Norman Russel: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):Thank you Mr Speaker—Grant Robertson: I don’t know about that Mr Speaker.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Mr Robertson I hope will get his opportunity very shortly. This is an important motion and I speak to the motion. It is an important motion and I say this as someone who has sat through the whole of the Committee stage and all of the other stages of this bill and who has sat here as we have worked our way through the parts of the bill. Essentially what this motion does is empower theCommittee of the whole House to go backwards back to Part 1. I think it is actually essential that we do go back to Part 1.For those who do not know the structure of the bill Part 1 is the kind of substantive amendments to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) Part 2 is about the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Part 3 is about the amendments to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Parliament is currently on Part 3. The Committee of the whole House is currently dealing with Part 3 which is of course in relation to the Intelligence and Security Committee. So it is very difficult when we are dealing with the Intelligence and Security Committee to move the kind of amendment that Mr Shearer has proposed because clearly—Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s why we had the debate last week.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: —that amendment needs to happen under Part 1. Mr Brownlee has said it should have been done last week under the Part 1 debate. I assume that is what the member is arguing. Am I correct?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Of course.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: That is right. He may well have a good point were it not for the Prime Minister’s intervention. The reason this is significant is that the Minister in charge of the bill the Prime Minister of New Zealand has made some very large and controversial statements and assertions around the meaning of the legislation. Mr Shearer’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 331 is to try to put into black and white law those kinds of assertions. So the reason we need to go backwards in time for the Committee of the whole House to be empowered to deal with Part 1 again is so that we can deal with the issue that was raised by the Prime Minister himself which Mr Shearer’s amendment tries to deal with.This debate is obviously very constrained to the procedural issues around the motion that is in front of us and I appreciate that but of course the reason we are having to go through this procedural process is that the content of the amendment itself on Supplementary Order Paper 331 cannot be considered under Part 3 of this bill. Simply if we tried to put this amendment which I think is a legitimate amendment into Part 3 it would clearly be in the wrong part of the bill. So it is I believe a perfectly reasonable procedural motion to say that we should go back to Part 1.This amendment by Mr Shearer is probably one that most members of the Committee I would hope could agree with. The Prime Minister has told us that the bill already means this so I cannot see what the possible problem is—well he has told us it does mean this and it does not mean this; he has told us both things. But anyway most members of the Committee surely can agree with the amendment that Mr Shearer is moving which is essentially to put into black and white law the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the legislation.There is an issue around interpretation and this relates to the Interpretation Act itself. The issue is whether the Minister’s speech in the third reading will carry as much weight in front of a court as black and white law—that is the question. We all know those of us who have read the Interpretation Act that black and white law always carries the day against a Minister’s speech. If the black and white law is clear—in this case in my opinion enabling access to the content of emails under the cyber-security function of the GCSB under this bill—as I believe it is then it does not really matter what the Minister says it means in his third reading speech. The judge will make his or her own mind up based on the black and white law.That is why it is important that we empower the Committee to go backwards to Part 1 in order to put into black and white law the interpretation that the Prime Minister has apparently taken to what this law means. I cannot see why anyone would have a problem with that given that it is the Government’s own position that the law alreadymeans this—well sometimes it says that it does not mean this but put that to one side—and why anyone would have a problem with us empowering the Committee to consider Mr Shearer’s amendment so that the black and white law can sync with the—Hon Dr Nick Smith: You had your chance. You missed it. You filibustered.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: I am not filibustering. This is a very simple procedural issue. It is great that the Hon Dr Nick Smith accuses us of filibustering because we are attempting to put into the legislation the very point that the Prime Minister says is what it means. What exactly is the problem here? Sorry I should not be responding to the provocative comments of Mr Smith over there.What we are trying to do is simply do a procedural motion that would enable the Committee of the whole House to put into black and white law the interpretation that the Prime Minister has introduced. Why time is very important in this—because it is all about time the order in which things happen—is that the Prime Minister made these statements after the debate on Part 1 had already happened. That is what is significant. If the Prime Minister had made this statement before Part 1 then the Government would I believe have a legitimate gripe with us as to why we did not move this amendment when we had the Part 1 debate. That would be a legitimate criticism. But the Prime Minister made these statements after we had completed the debate on Part 1 and we cannot move this amendment in the current part we are on which is Part 3. If the Prime Minister had made those comments before then I think Mr Brownlee would have a legitimate complaint.Hon Gerry Brownlee: This sounds so whiny Russel—so whiny.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: But Mr Brownlee I am afraid the Prime Minister made the comments after we had completed the Part 1 debate and that is why it is a very reasonable proposal that the Labour Party is putting for us here—to go back so that we can consider this clarification amendment—because it has to be included within Part 1. So that is why I think this is a reasonable motion and the Green Party will be supporting it.