required to pay tax on any capital gains. In addition the Government has significantly tightened tax rules for property owners and investors and provided the Inland Revenue Department with extra resources to enforce those tax rules. These moves are expected to raise $700 million to $800 million of extra tax on property investment every year which is far in excess of any estimates of capital gains tax. The Government is focusing though as a top priority on the supply of houses. As outlined by the Productivity Commission regulatory restrictions on the supply of new housing and new land in the Christchurch and Auckland markets is a significant driver of the increases in prices. The Government is also focusing on reducing the delays and costs of Resource Management Act processes improving the timely provision of infrastructure and working with the construction sector to lift its low levels of productivity.Hon David Parker: Would a capital gains tax excluding the family home dampen demand from the owners of multiple numbers of houses—if you do not like the word “speculators”—given that 40 percent of Auckland homes are no longer owner-occupied?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The “owners of multiple homes” would refer to a significant number of New Zealanders and many of them would not regard themselves as speculators.Hon Judith Collins: David Shearer?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well David Shearer—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon BILL ENGLISH: —and maybe others. Australia has that kind of capital gains tax and it has made no difference. Australia also has restrictions on foreign buyers and it has a less affordable housing market than New Zealand. That is why we are focusing on mechanisms such as the housing accord with Auckland Council targeting the construction of 39000 new houses in Auckland over the next 3 years. We are also about to pass legislation—hopefully with the support of Labour—giving the Government the capacity to speed up consenting so that we can get more houses on the ground faster in Auckland.Hon David Parker: Did he make representations to the Reserve Bank to exempt Kiwi first-home buyers from loan-to-value ratio restrictions; if so why did he not include such an exemption as a condition of loan-to-value ratios when he gave the Reserve Bank the power to use them?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank in the end will make the decisions about loan-to-value ratios. The Government has been consulted and has put the point of view that was articulated by the Prime Minister publicly several weeks ago. I would say this: in the same way that the member speaks of having a capital gains tax that exempts most houses the Reserve Bank has raised the issue of the challenge of having restrictions on low-deposit loans which might exclude most people with a low deposit. The question for the Reserve Bank is how to make that kind of intervention effective.Hon David Parker: Why does the Government think it is fair to give preference to overseas house buyers over Kiwi first-home buyers by shutting first-home buyers out via loan-to-value ratios while leaving overseas property speculators free rein to buy and make tax-free capital gains?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not agree with the member’s premises. In any case whatever happens with loan-to-value ratios the real driver of house prices is restriction of supply of houses. Auckland needs 13000 houses a year and it is getting 4000. It does not really matter whether people are first-home buyers long-term investors in housing or owners of family homes; all their interests will be served by more houses on the ground faster and lower interest rates than would otherwise be the case.Dairy Products Whey Protein—International Response to Contamination Incident9.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)to theMinister of Trade: What reports has he received of international reactions to the potential contamination of whey protein concentrate?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade):New Zealand posts in affected markets are continuing to liaise with authorities and to share information with them as the extent of the contamination comes to hand. Governments are reacting in exactly the way we would expect and most are taking a very measured approach. We have to recognise that the situation is fluid and that new import restrictions and new testing requirements may be introduced at any time. But today as I am answering this question of the eight potentially affected markets only one has applied a suspension of imports. That is China and China has been very measured in that response. It has suspended the importation of whey protein and dairy-based powder manufactured by Fonterra including Australian-produced products using Fonterra whey powder protein as an ingredient. I would just like to add for members here that the phrase “dairy-based powder” is a little misleading to anyone who is not a technical expert. It does not include our major powder exports. Clarification on this point by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier has indicated that it is actually a very small part of our total dairy exports that has been affected so far by the Chinese authorities’ legitimate decision. But of course because it is a fluid situation and it may well change we are keeping this under the closest possible review.The Governments of Malaysia Thailand Viet Nam Singapore Australia and Saudi Arabia and the authorities in the separate customs territory of Hong Kong are keeping the situation under review as you would expect them to. Contrary to some earlier reports I am advised today that there is presently no import ban on New Zealand products in place in Russia which is different advice than we received only yesterday. Our overseas posts are working very closely with the host Governments and the authorities and regulators concerned to ensure that these countries have as full information as possible to protect the health of their children. I understand the VietNamese Singaporean and Russian Governments have undertaken precautionary recalls—not import bans but recalls—of potentially affected product.Danone has undertaken precautionary recalls of potentially affected product in Malaysia.Ian McKelvie: What measures will the Government be taking to reassure overseas markets and consumers?Hon TIM GROSER: All efforts are currently focused on the job at hand which is consumer health both at home and overseas as the Prime Minister and other Ministers have previously explained. Once we have worked through those issues by locating and quarantining all potentially affected product we will then begin the critical task of restoring the trust and confidence of our overseas markets in the New Zealand supplychain. I would just like to reiterate the fundamental point that the Prime Minister has made which is that we have over 100 years of experience in delivering high-quality safe food to consumers in multiple countries and that is the base to which we will return. How we Fonterra and the other dairy companies that we are in close contact with manage this situation in the weeks and months ahead will clearly determine how well we recover from it. The whole of Government is focused on this issue.Health Services—Hospital Referrals and Aged Residential Care10.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai)to theMinister of Health: Does he take responsibility for the health outcomes from his policies; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):As Minister I take responsibility for the overall performance of the New Zealand public health service including responsibility for the big increase of over 37000 extra patients who have received first specialist assessments under this Government.Hon Annette King: Does he take responsibility for district health boards that are once again this year sending letters to general practitioner clinics saying that due to the current resources available and increased demands they will be accepting only urgent referrals to the hospital something that in March in Parliament he claimed did not reflect what was happening; and is he aware that general practitioners are now reporting that patients with significant impairment and pain are not getting timely treatment and are saying that the real number of patients waiting to be seen is being hidden?Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to say to any of those claims that the real number of patients being hidden is what is going on that it is not correct. That member will recall that in fact it was her party opposite that slashed 36000 people from waiting lists in order to hide the true number of people waiting.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from the Hutt Valley District Health Board to general practitioner clinics saying that it will accept only urgent referrals. This is under his watch—it is nothing to do with 8 years ago.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from a general practitioner clinic saying that their patients have significant impairment and pain because they have been denied timely treatment and that the stopping of the referral of these patients hides the real numbers—under his watch.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter from a general practitioner clinic. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: Does he take any responsibility for Mrs Holland of Hawke’s Bay who has received a letter telling her that she cannot be seen because of current resources and capabilities even though she keeps falling over and is permanently on a walking stick; or Mrs Bennett of MidCentral who has been refused an appointment because only urgent referrals are being accepted even though she is unable to walk more than a few steps; or Mr Greenwood from Capital and Coast who has been refused an appointment and has been forced to stay on a sickness benefit for 2½ years? These are just some of the growing numbers of cases emerging under 5 years of his stewardship.Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to see the full story behind those claims because I am aware that that member made a claim of a large number of people who weremissing out on services of the district health boards on the basis of a doctored Official Information Act request that she then had to apologise for for the claims that she had made.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the amended numbers of colonoscopies from South Canterbury that the Minister is talking about. They had to amend them because they made the mistake not me.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! What is the source of the document the member is—Hon Annette King: It is a report from the South Canterbury District Health Board to me to correct their mistake.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular report from the South Canterbury District Health Board. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon TONY RYALL: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response to Mrs King from the South Canterbury District Health Board which shows the numbers were changed.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. [Interruption ] Order! Would the member please resume his seat. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: Does he take responsibility for the shocking health outcome for an elderly woman in a retirement village hospital in Wellington who was found covered in faeces on three separate occasions care that was called disgusting by her daughter because he has failed to implement recommendations from three significant reports into the care of the elderly—all released under his watch; his 5 years as Minister—which included recommendations around low wages paid to carers around training and around staffing levels?Hon TONY RYALL: I was shocked and appalled to see the level of that care being provided in that facility and it is simply completely unacceptable. The Government has put $184 million extra into aged residential care and what I can tell that member is that I am interested she is now suggesting there should be minimum staffing ratios in rest homes because when she was Minister she ruled that out.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the Human Rights Commission report—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That report will be available to all members.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the Audit Office report about—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now starting to waste the time of this House by attempting to table documents that are available to any—Hon Annette King: He hasn’t read them has he?Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member also wants to stay for the balance of question time she needs to be careful about points of order that she raises.Dairy Products Whey Protein—Response to Contamination IncidentDAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):My question—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister please—[Interruption ] Order!11.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East)to theMinister for Primary Industries: What response has he received from the primary sector on the potential whey protein contamination issue?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):I have briefed a wide range of people from across the sector including industry bodies such as the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand and Federated Farmers. The response has been consistent. Food safety is a top priority for New Zealand and we need to do what we can to assure New Zealanders and our export markets that we are taking this very seriously. The industry groups have expressed disappointment that this has happened but are committed to doing what they can to assure New Zealanders and overseas markets that as an exporting food nation we treat food safety issues very seriously.David Bennett: What messages has the Minister given to the sector?Hon NATHAN GUY: I have reiterated to industry groups that this issue is the top priority for the Government. Our first priority is of course the safety of New Zealanders and our international consumers. I have also updated the sector on the actions I my ministerial colleagues and officials have taken since learning of this issue. This includes the Ministry for Primary Industries sending staff intoFonterra’s data and distribution centres andNutricia’s warehouses with their permission to verify information and to obtain a complete picture of the products and locations affected by the potentially contaminated product. I have given the ministry a clear message that no resource is to be spared with this response to ensure the health and safety of New Zealanders and our international consumers. Primary industries are crucial to the New Zealand economy and it is vital that we have a strong reputation internationally as producers of safe food.State Housing—Vacant Properties12.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū)to theMinister of Housing: What is the number of Housing New Zealand houses which are currently vacant as a proportion of the total Housing New Zealand stock?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):Of the 68913 homes 390 or 0.6 percent are vacant and available to be tenanted. About half of these at any time are under not offer but not yet let or occupied. A good example of this is the house Mr Shearer was photographed peering into last Thursday. One thousand and fifty-three or 1.5 percent are vacant because they are earthquake prone or under earthquake repairs; 248 or 0.36 percent are under redevelopment; 1301 have repairs under way; 545 or 0.8 percent are vacant pending sale; and 60 or 0.1 percent are vacant for miscellaneous reasons such as being ex-P labs fire damage or because they are awaiting demolition.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister in a question that was set down what is the number of houses that are currently vacant. We heard a catalogue of subcategories; I asked for the number that are vacant and he did not answer the question.Mr SPEAKER: I am absolutely sure that the Minister included that number but if the Minister did not include that number could he do so. [Interruption ] The Minister says that he did. The member has a further supplementary question. [Interruption ] Order! Does the member have a further supplementary question?Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked for the number of houses that are vacant. I got a catalogue of—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are having some assistance from the Minister the Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The issue is that a lot of State houses are vacant today because—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: I am allowing the Minister to speak to this point of order to try to assist in getting the answer. If members are going to object it is clear that they are not interested in the explanation.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The issue is that lots of houses for instance today are vacant because the tenants are out at work or out doing training. “Vacant” is a very broad definition. That is why I provided detailed information to the member. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from the member his point of order.Phil Twyford: It was a question that was set down. The language was very precise and very simple. I asked for the number of vacant houses not a catalogue of subtotals and subcategories. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have listened carefully to the points of order that have been raised. I have listened to the question. I have listened to the answer. The best way forward on this occasion is that I will allow the member an additional supplementary question if he so requires.Phil Twyford: What is the number of Housing New Zealand houses which are currently vacant as a proportion of the total Housing New Zealand stock? Currently vacant.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of course a property can be vacant for lots of reasons. The important figure—Hon Members: How many?Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the important figure—is houses that are vacant and are ready to be tenanted. That number is 390 or 0.6 percent. It is true that there are some houses that are being demolished. It is also true that some houses have been wrecked by earthquakes. They too are vacant but it is a nonsense to include them in the member’s message about vacant properties.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard but just before I accept the point of order I want to be fair to the member. I have said that if he—and there are two other members—raises points of order that are not legitimate I will be asking the member to leave the House. On this occasion this will not be occurring.Hon Trevor Mallard: No I understand that I am under extreme prejudice. The question that was asked both as a primary question and the essence of it as a supplementary question—and the primary question was set down—asked about the number that are currently vacant. It did not ask whether that was a good question or whether some other question should have been asked and my view is that the Minister should have come to the House with that number and the proportion.Mr SPEAKER: It is a very legitimate point of order that has been raised by the member. I may well agree with the member but on this occasion I am not responsible for the answer. I gave the member an additional supplementary question so he reused it to ask exactly the same primary question. The Minister has chosen to answer it in the way that he has. I can move this matter no further forward except to invite Mr Twyford to continue his line of questioning.Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table a communication from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment that shows that 3703 vacant properties are held by Housing New Zealand.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular communication. Is there objection? There is none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question Phil Twyford. [Interruption ] Order! I have called Phil Twyford.Phil Twyford: Why is the offers and repairs process allowing approximately 1700 properties classified as “lettable” by Housing New Zealand to be vacant an increase of more than 200 since January 2012?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For very good reason. The previous Government significantly underspent on maintenance. We are spending on average $5000 on the repairs to houses at the time that they become vacant and before they are further let. For that reason I would much rather re-let a quality property than one that was in the run-down mess left by the previous Government.Phil Twyford: Given his statement that there are 1200 homes empty for minor repairs what definition of minor repair is he using and is he happy that 1200 tenants many of them families have been moved out of their homes often into overcrowded and substandard housing simply because of minor repairs?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make the issue of minor repairs clear: three-quarters of the properties that become vacant have to have $5000 or more spent on them. We can have an academic argument about whether $5000 is minor or not; I am actually quite proud of the fact that this Government is going to spend $2.9 billion over the next 3 years making sure that we have got houses of some quality that I would be happy to have a family in.Phil Twyford: Supplementary question—Mr SPEAKER: Can I just check whether the member has had the additional supplementary question. The member has had not only his share but the additional one that I generously gave him earlier.Questions to MembersReserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)—Purpose and Commentary1.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)to theMember in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2): Is it his intention to proceed with the first reading of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2); if so why?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)):Undoubtedly yes because the Reserve Bank needs a much wider range of counter-inflationary measures rather than the crude blunt tool favoured by the incumbent Government. It needs tools—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Brought in when that member was Treasurer.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —to combat the inflow of hot money much wider than the last policy targets agreement which was changed by the National Party - New Zealand First Government in 1996 and then promptly ignored by the next National Party leader Don Brash and it needs tools to create a stable competitive exchange rate paying regard to the fact that we are an export-dependent economy. All of those will be fresh news for Gerry Brownlee.Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he seen any reports from economists on this question; if so what did they say?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that all those economists who are concerned about this country’s future and who understand this country’s history—like for example Business and Economic Research Ltd—have been very supportive of this measure. Then of course you have got the other lot who are dependent upon the insurance companies and banks in overseas ownership for their future livelihood. They tend to favour a currency run for the few—and very few—against the dynamic majority interest of provincial New Zealand and exporters and workers for exporters.Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill—Purpose2.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour)to theMember in charge of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill: Is it her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill; if so why?MOANA MACKEY (Member in charge of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill):Yes it absolutely is my intention to proceed with the first reading of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill and the reason that I want to proceed is that this bill is an important first step to meeting the current Government’s two targets: firstly that 90 percent of our electricity generation be from renewable resources by 2025; and secondly the National Government’s target of a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This bill is an important first step in introducing a range of measures that will help us to meet those targets. Currently we are not on track to meet those targets. The Hon Gerry Brownlee has indicated the importance of this bill when he said on the repeal of this measure which the previous Labour Government put in place that in fact what we needed was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! I invite the member before she prepares for her next question if there is one to look at Standing Order 383.Hon Maryan Street: What would the impact of the bill be on the renewable energy sector?MOANA MACKEY: The impact is very very important indeed. The best thing we could do for the renewable energy sector would be to have an adequate price on carbon. As of this morning that price on carbon was 50c. The Hon Gerry Brownlee highlighted the importance of this bill when he said: “Reducing carbon emissions in the electricity sector remains a goal and renewable technology will be encouraged through the Emissions Trading Scheme” and “National believes that investment decisions in the electricity sector should be made on the basis of sound economics with environmental effects taken into account through a price on carbon.” Labour agrees with that. We do not currently have an adequate price on carbon. That is why this member’s bill is entirely appropriate and necessary.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—Submissions Received3.SUE MORONEY (Labour)to theChairperson of the Government Administration Committee: How many submissions were received on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill?Hon RUTH DYSON (Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee):Submissions on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill opened on 1 August 2012 and submissions on that bill closed on 5 October 2012. At the first meeting after this date the Government Administration Committee was advised that the bill had attracted a total of 2710 submissions. That may seem like a large number but the member in whose name the bill is sponsored indicated to the committee that her understanding was that the number was lower than it should have been—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has satisfactorily addressed the question with the answer—[Interruption ] Order!Hon RUTH DYSON: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not finished because it is not the answer to the question.Mr SPEAKER: But I am inviting the member and all other members who have questions to answer today to look carefully at Standing Order 383. That question asked for the number of submissions that have been received. That number was given by the member as 2700. Am I wrong in saying that? [Interruption ] Well then I will certainly hear from the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you Mr Speaker and the reason that I am saying that is that it is a very unusual situation in relation to the number of submissions that we originally were told were received and the final answer to the question.Mr SPEAKER: Well if the member would concisely summarise that for the benefit of the House I would be grateful.Hon RUTH DYSON: I will try my best Mr Speaker. The member in whose name the bill is sponsored challenged that number of submissions and then went back to an umbrella organisation called 26 for Babies. As a result of those inquiries with that organisation which is set up to support the bill it was discovered that a large number of submissions that were sent through the 26 for Babies website to the committee did not actually arrive on the committee’s website. The committee resolved at a later meeting that it had been demonstrated that these submissions had been sent by the due date but had not been received through no fault of the submitters and that we would therefore accept them as being received by the due date. An investigation into the reason for that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is now miles too long and I warn all other members who are going to be answering questions to adhere to the Standing Orders. Is there a supplementary question?Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I certainly accept that in this particular case that was a particularly long answer. However earlier in question time today in answer to questions put forward by Phil Twyford the Hon Dr Nick Smith put forward a very very long answer cataloguing a wide range of different variables in relation to the primary question. In fact when we raised the point of order with you suggesting that we actually just wanted the answer to the question you in fact allowed him to continue giving that answer. I just want to be sure that we are going to have a consistent standard here. I accept that Ruth Dyson’s was a long answer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough from the member. If the member is now accusing me of being inconsistent I will take that very seriously indeed.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do have a supplementary question but in order to ask my supplementary question I need the answer to my question. It was not the answer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to ask a supplementary question I will give her one further chance otherwise we are moving to the next question.Sue Moroney: What was the final number of submissions received then by the committee given her previous answer and—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficient supplementary question. What was the—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Again I warn the member that if it is a satisfactory and fresh point of order that does not in any way—Hon Trevor Mallard: It is an absolutely new point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I will listen to it with interest.Hon Trevor Mallard: Members have the right to ask supplementary questions with two legs. That is a standard process and it applies to both these members—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need no further advice. I have received advice that supplementary questions should have only one leg. The member has asked a supplementary question. Would the Hon Ruth Dyson please answer that question.Hon RUTH DYSON: Mr Speaker I certainly will. There were no submitters out of the total who were opposed to the bill. There were seven who proposed changes or delay in the implementation of the legislation. That was 0.183 percent of the total submissions which were 126 unique submissions and 3683 form submissions.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to seek clarification from you with relation to your last ruling. Is that only in relation to supplementary questions to members or does that apply also to supplementary questions to Ministers?Mr SPEAKER: It is a general rule. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 169/4: “A supplementary question should contain only one question.”Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—Purpose4.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)to theMember in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: Is it his intention to proceed with the committee stage of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill; if so why?TE URUROA FLAVELL (Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill):Heiwhakautui tepātaiāe. Kaangawhakamuatēnei ongāpire kitā tewā o tePāti Māori epīranginei. Kamutu he ahaai? Narungai temea kongā huarahi katoa engaukinoneii tehungarawakore kawhaia e tePāti Māori kitōnamutunga.Mēnā hepaingaanōrā o rotoitēneipire kitāmātauāe hepaingaanōrā kawhaia kitōnamutunga.[To answer the question yes. This bill will move forward to a point in time desired by the Māori Party. And furthermore why? Based on the fact that all avenues that affect those who are underprivileged will be pursued by the Māori Party to their conclusion. If there is any benefit at all in this bill and we say yes there is we will follow it through to its conclusion. ]Hon Trevor Mallard: Is it his intention to strengthen the harm reduction aspect of his bill by accepting an amendment to have a “pokie pause” for 4 or 5 hours each morning similar to the one that the House supported in relation to alcohol because the House saw that this was a useful way to overcome addiction and abuse; if not why not?TE URUROA FLAVELL: Itēneiwākāo.Kāoreanōtērāmomokōrero kiawhakatakotohia kimuai tearoaro o te WharePāremata.Mēnā hetāpiritangakōrerotērā pea kaātatirohiaēngarii temeakāore aui kiteirungai tetēpu kamutukāoreanō au kiarongomōtērā ongāmomo huarahi kamutu o koremātou e tautoko.[At this point in time no. That kind of statement has not come before the House of Parliament. If it was a supplementary one it might be examined but because I have not seen it on the table and furthermore heard about those kinds of avenues we will not support it eventually. ]Point of Order—Supplementary QuestionsCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You referred me earlier to the Speakers’ rulings. I have now had a chance to look at them and I just want some clarification from you with regard to Speakers’ ruling 169/6 on the same page. In this case it is to do with questions to Ministers but it equally presumably applies to questions to members. Speakers’ ruling 169/6 states: “(1) Ministers need address only one of the questions contained in supplementary questions.(2) If members ask multiple questions they run the risk of Ministers answering the parts that they regard as less important.” That of course is a more recent ruling than the one that you quoted which is from 1963. The one that I have just quoted basically variously dates from the 2000s. I just want to get your ruling on which of those applies: the more recent one or the historical one.Mr SPEAKER: That is a matter for interpretation at the time. I do point out again that the member is wrong. I quoted Speaker’s ruling 169/4 which of course is from 1984. That was probably still before the member was with us but be that as it may.Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill—Purpose5.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour)to theMember in charge of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill: Is it her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill; if so why?Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (Member in charge of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill):What an excellent question and I thank the member for his keen interest in this very important bill. I can advise the member that I am looking forward to the opportunity to introduce this bill the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill to the House. New Zealand society has raised numerous and major concerns around the increased number of young children being subjected to severe abuse through criminal offending. New Zealand parliamentarians can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the seriousness of this particular issue especially with more children dying at the hands of irresponsible criminals. Furthermore some of the incidents and cases involve family relatives of children and those who are meant to be their guardians for life. These irresponsible criminals will be made to face the reality of their offending and my bill will ensure that they are given the sentence that reflects the seriousness of their offending.Andrew Little: What impact will the bill have on the numbers of families and the numbers of children whom the bill seeks to protect?Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I must apologise I did not quite the hear the question from—Mr SPEAKER: The question was what impact will the bill have on the numbers of families and numbers of children affected.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: The bill would definitely provide the opportunity for a safety net. It will also give judges the power to ensure that the sentences being handed out to criminals reflect the crime that has been committed. In other words we are looking at making sure that the punishment fits the crime.Question No. 6 to MemberKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):My question is the Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee. When will she—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just been advised that Jacqui Dean is not in the House and therefore—[Interruption ]—Order! I have just been advised that Jacqui Dean is not in the House and that question will be held over to the next sitting day.KRIS FAAFOI: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just wondering whether I can seek leave to table this question to the chair of the Law and Order Committee.Mr SPEAKER: No. That is just wasting the time of the House.Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill—Purpose7.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)to theMember in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill: Is it her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill if so why?TRACEY MARTIN (Member in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill):Kia ora Mr Speaker. Yes. It most certainly is my intention to proceed with the first reading of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill because the issue of fairness that it addresses for a large percentage of New Zealand orphans and unsupported children is real and urgent.Jacinda Ardern: Will the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill assist groups like the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust; if so how?TRACEY MARTIN: Indirectly yes. The majority of kin carers who are looking after the day-to-day needs of these orphans and unsupported children on behalf of us in New Zealand do tend to be grandparents who are now raising their grandchildren.Care of Children Law Reform Bill—Purpose8.SUE MORONEY (Labour)to theMember in charge of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill: Is it her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill; if so why?JACINDA ARDERN (Member in charge of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill):Yes it is my intention that the Care of Children Law Reform Bill will receive its first reading as soon as members’ day allows. This bill seeks to update the antiquated adoption laws in New Zealand and put children at the heart of all decision making around their future guardianship. Given that this is such an overdue piece of work I would encourage the Government to pick it up as soon as possible.Sue Moroney: Why is it necessary for the Care of Children Law Reform Bill to be advanced at this time?JACINDA ARDERN: Our current law in this area dates back to the early 1950s and simply put is no longer fit for purpose. More than 10 years ago the Law Commission put out a report titledAdoption and its Alternatives  a more than 300-page report of ideas and recommendations to modernise our law and put children at the heart of any decision making about their future. Labour progressed work on guardianship and now it is time for adoption law reform to begin and to finally give legal weight to things like for instancewhāngai adoption which for too long has not been given legal weight in this country. My bill will begin that process and I look forward to the support of this House for that bill.Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—Purpose and Commentary9.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South)to theMember in charge of the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill: Is it her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill; if so why?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill):Yes. The first reading of my bill that gives more power to the Privacy Commissioner to fix privacy breaches becomes more urgent every day. The bill was initially drafted as a response to the systematicprivacy breaches that have been happening frequently under this Government. From ACC to EQC the Earthquake Commission and now the GCSB the Government Communications Security Bureau and just about every acronym in between it is obvious that this Government is playing fast and loose with New Zealanders’ privacy. Who can forget the privacy breach that saw the ACC sending the private information of 6748 people some of them with sensitive claims to BronwynPullar and then the leak—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! Wrap up the answer please.SUE MORONEY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I probably should have said at the outset that this answer will—Mr SPEAKER: Order!SUE MORONEY: —be a little long because of the number—Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry it will not be a little long. Wrap up the answer concisely.SUE MORONEY: My bill aims to address these and many other breaches—the many other breaches that I could have talked about—by giving the Privacy Commissioner the power to investigate such breaches without having to first receive a complaint. Further my bill would give the commissioner the right to require agencies to implement her recommendations once an investigation has been completed. Both of these law changes were recommended by the Law Commission when it considered our privacy laws.Clare Curran: Has the member seen reports of support for the first reading of her bill to give the Privacy Commissioner more power to deal with privacy breaches; if so what were they?SUE MORONEY: Yes associate professor in commercial law at the University of AucklandGehanGunasekara wrote an opinion piece in theNew Zealand Heraldon 20 May saying that this bill is a step in the right direction. I have also seen a report from a year earlier that appears to support a bill enacting the Law Commission’s recommendations on privacy issues. This was on 2 May 2012 when Minister of Justice Judith Collins opened Privacy Awareness Week by promising to replace the Privacy Act with a new Act. She promised to have a bill ready—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just complete the answer.SUE MORONEY: —for introduction in the first half of 2013. Well we are into August 2013 now. There is no sign of Judith Collins’ bill but I look forward to her support of my bill which was introduced into Parliament in May 2013. I seek leave of the House to put forward the copy of Judith Collins’ speech to Privacy Awareness Week on 2 May 2012.Mr SPEAKER: It is probably available on the website but to short-circuit things leave is sought to table that speech. Is there any objection? There is. OK. Leave is so denied.Question Nos 10 and 11 to MembersMr SPEAKER: Question No. 10 and Question No. 11 are held over to the next sitting day.Electronic Data Safety Bill—Purpose12.SUE MORONEY (Labour)to theMember in charge of the Electronic Data Safety Bill: Is it her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Electronic Data Safety Bill; if so why?CLARE CURRAN (Member in charge of the Electronic Data Safety Bill):It is my intention to proceed with the first reading of the Electronic Data Safety Bill which would establish a commission of inquiry into the various privacy breaches that haveoccurred within the last few years within various Government agencies. The commission would also examine the agencies’ capacity to respond to breaches in the future and how best to prevent future unauthorised access to private information. There is a long line of privacy breaches at Government agencies which include the ACC the Ministry of Social Development the Earthquake Commission Housing New Zealand the Medical Council of New Zealand Immigration New Zealand and recently the Ministry—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer goes well past the original question.Sue Moroney: Has the member seen recent reports of breaches that have provided unauthorised access to private information or instances where the Government’s handling of a vulnerability issue has been questioned—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member in charge of the bill has no responsibility for that whatsoever.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was “Has the member seen …”. She actually does have responsibility for what she sees. It is the same as the Minister—Mr SPEAKER: No I do not accept that on this occasion. The question is ruled out of order.Question No. 13 to MemberMr SPEAKER: Question No. 13 is held over.Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)—Purpose14.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First)to theMember in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2): What is the intention of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)):The intention of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) is to amend section 8 of the principal Act to give the Reserve Bank a broader ambit when implementing monetary policy. This is an approach that provincial and export New Zealand has been desperately waiting for for decades now. The bill would mean that the Reserve Bank would have to consider a much wider range of counter-inflationary measures which about 50 other economies are doing I might add as well as supplementing tools for managing the exchange rate—in short no longer following the crude prescription for the right-wing monetarists that have so beset this economy.Andrew Williams: What additional tools could the Reserve Bank use?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That also is an excellent question. Such tools would include lightening capital controls which would reduce the inflow of so-called “hot” money which so many commentators have talked about and lead to a depreciation of the exchange rate which all the commentators—including the IMF—say is seriously overvalued except they do not want to do anything about it. Another option is the introduction of a cap on the New Zealand dollar and a floor above which or below which it must not rise or fall. This would require the Reserve Bank to sell New Zealand dollars and purchase foreign assets when the dollar reaches a certain threshold which is now well past. The dollar has been damaged in the New Zealand export sector for a long long time hence we are finding so many people in the countryside despite there being basic primary products like logs having no employment at all.Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)—Effect on Policy15.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First)to theMember in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2): How will the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) help the Reserve Bank pursue a balanced macro-economic policy?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)):I have to commend the questioner on his amazing insightful questions because they are exactly what New Zealand needs at this point in time—another very pertinent question. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) would in respect of the rural parts of this country be of enormous assistance for provincial New Zealand towns. It would be of enormous assistance to a place like for example Southland—with less than 3 percent of the population and 18 percent of the exports—which would for the first time in a long time get a fair go. The bill would require the Reserve Bank to incorporate in its monetary policy the goal of achieving a stable and competitive exchange rate sympathetic to export growth. The effect of a stable and competitive exchange rate would be a more productive export sector which would increase the national income and help us earn our way out of the current economic malaise that the National Government has sunk us to.Andrew Williams: What is the outlook for New Zealand without a balanced macroeconomic policy?Mr SPEAKER: That question is not the responsibility of the member.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely you could ask him to rephrase it so it included the Reserve Bank amendment bill and how—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here long enough and should have given some assistance earlier. The member is responsible for the bill—[Interruption ] Order! The member is responsible for the bill. If the question is worded in such a way that it addresses that responsibility I will give the member a chance to answer. But if it is not related to the bill then it will be ruled out of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: So can he ask it with the bill in it?Mr SPEAKER: Yes.Andrew Williams: How will the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill be impacted in terms of the New Zealand economy if it does not succeed and there is no balanced macroeconomic policy as a result?Mr SPEAKER: That is certainly a better attempt.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you Mr Speaker—it is a wonder what some members can do with your guidance.Mr SPEAKER: The member should not be surprised. Will he proceed now with the answer.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer is that if we do not change it will be more of the same. It will be more of the same only worse: hundreds of manufacturing jobs being lost each week; more manufacturing closures as we see headlined every week; cutbacks and relocations offshore as we see in our news every week; more farmers sliding into economic difficulty despite being involved in what they say is the white gold of our country’s economy; every year 50000-plus going to Australia; and a worsening balance of payments crisis that sees us heading to uncharted depths as evidenced this very day by the current account deficit reaching I think 4.9 percent and heading towards 7 percent.Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)—Timing16.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First)to theMember in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2): Why is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) needed now?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)):Despite a recent drop the fact is that there has been an unerring rise in the New Zealand dollar heading towards parity with the US dollar. Our current account deficit is forecast to reach almost 7 percent as I said in the next 2 years. As we know an average of 100 manufacturing jobs are being lost each week and the high dollar is estimated to be costing exporters well over $2 billion a year. We need to have a serious public debate about the future of monetary policy—in particular the historically high dollar—and this time we hope that the National Party which has so many provincial seats—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just complete the answer without referring to the National Party. It is to do with the member’s responsibility for the bill.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —will by some process of osmosis understand common sense and economics.Andrew Williams: What is the international context of the bill?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is the best question of all because this House has heard that we cannot take measures except that around the world Governments and central banks are placing greater emphasis on their exchange rate. Right now the United States for example is getting the benefits of its third round of quantitative easing so is the United Kingdom and the European Central Bank has cut interest rates. Singapore Japan and Switzerland are actively trading against their respective currencies. Other countries such as Brazil and Canada are operating capital controls whilst we resemble Spain with the tired old recipe that has not worked for 28 years now.Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill—Purpose and Feedback17.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First)to theMember in charge of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill?Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (Member in charge of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill):How wonderful it is to hear the member’s question. I must thank the member for seeking better understanding of what this bill is all about.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now would the member just address the question.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I am pleased to inform the member that the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill aims to ensure that New Zealand deals with criminals who take no notice of the rights of young generations particularly minors or children under the age of 17 years. The bill seeks to make criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing in response to the increased number of children who suffer emotional physical and psychological effects as a result.Barbara Stewart: What feedback if any have you received from the community on the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill?Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Kia orana Mr Speaker. That is one valid very important question. I am pleased to elaborate.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member just answer the question.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I am trying to Mr Speaker. In recent years communities have witnessed the ongoing and unfair treatment of our children yet criminal activities involving children have not deterred criminals from committing serious crimes in their presence. I can advise the member that I have received a huge amount of feedback from various community organisations local groups individuals and key Government organisations. Some of these communities includePapatoetoe Methodist congregations;Sandringham congregations; the combined Woolston and Christchurch communities whom I met at a public forum; anti-violence groups; councils; schools; sports clubs; and more. These communities are waiting with interest to see this bill being introduced to the House and getting its first reading which I am hopeful will be this week.Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill—Timing and Purpose18.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First)to theMember in charge of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill: Why is the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill needed now?Mr SPEAKER: I callLe’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (Member in charge of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill):Just to help you Mr Speaker. My name isLe’aufa’amulia—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member just address the question.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: It is a fair comment. It is my name.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I am glad to hear that the member’s interest in this bill shows the importance of why the bill should receive strong support across the House. Only last month another child died at the hands of the child’s carer—one of so many children whom this country has witnessed to be a statistic and to form the unacceptable level of minors being unfairly affected by the ignorant behaviour of those who subject our young children to their criminal activities. Criminal offending by adults often exposes minors to serious harm and I can advise the member that this bill aims to enable the legal system in New Zealand to view such criminal activities and give appropriate sentences that are reflective of this harm.Barbara Stewart: What research backs up the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill?Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: An excellent question and I can say this. There have been numerous media reports of children being placed in danger and also children who were found in P labs are likely to be inhaling and absorbing the same levels of methamphetamine as adult drug users. I can inform the member that senior lecturer in psychological medicine at the University of Auckland DrTreciaWouldes said that in their research on the long-term effects of methamphetamine on children what was known about the effects of passive smoking could be indicative and the effects range from allergies or irritations from the drugs with the worst coming from breathing the fumes daily and physical trauma or burns that could occur if the labs exploded. Thank you.Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill—Purpose and Feedback19.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)to theMember in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill?TRACEY MARTIN (Member in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill):Kia ora. The intention of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill is recognition in statute that an orphan is an orphan whether placed with foster parents or kin carers and that any State support should be based upon the circumstances of the child not the circumstances of the adult.Richard Prosser: What feedback if any has the member received from the community on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill?TRACEY MARTIN: Kia ora. I have been pleased to receive not only substantial support from the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust but also positive recognition from the New Zealand Family and Foster Care Federation Inc. I have also had conversations with iwi-based social service providers who have an intimate knowledge of how this inequity affects many of these children in the families they serve.Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill—Timing and Purpose20.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)to theMember in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill: Why is the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill needed now?TRACEY MARTIN (Member in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill):I thank the member for his question. The Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill is needed now as more and more children are finding themselves in the unenviable position of being declared an orphan or an unsupported child by the State. Kin carers are being targeted by social services to step up and support these children which they do only to find the children deliberately disadvantaged through lower support due to a kin relationship. These children are being discriminated against by the State due to circumstances beyond their control.Richard Prosser: How will orphans and unsupported children be better off under the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill?TRACEY MARTIN: Should the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill pass into law all orphans and unsupported children will be recognised equally by Government services as should always have been the case. This will bring the focus of the service provision back to a child-focus provision which was I believe the original intent of previous Parliaments.Urgent Debates DeclinedGCSB Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak and Release of DataMr SPEAKER: I have received letters from Dr Russel Norman and Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the receipt by the Department of the PrimeMinister and Cabinet of emails between the Hon Peter Dunne and Andrea Vance and the withholding of knowledge of their receipt from the Prime Minister for weeks. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However I have also received a letter from David Shearer seeking to debate the Government’s response toFonterra’s announcement that bacteria that could cause botulism has been found in some of its products. This too is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government.Where more than one application is received that meets this test the Speaker considers the importance of the matters raised and decides which in his opinion is more important. The matter raised by Dr Norman and Mr Robertson touches on issues that may well be considered during the Privileges Committee inquiry into the use of intrusive powers within the parliamentary precinct. The report will be debated by the House in due course. There are now the avenues for which to pursue this matter and these applications are therefore declined.Urgent DebatesDairy Products Whey Protein—Response to Contamination IncidentMr SPEAKER: The Acting Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries has issued a statutory statement regarding potentially contaminated products on the New Zealand market and the Minister of Trade has formally notified the World Health Organization and New Zealand’s trading partners. An operational response team has been set up and is updating relevant Ministers. Clearly this is a very serious issue. Confidence in the Government’s response is critical. The public requires protection. I therefore call on David Shearer to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition):I moveThat the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance . We were shocked as a country to learn on Friday through an email or a press release that was sent out at about 1 o’clock on Saturday morning that there had been a serious problem regarding the contamination of some of our milk product that has been sent overseas. This has grave consequences for New Zealand. It has grave consequences for both our trading partners and our export markets overseas but more important more directly and more immediately it has obvious consequences on women fathers and children in terms of the formula that parents are feeding their children. Many mothers and fathers around this country are worried about the formula they had been feeding their kids because of the risk that botulism might have been introduced to them. That same fear was spread around the rest of the world where New Zealand product had been exported.The response from the Government and the way that Fonterra responded was of critical importance to the way that we could at least alleviate the many fears that those parents had. The Government was quick off the mark. I commend it for its speed in being able to do that. I believe that the response the Government has made to the emergency up to now has been a good one. But we are still left in a situation where there are many many questions that remain unanswered. From the point of view of Labour Party members we want to stand with the Government on this issue. This is an issue of “New Zealand Inc.” It is about our futures together. It is not about politics as such. It is about New Zealand our reputation and the reputation of our products overseas and offshore. So we will stand with the Government and we will stand with Fonterra and we will assist as much as we can in providing those answers for parents. But as I said there are questions—there are very serious questions—about the way in which this problem emerged and the way in which the Government’s response has takenplace so far. As I said the Ministers have responded quickly but the question really is about the wider governmental response.I guess the first question that needs to be answered is why this potential contamination took so long to detect. The problem was first alerted back in March and it took until now for us to actually realise that we have sent offshore milk powder or milk whey that was contaminated with this bacteria. Why did it take so long to tell people about it? We would have thought that givenFonterra’s realisation after the dicyandiamide scare it would realise that this sort of problem should it get out has innumerable vast consequences for our export industries.Why has the Ministry of Health not played a major role in getting information to parents? The Prime Minister mentioned that the Ministry of Health was involved in some of the discussions but it has been notable by the absence of its voice in this particular case. It has not been heard across New Zealand and it has not been able to give that reassurance. In fact many of the mothers who have been ringing in to get good accurate information have actually been ringing Plunket. That emphasises I guess—underlines—the value and the reliance that we put on Plunket in New Zealand.What protocols did the Ministry for Primary Industries and Fonterra have in place for handling these sorts of situations? Given the dicyandiamide scare and given the melamine scare before that we would have thought that protocols were in place and that it would simply be a matter of plucking them off the shelf so to speak and applying them to this particular context. The fact that the information kept changing the facts kept changing is a real concern. There does seem to be an absence of strategic communications within Fonterra that points to some deeper problems within Fonterra around food safety and the way that it responds to it.As I said in my speech earlier on Fonterra is our largest company. It is a brand that we feel proud of. It is a company a cooperative that is owned by New Zealanders. It is owned by farmers. It is unique in that sense. It can never be sold offshore. It is uniquely and firmly implanted in our country. It came into existence in order to provide that clout on the world stage. Many people have contrasted the fortunes of Fonterra with the fortunes of our meat industry which is far more fragmented and as a result is not doing anywhere near as well. Fonterra came into existence under a Labour Government which had to overlook and override many of the concerns that the Commerce Commission brought up in regard to the existence of Fonterra. Yet we are very proud of this company as I have said. We are very proud of a company that has been able to get out there and be the ambassador if you like for New Zealand for our “clean green” brand and for our clean green image.That brand is I think about the 22nd or 23rd most recognised brand in the world. I think New Zealand’s “clean green” “100% Pure New Zealand” brand comes just after or just before Dell computers. Fonterra was the ambassador of that brand offshore because its products made up 28 percent of our export value. So an incident like this creates real problems not only with our milk exports—which have been shut out of Russia there are concerns in Viet Nam and Malaysia and there is the possibility of being shut out of Sri Lanka and obviously China where nearly $3 billion of product goes—but right across the world in terms of the way that we are perceived internationally.Fonterra is a global company—a truly global company—and it has huge responsibilities. We have given it the right to be a monopoly in our country and we believe that that was the right way forward but with that right comes enormous responsibility. As our only truly global company that responsibility includes protecting our reputation as a source of safe quality food. Our food commands the top price the premium price because we advertise it as clean green safe ethically grown andsustainable. It is not born from large sheds of cows standing in stalls being fed grain or whatever supplements and chemicals; it is milk that comes from the grass from the fields that we are blessed with in terms of our environment and our climate.But our reputation is built on trust. It is built on trust as much as it is built on our technology. The quality of that trust disappears as transparency fades. Transparency is hugely important for New Zealand and the way that we articulate that around the world. We have a reputation for being the most honest and the most transparent country in the world. Transparency International puts us there at No. 1. That is part of our reputation along with the reputation for being clean and green. On this Fonterra has unfortunately let us down in the last couple of days. As I said before its strategic communications have been hugely lacking. For me seeing the changes in response over the last few days has been very disappointing. The representative who was on John Campbell’s show last night—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Romano.DAVID SHEARER: —Gary Romano could not give us a reassurance about the milk powder that was actually out there on sale—Hon David Parker:KaricareDAVID SHEARER: —Karicare thank you very much—and whether the batch numbers were at fault or whether the actual product itself was the problem. We understand that things can go wrong—of course we understand that—but what we expect from our largest global company is to be told the truth. People expect to be told in a fulsome manner the facts of the case. As I said that is what we are known for and that is what the people and the Government in China are expecting from us as well.John Key was in China in April. We have an ongoing relationship with China that is hugely important. It became our No. 1 trading partner in the world just a few months ago. It has enormous potential to grow even further than that. Our product is regarded there as the most trusted and the most safe. So when its news agency calls our brand into question it creates enormous concern and enormous worry about the future. We will need to get this right as Tim Groser said today in the House. Over the next days weeks and months getting this right and re-establishing ourselves as an exporter of quality food is going to be hugely important and the way that we articulate that in the coming days is going to be very very important.After that time we are going to have to work hard to build up the respect and the trust that have been lost as a result of this scandal. We have to ask more questions of course. Have the Ministers done enough from the outset? From what I have seen they certainly have not slackened in their task which is good but we have to ask questions about the Ministry for Primary Industries. We have to ask whether that ministry has been too hands-off or in fact whether it has not been brought into the loop as quickly as possible. I suggest that it does point to an issue within Fonterra—that it keeps the Ministry for Primary Industries at arm’s length and does not bring it in. As a result there is a culture amongst some of the more senior people there of dare I say it arrogance—that they know better than absolutely anybody else. Well I hope this brings about some humility from that organisation because that organisation has put at risk our exports—that is the farmers in our country—but also of course the whole “clean green” brand of New Zealand itself.The Ministry for Primary Industries has always pushed to grow exports and often I believe that has overshadowed the emphasis it has put on protection. Our biosecurity and our food safety are two aspects that used to be quite separate and they have been merged into that one organisation that one ministry. Those two together I believe have maybe lost their way in the bigger infrastructure of the ministry. This is one area that Ido believe we need to go back to to see exactly where they were how they were brought into the current problems and what role they actually play as well.But our first priority once again is the protection of families and their children the protection of our international standing as a safe food exporter and our nation’s reputation. We need to work much harder and much faster on that because this issue is bigger than politics. But Fonterra as I said before is not bigger than Parliament. It is up to us in this House to come together and to make sure that everything that happens from this moment on happens in the best interests of both parents and of this country. Thank you.Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety):I welcome the opportunity to speak in Parliament today. Can I start by saying and acknowledging that there are a huge number of people across the Government and in the community working hard to resolve this issue. For generations our country has been providing safe and suitable food. We have an outstanding record but what I can say—and I think I am expressing what many New Zealanders are feeling at the moment—is that this incident is disappointing. I want in my comments now to just work through what we know and what the Government has done in terms of a response. It has been comprehensive. There have been officials working round the clock and there is also a ministerial response team that has been working and has had a number of meetings.What we know is that Fonterra notified the Ministry for Primary Industries that three batches of whey protein concentrate were potentially contaminated withClostridiumbotulinum . Further notifications have been received by the Ministry for Primary Industries since. The ministry’s companies and verifiers have been tracing the movement of this protein and of the products it has been made into and any distributional sales. It is important for people to understand at this point that what has been difficult is that the information has changed through this event. But what I can say is that we have had a response team that has involved the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Ministry for Primary Industries the Ministry of Health and a number of other agencies to ensure that the public have the best information available from what we have been given.It has already been in the public domain obviously that there were two batches that were recalled byKaricare. The Acting Director-General of Health has taken further actions. When it became clear that the information was uncertain he took a precautionary measure and issued a cautionary statement to protect the public which is absolutely the right thing to do.As I said before there are a number of other actions that the Government has been taking to ensure a whole-of-Government response. Can I acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that this is above politics. It is important I think that we work together across this House to ensure that the public know that we are operating in the best interests of New Zealand.In terms of other actions that the Government and the ministerial response team and agencies have taken officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries are at Fonterra sites in Auckland Hamilton and Australia to verify information and to obtain a complete picture of the products and locations affected by the contaminated powder. My colleague the Hon Tim Groser will soon have the opportunity to speak and he will talk about what he has been doing at an international level because what we do realise is that it is important that our agencies work to ensure certainty around traceability of that product not only for New Zealanders but also for the many mums and dads and the Governments across the world that have been affected by this incident. Yes we have a strong record as a country in terms of providing safe and suitable food but we have high expectations of ourselves and we are disappointed by this incident. It has resultedin Ministers working round the clock—whether it is at an international level through my colleague the Hon Tim Groser or domestically through me and Ministers like the Hon Tony Ryall the Hon Jo Goodhew and the Hon Paula Bennett who has been involved as well—to ensure that the public are protected.I can also confirm that in terms of the potential contamination of the pipe Ministry for Primary Industries officials have conducted a physical check of the plant in the Waikato to confirm that the pipe suspected of causing the contamination has been changed.I want to touch on another issue because obviously throughout this issue given that there was uncertain information the ministerial response team Government agencies and the food and grocery sector have been focused on ensuring that there are no immediate supply issues in terms of infant formula. We want mums and dads around the country to know that we are doing everything we can to ensure that infant formula is on the shelf and safe. What people can be assured is that there have been a number of meetings between Ministers—including the Hon Tony Ryall the Hon Jo Goodhew and me—and the food and grocery sector. I want to thank those representatives for their confirmation to me that they will do everything they can to ensure that supply is maintained.This is obviously an incident that is disappointing. It is having consequences which my colleague the Hon Tim Groser will talk about. But what I want to assure the New Zealand public is that we are operating on a basis that is about protecting them and that when information comes to hand we are doing everything we can to ensure that the information we have been given is communicated in a responsible way.I am very proud to be the Minister for Food Safety and I know the strong record our country has had but I also want to express on behalf of I think many New Zealanders that we are disappointed with this incident. My focus right now is on ensuring that the public are protected and that the agencies that are involved in the operational response have every resource they need. I am working with my ministerial colleagues to ensure that this agile response continues to work round the clock so that we have this issue resolved. What I want to assure people is that there will be a time to ask those appropriate questions and whether they are asked of the companies involved or in terms of our food systems I think that is important because we need to ensure that we do everything we can to restore confidence in New Zealand’s trusted reputation.I cannot stay here for the rest of this debate. It is not that I am not absolutely focused on it or do not want to listen to the rest of the speakers here; it is just that I am spending every waking moment ensuring that the Government response to this issue is comprehensive and ensures that the public get the best information available when we have it. I have to leave the Chamber but I just want to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition who has already spoken who has said that this is bigger than politics. I look forward to other members in the House working together to ensure that we do everything we can to ensure that the public are protected that they have the best information and that our international partners continue to have confidence in our country in terms of our food systems. Thank you.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I rise on behalf of the Green Party in this urgent debate about the contamination of whey and its processing into other products. This has been a very confused few days. I want to start by just running over the time line of what happened. We have certainly been trying to wade our way through the information some of which has been good and some of which has been a bit confusing.It looks like what happened is that in May 2012 some whey was processed by Fonterra and about 20 tonnes were shipped to six customers. At that stage the wheywas not tested forClostridium . That is because of the use that it was going to be put to it was not seen as necessary to test it forClostridium  but it appears that at this point it was contaminated as a result of a contaminated pipe we are told. That was in May 2012.Nothing happened until March this year. What happened in March 2013 was that the remaining 18 tonnes of the processed product were shipped to Darwin to make infant formula. At that point testing of the product forClostridium was done. This is the important point. The reason it was done was that obviouslyClostridium  particularly the harmful forms ofClostridium  is very dangerous to have in infant formula. So it was tested by Fonterra at that point and at that point Fonterra established that there was a contamination problem in this whey that was to be shipped off to Darwin. That was in March.The issue I have is what happened between March and July because it was only on 31 July that it was finally confirmed that it wasClostridiumbotulinum  which is the toxic kind ofClostridium —there are many non-toxic kinds. It was only at that point that it was confirmed that it wasC. botulinum . So there is a gap. I think we really need some answers as to what happened in that gap and why it was only after 5 months that we finally found out that it was the toxic kind ofClostridium C. botulinum . After 31 July when it was apparently confirmed that it was the toxic kind ofClostridium  things moved reasonably quickly. The Ministry for Primary Industries was apparently told on 2 August and then on 3 August the issue went public.After that there was also some further confusion. I think there are some issues here about supply chain traceability because it became a bit confusing to parents as to what kinds of infant formula they were meant to be avoiding. Many parents I suspect went out and bought the kinds of infant formula that they thought were safe and it turned out as advice evolved over the next few days that that was not necessarily so.The primary responsibility of Parliament this Government and Fonterra in this situation is to protect the health of those who are consuming these food products. Everything else is secondary to that. That has to be the primary purpose of all of the Government actions and all of the fine words that get said in Parliament. That has to be where we start.Locating the contaminated product is essential to that and making sure that we have in place supply chain traceability so that we can track that product down very quickly seems to me to be absolutely essential. I have been a little bit disturbed that we have had trouble locating some of that product. It would seem that part of the reason I am sure is the 5-month gap between when this was first identified and when it was finally confirmed that it was actuallyC. botulinum  which has created part of the problem for tracking the supply chain as the product has been distributed. We are still hopeful that the final remaining part of the product—we have been told that most of it 90 percent of it has been located—is located very quickly.The next part of our responsibility is about informing parents from an authoritative voice. That is where I think it is very important that the Ministry of Health is involved. Although the Ministry for Primary Industries is I am sure a fine department it necessarily has a different focus from the Ministry of Health which has a sole focus on the health of people. The Ministry for Primary Industries has a more diverse focus let us say. I believe it is important in terms of informing parents and making sure they have good information both that the source of that advice is one that has no complicated motives but has a simple straightforward motive which is health that is the Ministry of Health and that we make greater efforts to actually communicate that to people. Not everybody follows the media very closely every day and keeps track of exactly what is going on so I think it is important. That is not just for parents ofchildren in New Zealand but of course in other countries where the product has been distributed. I believe that should be one of our key priorities.In terms of where we go from here questions remain for us about the gap between the finding of the genusClostridium the identification of the speciesC. botulinum  the toxic species in particular and the questions we have about why notification took so long. Are there in place measures what we think would be standard notifications whereby if a company like Fonterra or any other company that produces food finds a potential contaminant like this? I would have assumed that there was in place an automatic process whereby Government agencies are notified whether it is the Ministry for Primary Industries or the Ministry of Health or both.We asked questions in the House today—and we will continue to follow that up—about whether there is in place a mechanism whereby there is some kind of automatic notification when these kinds of contaminants or potential contaminants are found so that the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Health are involved right from the beginning. That to us seems to be one of the critical issues because of the time lag involved between the two periods.We are also obviously very interested in looking at the exact relationship between the Ministry for Primary Industries and Fonterra. If you think of the Ministry for Primary Industries as the regulator and Fonterra and the other companies as the industry it is obviously essential that the regulator has if you like in some respects an arm’s length approach from Fonterra. That is it should be that the ministry is able to take an independent position and step in on the industry when it is necessary to act in the greater good. That is the role of the Government. The role of the Government is not just to be captured by business the role of the Government is not to be an arm of corporations or industry; the role of the Government is in this case to act as an arm’s length independent regulator that has both the ability and the motive to intervene if that is necessary. That will be I think one of the questions that we will be asking going forward.This issue and this episode have also raised broader questions about the diversification or lack thereof of the New Zealand economy. We have seen over previous years and it has been a strategy of this Government a kind of simplification of the New Zealand economy. That means that we have become more and more reliant on a single large industry. That is of course the dairy sector. It seems to us that relying on a single large industry has risks and I think those risks have been exposed during this period. It does not result in a highly resilient economy; it results in some respects in a more fragile economy.We would argue that this case should be a wake-up call for all of us that we need to diversify not only the New Zealand economy more broadly but also the primary sector. We should not have just a primary sector that is leaning so heavily on dairy and we should not have an export sector more generally and a tradable sector more generally that are leaning so heavily on dairy. We think it is very important that we develop the manufacturing sector and that we develop the other sectors of the economy such as the information and communications technology sector so that we do not simply rely on one large industry which if something goes awry and that industry gets into trouble has significant effects on the New Zealand economy.We think also that this case does bring home to us the significance and importance of “clean green and safe” as the branding of the New Zealandagrifood industry and of course of New Zealand as a whole. That branding of “clean green and safe” is incredibly valuable and if we push towards more and more quantity or volume through the sector and in the process compromise “clean green and safe” then I think that is a significant problem for our export sector. Obviously we do not know the details of howexactly this problem evolved but it certainly has brought to the fore how critical those reputational issues are and how it is very important that we protect them in order to protect not just the long-term interests of the dairy sector and theagrifood sector but the long-term interests of New Zealand more broadly.At the end of my contribution I will just return to the importance of staying focused on the food and those who consume it. That has to be our primary concern. That has to be the concern of the Government. All the other issues around the development of the dairy sector in terms of finding out what happened are all very important but in the first instance our focus needs to remain on making sure that we track down that food and that we notify those parents of the issues involved. That needs to be at this point in time our No. 1 focus and then in time we will be looking at exactly why this happened. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make a contribution in this very serious urgent debate which doubtless affects us all. There can be no dispute that the Fonterra food contamination scare is a very very serious matter for New Zealand. As a parent there is nothing you care more about in the world than your child’s welfare. Every parent in this House would agree with me on that I am certain. Our immediate concern therefore has to be with the families and their children who may have been affected by this issue and we must act in a cooperative manner as a Parliament to address that. We stand with the Government and with the Opposition—the Labour Opposition—in this regard. This is a time for questions certainly but not yet a time for recriminations. Questions will follow and from them we certainly hope there will be answers so that situations like this are not repeated. How many children have been affected? One has to assume that there is a huge number potentially affected here and abroad. The news thatNutriciaKaricare Stage 1 New Baby Infant Formula which is for babies from birth andNutriciaKaricare Gold+ Stage 2 Follow-on Formula which is for babies from 6 months have been affected or may have potentially been affected by this contaminated powder is truly shocking.It is important to remember that when children are involved in an issue such as this the world takes notice. This story has been covered in news agencies not just in the countries affected but further afield in the United States and in the United Kingdom. It has been covered across the Asian continent fromThe Times of India to theBangkok Post  theTaipei Times  all the way to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. The BBC CNN the Wall Street Journal  theNew York Times  theFinancial Times  and Australia’s the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald have all covered the story. All of these markets and all of these parents are seeing the news that New Zealand products are potentially dangerous for children.Our whole economy hinges on our capacity to supply our export markets with pure food. That has been one of our great comparative advantages in a world that seeks healthy food. I can speak from personal experience from 10 years in the wine industry of the degree of attention that has to be paid to cleanliness and the degree to which people have to be absolutely fastidious at all stages in the food production chain. As a winemaker it was my responsibility to make sure that there was no contamination at all entering the wine. In fact contamination at any stage could have resulted in the product being destroyed. Even if the product was not destroyed there were residues. I remember one occasion particularly where a competitor winery had an instance where they had not observed a withholding period for an application of fungicide in a vineyard and a residue of a banned fungicide was detected in a consignment of wine that was exported to the European Union. The Europeans of course have extremely stringent controls and safety standards for chemicals of that type. The end result was that an entire shipmentwas written off. That resulted in extreme financial hardship for that particular winery which resulted in it going broke.So in one way this food contamination scare is a wake-up call for all of us. Any illusions of complacency that we might have had have been dispelled. It reminds us of how vulnerable our economy is. So it will be vital to get to the heart of this matter—when why and how it happened. New Zealand First is of the view that serious questions will need to be asked of the whole role that Fonterra plays in our economy. We do have a lot of eggs in one basket. We place a lot of faith in Fonterra as a large player on the global scene but I think we lull ourselves into a sense of misunderstanding about Fonterra and its size in the world dairy market. In New Zealand we allow ourselves to believe that we are a major and significant player in dairy in global terms because of the size of our exports relative to production. We know for example that New Zealand—mostly through Fonterra—supplies something like 35 percent of the world’s cross-border trade in dairy products and for that reason we believe ourselves to be massively significant.The reality is however that New Zealand produces less than 3 percent of the world’s milk. Most of the world’s dairy production is consumed in the country of origin. Where New Zealand has an advantage is that we have an enormous capacity for production over and above what our own requirements for consumption are. So that puts us in a position where we are able to export 95 percent of what we produce. That is a good thing because it gives us a strong underpinning to our economy but it also puts us in a position where if a scare like this happens we are reliant on the preservation of our brand’s business—ofFonterra’s brand’s business particularly—because there is not the sheer volume or bulk of other commodities to back it up. Countries that seek these products can get them from other places.So maybe we have too many eggs in the one basket. With size comes economies of scale and efficiency is one of those things but there is a down side and that is increased vulnerability. The balance needs to be the right one. We must rethink our approach to risk given the role of the dairy sector. Fonterra is a global company but along with the gains that come from globalisation there is immense responsibility. New Zealand First will not rush to judgment on this crisis but we would ultimately like to see some good come of it. That means that the following need to be addressed: firstly that this type of situation is not repeated; secondly that our systems emerge stronger and more robust; and thirdly that New Zealand does get credit for dealing directly and openly with this crisis.I think it is pertinent to point out at this point that at the moment we have a scare—a scare relating to a potential contamination of a very small quantity of one product line from one company. In the fullness of time it will probably turn out that in actual fact nobody has been hurt by it. But one thing that has been hurt is New Zealand’s reputation and the reputation of our premium brands has been hurt. We will work hard and we will get that reputation back but it is also worthy of note that in some markets the efforts that we undertake in order to ensure that we do regain our premium place in those markets mean that those markets will offer us a correspondingly lower price because they realise that there is that element of risk and they realise that there is that great element of importance to us.I think it is probably a good time for us to consider that we have this enormous potential for effect on our entire economy—on brand New Zealand on “New Zealand Inc.”—as a result of one scare from one small potential contamination from one product from one line. I ask the House whether we have given consideration to what the effects on our economy would be if a disaster were to occur on a much greater scale and if we were faced with a genuine problem around an issue such as foot-and-mouth disease. Ithink this scare over possible contamination should serve as a canary in the mine shaft to New Zealand. It should serve as a warning as to how vulnerable we are as to how vulnerable our export-based economy is and as to how vulnerable all of us are here in New Zealand if our primary sector is threatened. I think it is a good time for New Zealand to look at our biosecurity systems. This wake-up call of an organism potentially leaving New Zealand gives us cause to wonder what would happen if an unwanted organism was to enter New Zealand. New Zealand First is on record as saying that we believe that this Government’s approach to biosecurity means that foot-and-mouth is a matter of when and not if and when that day comes that will be truly disastrous for us all.I reiterate that New Zealand First does not rush to judgment on this crisis. We do stand with the Government and with the Opposition in standing with Fonterra and ensuring that we do have a resolution to this issue as soon as possible. But I think that at the same time it is necessary for us all to give serious consideration to how severe an outbreak could be. Thank you.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):Like others across the House—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This is a 5-minute call.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Thank you Mr Speaker. Like others across the House I say that no one would wish this day to have come. This is about “New Zealand Inc.” This is about an industry that is 26 percent of New Zealand’s exports with 35000 workers plus an estimated 10000 self-employed we believe. I thank the Government for its response but like others I say that it seems to us as observers—and these are questions for another day—that if it is the case that Ministers were blind-sided as they possibly appear to have been then substantial questions need to be answered in coming days and weeks once we are through this crisis as to where we got to in the last few days.This is about firstly as others have said the safety of the smallest individuals—children—both in New Zealand and in other jurisdictions. We have to continue to do everything that is humanly possible to ensure that that safety continues and that children do not fall foul either in our jurisdiction or internationally of the difficulties that we are now in with these milk products.Equally linked to that of course is New Zealand’s international reputation. A reputation can be destroyed in this day and age in a millisecond and can take months if not years of work to restore by both the Government and the private sector. The only way we maintain and enhance that reputation is by ensuring that our international markets and those Governments and regulators in foreign jurisdictions have trust and confidence that we will communicate clearly that we will communicate consistently that we will do all that is within our power—and I include in these comments of course Fonterra—to ensure that these matters are remedied.I welcome the Government’s response in response to the Labour Party and Opposition parties’ comments that this is above politics and of course it is. There are times in this Parliament where we need to rise above politics when the national interest is at stake and one could argue in fiscal terms that the national interest is indeed at stake. I would say in response to Minister Kaye and to Minister Groser that it may well be appropriate given the non-partisan nature that we have over this issue that they may wish to extend to Opposition parties briefings about these particular issues we have in common. To date that has not occurred. We know that there have been other and greater priorities and I acknowledge those but I say to those Ministers that if we are serious in joining together to resolve this then those briefings are important.Can I make one other comment and again it is a matter for coming days but there needs to be as others have said a full open and transparent set of inquiries into thesematters. I note I believe from either a Minister or the Prime Minister’s response today that the feeling is that there should be a Fonterra inquiry and a Ministry for Primary Industries inquiry. Can I make the suggestion to those Ministers that that is all well and good but if we are trying to restore confidence in foreign jurisdictions I think it will be necessary for an independent form of inquiry that goes beyond the Government department and that goes beyond Fonterra. I think that given the publicity that is in theChina Daily Mailand others it would not be acceptable for Fonterra to be inquiring into itself or for the Government department to inquire into itself. There needs to be somebody of standing somebody outside those regimes who can make a full account of the facts put that in a transparent way and put that account before Parliament and the people of New Zealand and enable Minister Groser and others to take that out to foreign jurisdictions and give assurances that are independently verified that these matters will be resolved and will not occur again.Can I say finally to those in Fonterra that they will need to look very very carefully at their conduct over this issue given melamine given dicyandiamide and given this. They must explain they must communicate and they must be consistent not only to the parents in New Zealand and foreign jurisdictions but also to international markets. Sadly I think they have been found wanting.Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade):First of all I would just like to acknowledge to my colleague Mr Cosgrove that I have taken very careful note of your constructive suggestions. You will understand that I cannot go beyond that. I think all of us understand that there is a very high degree of unanimity in this House on this matter and I think that it has got certain common elements to it. The first and most important common element coming through clearly from all of the leaders’ speeches and subsequent comments that we have just heard in this snap debate is a deep concern for the very very young children who could be affected. Thank God we have not heard reports of that so far. Also so closely associated with that is deep concern for their parents their caregivers their grandparents their relatives and all of these people who worry about these little people because of the intense emotional bond that you feel to one of your own at that age.Rather than talk about this in generalities I would like to talk about it specifically. I do not know whether members noticed but half an hour ago I was in the visitors gallery with two of my own little mokopuna Lucia and Sophia—reflecting the Italian heritage of part of my wider family. They are visiting me their grandpa from Hong Kong. The elder little girl was about 8 months old when the disaster in 2008 occurred over milk poisoning and I had just been appointed informally Minister of Trade to replace my parliamentary colleague Phil Goff and was sent on a plane to the APEC leaders meeting. At that stage we did not know whether it was New Zealand milk. We did not know what the cause of it was. Just before I got on the plane my daughter-in-law who was also up there half an hour ago rang me and said: “Congratulations on becoming a Minister. Now you are the Minister of Trade you’ve got to do something about this because I can’t find infant formula for your granddaughter.”—who was the child up there.So I went to make an appointment with the Chinese Minister of Commerce Chen Deming who would also be very well-known to Mr Goff and at the end of this discussion in which neither of us really knew what was going on other that dozens of babies in China were going to hospital with renal failure for reasons that neither of us really knew at the time I told him this story in slightly more diplomatic terms. And he paused and he said: “This is extraordinary because I have just received the same phone call about one of my granddaughters.” It is moments like that when you realise howcompletely trivial positions are and that at the end of the day human beings are speaking to human beings across cultures with exactly the same concerns.Members will appreciate that I have tried to do what I can for the parents and caregivers of children in China today. I have been speaking to China Central Television one of the main Chinese television channels trying to convey our sympathy and understanding for the uncertainties of the situation they are in. But I do think we should acknowledge that this is a very testing time for the caregivers of these children. As I say thank God we have not heard of any illness so far but for technical reasons that I do not really have time to go into you should not read too much optimism into that statement because of the delays that can occur under certain clinical conditions.I do appreciate that members outside a small group of Ministers—well not that small; eight Ministers are involved in this—have not been briefed properly by us for the reasons that Mr Cosgrove was alluding to fully understanding the need for priorities here. But one thing that I can put to rest immediately is that the Director-General of Health and his senior officials have been intimately involved in this. The front face in terms of the media has been the Director-General but I can assure members that the Ministry of Health is deeply involved and I personally heard the Director-General in one of our teleconferences at least once with his technical advisers talking about the health aspects of this. This will slowly emerge as we are able to have more time to brief people more fully on these issues.In the very brief time that I have left just let me assure members that in terms of my part in this puzzle I will leave no stone unturned to try to both deal with the immediate human concerns of our customers and then contain the economic damage to our country for all the reasons that are stunningly obvious. Just to make one final concluding comment I am optimistic that with the proud record of this country—we are a small but sophisticated country—we will find our way through. Thank you.Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Thanks for the opportunity to make some comments this afternoon in what is a very important debate. It is important because of health and safety and food security. It is also important for our exports and overall our economy.I think it is important to remind everyone in the House that our primary sector exports make up about 72 percent of our total merchandise exports and are indeed a crucial part of the New Zealand economy. As a small country of around 4.5 million people food production is hugely important to us. We feed about 40 million people and we export to almost 200 countries around the world. We have been renowned for our food production and indeed over about a century we have been exporting some of the finest food products to all of these different parts of the planet. Of course that is underpinned by our high-quality food safety systems biosecurity animal welfare and indeed environmental management. They all form a part of underpinning our exports to almost 200 countries around the world.Importantly when you get out from New Zealand—and I have been lucky enough to go on a couple of trade missions this year: one to Latin America with the Prime Minister and one when I led a delegation to China recently—when you look back at New Zealand and when you are in other countries and you hear them talk about all of those things that I have just talked about they are fundamentally important to exporters. We need to ensure that we do the utmost to hold up our integrity on the world stage as the producer of some of the best and finest food in the world.Importantly this particular incident that we are discussing in the House this afternoon is disappointing. It is disappointing that it has occurred. Consumers are disappointed the Government is disappointed our trading partners are disappointed and our hard-working farmers who get up at 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. every morning andproduce a high-quality food product are disappointed as well. We will however get through this. It will knock our reputation around a bit but we will be stronger. We will be stronger as a country from this event into the future.There are a whole lot of questions that we all want to ask and indeed we want answers to and at the appropriate time we will be able to get the answers to those questions that we all so desire. Right now the focus is on the health and well-being of our children particularly and our families and I want to acknowledge the work that Minister Kaye Minister Ryall and Minister Goodhew have done in this space. I also want to acknowledge the work that Minister Groser has done on the international stage in reaching out to our markets.The response across the Government has I believe shown to the New Zealand public how importantly we have treated this issue from when Ministers became aware of it on Friday afternoon. We set up a ministerial group. Officials from a number of agencies have come together and indeed have worked all weekend. I have been impressed by our all-of-Government approach and indeed I have been keeping in touch with the industry and its response has been consistent. Food safety is the top priority for New Zealand and we need to do what we can to assure New Zealanders and our export markets that we are taking this very very seriously.The industry groups have expressed deep disappointment that this has happened but they are committed to doing what they can to assure New Zealanders and overseas markets that as an exporting food nation we treat these food safety issues extremely seriously. We will get through this. We will be stronger for it. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution this afternoon on what is a very important issue.Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health):Well right from the earliest moments of this incident our first thoughts were for the safety and security of our food. In our health portfolio roles both Minister Ryall and I were intricately involved right from the beginning and it very quickly became apparent that our most vulnerable citizens—our youngest children—would be those most at risk if their milk formula powder should be contaminated withClostridiumbotulinum . From the earliest time on Friday as other Ministers have expressed Ministers from across portfolios joined together to look from all angles at how we could work our way through this incident—the Minister for Food Safety Nikki Kaye; the Minister for Primary Industries Nathan Guy; Minister Ryall and me; and the foreign affairs and trade Ministers McCully and Groser along with other senior Ministers.I want to say right now that I feel for the families who through this time have worried about what information should be in front of them. Those parents are of course hungry for information and it would be fair to say that as information has changed and as the information put before the Ministry for Primary Industries has improved in its quantity and quality then more information has been able to be conveyed to parents. As many members here in the House will know two products have now been recalled. I want to lay on the record of the House today again the names of those two products:NutriciaKaricare Stage 1 New Baby Infant Formula—that is from birth—all batches andNutriciaKaricare Gold+ Stage 2 Follow-on Formula from 6 months all batches. There is a recall currently under way. I urge any families using those products to return them to the place of purchase.In terms of the role of the Ministry of Health its role has been to maintain vigilance regarding any possible cases of infant botulism and I want to just remind the House of the symptoms that people should be looking out for: poor feeding or a weak suck on the part of a baby or toddler lethargy and floppiness a weak cry facial weakness and an impaired gag reflex. But in essence if there are any concerns on the part of a parent they should ringPlunketLine orHealthline or take their child to a doctor. In terms ofHealthline andPlunketLine well their volumes have increased significantly. That tells me that our messages about the phone numbers which are consistently going out via websites and other media have been heard. YesterdayPlunketLine had 1500 calls. It has done a wonderful job as hasHealthline of gearing up the numbers of people who are taking shifts to respond to the increased numbers of calls coming to it for the advice that families so eagerly seek. I just want to actually thank those people who are staffing those lines for the extra work that I know they have done.In terms of the other roles the Ministry of Health has they are around working to ensure the adequacy of supply and that includes the adequacy of supply to our paediatric units our baby-care units and in addition to that maintaining the information that goes out to general practices so that the doctors whom families go to for advice are also completely up to date with what they need to know. These are the roles that the Ministry of Health has undertaken. It has sat at the table through the Director-General and his senior deputy directors-general. They are sitting round the table keeping Ministers informed and working with the Ministry for Primary Industries. This is a concerted united front so that we can present the very best of information to the public of New Zealand to reassure those families who will be concerned with the most up-to-date information that we have before us. So I just want to finish by thanking all of the people within the health sector who have done their bit to reassure those families and to say to the House that we are really hoping that soon the families will be able to look back on this and be sure that their babies are fine.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):Kia ora to the people in the gallery. Like many people in this House I am a parent. I am the father of five beautiful daughters and although I am a great advocate of “Breast is best” I like most parents have relied on infant formula to sustain our helpless but beautiful babies. We have got up in the middle of the night to mix the formula to make the milk. That is the only thing that our infant babies live on. That is why around the world people have reacted so strongly to this. It is an emotional issue—what we feed our children—and we should realise that. No parent should make any apology for being concerned.I have been a dairy farmer. I can appreciate the effort that goes in to providing clean and pure milk to the company. I was also the chairman of a select committee that set up Fonterra back in the year 2000. So I understand that companies set up through the legislation had some advantages but they also had with the legislation clear responsibilities. Fonterra was to be of course given its size and importance to our economy the guardian of a reputation that had been built up by generations of people that the dairy industry produced the safest and best food in the world. As the primary industry spokesperson on behalf of the Labour Party I am now supporting the Government and supporting Fonterra to get out around the world and reassure all our customers that the food that we produce from this country will be safe will be pure will be suitable for customers and will meet every one of their expectations including safety.Clearly we have had a problem here. A mistake has been made and we could spend a lot of time here trying to analyse time lines and what went on and what could have been done. The most important thing now is that we support the Government the Government agencies and Fonterra to get out around the world to explain how we produce our milk and milk products in this country and to give people an assurance that the systems are fine.There are of course questions starting to emerge today from China news sites—questions around the laissez-faire market ideology that does determine some of the current thinking by Government. In our own papers we have got: “Is Fonterra Too Big For Its Gumboots?”. Then we have another reference here to Fonterra harming NewZealand and itself. We know these things. That is why it is important that we act together to resolve this as quickly as possible.Fonterra is our single biggest company. We are proud of it. It is the single biggest exporter of anything from this country and our economy relies upon it. It is a hybrid cooperative. In this House recently we made changes to legislation that did expand a number of the masters that Fonterra should answer to. As a pure cooperative it was first and foremost to answer to its farmers and that was the traditional way of thinking. The new world which both farmers and the new unit holders through Trading Among Farmers realise is that it firstly must be responsible to its consumers to its customers—the people who buy its products—and must always keep in mind that the health and safety of those consumers and of its workers should be its highest priority.The farmers who have owned this company and who do so along with unit holders investors today are aware of the emerging as I say reality of social media of media and communication that can send around the world at a flash any concern that might emerge fromFonterra’s operations and from its products and they have to be on top of that reality. Nothing should be hidden from the processes and the products that Fonterra produces in this country. As I say I think the priority that Fonterra must state clearly to the public—more often perhaps to politicians—is that the health and safety of its consumers through its products and the health and safety of its workers at its worksites is the No. 1 priority for it. Production growth and profit are all things that flow from good management and I wish Fonterra all the very best with that.I think it is important to point out the growth that the dairy industry has sustained. It has helped this country grow but it does create some reality I guess for those looking at Fonterra from the outside. In 1990 the whole dairy industry produced about half a million tonnes of product for the world markets. About 5 percent of their total production gets consumed in New Zealand and that has been consistent right throughout. This year the company will export to the world about 2.7 million tonnes of product. There has been from some farming leaders reference to the fact that the tonnage involved here—38 tonnes—is a very very small percentage of that total production. That is true. None the less that small amount of contaminated production is something that the world is focusing on and we are focusing on and we have to get that sorted out.One of the questions I have raised—it is not cheap politics but it is a real question—is about the Government agency the Ministry for Primary Industries and its ability and capability to get alongside Fonterra to help resolve this as quickly as possible. I did go and look at the funding for that agency to ask whether it has been funded because I was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s statement that all possible resources will be committed to resolving this and to reassuring our customers. The question I must ask and it is one that will be answered down the track is whether the actual cutback in funding for the Ministry for Primary Industries has been at the right time when the dairy industry growth has been so phenomenal.We have had a meat industry report—again meat striking trouble and some challenges getting into the Chinese market—that identified that there were insufficient resources to properly follow through with the changes in accreditation and assurances that the Chinese market needed. The question I ask and it is for the Government to answer at some stage in the future is whether the cutback in funding from indeed $427 million in 2008 to $417 million in 2013 at a time of rapid growth particularly into markets has perhaps in some way contributed to this.I go back. As I say we are supporting the Prime Minister. He has given an assurance that all possible resources will be used. Our leader David Shearer has said that there needs to be questions asked ofFonterra’s systems and the interaction. There will betime for that. Of course the Minister for Food Safety Nikki Kaye said that Ministry for Primary Industries staff would be placed at Fonterra sites. That is welcomed. One of the issues may be—because the reality is that the dairy industry is a self-regulated industry unlike many others in the food industry—whether the Government is considering moving back to slightly more regulation.There will be international observers. They will not be watching us here in the House—they do not have to endure that—but they will be looking for assurances from Parliament and I think it is important to give assurances. We take food safety very seriously. This is a piece of legislation that is due to be back before Parliament to be passed and which governs the way that we deal with all food in this country. Rest assured we have good legislation.The focus as I say on safety for consumers and workers must be the primary consideration. Indeed it is the primary consideration after a few lessons around worker safety that we have learnt but particularly around food safety. It is the No. 1 focus and priority and it is committed to and supported by all parties in this House.The second thing is that we have good systems of food production in this country. They may not be perfect but anyone in the international market place can be assured that they are next to perfect and that in fact what we have identified here through an audit process through testing is that we have had a problem. That is something that acknowledges that the systems do work. We have got a healthy democracy. We have got a robust system of accountability back to Parliament. All the food produced in this country will ultimately be observed tested audited and checked by Parliament and our customers should be sure that we will be looking after their interests in the long term.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):I want to firstly commend our team of Ministers for what obviously has been a very strong response to a very difficult situation. For New Zealand this is a critical issue. It alerts us to the importance of the dairy industry to New Zealand and more important it has reminded us of the importance of food safety to this country.Today I had the opportunity to ask Minister Groser what reports he had received of international reaction to the potential contamination of whey protein concentrate and what measures the Government will be taking to reassure overseas markets and consumers of our position. The Minister of Trade’s answers and knowledge of these issues reinforce the expertise that this country has and has been able to apply to this most critical of issues. I think again I want to commend the whole team of Ministers who have put a lot of work into this issue over the last 3 days. It is particularly important to this country.I think also worth noting are the efforts of the chief executive of Fonterra who was on the plane to China as quickly as he could be and although there is a significant amount of work to be done to understand the ramifications of this issue and what caused this issue I think Fonterra has reacted in a manner that is befitting its place in this whole issue.It is worth noting again the Prime Minister’s statement that now is not the time for recrimination. Now is the time to ensure that consumers have the best information possible available to them. However having said that we need to understand in the fullness of time the reasons for the initial uncertainty the reasons this contamination took place and the reasons that I guess there was some uncertainty about the timing of the announcements that were made as a consequence of that.It also reinforces for New Zealand the need to track all of our product and part products from paddock to plate. That is something that our food industries our meat industry and all other aspects of our food industry have been particularly fussy about and something of course that the National Animal Identification and Tracinglegislation enforced or reinforced for the cattle industry in New Zealand and it is no doubt an issue that will follow into many other of our products or paddock-placed products that end up on the plate in this country. So it is really important that we have that traceability and that we understand where those products have gone.I referred in the course of that little discussion to the part products. Of course the dairy industry is a manufacturer of numerous part products that make up end products. This is the issue that we face with this whey product here today. It is a product of which very small parts can be added to all sorts of things from energy drinks to milkreplacer products and in fact to calf milk products. That is another product that has been recalled in the course of this process.Because of the nature of this country we are all feeling the effects of this. We are all feeling for those parents of possibly affected children. We are all affected by any possible damage to our reputation as a producer of great food products. We rely on our reputation for our future and our country’s living. I have listened carefully to all the debate comment and questions on this issue today and I would like to commend all speakers for their constructive input. I also want to add having listened to all speakers today that were I a mother father or member of the public I would feel I had been much better briefed on this topic as a result of today’s discussion. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Maiden StatementsMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Engā mana engā reo engākārangarangamaha ongā hau ewhā.Tēnā koutoutēnā koutoutēnā koutou katoa. It is with honour and humility that I stand in Aotearoa New Zealand’s House of Representatives as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I wish to first thank and acknowledge the manywhānau iwi and friends who are here in the public gallery and who have travelled to join me in this historic moment today.Tēnā koutou. To my parliamentary predecessors who passed the Māori Representation Act 1867 which led to the formation of the four Māori seats—Northern Western Southern and our own beloved Eastern—and to the inaugural member who held the Eastern seatTāreha TeMoananui and to the first Māori woman memberIriaka MatiuRātana kei te mihi kei te mihi. To my fellow Māori MPs in the House todaytēnā koutou katoa.Our nation is founded on the blood sweat and toil of generations of men and women who worked the land on our wharves in the freezing works the shearing sheds with railways and in forestry to build our nation and our economy into the stronghold that it is today. In 1916 the New Zealand Labour Party was founded on a single kaupapa: to be the voice of change for the working-class people. As this nation has evolved so has the party. But the founding principles remain the same: to care for the poor and the disenfranchised and to speak up for those within our community who cannot for themselves. In 1935 in the first Labour-led Government the Rt Hon Michael Savage in his wisdom formed a political alliance with theRātana Church a precursory step to forming an allegiance with iwi Māori.The bond between the New Zealand Labour Party and the electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is unique and entrenched in its own right. From 1943 to 1996 and from 1999 until today Ikaroa-Rāwhiti has entrusted the Labour Party to advocate for the rights of its people; a relationship that expands some 70 years. But I state this as a friendly reminder: this historic relationship should never be taken for granted. The relationship between iwi Māori and Labour-led Governments has progressed considerably since 1935. Under Labour the Māori Trade Training scheme was introduced Te Reo Māori was recognised as an official language and under the strong influence of the Hon MatiuRata the Waitangi Tribunal was established to address Treaty grievances. However iwi Māori have not forgotten the challenges to this relationship in recent times particularly with the introduction of the foreshore and seabed legislation and theTūhoe raids. Despite these challenges it is now time to move forward and to shift our focus to what lies ahead of us as a party and as a nation towards the game-changer known as the Māori economy.The Ikaroa-Rāwhiti electorate extends from the East Cape of the North Island to the Wellington region and includes Gisborne Hawke’s Bay and the Wairarapa as well as most of the Hutt Valley andWainuiōmata. Almost one-quarter of these residents in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti speak Te Reo Māori. This compares with barely 4 percent in New Zealand overall. Over one-quarter of those employed in the electorate are in the agriculture forestry fishing and manufacturing sectors. We have strong iwi within the electorate: Ngati Porou TeAitanga-a-Māhaki Rongowhakaata NgaiTāmanuhiri RongomaiwahineNgāti KahungunuNgātiRangitāne and TeĀtiawa.During the 6 weeks leading into the by-election I had the opportunity to speak to our people who were clear with me about the needs ofwhānau. Our people need jobs. Our rangatahi need opportunities here at home. Our kuia andkaumātua need access to quality health services. Everyone deserves a warm affordable home. Everyone deserves a fair go. The national unemployment rate is 6.8 percent but for Māori in the Hawke’s Bay unemployment is two times that at 13.8 percent. Long-term unemployment on the East Coast has increased from 10.9 percent in December 2008 to 19.8 percent in March 2013. In the Wellington region which includes the Hutt Valley unemployment went from 3.6 percent in December 2008 to 7.9 percent in December 2012—that is an increase of 9600 people who are unemployed. The people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti need quality sustainable jobs. The manufacturing sector which employs many Māori has taken a hammering in my electorate: 125 jobs at Cedenco Foods in Gisborne in 2009 gone; 304 jobs at Ovation meatworks in Waipukurau in 2011 gone; this year 70 jobs at New Zealand PostPetone gone; and between 50 to 80 jobs at GodfreyHirst’s woollen mill in Dannevirke gone. The flow-on effects of these job losses onwhānau and small communities are devastating. The people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti need quality sustainable jobs.So what can be done? Local solutions to local problems working with local champions is a community development approach focusing on job creations that I have seen work successfully in times of despair. There are many local champions on limited resources doing their bit to help those most in need. I salute our community advocates unions churches schools businesses marae and iwi Māori organisations including the Māori Women’s Welfare League and the Māori Wardens Association for your compassion caring and sense of community commitment. Regional development is critical to the success of the nation’s sustainable economic growth and more needs to be done at the regional level. In Ikaroa-Rāwhiti it is about people as much as it is about market drivers. Oil exploration and dams that wipe out complete valleys are not sustainable. There are alternatives and greater investment in regional research and development will show that. Developing high-level strategic goals with community movers and shakers encourages ownership and therefore commitment.I worked for many years in the Community Employment Group of the former Department of Labour. We were as diverse as the communities we supported. CompanyRebuilders—retired executives who work with many company owners on the brink of closure to keep them afloat and by association save jobs. SuperGrans—retired people who assisted young people with budget advice and meal preparation. Our “Labour shock response team” provided much-needed coordination and support when sudden job loss announcements were made through establishing temporary resource centres tohelp with finding alternative employment career counselling and CV preparation. AndMainstreet a small-town renewable initiative showed that with a lick of paint and a few pot plants out-of-towners would stop in small towns where once they would drive through bringing much-needed money to the local economy.A similar approach was taken with a small community whose major employer closed its doors leaving nothing to absorb the many redundant locals. Every community has a unique point of difference and after a series of community planning meetings the locals in casual conversations joked about how whales visiting their coastline was their unique point of difference. The rest is history. Whale Watch Kaikōura is now a multimillion-dollar business that not only employs many locals but has almost single-handedly been the catalyst for economic growth in Kaikōura and the surrounding district. So what can we learn from these initiatives from this approach? Government has an enabling role to supporthapū iwi and communities to create sustainable solutions forwhānau. The key word here is “enable”.This era is the beginning of a Māori economic renaissance and recognises the Māori economic powerbase that has been fought for bywhānauhapū and iwi on the streets in the courts and most recently at the negotiating tables with the Office of Treaty Settlements. I pay homage to the many men and women some no longer with us who have worked tirelessly in pursuit of justice and equity through the Treaty settlement process. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the Hon Michael Cullen the late Hon Parekura Horomia and more recently from the opposite side of the House the Hon Christopher Finlayson for their collective commitment to settling Treaty grievances.The role of iwi Māori in a post-settlement era is to grow and protect its asset base and to create intergenerational wealth. Innovative iwi Māori are exploring opportunities and how these opportunities provide wider returns.NgātiWhātua has committed to getting its own people into affordable and sustainable homes andNgāti Kahungunu has recently purchasedTautāne farm to act as a catalyst to unlock the economic potential of other land blocks to provide an investment opportunity for recently settledhapū groups and ultimately to provide jobs.Investing and creating opportunities for their own people is unquestionablyapplaudable but is it not the responsibility of iwi Māori alone. The role of Government is to enable innovation that will create jobs. Tailored regional investment in areas like research and development technical internships and encouraging multipartite arrangements including iwi Māori local government businesses schools and unions will accelerate this form of innovation just like the Whale Watch Kaikōura example. I am convinced that what is good for iwi Māori economic development is good for the nation as a whole. If this great nation of ours is looking for a game-changer then I am offering one: regional investment in partnership with iwi Māori to unlock inherent opportunities that will create real jobs throughout the electorate and for the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I come into this House with a commitment to work with any party that has policies that work—policies that create sustainable jobs warm and affordable homes quality health services and clear pathways be it in education training or jobs for our rangatahi and people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.I was raised in a lovingwhānau surrounded by values-based role models many who shaped who I am today. I wish to acknowledge some of them. Firstly I would like to acknowledge my great-grandmotherReremoanaHakiwai néeParatene who gave relentless service and unconditional love to her family to her faith and to her beloved Hukarere Girls’ College. On behalf of my late great-grandmother and the Hukarere community we need to complete the chapel. Her daughter my grandmotherRuruhira Robin néeNepeApatū known affectionately as Aunty Lulu was renowned for herability to keep our men when speaking from the paepae from straying off topic with a certain glare. Suffer fools she did not. And my dear uncle Pong Wyllie father of the former member for Te Tai TongaTūtekawa who taught me the value of work—hard work. A man who never minced his words his brutal honesty and cheeky charm would disarm the most disconcerting amongst us. He taught me that there are no shortcuts in life—you get out what you put in. Finally the late Hon ParekuraTūreia Horomia who taught me to love our people to serve our people and amongst all else “hold the line”.In summary I have spoken about the real issues facing our people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I have spoken today about the historic relationship between Ikaroa-Rāwhiti the New Zealand Labour Party and the Government. I have highlighted the challenges and moreover identified emerging opportunities and an approach that would assist to create sustainable quality jobs in a post-settlement era.To every single person who supported me throughout the arduous and well-fought by-election thank you for your dedication commitment and heart to retain the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti electorate. To my fellow Labour caucus colleagues—in particular our leader David Shearer Moana Mackey Nanaia Mahuta and Annette King—thank you for your time your resource your energy and your wisdom you gave mywhānau and me on the election trail. To my parentsWīremu and May Whaitiri thank you for your love thank you for your sacrifices and thank you for the opportunities you provided to all five of your children and for carrying on that commitment to our children your mokopuna. To my sister Joanne Rowe who besides being the typical big sister was for 14 yearsParekura’s out-of-office support. You and your girls went to extraordinary lengths to support him over the years—none more than over his last few months. From the electorate thank you very much for caring for our chief Parekura. To my sonsNohorua andWīRangi thank you for being awesome young men. The world is both your oyster and all I ask is that you make the most of your opportunities at school on the sports fields and particularly in your nextYouTube clip for next year’s general election. Finally to my partnerKiritapuLyndsay Allan your unconditional love and support know no end. Thank you for all that you are; thank you for all that you will be.I am proud to stand before this House as the Labour Party member of Parliament and the first elected woman for the Eastern and Ikaroa-Rāwhiti electorate. As a mother a daughter and product of hard manual-labouring parents I present myself to the New Zealand House of Representatives as a humble servant of the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and to our great nation Aotearoa New Zealand. May I be judged on my actions and held accountable to those whom I seek to represent.Nō reira e te iwitēnā koutoutēnā koutoutēnā koutou katoa.WaiataSitting suspended from 5.54 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment BillReferral to Government Administration CommitteeHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I moveThat the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill be discharged to the Government Administration Committee for its consideration including hearing the Police SIS Defence Force Government Communications Security Bureau and any other appropriate agencies.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Motion not agreed to.In CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):Part 1 of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill deals with amendments to the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003. I thought it would be helpful if I outlined to the Committee 12 key aspects of the changes that are set out in the bill. The purpose of these changes is to provide a clearly formulated and consistent statutory framework to create a greater oversight regime and to update the Act to respond to the changing security environment.As I say there are 12 key aspects. The first deals with definitions and interpretation. If one looks at section 4 of the 2003 Act one sees that it contains definitions of various terms that are now outdated and require replacement amendment or repeal. They include definitions of “computer system” “foreign communications” “foreign intelligence” and “network”. The amendment bill inserts a new definition for “information infrastructure” to replace the definitions of “computer system” and “network” and to take into account the new ways in which communications are carried and stored. The definition is a broad one and it is there to make sure all the ways of communication are indeed captured.The next key aspect I wish to tell the Committee about deals with clause 6. Sections 7 and 8 of the 2003 Act are replaced. The first is the objective of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). The current objective section is a lengthy statement of what the bureau contributes to in the interests of New Zealand. The bill proposes an objective clause based on the current section but greatly simplified and clearer. So the bureau will contribute to the national security international well-being and so on. Then we have a replacement for section 8 dealing with the functions of the bureau. Section 8 of the 2003 Act sets out three functions: foreign intelligence information assurance and cyber-security and cooperation and assistance to other entities. What has happened here is that this aspect of the functions of the bureau is spelt out a lot more clearly.The bill repeals and replaces section 8 with four new sections sections 8A to 8D. They set out the three functions more clearly and specify the limitations and restrictions that apply to each of those functions so foreign intelligence is covered by section 8B information assurance and cyber-security by section 8A and cooperation and assistance to other entities by section 8C. It is very important to focus on section 8C and the greater restrictions and limitations that are put around this function. The agencies that can be assisted are limited to three named agencies and the bureau is going to be subject to the limitations restrictions and oversight that the requesting agency is subjected to. The Hon Mr Dunne has a Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 308 that is going to tighten up that aspect even more.I then come to the principles of the legislation. In actual fact the 2003 Act does not contain any principles but the bureau as a core public sector department comes under the provisions of the State Sector Act 1988 which means it is subject to thePublic Service Code of Conduct . Section 8CA sets out the principles underpinning the performance of the bureau’s functions. An explicit set of principles is inserted and these are modelled on the principles inserted in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969.Andrew Little: Who’s going to enforce them? How are they going to be enforced? Who will know?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Those principles include acting in accordance with the law and human rights standards and in a manner that facilitates effective oversight. Another important point I say to Mr Little is that there is a requirement in section 8CA that the director must regularly consult the Leader of the Opposition.Then we have provisions relating to the appointment of a director. The current Act provides that the director is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Cabinet decided in 2010 to involve the State Services Commissioner in managing the appointment process. This was done through theCabinet Manual  pending an opportunity for the review of the legislation and so the bill incorporates theCabinet Manual process into statute making the management of the appointment more transparent. The same process provisions are going to be inserted into the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act.The next clause clause 12 is a critical clause dealing with section 14. The bureau is not to target New Zealanders’ private communications. The current section 14 was intended to codify the basic premise underpinning the bureau’s operations. However the way the basic premise was incorporated into the Act meant that it applied not only to the foreign intelligence function but also to its two other functions—unfortunately some sloppy drafting there. So the bill retains the fundamental premise but section 14 is amended to make it clear that it does not apply to cyber-security or to cooperation and assistance. Where New Zealanders’ communications are to be intercepted then additional safeguards have been put in place.The next aspect concernswarrantless powers. The current Act provides for the interception of communications without a warrant in certain limited circumstances. Thosewarrantless powers are retained but are further restricted. The bill makes it clear that thewarrantless powers cannot be used if a New Zealander is involved. The next provision I want to talk about concerns warrants and authorisations. I refer the Committee to the existing sections 17 and 18. The bill repeals those provisions and replaces them with clearer and more consistent provisions set out in a better order and I refer honourable members to sections 15A to 15F in clause 14. Significant new limitations are added in particular a requirement that any warrants involving New Zealanders must be issued jointly by the Minister and the Commissioner of Security Warrants and more important that privileged communications—legal medical and religious—as set out in the Evidence Act 2006 cannot be targeted.Under the existing legislation there is no requirement for record keeping but under the proposed legislation the information must be recorded for every warrant and be put in a statutory register available at any time for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Minister to review. Mr Dunne’s Supplementary Order Paper will provide some further information in that regard.Very important under the existing legislation on the subject of immunities there is an immunity provision but its effect is uncertain and unclear. The new legislation tightens this up and there is an immunity provision that basically is modelled on theSearch and Surveillance Act 2012. That immunity provision is not absolute. A bureau employee will still be subject to legal proceedings if he or she acts in bad faith unreasonably or outside their powers.I have two final points. One concerns incidentally obtained intelligence. The current Act allows intelligence about New Zealanders that is incidentally obtained during foreign intelligence operations to be communicated to other people if it relates to serious crime. Section 25 of the Act is replaced to make it clearer when and with whom such intelligence can be shared. The intelligence can be communicated only to public authorities.And finally there is the issue of protection of personal information. The bureau is currently exempt from principles 1 5 8 and 9 of the Privacy Act 1993. In 2011 the Law Commission recommended that those principles should apply and so the bill addresses that issue. The director will be required in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to formulate a policy on the protection and disclosure of personal information that complies with those principles. So they are the 12 key aspects and I think it would be very helpful if we could address those.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition):The last point in that 12-long list from the previous speaker Chris Finlayson is I think particularly relevant in light of what happened today in the protection of private communications and private property. We had the Prime Minister just 2 weeks ago telling us that he had nothing to do with the handing over of a journalist’s private communications and here we have him today knowing that the chief executive officer of his own department whom he seems not to talk to at all has actually been in the possession of emails of a journalist and Peter Dunne for a very long time. Going through that episode just emphasises what this bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is all about. It is about the balance between security and privacy and if there was one incident of that in the past few weeks it was that on 31 July—last week—the Prime Minister said something and something else was the case when they dumped all those emails on Friday. That really is the reason why we are not supporting this bill.This bill has been rushed through. It has not been informed well enough. It has not stood the test of what we would expect in order to change the legislation in the way that it actually has been. We for example asked for the SIS the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Defence to appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee. None of those agencies was permitted to appear before the committee because the chair who has the casting vote said he did not want them to. Why? Because he wanted to rush this legislation through without us being able to get much better information. And that is the reason that the balance between privacy and security is completely the wrong way round.The Prime Minister says that as part of this bill we have all the checks and balances there. But let me tell you this: the Prime Minister as we found out earlier this year appoints the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the SIS. That person happens to be his friend and meets with him one on one without anybody else around. One on one they meet together. The Prime Minister also sits on the oversight committee the Intelligence and Security Committee. He chairs that committee he has the casting vote he sets the agenda and if anybody wants to put any other item on that agenda—as Russel Norman and I well know—of course it is voted down. It is immediately voted down. The Prime Minister also appoints the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who looks into these affairs and he appoints the Commissioner of Security Warrants who issues the warrants to spy on New Zealanders.I do not want to impugn the integrity of those people who have been appointed to those positions but what we have is a system that is not about checks and balances; it is about one man holding that authority. And if there is any demonstration of how that authority can be abused it has been in the last few weeks when that Prime Minister blamed a contractor for handing over emails and phone records. Today what we are finding is that it was not about a contractor; it was actually about the Prime Minister’s own office asking for those emails and those phone records. Not only that but those emails and phone records came in and were held by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for over 3 or 4 weeks without the Prime Minister being told. Well we are told that by the Prime Minister. There are only three options really: firstly that the Prime Minister is not telling the truth about being informed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; secondly that he is woefully ignorant of what is going on in terms of what is actually happening and that person is not handing over the information he needs which means that it is an incompetent department that he is running; or thirdly that he has actually explicitly told people: “Don’t tell me. I don’t want to know.” because it is a whole lot better not to know. He did this with the John Banks report by saying: “I don’t want to read that police report because then I’ll have to know and then I’ll have to do something about John Banks.” [Bell rung ] Mr Chair—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am just going to make a comment if the member would like to resume his seat. I understand that this is a matter about which there is some contention but the standard in Committee is that we are debating Part 1. I will give the member another call but we ought to be debating Part 1. This is not a general debate.DAVID SHEARER: Thank you Mr Chair. I am getting to Part 1. It took a little longer to get through the context to get to Part 1. Part 1 is about the appointment of the head of the GCSB. What we are saying is that we are submitting Supplementary Order Paper 305 a Supplementary Order Paper that calls for an independent wide-ranging inquiry within 1 month of this law passing—if indeed it unfortunately does pass. What that would mean is that an inquiry would be set up. The terms of reference would be agreed right across Parliament. The inquiry would have at least three persons on it—persons of standing people who are able to command respect in their fields. Our Supplementary Order Paper would also introduce a sunset clause into this bill so that the bill would expire within 12 months so that an inquiry would be able to go through. It would be able to have the appropriate amount of consultation we would be able to draft and push through a new law based on that inquiry and the current legislation would simply sink into the sunset as “sunset clause” suggests. That enables us to have the law round the right way rather than the wrong way.What we are trying to do now is to charge ahead and fix a bill that is being rushed through in response to a political problem not a bill that comes from the good evidence and good recommendations that would come from an inquiry. That has been our position from day one. It has been our position from the end of last year. Unfortunately we are not likely to get this law stopped because Peter Dunne who is here in the Chamber listening to this has given Mr Key—what is the expression—he has sold his vote and Mr Key was a willing buyer of his vote. As Mr Key said to me: “We need only one vote to get across the line.” This is what he means by consensus: “Yes you can come in with us if you like but actually I’ve got the votes so you don’t need to.” That is consensus. Is it picking up the phone? No. Is it office to office communication? No. Was there any form of communication between us initiated by Mr Key because he wants this bill to have more cross-party support? No absolutely not. He has got that vote all he wants is that vote and it is just about getting Mr Dunne the willing seller of his vote across the floor.It is deeply ironic that Mr Dunne right now is deeply immersed in the current goings-on and the shenanigans of this Prime Minister who is misleading Parliament and misleading the public—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come back to the bill.DAVID SHEARER: —about his role in this bill. Mr Dunne is still supporting this legislation. He is supporting Part 1 including the appointment of the head of the GCSB by the Prime Minister despite what has happened and despite the fact that his personal emails have been accessed. Who knows whether they have been looked at because the GCSB the subject of the bill we are debating here today certainly has the powers to open attachments. I have no doubt about that. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet might not be able to open an attachment but I can be very sure that the GCSB has those sets of skills that enable us to do that.Supplementary Order Paper 305 does what we believe is the right thing to do. It starts by providing for a proper inquiry into our intelligence agencies—not just the GCSB but right across the board. It brings to the fore something that we have not had an independent inquiry on since 1976. That was the last time we had any independent inquiry into our intelligence agencies. Many many people are saying to me that this is exactly what we need to do. From there we move to the legislative change that is necessary to set up a structure that would have the confidence of New Zealanders because right now this bill certainly—GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):I just want to pick up where David Shearer left off about the fact that what the Government would purport that this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill does is in fact restore the confidence in the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) that has been lost. The reality is that under the watch of John Key public confidence in the GCSB has dropped to an all-time low. The reality is that this bill and in particular Part 1 of this bill will do nothing to restore the confidence of New Zealanders in the GCSB. In large part that is because the Prime Minister has said and claimed right throughout this debate that this bill does not extend the powers of the GCSB. That is a completely laughable claim. Almost every submitter who came before the Intelligence and Security Committee the statutory committee—every submitter bar one who came in front of that committee—said: “This extends the powers of the GCSB and there is no case being made for it.” Not only is the Prime Minister just plain wrong and misleading New Zealanders by trying to say that this is just a clarification of the legislation that is what the explanatory note of this bill says; it says this is a clarification. It is not. It is an extension of the powers of the GCSB without justification from this Government.When we look at the case that the Government has made for this we see that it knew about problems with spying—arguably illegal spying—last year. Was there an urgent piece of legislation put into the Parliament saying that New Zealanders’ lives were in danger and we needed to ensure that the powers of the GCSB were extended? No. The Government tried to cover that up initially through the Prime Minister. When eventually it was forced out into the open we went through the process that we went through to get this bill up now and then the Prime Minister had a sudden rush of urgency. That is when John Key suddenly decided that the whole thing was incredibly urgent because it was time for him to stick a band-aid over the wound to this Government that is the GCSB.When Chris Finlayson stood up earlier on he was running through his list of 12 commandments and when he came to new section 9 in clause 7 about the appointment of the Director of the GCSB he said: “Here we will finally codify the situation we have where the State Services Commissioner is the person who advises the Prime Minister onthe appointment of the Director of the GCSB.” Well if only that had been the case. If only that was what John Key had done when he appointed Ian Fletcher except he did not. He got on the phone to his mate and told him to ring the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—who I notice Mr Finlayson is not mentioned in new section 9 in clause 7 of the bill. There is nowhere in there that says that the appointment of the Director of the GCSB will happen after the Prime Minister calls his mate and tells him to ring someone who is on the appointment panel to get some advice. That is what John Key did this time around. It is all very well for Chris Finlayson and John Key to say: “We’ve got this process now around the appointment of the Director of the GCSB that’s so much more transparent.” but the reality is that what is put in new section 9 here today is actually the very thing that John Key rorted—the very process that John Key rorted when he made that phone call to Ian Fletcher when he got his mate appointed.Why is that important? Why is it important that we have some confidence that the Director of the GCSB is appointed in a transparent way? It is because more often than not it is just the Director of the GCSB and the Prime Minister who are making the decisions who are in the room having the conversations about New Zealanders’ rights. Today tonight in this piece of legislation the power of the GCSB is extended explicitly to spying on New Zealanders.Hon Anne Tolley: Which bit?GRANT ROBERTSON: “Which bit?” says Anne Tolley “Which bit?”. Read the bill—read the bill—because that is what is there. Explicitly this bill does that. It starts Mrs Tolley right at the start with a change to the functions of the bureau. It starts right at the start to expand the powers. New Zealanders—most New Zealanders—accept the fact that we need security intelligence agencies. We need agencies that are able to ensure that New Zealanders’ national security is protected. But what New Zealanders want reassurance about is that those powers will not be abused and misused and that there is proper oversight in place. They want to know that as we move into a new era of technology where New Zealanders make great use of that technology their every communication will not be spied upon. They want to know that their privacy will be protected in this new age. What we see in this legislation is in fact that the definition of things called “information infrastructures” are broadened out—there they are they are broadened out—so that that definition covers everything.There is something in there that is effectively location data. Almost every person in this Chamber and watching this on television will have some kind of smartphone or access to some kind of smartphone that has location data on it. From today the ability is there for the Government to be able to use that data. Right around the world—and this is one of the things that this bill completely fails to take into account—people’s attitudes around the privacy of their electronic information are changing and evolving. People are beginning to understand more and more about the reach of the State into what can happen with their electronic data. At that very time that is when the National Government decides it is time to expand the powers of the GCSB so that it can roam freely about electronic information provided by New Zealanders.Hon Anne Tolley: Rubbish! Which bit—GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not rubbish Mrs Tolley and it is time that the National Government actually listened to what New Zealanders are saying—actually listened to what New Zealanders are saying—about the privacy of their communications. What New Zealanders want is to have security intelligence agencies that have the powers to do the job that is needed to ensure that New Zealanders’ safety is protected. But they want to make sure that that is balanced with proper oversight and with protection of New Zealanders’ privacy. What this bill does is get that balancewrong. The Law Society came to the committee and said that the balance is wrong. The Human Rights Commission came to the committee and said that the balance is wrong. The Privacy Commissioner wrote to the committee and said that the balance is wrong. New Zealanders from all walks of life are looking at a Government that no longer cares about their privacy and that no longer cares about getting that balance between security and privacy right. That is the major problem that this side of the Committee has with this legislation.When we look at the clauses in Part 1—in particular the changes around the functions of the GCSB—we can see in clause 6 section 8C a significant change in the way that the work of this agency is done and why it is now cooperating with other agencies to facilitate their functions. What is clear is that it can do that for anything—it can do that for anything.Tim Macindoe: This is a load of rubbish and you know it. Absolute claptrap.GRANT ROBERTSON: Very defensive Mr Macindoe. He will not get a call. He will not get a call. Sit down—sit down. Tim Macindoe will not get a call because the National Party does not want to front up to New Zealanders on this legislation. Section 8C in this bill expands what agencies can work with the GCSB. The question for Mr Finlayson and National members is what happens with that data. What happens with that information? Will New Zealanders’ information be retained in New Zealand or will it be available for other countries to look at? That is the question that New Zealanders are asking. [Interruption ] Well Mr Finlayson does not appear to know the answer Mr Mallard because he will not get up and be honest with New Zealanders about the expansion of these powers and what they mean.If we look at the other parts of the functions of the bureau what this bill does is say to the GCSB that it now has a wide mandate. Its mandate now goes beyond foreign intelligence functions; it goes into cyber-security. And it goes into cyber-security without the proper checks and balances that New Zealanders would expect. If you would allow me just to briefly mention something in Part 2 because it is relevant to Part 1 you go all the way through this bill with all the expansion of powers and then you get up to section 15A which is inserted by clause 14 of the bill. And just to make sure that we all know what is going to happen with this bill it says that it applies notwithstanding “anything in any other Act.”—notwithstanding “anything in any other Act.” That is any Act—it could be the Crimes Act; it could be anything. That is how loosely this has been defined.On this side of the Committee we oppose this legislation. David Shearer has proposed an excellent Supplementary Order Paper 305 which would actually see a review of all of our security intelligence agencies so that we could get legislation that New Zealanders can have confidence in so we can restore some confidence to security intelligence in this country. Under John Key’s leadership it has reached an all-time low. It will stoop even lower if this legislation passes today. I urge all parties including Mr Dunne—Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I rise on behalf of the Green Party tonight to oppose this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. We are focusing our comments here on Part 1 which is probably the most substantial part of the bill. I have put up a series of substantial amendments to Part 1—10 separate amendments that try to deal with some of the worst aspects of this bill. Although it is hard to fix this bill because it is fundamentally flawed we have put up a series of amendments to try to improve the bill.The first amendment that I want to talk about is the amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 316 which is about including metadata in the definition of communications. Metadata of course is like the data about data. If we were to use therecent example of Mr Dunne’s emails when the Henry inquiry accessed Mr Dunne’s email logs without his permission it accessed his metadata—so that was whom he sent emails to whom he received emails from the subject of those emails the time they were sent and whether there were attachments—but that did not include the actual content of the emails. This is what is called metadata. There are those from the Government side who argue that the definition of communication includes metadata but I think that that is not really very clear. So what we have suggested in this amendment using Supplementary Order Paper 316 is to make sure that metadata is included in the definition of communication.I think that the recent experience of the Dunne and Vance emails is relevant to this amendment. The reason why it is relevant to this amendment is that in the mind of the Government—in the mind of the Prime Minister’s office and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—when it was considering the Henry inquiry it drew a distinction between Mr Dunne’s metadata and the content of Mr Dunne’s emails. So it thought it needed further authorisations in order to read the content of Mr Dunne’s emails than it needed to read the metadata around them. So even though the Government has at times argued that metadata and data are treated the same by this piece of legislation when it came down to applying some kind of principles—whatever principles Mr Henry had in mind when he conducted his rather unusual inquiry—in practice what we saw was that the Prime Minister’s office and the inquiry established by the Prime Minister clearly differentiated between Mr Dunne’s metadata which they did not seek his consent to access and which they just stole from his email accounts and the content of Mr Dunne’s emails.So when we come to consider this bill what is clear I think is that we do need to establish right up front that the definition of communication needs to include metadata because we have seen from the practice of this Government just in recent weeks that this Government believes that it can have access to all our metadata and it does not need to ask us. It can go into my email account or anyone else’s email account and steal our metadata—whom we have emailed and whom we have not—because the Prime Minister believes that that is his right. It is his right to steal our metadata if he is running some inquiry into some security breach; therefore he can go in and read your metadata—whom you sent emails to and whom you got them from whom you phoned and whom you did not phone—rather than the actual content of those phone calls. So I believe it is important that we make the amendment to make sure that it does include metadata at this point.The second amendment of the 10 amendments to this part that I would like to talk about for the moment is an amendment about deleting new section 7 in clause 6 of the bill. This is essentially to keep the existing objective of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). The purpose of this is that a fundamental aspect of this bill that we have in front of us tonight is to transfer the GCSB from what was supposed to be a foreign-focused agency—it was supposed to be turning its surveillance activities on the rest of the world not on us. But under the bill that the Government is proposing here tonight it is proposing to turn the powers of the GCSB against New Zealanders. That is what the significance is of new sections 8A and 8C. Basically this agency with all these powers to intrude into our lives and to read our emails and listen to our phone calls and track our movements can now be used against New Zealanders whereas previously when it was established under the 2003 Government Communications Security Bureau Act it was very clear that it could be used only against offshore interests and people from overseas. Section 14 of the existing 2003 Act is very clear that it could not be targeted at New Zealanders.Unfortunately of course what we saw in over 80 examples is that the GCSB did target New Zealanders even though it had no lawful authority to do so. So it broke the law and illegally targeted New Zealanders. What it has done is say: “OK we broke the law so we are going to get the Government to change the law so we can keep doing what we were doing before even though it was unlawful under the old Act and no one gets prosecuted.” It is a great agency! I mean if the rest of us went and broke the law you would think that someone might be prosecuted but the GCSB gets rewarded. The Government changes the Act to suit the GCSB so that it can spy on us. So what I am proposing in my amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 317 is that we keep the existing objective of the GCSB—that is that it is externally focused. It is not meant to be spying on us. It was never designed to spy on us. The whole idea of the GCSB was that it was externally focused and it was not about that. So we think that that is an important change to make.The third amendment that I would like to talk about to try to improve this very flawed legislation is the amendment around clause 6 in Supplementary Order Paper 314. Essentially what we are doing here is saying that if new section 7 is retained then this removes the final line paragraph (c) which provides that one of the objectives of the GCSB is about the economic well-being of New Zealanders. The problem is that if we say that one of the objectives of the GCSB is about the economic well-being of New Zealand and we give the GCSB the power to target us with its surveillance and its attacks on our privacy and our freedom then it now has a very broad scope. There are all sorts of things that we would do that might threaten the economic well-being of New Zealand. For example if I were to mention that half of the rivers in New Zealand are polluted this could well be seen as threatening the economic well-being of New Zealand. In a certain sense I can understand that argument. It does not mean to say that I should not say it; it is true and it is important that we campaign to clean up our rivers. But in light of recent events clearly by my drawing attention to the fact that we have very polluted rivers in New Zealand some—and particularly those in the GCSB who are very keen on targeting people like me—would say: “Well you are threatening the economic well-being of New Zealand.” So what we are trying to say is that the GCSB should not have that ability. It should not be a rationale to attack us by threatening the economic well-being of New Zealand. We want to keep the GCSB externally focused not coming after us.The fourth amendment that I would like to talk about in this slot is about trying to restrict the ability for intelligence to be shared with any person or office holder. This is my Supplementary Order Paper 315. This amendment removes “the ability for the GCSB to report information and provide intelligence gathered to ‘any person or office holder (whether in New Zealand or overseas) authorised by the Minister’.” This is a very important amendment in light of the Snowden revelations. What we discovered from the Snowden revelations is that the GCSB which is presumably the agency is providing vast amounts of data to the National Security Agency. In the information that has been revealed by Snowden we now know that New Zealand is one of the sources of all the data that is provided to the National Security Agency about internet traffic phone traffic and all the rest of it and presumably the GCSB is providing that information which largely comes out of Waihopai to that agency.So what we are trying to do here in this amendment is say: “OK even if you do gather this information—all this data about all this information that is passing through New Zealand—we are trying to restrict the ability of the GCSB to pass it to its American masters.” If the agency says it wants all this information which obviously it does if Snowden is right—if the leaks from Snowden are right and there is no reason to think that they are not because they have been verified by the US Government in allcases where we could verify them—then what the GCSB is doing is intercepting all of this data out of New Zealand and we do not exactly know how and passing it offshore. So what we are trying to do with the amendment around Supplementary Order Paper 315 is to restrict the ability of the GCSB to pass that information offshore to any person or office holder whether New Zealand or overseas authorised by the Minister. This is to try to prevent the Minister saying: “Oh well the American agencies say that they want all the data that is coming down off the satellites and passing through Waihopai. We are going to pass all that data to them.” We are saying: “No we do not want you to become a spy for one of the global grid.”—the spying grid that the United States has now established at a global level to monitor all internet-based traffic and all of the emails that are passing around the world through the internet system. We do not want the GCSB to be performing that function.The reason is that it is incredibly damaging to New Zealand. What we have seen for example mostly recently is that Germany has now withdrawn its agreement with the United States about sharing security matters and New Zealand is now identified as one of those countries that is sharing this data on all of its allies with the United States.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence):We have just had two appalling speeches—one from a member who should know much much better and I believe does and one from a member who has absolutely no idea. What I can say is that proper oversight begins with a clear and consistent statutory framework and that is what this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill provides for this House and for the public of New Zealand.I know that Grant Robertson for political purposes has deliberately been very cute with the facts. He knows—and if he picked up the phone to New York his ex-leader and mentor would tell him—that there is an absolute need for this legislation. Grant Robertson and Phil Goff both know what the threats are out there. This is a dangerous world that we are a part of and there is an absolute need for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) to protect New Zealanders when they travel abroad to protect New Zealand interests and basically to make this a safer place.Grant Robertson: Nobody’s denying that Jonathan.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Grant Robertson now says: “Nobody’s denying that.” In actual fact he got up and denied that. What he said which was totally incorrect is that this bill widens the powers of the GCSB and that it allows the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders. That is not correct. It is totally untrue. What this bill does is that it actually narrows the powers of the GCSB. [Interruption ] They know it but they do not want the public to understand the truth.If you look at those 88 cases over the last 10 years where the GCSB has had to spy on New Zealanders they have been cases where New Zealanders have unfortunately been involved in or associated with terrorism with research into weapons of mass destruction with people-smuggling and with drug dealing. We are not talking about spying on Grant Robertson and his mates at the Wellington Central Labour Party. We are not talking about spying on the people whom Grant Robertson has been stirring up into a fever over this bill. We are talking about people who constitute a very serious threat to the security of New Zealanders. And if you look at every major terrorist event going back to 9/11 New Zealanders have in some way been affected by them. So Grant Robertson and his cronies on that side of the Chamber need to start telling the truth about this bill rather than playing politics.The Greens on the other hand—well what would you expect? That was classic Russel Norman. He wants the GCSB to have just an external focus. Well I have just explained why theGCSB’s powers need to be very much focused on the welfare of New Zealanders and keeping us safe. He talked about removing the purpose point aboutthe economic welfare of New Zealand. Well as you should know as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee with the threats that New Zealand businesses and that Government departments are under on a daily basis through cyber-intrusions there is an absolute need for this legislation.What really is ironic when you listen to the Labour Party is that what we are doing here is tidying up the flawed legislation of 2003. I urge all Labour members to read Helen Clark’s interview yesterday with Audrey Young because that spells out very clearly why this legislation is necessary. Helen Clark is not speaking against this and I think she would actually be ashamed of the members over there.The other point that they go on to make quite misleadingly is that they say that this bill has not gone through the proper process. Well what other country in the world would you have someone like Kim Dotcom able to sit down at the statutory committee and harangue the Prime Minister? That is how open we have been about it. There have been 123 submissions on this bill. They have all been read and considered. There was a normal length of time for consultation on this bill at the statutory committee. The Prime Minister fronted the committee. It has been a very open and clear process. New Zealanders have had their chance to have their say and there has been feedback which has been incorporated into this bill in order to make it in terms of the oversight much better in the long term.So I say to anyone listening out there: do not be fooled by the rhetoric of Labour and the Greens because what it comes down to is that this was flawed original 2003 legislation which had to be corrected. The GCSB is absolutely needed. Its powers have been narrowed. It needs warrants to work for the New Zealand Defence Force for the SIS—DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):Every Government must ensure the safety and security of its people—that is basic. But a democratic Government must also ensure that the principles of democracy the right to privacy and freedom of speech are also protected. Achieving those two objectives is at the core of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill.New Zealand First comes to the consideration of the legislation with a constructive view. We know that we are facing serious and challenging issues. Entrenched dogmatic party political positions will not help to frame suitable and necessary legislation in such a complex area but New Zealand First’s position on matters of national security is clear and unequivocal. The Government must ensure the safety of its citizens. We live in a world of threats: those that are known and some that are still unknown. We cannot naively put our heads in the sand. To ignore the threats posed by extremists and other anti-democratic groups would be nothing less than irresponsible. We cannot be complacent that the terrorism will never be home-grown and global terrorists do not respect international borders.On the other hand New Zealand’s civil liberties must not be undermined by this legislation. People we think are rightly concerned about where the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation is leading us particularly in the light of the leaks and the unauthorised disclosures that have been going on recently. New Zealand First is therefore seeking to put in place an effective watchdog that does not bite the very people it seeks to protect. So we have introduced Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of Winston Peters which will create an independent panel to oversee theGCSB’s information-gathering activities. The advisory panel proposed by the Government to assist the Inspector-General in Supplementary Order Paper 306 is not enough we think. The panel we propose would be informed when an interception warrant or an access authorisation is issued under section 15A. The panel would berequired to review the interception warrant or access authorisation within 15 working days.The panel would be made up of former members of the judiciary the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Defence Force because they must be independent of the police the judiciary and the armed forces. The members of the panel would bring to their role an understanding and appreciation of the context of national security. They would be people with an appropriate background good judgment and independence in the relevant areas of the operation of the security services. Our Supplementary Order Paper provides a measure of safeguard—a second string to the bow—to avoid unfounded voyages of exploration on New Zealanders’ privacy. Our proposal would ensure that the public could have confidence and trust in the GCSB despite its having wide-ranging powers. Our proposal strikes a reasonable balance to resolve a complex issue. It is a fair and practical solution to reconciling security with democratic rights and civil liberties. It would ensure that the GCSB operates within the law and the panel we propose would be well-equipped to see that it does.We believe in having strong clear law that empowers the GCSB appropriately but also provides for robust oversight and review procedures. In a perfect threat-free world agencies such as the GCSB would not be needed but we do not live in such a world. We need agencies and structures to guard against threats to our security and national interests but it is fundamental that the GCSB must operate in a fully professional manner to safeguard our rights and freedoms. As things stand we cannot support this legislation. We will not be a rubber stamp. We have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that provides a constructive way forward to assist the Government to develop an appropriate legislative framework for the GCSB but we must oppose the bill at this point.Hon PETER DUNNE (Independent—Ōhariu):The one thing that most people agree on about this bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is that there needs to be an effective regime to govern our external intelligence agency. That is the starting point for this debate. The second thing I want to say is that this bill—[Interruption ]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I want to hear the member who is addressing the Committee. Let us have a bit of decorum.Hon PETER DUNNE: The second thing I want to say is that this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the recent unfortunate experiences of the Henry inquiry. That set of circumstances could happen under any situation. That has nothing to do with the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation. The third thing I want to say by way of a preliminary comment is that this bill as it stands as reported back from the Intelligence and Security Committee is not satisfactory and that is why I am putting forward a series of amendments that will need to be passed by this Committee and by this House if I am to support the bill further. The reason why I am putting forward those amendments is that they strengthen the accountability provisions of the bill they actually make it much easier in terms of transparency and they address all of the major points that were raised by the witnesses who attended the Intelligence and Security Committee.Mr Grant Robertson spoke earlier and expressed a lot of concern about section 8C in clause 6 of the bill and I agree with him. I think that the ability contained—Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought there was a Standing Order in this House that said you could not move seats to gain an advantage to interject and Mr Cunliffe has done exactly that. His seat is way at the back. [Interruption ]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!Hon David Cunliffe: I’m happy to speak to the point of order.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No I do not need any assistance. When the House is in Committee members move around. I would sooner handle this matter by—[Interruption ] Order! This is a point of order; I am on my feet. I think we will handle this by just saying we will have some decorum across the Chamber. While this member has been speaking there has been a barrage and that is inappropriate. [Interruption ] I am on my feet—just be very careful. So let us just have decorum. As I said at the beginning of the debate it is a matter of contention but we will make no progress if we cannot hear each other.Hon PETER DUNNE: Thank you Mr Chairman. The point that I was making was to agree with the concern expressed by Mr Robertson about section 8C in the bill as it stands. What section 8C says effectively is that by regulation or Order in Council any variety of existing Government agencies could be added to the provisions whereby the powers of the GCSB could be applied to them in the pursuit of their objectives. I think that is wrong; I agree with him entirely. That is why I have an amendment to delete section 8C in the bill which means that if there needs to be additional entities added to the purview of this legislation they will have to be added by way of separate legislation. So Mr Robertson you should be supporting the amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 308 which is before the Committee at the moment.We will also be changing in that Supplementary Order Paper the warrant provisions to ensure that when a warrant is issued it is put on a register so that people actually know what warrants have been issued particularly when they relate to New Zealanders and so that the GCSB will never be in the position again of having 88 cases of dubious legality. Every year the number of warrants issued will need to be recorded as will the number of occasions when the GCSB has cooperated with other agencies—information that is not known at the present time.The Intelligence and Security Committee which currently has a very perfunctory oversight role has its powers changed by my amendment to ensure that when it conducts the annual financial review of both the GCSB and the SIS that hearing has to be held in public. At the moment it is held behind closed doors. Members opposite who want accountability are presumably now going to vote against an amendment that says that when it comes to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s operations in reviewing the performance of the security agencies it has to do that in public. Those members are against that and yet they want more transparency and more accountability. And they talk about a review. They want to have a review of our intelligence services. Under the amendment contained in my Supplementary Order Paper there will be a review early in 2015 and not only then but every 5 to 7 years thereafter of both the SIS and the GCSB. So the cry for a review again falls flat when these members have the opportunity to vote for one and they decide to vote against it.Now let us talk about one of the other issues that has been raised throughout this whole debate and that is of critical importance. It is the definition of “private communication” and the issue of metadata and Dr Norman made some good points in respect of that. The reality is that every witness who appeared before the Intelligence and Security Committee raised it as an issue. Every witness said that it was important to get a solution. No witness offered a solution. I made a point of ringing a number of them to say: “Have you got a definition? Have you got a way through this?” and the answer I got universally was that no it needs to have a lot of work done on it—it needs to be worked through very carefully. That is why as part of the agreement I have struck with the Prime Minister there will be work done on the Law Commission’s 2010 report which deals with this whole issue of the definition of “private communications”not just in the GCSB legislation but also in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act the Crimes Act and the criminal surveillance legislation.So I simply wanted to make the point that I listened to the major points made by all of the witnesses who attended the statutory committee. I read their submissions and I noted that no one said: “We do not need a GCSB.”—no one not even Mr Dotcom. Everyone said they wanted to have tighter accountability more transparency more openness and a better process. I have crafted amendments that deliver those things. So it will be very interesting during the course of this debate to see those who cry for all of those things vote against them when they have the chance to do so.I started on the point that everyone agrees that we need to change the current situation. The consequence of the actions of members opposite would be to preserve a most unsatisfactory status quo where you have a GCSB that effectively has no accountability where you have potentially 88 New Zealanders spied upon illegally over the last decade with no record of that. That is appalling. The consequence of opposing this legislation is simply that that intolerable situation would continue and no New Zealander deserves to be treated that way. This bill with the amendments that I am proposing will ensure that those days are well and truly days of the past and that New Zealanders can have a fresh sense of confidence in the way their security services operate.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Peter Dunne who just took his seat said that we should take solace from his amendment to section 8C set out in clause 6 of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. I want to read out what the Law Society said as to the collective effect of sections 7 to 8D set out in clause 6 and then deal in particular with concerns about section 8B which was its greatest concern and which Mr Dunne’s amendments do not even address. The Law Society said that: “Proposed sections 7-8D set out new objectives and functions for the GCSB which taken as a whole effectively transform it from a foreign intelligence-gathering agency into an additional domestic spy agency.” That is its overall point.Grant Robertson: That is apparently not an extension of power.Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes that is right. According to National that does not amount to an extension of power but if you look back at the original Government Communications Security Bureau Act it is very clear that it is about foreign intelligence not about gathering information about New Zealanders. That is clear from the objective set out in section 7 of the current Act which says: “The objective of the Bureau is to contribute to the national security of New Zealand by providing—” and then it lists “(a) foreign intelligence …” and then “(b) foreign intelligence …” and then paragraph (c) is in respect of Government departments protecting their computer systems. Nowhere is it about spying on New Zealanders. Then you turn to the current bill and the Attorney-General can tell me if I have got this wrong but my reading of the bill is the same as the Law Society’s. It says for a start in new section 8(2) in clause 6 of the bill that the order in which the functions of the bureau are set out does not create any order of importance or priority. So the order in which they appear is irrelevant.Then we go to section 8B(1)(b) which is the one that worried the Law Society the most. It says that the function of the bureau is “to gather and analyse intelligence about information infrastructures;”. There is no reference to this being foreign intelligence at all. It is general. It is to gather and analyse intelligence about information infrastructures. The reference to foreign persons in the earlier part of that section does not limit the interpretation of subsection (1)(b). To work out what that means you have then got to go and look at the definition of information infrastructures. This is what theLaw Society points us all to. When you go to the definition of information infrastructure it is actually not just information infrastructure—Grant Robertson: Far from it.Hon DAVID PARKER: —far from it; it is any communication carried on it. That is the nub of this bill. If Parliament passes this bill it confers on the GCSB the ability to gather and analyse information including communications carried on technology platforms—absolutely. There is no restriction. This is not under the provisions where there has to be a warrant already given to the police—no. This is quite separate from the debate about whether it should be able to assist the police or the Security Intelligence Service.The Law Society is saying that the effect of section 8B(1)(b) is that we are for the first time in New Zealand’s history allowing the GCSB to spy upon New Zealanders and have a look at all of their communications. That is what the legislation says according to the Law Society. Mr Dunne your amendment is absolutely ineffective at curing that major increase in the jurisdiction of the GCSB. That is unless I am wrong and the Law Society is wrong and the Privacy Commissioner is wrong and the Human Rights Commission is wrong—because they all say this in respect of section 8B(1)(b). They say that that is a very wide information-gathering power which can be used in respect of the GCSB.Of course that power has to be in line with the objective of the bureau but the objective of the bureau is widened as well. So there is no protection to be found in new section 7 which replaces a more narrowly drawn section in the original legislation. We have this very extensive power so I want the Attorney-General to stand and tell me how it is that we are wrong and how it is that the GCSB is prevented from using the powers that are conferred in respect of section 8B(1)(b) upon New Zealanders.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I want to refer as well to those parts. I want to refer to clause 6 which inserts sections 8A and 8B. Mr Dunne said before that this bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill could not apply to him and the Henry inquiry. Of course it very very much could if it wanted to be interpreted that way because you could drive a bus through sections 8A and 8B. You could interpret it and we know that it would be interpreted as widely as loosely as anything. So we could have Mr Dunne’s emails looked at because we could ask what they were all about. They were about a leaked report to do with the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and surely—surely—this would be interpreted to include that. Then we would ask in relation to Mr Dunne’s emails whether we needed just his metadata or whether we actually needed to look at the content. The GCSB of course would want to be looking at the content. I just want to raise some real questions about that.If this was in and Mr Dunne was anywhere near or it had been suggested that he might have leaked a document of course this would be able to be used to check on him. Then the questions would be raised and maybe they should be raised even now as to whether the Prime Minister would tell us whether he or MrKibblewhite or MrEagleson emailed to the current GCSB those emails that they apparently could not open the attachments to which could not be opened so they could not look at them properly and therefore they dumped them as they said. But we know that they did not mind getting them or did not seem to mind. We do not know that but we know that the GCSB has already operated illegally with 80-odd people. Did it do that once more in looking at Mr Dunne’s emails and the content of them? We do not know that because the Prime Minister probably will not answer that question.The Henry inquiry was about a leaked document. This part would definitely apply if it was in to allow for a leaked document to be inquired about. This is about Part 1. It is about section 8A and this would allow that for sure in section 8B.I would also ask whether Mr Key MrEagleson or MrKibblewhite looked at my phone records or emails while you were ducking and diving for cover—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!STEFFAN BROWNING: Sorry Mr Chairperson. The Prime Minister was ducking and diving for cover when we were discussing Ian Ferguson’s appointment. So Ian Ferguson—Ian Fletcher sorry. The wrong one. There are a lot of people with “f”s in this business it seems.Hon Member: Including the Prime Minister.STEFFAN BROWNING: Well I did not quite say that. But in terms of Mr Ian Fletcher and his appointment I pointed out and others in this House pointed out that Mr Fletcher’s appointment was from a friend to a friend and there were some dubious goings on and how that happened. Did they want to know—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on Part 1. Focus on Part 1.STEFFAN BROWNING: In Part 1 I note sections 8A 8B—Kris Faafoi: And C.STEFFAN BROWNING: —and 8C. Section 8A(c) states: “to report on anything done under paragraphs (a) and (b) and provide any intelligence gathered as a result and any analysis of the intelligence to—“(i) the Minister;”. It refers to the Minister—the Minister with the power the Minister who can look at or ask for emails it seems of anyone. So how many emails have they looked at in terms of members of Parliament who have bothered them in other areas? That is enough on that aspect of sections 8A and 8B.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police):I stand in the Chamber to support the passage of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. I have to start I think by reading out and giving some context to some previous debates. I would just like to quote from the Hon David Cunliffe who rose to speak to the original legislation on 27 March 2003. He said: “I do think that the Intelligence and Security Committee deserves some commendation for this bill because it has sought to balance the need to update and modernise our communications security infrastructure legislation with the need to protect third parties from accidental eavesdropping or interception. The bill does provide a legislative basis for non-warranted non-authorised interceptions under specific certain circumstances that are set out in the bill.”Tim Macindoe: So who said that?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That was said by the Hon David Cunliffe in the third reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill in 2003. It was a very sensible contribution which unfortunately has not been repeated in this Chamber tonight. It was also interesting to hear the previous-but-one leader of the Labour Party the Rt Hon Helen Clark who in the weekend backed the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) bill and said: “I think the real issue is is there is a gap in the law which theKitteridge Inquiry apparently found that there was and if so how do you deal with that and do you take the opportunity at the same time to write in more controls to protect the privacy of the individual?”.I submit that tonight we are looking at a bill that actually does exactly what the former leader of the Labour Party is suggesting. In fact it addresses what New Zealand First is complaining about and even to a certain extent what the Greens are complaining about. The previous legislation that was passed under a Labour Government in 2003 had significant problems with the drafting. That created an opportunity for the GCSB toact particularly on behalf of other agencies erroneously. It was clear in the legislation that there were contradictions. The GCSB over the last 10 years has used interception powers on 88 individuals on the understanding that it was acting lawfully under the law that that Labour Government passed.What has now emerged is of course that there was a contradiction in the law and even Helen Clark the Prime Minister at the time the original legislation was passed actually admitted that that needed to be fixed. So that is what this piece of legislation in front of us tonight is attempting to do. It is a pity that we have a continual play of politics around this very serious bill. The last time that this issue was in front of the House Labour proposed the legislation New Zealand First supported it and the Greens clearly opposed it because they oppose the need for the GCSB but the Opposition was thanked for supporting the bill and recognising the importance of the security of this country.I just want to talk a little bit about some of the comments that have been made. One comment made during the politicking by Labour members opposite was that public confidence in the GCSB bill is at an all-time low. Well I would dispute that but I would also maintain that the misrepresentations by the politicking coming from that side of the Chamber have contributed to the public’s confusion about what we are trying to do here tonight. They have some responsibility for casting aside any responsibility for security for this nation in order to play politics because they are falling in the polls. I think that their leader will come to regret the stance that they have taken.I have to applaud both United Future and the Greens; the Greens in particular because they despise this law. They despise all our spying laws and they make no apologies for that. That is their philosophical position and you have to respect that. But what they have done is they have come to the Chamber and made some serious sensible suggestions not all of them we would agree with but they have at least attempted to contribute to make the bill better in their eyes.What we get from the Labour Party is that all it is interested in is having an inquiry. It is not interested in fixing the things that are wrong with the previous Act. It is not interested in closing those loopholes. It is not interested in addressing any of the issues—the legitimate issues—that have been raised about some of the legalities of some of the actions in the current Act. All it is interested in doing is playing politics and all it has proposed is an inquiry.I would like to focus on section 8 in clause 6. In the existing Act we have a very minor explanation of exactly what theGCSB’s responsibilities were. What this bill attempts to do is to set it out very clearly and to make it absolutely clear that it has three distinct functions and what those functions are. I would like to just finally concentrate on section 8C which is about the cooperation with other entities—which actually got us to the position that we are in now where the GCSB believed that the legislation gave it the legality to act as agents on behalf of. You could drive a tractor through the previous Act. Anybody and everybody could come to the GCSB and ask it to act as their agents. What this bill does now is limit those agencies to three specifically—Andrew Little: It does not.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It does. It is quite clear. Section 8C(1)(a) mentions the New Zealand Police section 8C(1)(b) mentions the New Zealand Defence Force and section 8C(1)(c) mentions the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. And Supplementary Order Paper 308 which Mr Dunne is putting in means that nobody else no other department no other agency can approach the GCSB and ask it to act as agents without this Parliament deciding that that is appropriate. I think that is a very sensible change and the Government will be supporting that.But I just want to make one thing clear to the New Zealanders who are listening to this debate because they are really confused. Nothing in this bill gives the GCSB the ability to spy willy-nilly on New Zealanders. If the GCSB acts as an agent for other agencies it has to have the legitimate ability to do it. So if the police go to them and ask them—Andrew Little: No they don’t.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: They do. They do Mr Little. They have to have a warrant before they can apply to the GCSB to act as their agents and then they are protected by another addition to this bill—the Independent Police Conduct Authority. So we have strengthened the requirements we have strengthened the accountability and that is what makes this a very good bill for the interests of New Zealand security.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I want to first refer back to the speech of Peter Dunne because I went back and checked what Peter Dunne said 3 weeks ago on Radio New Zealand. This is what he said: under no circumstances should the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) be able to spy on New Zealanders—under no circumstances should the GCSB be able to spy on New Zealanders. Then Jane Patterson said: “Not even with a warrant?”. Peter Dunne said no not even with a warrant. On the integrity of this man rests the Government’s ability to pass this legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. Peter Dunne has not simply refined his position he has totally contradicted the position he took before. When asked why he said that there was a willing buyer and a willing seller. Well he sold his soul. That was the sale price. What did the buyer give him for that? Some people would be tempted to say 30 pieces of silver. I think it was probably more likely a nice ambassadorial position somewhere. But I have got to say to Peter Dunne that his position makes a mockery of his outrage and indignation that emails phone records and swipe card records are being spied upon because he is facilitating a piece of legislation that does not have adequate oversight to stop that very sort of abuse.I want to come to Mr Coleman and Ms Tolley. They presume to speak on behalf of former Prime Minister Helen Clark. They do not know Helen Clark. On this side of the Chamber we know Helen Clark and we know those members and I can tell Jonathan Coleman that Helen Clark’s values have nothing in common with anything he stands for and that applies to Anne Tolley as well—absolutely nothing in common. So do not come into this Chamber and pretend to speak for Helen Clark which actually in terms of diplomatic protocol is quite out of order because she is an international official and those members should not breach that protocol anyway. Then Anne Tolley comes in and says that the Opposition is politicking with the bill and that normally you would get bipartisan support. I want to say to Ms Tolley that we tried and I was part of it—Hon Anne Tolley: Mrs.Hon PHIL GOFF: —Mrs if you like. She misses the point every bloody time. I want to say to Anne Tolley that we worked really hard to try to find common ground that would balance the need to have security agencies with proper oversight over those agencies to ensure that the rights and the freedoms of New Zealanders to not improperly have their privacy breached were protected. We tried really hard. New Zealand First tried.As soon as John Key knew that he had his one vote majority relying on John Banks the man who could not remember Kim Dotcom the man who lied about the donation and the discredited Peter Dunne whom Mr Key sacked for leaking that Cabinet paper—that is the sort of bipartisanship Mrs Tolley that you are after. Once you knew that you had two disgraced members of Parliament that this Government could rely on no effortwas made to get consensus. This party has always supported the need for security agencies but under proper controls.Then we had the Orwellian Mr Coleman talking about how this bill does not widen powers; it narrows them. That is straight out ofNineteen Eighty-Four . Well Mr Coleman it seems that the New Zealand Law Society does not agree with you. What does it say in its submission? Point 15 states: “It seems that the underlying objective of the legislation is to give the GCSB powers it lacked previously: the power to conduct surveillance on New Zealand citizens and residents. No explanation or justification for the conferral of this power is given.” That Mr Finlayson is what your union the New Zealand Law Society told the Intelligence and Security Committee.I want to speak in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 305 which is in the name of David Shearer. It proposes that there should be a full and independent public inquiry. But in an endeavour to actually find common ground with the Government it says that if you could show us that there is an urgent reason why you need this legislation put a sunset clause in and have an inquiry that will report at the time the sunset clause runs out. That is a real effort to compromise to find common ground to get broad support and to get the best possible piece of legislation.Anybody who is rational would say that what you do before you decide to make ad hoc changes to the SIS legislation the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill and the Government Communications Security Bureau Act is you actually have a full and independent inquiry that would look at a number of things. It would look at why wider powers are being sought. If you are going to broaden the power to allow the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders for heaven’s sake justify it. Mr Coleman talked about process. There is nothing wrong with process. I am on the committee with Clare Curran that is looking at the telecommunications bill. David Shearer was on the Intelligence and Security Committee. We both wanted the same thing. We wanted the GCSB the SIS the New Zealand Police and the Defence Force to come before the committees and justify the extension of powers. Would the National Government allow that to happen with the critical agencies? No. John Key vetoed the critical agencies being able to even present evidence in private before those committees. This bill is meant to be about openness and transparency if we are to rebuild the confidence in our security agencies yet those critical agencies were not allowed by the Prime Minister to present evidence or to answer questions. What has that man got to hide that he would not allow that to happen?We want to know in the broad inquiry whether the agencies are competent and effective. I have worked with those agencies for 9 years. I have got to say that I think that a lot could be done to improve the competency and the efficiency of those agencies. With 9 years of working with them I think I have got the right to make that sort of judgment.The third thing that the inquiry would look at is what sorts of safeguards are required so that the agencies could do a proper job in looking after New Zealand’s security but not be at risk of breaching those powers. When you have got two insiders including MarieShroff who was Secretary of the Cabinet for well over a decade saying as Privacy Commissioner that this legislation should not proceed without a broader inquiry then I say to the Government and I say to the Attorney-General that they should listen to MarieShroff. She knows how the system works. When David McDowell the former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet says that this bill does not have enough safeguards and that even if we had a Prime Minister who was interested in exercising scrutiny over the GCSB you could not guarantee that that Prime Minister would be getting the information that he or she needs you should be listeningto those people. They are not wild-eyed radicals; they are people who know the system know how the system has been abused and they say that this bill is not good enough.Mr Coleman nods his head. His New Zealand Defence Force had on record—he did not know about it; nor did I—that you are subversive if you bring the Government into disrepute. Stand up all the subversives on this side of the Chamber! That is our job. We hold the Government to account. And worse than that that Defence Force security manual said that investigative journalists were within the category of being subversive. Investigative journalists were defined as subversive. Mr Coleman the Defence Force never told you that that was in its manual yet you come to this Chamber and say that we should give the power under this clause and this section to the Defence Force to be able to get information from the GCSB—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. [Interruption ]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption ] Order! When I am on my feet there will be silence.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Just for the record it was the Labour Government that started—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no—[Interruption ] Order! No. Order! Be quiet. That is not helpful because that is not a point of order; that is a debating point.Hon PHIL GOFF: I would be well compensated by receiving a third call on this bill for that unwarranted interruption.Hon Member: Unwarranted?Hon PHIL GOFF: Unwarranted absolutely—no pun intended. The full and independent inquiry is patently necessary when 40 percent of New Zealanders Mrs Tolley say that they have no trust or confidence in the GCSB—40 percent of New Zealanders. That does not allow that agency to operate right now with the confidence of New Zealanders and even less so when it has a further extension—Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):It is very sad that the previous speaker Phil Goff has been here for 40 or so years and all he can do is give one speech—a vein-popping performance. He has not looked at the legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill but has simply stood up and raved. It is particularly contemptible when one considers that he was Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade for some time until he had to hand over to Winston and then he was Minister of Defence. As he said he has worked—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There are a number of ways in which Mr Peters can be described—the right honourable member—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. From now on we will address members by their correct titles please.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes the Rt Hon Winston Peters—such a distinguished member of this place. But what we are getting from the Green Party is a perfectly acceptable approach for the Green Party. For example when looking at clause 6 which deals with among other things introducing a new section 7 the Greens’ approach was utterly predictable and utterly principled. They do not believe in the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). They do not believe that there should be anything to deal with the economic well-being of New Zealand.The Greens’ approach in 2001 through to 2003 was that there should be no GCSB. Their approach today is that and they have raised their points of objection in a principled way. But not so the Labour Party. The Labour Party’s approach quite frankly is utterly contemptible. It is a wilful misreading of the legislation before the House. Labour members go on and on about safeguards for example. They have not referred to one of the safeguards that are set out in this bill. Are they in favour of theprivacy requirements that I went through in some detail? Are they in favour of some of the other safeguards? They have a wilful ignorance of them and would rather just carry out a yelling and screaming function. I find it very disappointing when there is such a major piece of legislation before the House where there used to be cross-party consensus on these matters but they have shattered it.But let us look at clause 6. I have dealt with the new section 7 and in my first call I went into some detail—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A dissertation.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It was not a dissertation I say to Mr Cosgrove. It was a very careful analysis of each of the key clauses to inform the debate but regrettably they were not listening. Maybe they had been at the SaundersUnsworth function too long because they stood up and yelled and screamed. But let us look at clause 6. I have dealt with new section 7 and then I spoke at some length about new sections 8 8A down to 8C.Let us go through it again. New section 8 is designed to spell out very clearly the functions of the bureau. Section 8A introduced by clause 6 deals with information assurance and cyber security. Section 8B—a very important one which I will come to again in some detail in a few seconds—deals with intelligence gathering and analysis. Section 8C deals with cooperation with other entities and I have to say that I believe that the Supplementary Order Paper proposed in relation to section 8C by Mr Dunne is a very good piece of work and we will certainly be supporting it. It tightens it up even more so that it refers to only the New Zealand Police the Defence Force and the Security Intelligence Service.Then we come over to the clause that the Labour Party keeps ignoring and that is the one covering the rewrite of the existing section 14. If one looks at clause 12 one sees the rewrite. The current section 14 was intended to codify the basic requirement underpinning the operations of the GCSB that it was not to conduct foreign intelligence activities against New Zealanders. That has been the section where we have come into a bit of rough water in recent times and rough water when Labour was in power and the member for Mt Roskill was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of Defence.The way the basic premise was incorporated into the 2003 Act meant that it applied not only to the foreign intelligence function but also to its other two functions. So what are we doing here? We are rewriting section 14 incorporated by clause 12. It is a critically important clause. What it does is clarify the basic premise that there is to be no spying on New Zealanders and specifically refers to the foreign intelligence function in section 8B. If you read the words of new section 14(1) one sees that the purpose is clarified and the safeguards are also spelt out in some considerable detail in Part 1.I am sorry but the New Zealand Law Society is wrong—the Law Society is wrong. What is more more than a few members of the profession have expressed their concerns to me about the way their submissions were given by someone who then went to the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall and was making all sorts of extravagant comments—someone who used to act for MrZaoui—and at the same time was purporting to represent the Law Society. The thing about the Law Society to quote a former United States judge is that it is the bar that makes the statutes and it is a very important function the Law Society fulfils to come down to this place to give Governments of all persuasion a good swift kick from time to time but to do so in an impartial and professional way. Regrettably the standards were not applied in the case of the submissions on this legislation. There will be more about that later.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—TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Thank you for the call. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk about Part 1 of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. Section 7 in clause 6 reads: “The objective of the Bureau in performing its functions is to contribute to—(a) the national security of New Zealand;”. New Zealand First has never argued that there is not a need for an agency such as this—in as my colleague pointed out a world that is not threat-free—to protect New Zealanders. The conversation from New Zealand First has always been about the oversight so that the bureau itself does not suffer from what is called “invisible man theory”. The invisible man theory is that if you think you can get away with something because nobody will see you then it is highly likely that you will try it—I beg your pardon Mr Chairperson; it is highly likely that another human being may try it.I am pleased that Mrs Tolley raised two or three points in her speech. The first one is around the playing of politics. Mr Banks also raised this conversation with regard to New Zealand First particularly in his second reading speech where he said that Mr Key rang and rang and rang New Zealand First but the phone was always engaged. That is palpably false. New Zealand First members reached out to the National Government and said: “We understand that this is about our country’s security and we want to participate constructively in this conversation.” but our calls were never returned.National members chose not to actually come across and try to work with the full Parliament for the benefit of this nation. So let us make that 100 percent clear and put on the record that the politicking is not from this side of the Chamber.The other thing Ms Tolley talked about was that the New Zealand public was confused. Apart from that being incredibly arrogant and insulting to most of the New Zealand public if the New Zealand public is ill-informed—which Mr Key has been on record saying—then it is ill-informed because of the manner in which this bill has been pushed through this Parliament. There has not been enough time given to the New Zealand public to truly understand this legislation.Let us just say that the Attorney-General is 100 percent correct in everything he says. Let us just assume that—I know it is unlikely but let us assume it. There should have been the opportunity and the time for the Attorney-General to explain himself clearly to the New Zealand public. Let me just read section 8(3) in clause 6: “The performance of the Bureau’s functions and the relative importance and priority of the functions if any are to be determined from time to time by the Director subject to the control of the Minister.” There is a lack of trust currently in the country around the oversight of the Minister with responsibility for this agency and there needs to be a truly deep conversation with the public of New Zealand to regain that trust.The Electoral Commission was in my office recently where we had a conversation about how we can encourage New Zealanders to continue to participate in democracy to continue to come out and vote as numbers drop lower and lower. When things like this are pushed through this Parliament so that the people of New Zealand cannot be confident that the Minister with oversight the Prime Minister truly has a grasp or is truly working in their best interest then we start to see a fall-off in democracy.That is why New Zealand First has placed Supplementary Order Paper 323 on the record in an attempt to gain some of that trust back for the New Zealand people. That Supplementary Order Paper would establish an independent body to which warrants when issued must be shown after a certain period of time and by which warrants must be reviewed to check that the reason they were given is truly what is being enacted. And I would also add that we must not forget that this conversation began because a New Zealand resident was spied upon.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):I moveThat the question be now put .Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):I rise to address Part 1 of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. In doing so I am going to speak from first principles and speak to the grave and fundamental constitutional and privacy concerns that are surrounding this bill. Let us restate at the outset that Labour will immediately set up a cross-party inquiry to thoroughly and independently review the effects of this bill if it yet passes on our security agencies and on the rule of law. Following that review we will repeal the bill in its current form and replace it with new provisions that get the balance right between privacy constitutionality and the rule of law.Before taking calls to detail exactly what is wrong with the drafting of the bill and how it must change let me first state several issues that the bill is not about. Firstly it is not about Fonterra although it is intriguing that Friday’s 4.30 p.m. dump of sensitive stolen emails that implicate the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff occurred shortly after the Government was notified at around 12.30 that day ofFonterra’s imminent disclosure. It takes something akin to botulism to make this bill appear mildly palatable to some.Secondly this bill is not specifically about the details of the Peter Dunne - Andrea Vance email trail. However the broad context is relevant. Let the Committee and the public of New Zealand recall that those stolen emails related to an inquiry into a leakeddocument. The document was theKitteridge report—the damning litany of the legal and oversight failures of the very same Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). TheKitteridge report was prompted by the fiasco that was the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom and it transpires that Mr Dotcom was one of at least 88 New Zealand citizens upon whom illegal spying operations have been conducted. For all we know on that list of 88 might well be current or former members of this House. Let us be absolutely clear: the appropriate response to spies running amok and illegally spying on New Zealand citizens is not simply to legalise that. As others have said the response to illegal speeding is not to raise the speed limit and the proper response to theft is not to legalise stealing. The proper response to illegal spying is not simply to legalise the practices that were hitherto illegal.Thirdly—and this is important—this debate is not about removing from New Zealand the capability to defend ourselves against foreign cyber-attack. New Zealand needs to have those capabilities and must be equipped to perform them well but—and it is a huge but—those capabilities should not be deployed against our own citizens except in the most unusual and exceptional and verifiable circumstances and then only with a judge’s warrant based upon an independent and thoroughly and substantially evidenced threshold of proof. The warrant process must protect our citizens from arbitrary mass surveillance whether performed directly by New Zealand’s GCSB or indirectly by the access of information sourced from other partner-country’s agencies.This bill should be about crafting rules that achieve a proper constitutional framework for activities that may be necessary in exceptional circumstances but must never become routine. The definitions of “information infrastructure” in Part 1 of this bill which include all emissions all communications transmitted across all networks—CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):I am delighted to have this opportunity to take a call amongst many others. We have a lot to say. There is a lot to say about this bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. I think the New Zealand First speaker Tracey Martin’s identifying the issue of trust is a very important part of the context. Part 1 is about whether we—and I mean the citizens of this country—trust the Government in the context of the debacles that are going on around here to actually write a law with sufficient justice and lack of bias that will actually protect the rights of citizens. When 40 percent of people say no even though supposedly they are too confused to understand it I think there is a message in there.The other message around Part 1 is that people like Dame Anne Salmond New Zealander of the Year have come out and said clearly that this—and if we look at Part 1 we can see why—is electronic McCarthyism. The younger generation does not really know what that means but we older people can remember it and the stories get passed on. Some of us are students of history and do not want to see it repeated just because we are in an age of cyber scrutiny and mass surveillance.So let us reflect on the fact that Dame Anne Salmond and 40 percent of New Zealanders do not support this and that the Law Society along with other people came before the Intelligence and Security Committee and clearly identified clause by clause issues in Part 1 that were problematic. Not all of them can be stupid—not all of these people who operate as watchdogs on us. We do not get it right all the time in this House even though many people other than me are fantastic lawyers. We are deeply political. This is deeply political and that is why we need the oversight of people like the New Zealander of the Year and people like the Law Society’s members. It is very disappointing to have those people treated as if they are idiots who are being confused and misled by what is a disingenuous piece of legislation.Clearly everyone agrees it was time for a change and Part 1 was supposed to be that change but this is not it. I reject the Hon Peter Dunne’s suggestion that so long as things are looked over and signed off by the SIS the Defence Force and the Police everything will be OK. My personal experience was that I was spied on by the SIS when I was 15 years old for being an education activist—scary terrifying a terrorist.Hon Trevor Mallard: Well you were terrifying. You terrified me!CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: It is true. I was at school with the Hon Trevor Mallard and I think I was terrifying at the time. However I have mellowed and he has changed. What I would like to say about the SIS is that basically if Part 1 relies on the Thomson and ThompsonTintin people in the SIS you are going to find a level of incompetence that is not to be relied upon for sign-off. The police as we know have not properly apologised as has the Government not properly apologised toTūhoe for what happened atRuātoki. This is the context of Part 1. It is a context of lack of trust. I think it is important to talk about that context in relation to the Supplementary Order Papers that Dr Norman has put up to try to improve this dog’s breakfast although in our hearts we know that this bill needs to finish it should be over. We need a complete review of the entire situation not a bad bill that will get looked at every 5 years which is what is suggested in Part 1.The Government is saying that there are sufficient safeguards in the key clauses. If you look at new sections 7 and 8 in clause 6 of the bill these have raised major concerns around the formation of the bureau the idea of cooperation with other agencies and the links with foreign agencies such as the “Five Eyes”. Why would we worry about that? Part 1 is supposedly addressing terrorism. I ask this Committee what is terrorism? I am terrified of drones that can be sent from the United States of America to kill off children in the Yemen Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is terror. There are many forms of terror in this world. If we are serious about stopping the fundamentalists on all sides of the political spectrum we are not going to increase mass surveillance of our citizenry—we are not going to do that. We are not going to turn people who simply want to exercise dissent into terrorists. I would argue that the history of spying in the world—and this Part 1 reinforces that by the breadth of the clauses—is always about spying on people who dissent from the Government of the day. That is why we cannot right this by ourselves. We need the Law Society we need Dame Anne Salmond and we need my hairdresser who told me today she was very unhappy with this bill. We need everybody to have a proper say.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):I moveThat the question be now put .Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai):I want to pick up on comments made by the Attorney-General in his speech. He said there had been wilful misreading of this legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. He then went on and made a gratuitous attack on the Law Society. I thought it might be important to point out that at 3.48 p.m. today the Law Society issued a press statement regarding changes to this bill. We have heard tonight that the Law Society along with many other very good organisations respected organisations including the Privacy Commissioner MarieShroff and others made submissions to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Today the Law Society put out a press release that said: “GCSB Bill remains flawed despite proposed changes”. Whose name was that press release in? It was in the name of Austin Forbes QC Law Society rule of law committee chair. The Attorney-General slagged off the Law Society because some non-entity some person who had an axe to grind went to a public meeting—he had representedZaoui—and made a comment. He was another Queen’s Counsel I gather.However the point that I am making is that one Austin Forbes QC a former president of the Law Society was a person whom National members believed in verystrongly in 2008 when they were in Opposition and the electoral finance legislation was being debated in Parliament. Whatever Mr Austin Forbes said at that time was absolute gospel—it was gospel and they believed it. When he said “This bill has a chilling effect” they jumped on it and repeated it week after week after week. Well I think the Law Society in the name of Mr Austin Forbes has said much more about this bill and maybe the Attorney-General would like to apologise to this very well-known Queen’s Counsel—something the Attorney-General sought for a long time and found great difficulty in getting himself until he got into Parliament.But what did the Law Society say today at 3.48 p.m.? It said that “minor improvements” had been made but they “do not address the fundamental flaws in the bill”—Hon Trevor Mallard: Especially in Part 1.Hon ANNETTE KING: —especially in Part 1. It then went on to say: “the legislation should not proceed”. It said: “the idea of a set of guiding principles is potentially a step in the right direction but [it was] not convinced that the proposed wording … provides adequate … safeguards”.It was also very critical of the dropping of Supplementary Order Papers on any part of this bill at this time—dropped on this bill this day. None of us had seen them. We had Peter Dunne for days saying: “I’m going to bring in Supplementary Order Papers that are going to make a change because I sold my soul to the National Party and they’re going to accept my Supplementary Order Papers.” We did not know what they were the public did not know what they were and the Law Society did not know what they were but of course Peter Dunne did because he had done a dirty little deal. So we have the Law Society and Mr Austin Forbes QC saying that this bill is flawed. Well I would like to quote the Minister for Economic Development—the Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say when the Law Society makes a submission on one bill that suits the Government—when Mr Austin Forbes does—that it is a very good submission and then when it gets one it does not like say that it is no good. It cannot have it both ways.Another question I have in terms of this bill is a comment that Peter Dunne made when he said he would not support this bill until he knew what the cost would be if the SIS had the same equipment capacity and capability as the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). Do members remember that? It was only a couple of weeks ago. He would not support the bill until he got the costings and until he could look at the costings. Well Attorney-General what are the costings? What advice was given to Peter Dunne? What was he told would be in the costings in relation to the GCSB having the same capacity as the SIS? So I say to the Attorney-General—Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I am going to ask the Minister in the chair at the current time the Attorney-General—and I will just note that it is apparent that urgent public business has kept the Prime Minister from doing his duties with this bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill in the Chamber—to indulge his fetish with regard to jurisprudential matters. I am going to give him a technicality on which he can get off. I want to refer him to clause 5(3) which inserts in section 4 of the principal Act a paragraph that refers to incidentally obtained intelligence. It states that incidentally obtained intelligence means intelligence “(a) that is obtained in the course of gathering intelligence about the capabilities intentions or activities of foreign organisations or foreign persons; but (b) that is not intelligence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a)”. So how can we have intelligence that is obtained under a certain method—about capabilities intentions or activities of foreign organisations or foreign persons—but is not that? I am sure the Attorney-General will have a simple legal explanation for it butit seems to me that if something is not something then it cannot be something. That is what this clause says.Kris Faafoi: Known unknowns.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What?Kris Faafoi: Known unknowns.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well known unknowns says the member. It is the unknownknowns I think in this particular case. I accept that although I have been around this place for some time I am not a lawyer and there might be a good explanation for intelligence which is not around all the time in this bill. But I think in the Government Communications Security Bureau connotation it is intelligence “(a) that is obtained in the course of gathering intelligence about the capabilities intentions or activities of foreign organisations or foreign persons; but … is not intelligence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a)”. How can something be (a) but not (a)? You know I did not do law but I did philosophy and I did logic and a bit of maths back in the day and (a) but not (a) is not a possibility. It is something that is absolutely illogical and it seems to me that the—Clare Curran: Metaphysics.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well I do not want to get metaphysical with the member. I think what we need to look at really carefully is whether in the rush to get this legislation through there is a paragraph here that has not properly been considered.I know that it is an old saying but I am here from the Opposition and as much as I like not helping I think it is important that even in this appalling form we have a bill that is at least logically consistent and coherent. I see from the way that officials are now looking carefully at it—the pencils are out and the officials are writing—that we have the possibility of getting an amendment to that particular clause. And I want to remind members of the Committee that if we pass this clause if we go past Part 1 tonight then in order to recommit Part 1 we will have to have a debate on the floor of the Chamber in order to suspend the Standing Orders to go back to the bit that we passed. So what I am asking for—Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I want to pick up on referring to the 10 substantive amendments that I have put forward on Part 1 of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. Where I was at before was looking at amendments around sections 8A and 8B in clause 6. They are essentially to restrict the information flow to New Zealand so that the information gathered by the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) under sections 8A and 8B does not travel offshore. Apparently—we were told—the practice in the past has been to send all this information offshore.I want to talk a little bit about section 8C and my amendment under Supplementary Order Paper 319 to section 8C. The amendment is to essentially remove section 8C and the reason for that is that I think we have already seen the threat that section 8C poses to our democracy. Section 8C basically says that the Defence Force the Police and the SIS can use the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders. That is what it says. We know that the Defence Force thinks that investigative journalists are subversives. Under the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act for example subversives are part of the definition of protecting security so it is protecting New Zealand against subversives.So journalists become a legitimate target once they are defined as subversives as the New Zealand Defence Force believes journalists to be. Once journalists become subversives and hence a legitimate target of surveillance the Defence Force can go to the GCSB and say: “Help us out to spy on journalists because journalists are subversives as we all know and hence it is legitimate for us to ask you to spy on them.”This I think demonstrates the problem with section 8C and it is why we are trying to delete it under Supplementary Order Paper 319.I would also like to make a comment on Mr Dunne’s amendments which we will be supporting because they do provide minor improvements to the bill and we will vote for minor improvements. I would refer in particular to the review process that Mr Dunne has put in place. That review process is completely meaningless. It is like the MMP review. Remember the MMP review? The Government said we were going to have a review of MMP if in the referendum people voted for MMP. The Electoral Commission the independent umpire suggested a bunch of changes to MMP and the Government did not like them for partisan political reasons so implemented none of them. So I am afraid that the review that Mr Dunne has got is meaningless. We will support it but frankly it does not fix up the bill.The next Supplementary Order Paper I want to talk about is Supplementary Order Paper 309. The effect of my amendment here is essentially to revert to the original section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003—that is to revert to the situation that Parliament believed it had passed in 2003 which prevented the GCSB from spying on New Zealanders. If you do not believe that that is what Parliament voted for you should read the debate in 2003. I have been on the Intelligence and Security Committee dealing with this bill and reading the debate from 2003. It is remarkable for example that Tony Ryall who is also now a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee spoke at length about how clause 14 of the 2003 bill absolutely forbade and prohibited the GCSB from spying on New Zealanders. He said that anybody else who argued anything else was a conspiracy theorist. He said that they were slightly strange people if they thought that the GCSB was going to be able spy on New Zealanders. That is what Tony Ryall said in the debate about the 2003 legislation when it was passed.So the existing section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 says that the GCSB cannot spy on New Zealanders. The GCSB said: “We don’t care what the law says we are going to spy on New Zealanders because we want to.” and it went ahead and did it and broke the law. We have never seen the legal opinion from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security saying that it is arguable whether it broke the law. The Government will not release that legal opinion because it knows that it is bunkum. The GCSB clearly did breach the basic rights of 88 New Zealanders by spying on them against the law and clearly breaching section 14. So my Supplementary Order Paper 309 is essentially to revert back to the original meaning that Parliament supported in 2003 when it voted for the legislation which was that the GCSB was simply not allowed to spy on New Zealanders. We think that that is fundamental to why the GCSB was established.I would also just like to touch on a couple of other Supplementary Order Papers. Supplementary Order Paper 322 basically stops the unwarranted actions of the GCSB. Section 16 of the Act allows the GCSB to engage in unwarranted interception. So it can—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I moveThat the question be now put .ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. What is very clear is that Government members have spent the night trying to convince the Committee and all New Zealanders that this bill makes no significant difference to the existing Government Communications Security Bureau Act and of course nothing could be further from the truth.My learned colleague the Hon David Parker has adumbrated the changes to new section 8 set out in clause 6 which demonstrate that under this bill the powers for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) have been significantly expanded including through the definition of the target for surveillance which is now described as “information infrastructure”. It is not just computer systems; it is now a very broad definition. Of course what new section 8 also does in describing the functions of the bureau is no longer limit it to foreign intelligence.Even with that the next best thing we might do is look at the safeguards that are provided for in the bill. The point I want to make and I will myself adumbrate these a little as I tread wearily on in my speech is to show that the safeguards are virtually non-existent. I turn first to section 8C inserted by clause 6 which sets out the other departments and agencies that the GCSB will be allowed to assist which is all very well. Peter Dunne has very nobly said that his Supplementary Order Paper 308 if it is passed will mean that the Government cannot simply add departments but will have to amend the legislation if it wants to add any more departments. That is good as far as it goes but actually it is not good enough because of subsection (2) of new section 8C which says: “To avoid doubt the Bureau may perform its function …”—and I cut to the chase through to paragraph (c) of that subsection—“even though the advice and assistance might involve the exercise of powers by or the sharing of the capabilities of the Bureau that the Bureau is not or could not be authorised to exercise or share in the performance of its other functions.”So here we have a safeguard that is not a safeguard. It gives the appearance of constricting restraining and limiting theGCSB’s powers but then gives it an out. The GCSB can do whatever it likes because it will be able to rely on section 8C(2)(c). That is no safeguard at all and that confirms the anxiety that many New Zealanders have that this legislation in addition to expanding to an extraordinary degree the powers that the GCSB currently has now provides no real safeguard. Even if my other learned colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard is correct in his concerns about section 4 which is amended by clause 5 and the new definition of “incidentally obtained intelligence” and that paragraph (a) does not mean paragraph (a) it does not matter because section 8C(2)(c) will protect the GCSB from exercising its powers in any context and in any way at all.Let us move to section 8CA “Principles underpinning performance of Bureau’s functions” inserted by clause 6. There is a very noble and honourable setting out of the principles in subsection (1) of that new section. It will be “in accordance with New Zealand law” and “all human rights standards” will be observed and exercised. It will “discharge … its operational functions independently and impartially:”—fantastic grand to be commended. But it is all ruined by subsection (2). Subsection (2) comes in and completely destroys any benefit there might be. In fact it is not just subsection (2) but subsection (3) as well. Subsection (2) says: “Subsection (1) does not impose particular duties on … the Director …”. So even though there are these principles the director will have no duty to abide by them at all. Then subsection (3) gives the appearance of some sort of protection. It says: “The Director must take all reasonable steps to ensure that—(a) the activities of the Bureau are limited to those that are relevant …” and so on. Basically they are a set of factors that look like a codification of the principles of intra vires.Here is the thing. The first argument might be to say well why have “all reasonable steps”? There is other language that the Government could use in a bill like this. What about “all practicable steps” which is much firmer much tighter? But the real question is why have this provision at all if you do not want to—Dr JIAN YANG (National):I moveThat the question be now put .Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):I want to speak to clause 6 in Part 1 of this wretched bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill and speak particularly to section 8C and the amendment put forward by Peter Dunne in Supplementary Order Paper 308 for which we are meant to be eternally grateful.Section 8C as it stands under clause 6 has in the Government’s latest version of the bill still retained subsection (1)(d) which was one of the most offensive of the many offensive provisions in this legislation. It says for those who do not have it in front of them—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill and no progress on the Resource Management Reform Bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I moveThat the report be adopted .A party vote was called for on the questionThat the report be adopted.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)