Volume 689 Week 39 - Wednesday 10 April 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 689 Week 39 - Wednesday 10 April 2013[Sitting date: 10 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9197. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 10 April 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsUnited States of America—American Council of Young Political LeadersMr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the American Council of Young Political Leaders is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.Questions to MinistersFilm Industry United States—Prime Minister’s Meetings with Industry Representatives and Dotcom Case1.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to thePrime Minister: Has he ever met with representatives of the Motion Picture Association of America; if so when?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes the Prime Minister spoke briefly with the chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America during a private dinner hosted by James Cameron and Jon Landau in Los Angeles on 3 October last year where his discussions focused on promotion of New Zealand as a location for film and television productions. Kim Dotcom was mentioned in passing. He also had a chance meeting with the executive director of the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft in a Koru lounge in May 2011. It was a brief conversation about the implementation of the Copyright Amendment Bill.Andrew Williams: Is it therefore a fact that he met with Kevin Tsujihara president of Warner Bros and a director of the Motion Picture Association of America in October 2010 as part of theHobbit movie talks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not have that specific information here with me. My colleague Gerry Brownlee was a party to those talks. The Prime Minister took part on occasion. I cannot tell the member whether the Prime Minister actually met that person.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just been told that the Minister’s microphone cannot be heard on the television so anybody who is listening in on these proceedings in public cannot actually hear anything. They can hear the Opposition but they cannot hear anything the Minister is saying.Mr SPEAKER: We will have the microphone checked. In the meantime we will carry on.Andrew Williams: Is he aware that Mr Tsujihara was in charge of Warner Bros’ anti-piracy efforts?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again I do not have those facts in front of me but I will take the member at his word.Andrew Williams: Can he confirm whether or not Mr Tsujihara has ever discussed with him the Dotcom case?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I cannot confirm that.Andrew Williams: Is it not a fact that the Security Intelligence Service hold on Kim Dotcom’s residence application was lifted on 28 October 2010 1 day after the Prime Minister’s meetings with Mr Tsujihara on 26 and 27 October 2010 as has also been confirmed by Mr David Fisher of theNew Zealand Herald?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I cannot confirm that. Although I took the member’s assertion of facts and took the member’s word on his previous question I would be a bit less inclined to believe this.Andrew Williams: Given this incredible set of coincidences that led up to Dotcom’s arrest does the Prime Minister still stand by his statement that he did not know about Kim Dotcom prior to 19 January 2012 the day before the raid on Dotcom’s mansion—in his own electorate—and when will he come clean about the true extent of his knowledge of the Dotcom case?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister stands by all his statements on that matter.Andrew Williams: Point of order—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Andrew Williams: I seek leave to table a time line document sourced from Official Information Act letters to the Prime Minister’s office prepared by our research department detailing all the dates in 2010 2011 and 2012 that the Prime Minister had meetings—Mr SPEAKER: OK. That is enough—that is enough detail for the House to make a decision. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Andrew Williams: I seek leave to also table an official biography of Mr Kevin Tsujihara—Mr SPEAKER: Sourced?Andrew Williams: —provided by Warner Bros which confirms he is a director of the Motion Picture Association of America—provided by Warner Bros.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table such a biography. Is there any objection? Yes there is.Economy—Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion April 20132.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on business activity and the outlook for growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yesterday the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research released its Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion which shows business optimism at the highest level since March 2010. Its measure of domestic trading activity increased to the strongest reading since 2007 suggesting that the reasonably strong growth in the December quarter of last year carried through into the first quarter of 2013. The institute commented that “This is the most broad based strength seen in the survey since the recession began in 2008.”John Hayes: What does the survey say about the manufacturing and export sectors?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The institute’s survey shows that capacity utilisation for manufacturers and builders is the highest it has been in nearly 3 years. Export firms have led this increase. Their capacity is now above the long-run average. These results are consistent with other data such as the BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index and I want to thank the Opposition for setting up its inquiry to draw attention to the performance of our manufacturing sector which continues to strengthen.John Hayes: What does the survey say about jobs and investment intentions?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our increased confidence of course makes a difference only when it translates into jobs and investment and the survey shows increased hiring intentions among businesses and increased investment intentions for buildings plantand machinery. This is broad-based improvement and includes intentions for investment and employment in the manufacturing sector. So if this is the Opposition’s version of a crisis then I would like to see how the manufacturing sector was doing when it was doing moderately well.John Hayes: What steps is the Government taking to build on the progress in growth confidence and investment?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place it is important to remember that we are recovering ground that was lost during the recession and that this rate of pick up in the economy is generally slower than we would have expected or that we have enjoyed out of other recessions. The Government is continuing to focus on building confidence for investment and employment by investing significantly in modern infrastructure such as roads rail ultra-fast broadband hospitals and schools working on dozens of different policy areas under the Business Growth Agenda which will when taken together assist businesses to make the decisions to invest more.Point of Order—Partial Failure of Broadcasting SystemGRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem with the audio on the television feed has not improved and I wonder whether we could ask Mr English to shift to the next seat to see whether that microphone might be better. [Interruption] They cannot hear it out there Gerry.Hon Gerry Brownlee: We don’t play to the television audience unlike you Grant.GRANT ROBERTSON: Great commitment to democracy Gerry—good on you.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The problem is being investigated. Question time will continue.Government Communications Security Bureau—Legality of Activities3.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement on 24 September last year in relation to the Government Communications Security Bureau that “I’ve never had advice in the four years that I’ve been minister that they’ve in any way ever acted unlawfully outside of the advice I received last Monday which was that they possibly acted unlawfully.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes in July last year the Prime Minister was told by the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau that a question had been raised by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security about the Government Communications Security Bureau’s assistance to the Security Intelligence Service. I am advised that this question was raised in the context of the inspector-general’s involvement in a review of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act. Lawyers for both the Government Communications Security Bureau and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service were convinced that their longstanding interpretation which had been in place for several decades and their practices were correct. When the question was raised the lawyers for both of those agencies informed the relevant directors of their view that the interpretations and the practices were correct. The Prime Minister was not told in July that the activities were unlawful. In fact as a result of the issues being raised he was advised that they were lawful. Legal discussions continued to be followed and that was the case for some time.David Shearer: Given that he was told in July about the possible unlawful spying on New Zealanders why did he not immediately suspend any such activity to protect the fundamental rights of New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Is it going? Sorry Mr Speaker can I hear the question again?Mr SPEAKER: Yes certainly. Would David Shearer please repeat the question for continuity.David Shearer: Given that he was told in July about the possible unlawful spying on New Zealanders why did he not immediately suspend any such activity to protect the fundamental freedoms of New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I pointed out in answer to the principal question when an issue was raised of—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: It is more important that Parliament hears this than television.Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said in the answer to the principal question when the matter was raised by the inspector-general advice was given by the lawyers of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service that the longstanding practice and interpretation which had been in place both prior to the Government Communications Security Bureau Act and under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act under the previous Labour Government for 5 or 6 years was legally valid. That was not the end however of legal discussions. They went on for some time.David Shearer: Does he not think it is his duty to New Zealanders that as soon as he finds out that there is the possibility of illegal spying he stops spying altogether?Hon BILL ENGLISH: When sufficient doubt was raised about that—Grant Robertson: Rubbish!Hon BILL ENGLISH: When sufficient doubt was raised about that the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau took exactly that step and it still remains in place. At the time that these matters were raised with the Prime Minister the subsequent advice was that the activities were lawful. That turned out to be incorrect.Louise Upston: So when was the Prime Minister first made aware that there were 88 people who may have unlawfully been subjects of surveillance by the Government Communications Security Bureau?Hon BILL ENGLISH: On behalf of the Government Communications Security Bureau—[Interruption]—the Prime Minister—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear. [Interruption]Hon BILL ENGLISH: —the Government Communications Security Bureau is not very pleased with the Government. On behalf of the Prime Minister he was made aware when he received Rebecca Kitteridge’s report on 22 March. Miss Kitteridge was unable to confirm the number herself until the day before she completed her report. In addition final legal advice was not received from the Solicitor-General on this matter on the legality of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s activities until 19 March 2013. It is a nonsense to suggest that the Prime Minister should or could have released information regarding the question of legality surrounding these 88 people sooner than when the advice was clear and the report was completed. This was something that was unclear. Legal interpretation still remains difficult and it would be irresponsible for the Prime Minister to raise these issues in public without full information and without clear legal advice as to the status of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s activities.David Shearer: Why did he not ever mention in the myriad of media interviews and public statements he has made on the issue of the illegal spying that there were red flags as he calls it raised in July last year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: This amounts to the Prime Minister saying he knew something before he knew it. The inspector-general raised the possibility that there were questions. The immediate answer to those questions was that the activities of theGovernment Communications Security Bureau were legal because the chief legal advisers of both intelligence agencies thought that the practices they had followed under the previous Labour Government pursuant to the Act that the previous Labour Government had passed were legal.Louise Upston: What was the purpose of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act of 2003?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government Communications Security Bureau Act was passed in 2003 under the previous Labour Government and its purpose was to continue the Government Communications Security Bureau and establish it as a department of State. It actually already existed and it was already active. The Act was intended to codify the existing practices. Those practices included the Government Communications Security Bureau assisting the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to undertake surveillance of New Zealanders. That was known to the Government of the time never questioned by the Government of the time nor were any questions raised about the legality of those activities when that Act was passed. The Government Communications Security Bureau was assisting the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. I think the House needs to be aware that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service does legally undertake surveillance of New Zealanders. The Government Communications Security Bureau was acting as its agent to assist with its specialised analytical skills.David Shearer: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he is the first Minister responsible for the GCSB who has been alerted to the potential illegal spying by that bureau?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think the Prime Minister can confirm that because he will not be aware of every conversation that would have happened under the previous Prime Minister who passed the Government Communications Security Bureau Act and I presume very thoroughly examined the way the Act was structured to ensure that the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau were legal. What I can tell the member is that when the Prime Minister became aware of the significant legal issues he took action and in the next couple of weeks the results of that action will be made clear to the House and to Parliament.Louise Upston: Why is the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security now looking into the 88 cases referred to him?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is the watchdog that has been set up by this Parliament to oversee the activities of the intelligence agencies. The Prime Minister has written to the inspector-general and asked him to look into these cases. His office is the correct place for these inquiries to be directed. Parliament has set out in section 11 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act that his functions are to inquire “into any matter that relates to compliance by an intelligence and security agency with the law of New Zealand”. His functions also include inquiring into any matter where it appears that a New Zealand person “has or may have been adversely affected by an act ... or procedure of an intelligence and security agency.” So the inspector-general is the correct person to refer concerns about the legality of actions of the intelligence agencies.David Shearer: Just yesterday the Prime Minister said that the question of the legality of the Government Communications Security Bureau was “unresolved”; why did he not with that amount of doubt stop the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau in its illegal spying?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer is the same as the answer I gave earlier. When the questions were raised by the inspector-general and advice was taken on the legality of the actions that immediately related to that the advice from the senior legal counselon these matters regarded as expert who had overseen the process—and in some cases for many years—was that the activities were legal. However that was not the end of the legal discussion. As soon as the Prime Minister took the view that there was significant doubt about the legality of the actions he along with the Government Communications Security Bureau moved to suspend the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau that may have been in doubt. And I would stress the point the member made. It still an open question as to whether those activities were legal or not legal and the inspector-general is going to have a look at it and he will recommend what action should be taken.David Shearer: In relation to his answer can he please answer why spying continued when the question of legality was still unresolved in the mind of the Prime Minister; why did that spying continue when it was unresolved?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because the legal advice at the time appeared to resolve the matter with the advice that the behaviour was legal—that is why.Dr Russel Norman: When issues arose in July 2012 when the Prime Minister was briefed as to some concerns as to the legality of what the Government Communications Security Bureau was doing why did the Prime Minister not ask for a legal opinion from the Crown Law Office?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot give you exactly the answer on whether one was requested or whether one was offered. The advice I have on behalf of the Prime Minister is that the senior legal advisers of the agencies believed the actions were legal. That was not the end of the legal discussion. Advice has been subsequently taken. As I said before it is still an open question as to whether the interpretation of the Act which was in place under the previous Government and under this Government was correct or not correct. There is doubt about it. Activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau have been suspended and the inspector-general is looking into the matter.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware of the “Cabinet Directions for the Conduct of Crown Legal Business 2012” which state that “the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have constitutional responsibility for determining the Crown’s view of what the law is”; and if he were aware of that given that there was a question of the legality of theGovernment Communications Security Bureau raised with him in July 2012 why did he not follow these Cabinet directions and seek a legal opinion from the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Legal opinions were sought and as I answered in an earlier question the Solicitor-General gave his final legal advice on this matter as recently as 19 March. So in fact the Government has been keen to sort out exactly what the legal issues are. It has turned out that in the light of 20 or 30 years of practice where the legality was taken for granted and the behaviour was advised as legal it has taken some time for others who have addressed the issue to come to a view that there is serious doubt. In fact as soon as the Prime Minister was aware of significant doubt about the legality of those matters and as soon as theGovernment Communications Security Bureau was aware of it they suspended activities. That was about 6 months ago.Dr Russel Norman: Given that the Minister responsible the Prime Minister did not go to Crown Law on immediately discovering there was a question of legal interpretation as to whether theGovernment Communications Security Bureau was acting lawfully is he confident that the Minister responsible is up to the job of providing oversight of the bureau?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not accept the member’s assertion about what the Prime Minister did or did not do simply because we do not have that information in front of us. But I can reassure the member that the inspector-general raised the issue as is hiswont. Just quite why it came up after many years of the same practice only after the implementation of the Government Communications Security Bureau Actis not yet clear. When the Prime Minister had the view and the Government Communications Security Bureau had the view that there was a significant question to be answered he took action. Again I will emphasise that the inspector-general has yet to determine whether the actions were legal or not legal and Crown Law advice on the matter has been received as recently as 19 March. This has been a complex process of unravelling decades of practice and decades of legal interpretation that everyone took for granted. In fact that member should be pleased that the Government has brought all these matters to the public attention and is in a position to resolve them over the next few months.Dr Russel Norman: We are idiots!Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the supplementary question.Dr Russel Norman: If the Prime Minister were to find out that his Minister the Minister responsible for overseeing theGovernment Communications Security Bureau on finding out in July 2012 that there was an issue of legal interpretation as to whether the bureau was acting lawfully did not immediately seek a Crown Law opinion on that matter as he is required to under the Cabinet directions would he still have confidence in the ability of that Minister?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well again I do not accept the member’s assertions. It is fundamentally the task of the legal advisers of the agencies to be familiar with the law. You might assume that they were familiar with the law having spent many decades interpreting and operating that law and secondly relying on the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security as an independent oversight of the intelligence agencies. The matter was raised with the Prime Minister. Subsequent action led to legal advice that the activities were legal. One might have assumed that that resolved the issue but in fact legal debate continued and 8 months later the Solicitor General produced an opinion on 19 March this year.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister not realise that in his statement just then he exactly restated the problem which is he said that they should be relying on the internal legal advisers within those departments when Rebecca Kitteridge in her report is absolutely explicit that the Government Communications Security Bureau as a Public Service department is bound by theposition that it is the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General who have the constitutional responsibility for determining the Crown’s position on what the law is—so by relying on those internal advisers he did not follow the position that is in the “Cabinet Directions for the Conduct of Crown Legal Business 2012”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course Ms Kitteridge’s report is correct in laying out that process. When there was reasonable doubt when the question became reasonably significant as to interpretation then certainly other authorities were contacted and became part of the discussion. The fact that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security mentioned the issue and that it was fundamentally his job to oversee it and that the legal advice at the time from the agencies was that the activities were legal may not have constituted a reason to get independent advice right then. I cannot give the member the exact timetable but Crown Law was engaged. Crown Law took many months actually to produce an opinion because it is a difficult technical area of interpretation. When there was any reasonable doubt then the Government Communications Security Bureau suspended its activities. The key point here is that the participants could not know about the mistake before they knew. When they became aware that there was reasonable doubt they acted appropriately to protect the constitutional interests of New Zealanders.Dr Russel Norman: Does he have full confidence in the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and full confidence that the inspector-general can provide adequate oversight of the Government Communications Security Bureau?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes that is a statutory role and that is why the Prime Minister has acted consistently with the statute and referred these cases to the inspector-general to make a determination.Roading—Waikato Expressway and Roads of National Significance4.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to theMinister of Transport: What reports has he received regarding the Waikato Expressway Road of National Significance?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): In the last few days I have seen and heard a number of reports regarding the Waikato Expressway. The first was a report from Radio New Zealand unusually stating that Waikato iwi representatives are praising the consultation process over the design of the southernmost stage of the Waikato Expressway. The second was a report from theWaikato Times on the large amount of land being opened up for development thanks to the Waikato Expressway. The third also in theWaikato Times was a story praising Fulton Hogan for the winning of the supreme award at the Waikato contractors annual awards for its work on the Te Rapa bypass. All of these reports show that when building such a significant piece of transport infrastructure it is not about just the roads it is about boosting the economic growth of an area bringing communities closer together and fostering innovation. Put simply it is a smart transport plan.Jonathan Young: Have there been any other reports on the roads of national significance?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. I heard a story on Newstalk ZB claiming that the Government was ignoring Taranaki by not including it in the roads of national significance programme. This surprised me because the comments came from someone who had previously campaigned against the roads of national significance so I want to take this opportunity in the House this afternoon to thank Mr Andrew Little for recognising a smart transport plan when he sees one.Tim Macindoe: Has the Minister seen any other reports about the Waikato Expressway?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes I have seen comment in theWaikato Times that “a Labour-led government would want an in-depth analysis of the Waikato expressway before committing to the project in its current form.” I have also seen comments from a former Labour MP Martin Gallagher where he has raised concern that Labour would cancel or delay the Waikato Expressway. Thankfully though he also expressed his view that he does not expect a change in Government.Speaker’s Statement—Presence of Former Member and Restoration of Broadcasting SystemMr SPEAKER: Before I call question No. 5 I thought I would take the opportunity of acknowledging to members the presence today of a former member Mr Haddon Donald who was the member for Wairarapa from 1963 to 1969. The reason I do this is that at 96 years of age he is the oldest former member and I thought members might like to take the opportunity to acknowledge Mr Donald.I am now informed that the TV sound system is also working.Hospitals—Catering Services5.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to theMinister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the Government will not agree to anything that “doesn’t improve patient services”?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes within the context of that statement made 4 years ago referring to the high-level recommendations of the ministerial review group. I also stand by my statement that despite millions of dollars of extra funding some programmes may be slowed changed or stopped. An example of this is Fruit in Schools where we have stopped millions of dollars being spent on administration and we are now providing more fruit to schoolkids for less cost.Hon Annette King: If quality is important to him did he agree to the proposal from Health Benefits Ltd which he set up in 2010 to close all public hospital kitchens and have TV-style reheated dinners fed to sick patients prepared only in Auckland and Christchurch and then transported hundreds of kilometres around New Zealand?Hon TONY RYALL: Yes I am aware of that from a media report today. What I can say to the member is that Health Benefits Ltd is working on a business case to try to save money and any money that is saved in changes to kitchen services will be reinvested back into the New Zealand public health service.Hon Annette King: Is he aware that the preferred provider of these budget airline-style meals for sick New Zealanders in our public hospitals is the Compass Group a UK multinational company which recently found horse meat in its dinners; if so how does he intend to measure the quality of the food provided by it in New Zealand? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am interested in the answer.Hon TONY RYALL: I have yet to receive a formal proposition from Health Benefits Ltd for this. I can tell the member that as she knows a large number of hospital kitchens even when she was Minister of Health were contracted out to the private sector. It has a long history of involvement in hospital kitchens and I can assure the member that before any district health board and Health Benefits were to proceed with this they would want to assure themselves as to the quality of the hospital food and the standard of food that is being provided to New Zealand patients. What I can assure the member of is that every dollar saved through more effective back-office services will be reinvested in front-line services for New Zealand patients like more operations and more care for New Zealanders.Darien Fenton: Has he considered the impact this will have on the 1300 or so low-income workers and their families who work in hospital food services throughout New Zealand?Hon TONY RYALL: I am absolutely certain that the interests of those people are being considered in these decisions. Many of those 1300 people are employed by private contractors now—many of our hospital food staff. So this is what they are looking at. I have to say that in tight financial times I welcome smart ideas that can save on back-office administrative costs so that we can put that money into front-line services. But members can be assured that quality and I hope improvement of hospital food in some parts of the country are a major consideration in this.Darien Fenton: Will he be prepared to front up to hospital food staff in his electorate in every town in the country throughout New Zealand to tell them that they are back-office staff and deserve to be laid off en masse?Hon TONY RYALL: I think the member is getting way ahead of herself. Health Benefits Ltd is preparing a business case to take to the district health boards and see what we can do. The key thing here is that I would have thought the Opposition wouldwant the money that we have in health spent in the most efficient way possible. That is why so many services were contracted out when Annette King was Minister of Health. We want the money being spent the most effective way maintaining quality with any savings going back into more services for patients.Child Protection—Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online6.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) to theMinister of Justice: What actions is the Government undertaking to eliminate online child sexual abuse?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Online sexual abuse of children is totally abhorrent. Not only is the child abused in the making of the videos but because it is online children are re-victimised over and over by the international dissemination of this illegal material. Because of the internet this needs an international response by crime detection agencies. New Zealand has joined the Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online headed by the European Union and the United States which is focused on combating this evil.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What steps are now being taken by New Zealand agencies as part of this new initiative?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As part of the global alliance and this Government’s commitment to better public services New Zealand agencies including the Customs Service the police and the Department of Internal Affairs are working together as a task force to share information on persons of interest to improve the identification of victims and ensure increased levels of support for victims to increase efforts to investigate online offending and prosecute offenders to increase public awareness of the risks involved by children’s activities online and to reduce the amount of child pornography online. As a result of our participation in the international sexual exploitation database agencies have recently identified six victims in New Zealand and have been able to identify and rescue four victims in the United Kingdom.Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of Compliance7.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Who in his Government had access to the Rebecca Kitteridge report into the Government Communications Security Bureau before it was publicly released; and did the Prime Minister or any of his Ministers or their offices leak the report?Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister my office has been advised that the answer will be longer than normal to give the detail.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): The report by Rebecca Kitteridge was initially provided to the Prime Minister and his office on 22 March. The paper was circulated under strict Cabinet security procedures to members of the Cabinet committee on domestic and external security—and the membership of that is available on the Cabinet Office website—of senior Ministers. Copies of the report were received by the directors secretaries or chief executives of the following agencies or organisations: the Government Communications Security Bureau the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Crown Law the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service the intelligence coordination group within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the State Services Commission. In addition 11 other senior officials within these agencies were given the report. Two other Ministers received it: the Hon Peter Dunne consistent with his membership of the coalition and the Hon Maurice Williamson in his capacity as Minister of Customs. The Prime Minister can give a categorical assurance that neither he nor his office leaked the report. He does not believe for a moment that his Ministers or their offices leaked thereport either. Earlier today in China the Prime Minister informed the media that he had asked his chief executive at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to speak with the State Services Commissioner to provide some advice about a potential inquiry into the leak. That advice is likely to be received upon the Prime Minister’s return to New Zealand.Dr Russel Norman: Thank you for the answer. Was the timing of the leak part of a communication strategy to divert attention from his inappropriate involvement—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! I invite the member to start his question again.Dr Russel Norman: Thank you Mr Speaker. Was the timing of the leak part of a communication strategy to divert attention from his inappropriate involvement in the appointment of Ian Fletcher and to have other Ministers front questions in Parliament?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No the member’s assertion is ridiculous. He should understand if he regards himself as potentially a member of any Government in the future that no Prime Minister would treat matters of national security in that fashion and I would hope that as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee he will not treat matters of national security in that fashion.Dr Russel Norman: Is the reason he is so confident the Kitteridge report appendices have not been leaked that he knows what was and was not leaked because he knows who leaked it?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I think I answered the question yesterday about the appendices. I simply said on behalf of the Prime Minister that they do not appear to have been leaked because they have not appeared in the newspapers. They may be sitting in a shoebox under someone’s bed but we cannot know whether they have been leaked until they appear in public.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister too relaxed when it comes to protecting the fundamental freedoms and rights of citizens and does he think they will be able to relax when the law is changed as he is proposing to allow the Government Communications Security Bureau to spy on every phone call every email every conversation and every meeting that a New Zealander has?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In fact I think the extent to which the Prime Minister has gone to ensure that the law is complied with despite the fact that everyone assumed it had been legal for the Government Communications Security Bureau to conduct these activities for decades tells you how seriously he does take these issues. I might point out to the member and for general interest that in fact the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service which to most New Zealanders will not be distinguishable from the Government Communications Security Bureau has full legal rights to spy on all New Zealanders at any time subject to warrants etc. So if people think that New Zealanders cannot be put under surveillance by Government security agencies they are wrong. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service can do that.Children’s Action Plan—Support for Grandparents and Other Kin Carers and Measuring Child PovertyHon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): To the Minister for Social Development—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Trevor Mallard: Start again Mr Speaker. Give him a chance.Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are trying to give him a chance. If the members could please stop interjecting then we can have question No. 8 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley.Hon PHIL HEATLEY: My question is to the Minister for Social Development—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not one for high dress standards but business attire does not normally include flappers.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.8.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to theMinister for Social Development: What announcements has she made as part of the Children’s Action Plan to support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): As part of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children we announced an extra $10 million to help with carers’ additional costs. Today I have announced the establishment of a ministerial reference group that will provide me with advice on how best to allocate that financial support to grandparents who are raising grandchildren and other kin carers. Grandparents Raising Grandchildren will be part of the group to provide that formal advice as will Fostering Kids and I am looking forward to receiving it.Hon Phil Heatley: What has the reference group been asked to focus on?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The terms of reference ask the group to provide options on the extra financial assistance to facilitate ideas from the wider community and to provide a report to me in August. What I have done though is ask it to think outside the box—that this need not be another allowance via Work and Income that it could think about it being administered quite differently and to be better targeted on need and I look forward to receiving it.Hon Phil Heatley: How else is the Government supporting grandparents raising grandchildren?Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are a number of ways. We have given them access to respite care in the past. We have made sure that they have had advice on the parenting that they needed when they are second-time parents if you like. We are now able to offer them that extra financial assistance. I recently gave them someone very senior within Work and Income who can cut through issues or problems that might be being made. This group though that we are setting up and is exploring ways of grant funding—we have got a really good cross-section I think from the communities that care about it and I think that will make a fundamental difference as well.Jacinda Ardern: How will she know that the Children’s Action Plan is making a difference to child well-being when according to a report released today New Zealand is one of just six countries that do not collect enough data to fully measure how well our kids are doing?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think what I got from that report as well is that what they are looking for is action and that is exactly what the Children’s Action Plan is. It has more than 32 responses to vulnerable children which cross from community responses right through to legislative changes that are needed so that we can ensure that joint chief executives are taking responsibility for these kids. I fundamentally believe that that will be the difference for them.Jacinda Ardern: Why does she not measure child poverty in the same range of ways that 29 other OECD nations already do?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because while the Labour Party is worried about what those measures are we are getting on and actually doing something about it.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a relatively straightforward question but I really do not think that she addressed—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was a political question and it got a political answer back again. Question No. 9 Clare Curran.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether I could perhaps just for clarification on my point of order and for my future learning experience have it explained to me how that was a political question.Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to go back and look at it—why not measure child poverty in the way other countries do etc. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called Clare Curran—question No. 9.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: If the member is attempting to relitigate my decision as to the adequacy of that answer then I will take that very seriously.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to ask you a serious question to gain some clarification. Is it out of order to cite a measurement for something and ask whether the Government is prepared to use its own statistics in the same way? Is that out of order or is that political?Mr SPEAKER: That is not out of order.Justice Ministry—Security of Online Information9.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to theMinister of Justice: Was an outside person able to gain access to Ministry of Justice data which showed plain text passwords to a secure database and a payment gateway?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): A hacker was able to view a configuration page on the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority website a view that included two passwords. The passwords were completely unusable by that hacker and could not provide an outside person access to any private information. The website access is isolated and there are layers of protection that control access to other ministry systems. There was no privacy breach. No private or financial information was able to be accessed. This is not a member of the public inadvertently finding information. It would require some very deliberate action by people with very good IT skills.Clare Curran: Did the Ministry of Justice shut down parts of its website due to security concerns yesterday?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes the ministry did in fact take the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority website off-line while it checked the member’s assertions that she provided to me and the ministry yesterday. I also understand that there was quite a large amount of Twitter conversation between her and the hackers over the weekend.Clare Curran: Can she rule out—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called Clare Curran and she will be given the opportunity to ask her supplementary question.Clare Curran: Can she rule out categorically that there was a breach of privacy as a result of the security holes in the Ministry of Justice website that were identified yesterday?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is the information I have and I think that that also concurs with the information that the member sent to me yesterday.Alfred Ngaro: What assurance can she give New Zealanders that the Ministry of Justice website is secure and that personal and private information is not at risk?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: When the site in question was built in 2011 it was tested by external IT security experts and was found to be secure. At the end of 2012 the platform the site is on was also tested by external IT security experts and was found to be secure. As a precaution the ministry has shut down the site to ensure that it knows precisely what these external hackers have done and to ensure that any identified weakness is fixed. External experts have also been engaged to check the site to ensure it is secure.Clare Curran: Will she carry out an independent security review to ensure that the ministry’s systems are all patched to the most recent secure versions and to ensure that there are no other gaping holes such as the one identified yesterday?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There was no gaping hole. However if the member had bothered to listen to the answer that I have just given our colleague Mr Ngaro she would have heard that in fact external experts have again been engaged to check. And I wish she would not come down here with these pre-prepared questions and listen to the answers that she is given.Clare Curran: Supplementary—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the member because of the noise coming from her own colleagues.Clare Curran: Has she her office or her ministry been in contact with the whistleblower who has made their contact details available to her and who did the right thing by bringing this serious security hole to the attention of the Government and the public; if not why not?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The ministry and I do not deal with hackers and we do not deal with burglars.Clare Curran: Point of order. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think I have a point of order is it?Clare Curran: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Point of order—and it will be heard in silence.Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister to me yesterday afternoon received at 12.34 p.m. noting my advice that I was willing to produce to the ministry the details of person X.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Clare Curran: I seek leave to table an email from me to the Minister providing those details.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the email from the member to the Minister. Are there any objections? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a redacted version of the screenshot of the unprotected page of data provided to me by a whistleblower who accessed a secure part of the Ministry of Justice website by clicking a publicly available link.Mr SPEAKER: I think we have got enough information. Is there any objection to that being tabled? Yes there is.Drowning Prevention—Campaign Targeting Pacific Communities10.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to theMinister for ACC: What is the Government doing to reduce drowning numbers amongst the Pacific community in New Zealand?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): ACC is involved in a joint initiative called Folau Malu or Journey Safely. It is specifically aimed at reducing drowning among Māori and Pacific people. It involves collaboration with Maritime New Zealand Coastguard Northern Region and the Auckland Council Harbourmaster.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How does this programme specifically meet the needs of the Pacific community?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Folau Malu programme has been tailored to be user-friendly for the Pacific community. For example Pacific people who are passionate about boating and fishing were selected to act as Pacific champions to communicate safe boating messages to others in their communities. The initial group of champions included a schoolteacher church leaders and a former commercial skipper who were trained to become Maritime New Zealand volunteer safe boating advisers. Coastguard skipper day training has been held in Pacific community venues in South Auckland rather than the Marine Rescue Centre in central Auckland. Training material has been translated into Pacific languages. Tests are conducted orally rather than the usual written test in English just to make sure that everybody is able to participate.Education Ministry—Resignation of Secretary for Education11.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to theMinister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 11 on 26 March 2013; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes. However as the member is aware on 26 March I also made a personal explanation to the House to clarify that although I was not consulted at the final stage of the State Services Commissioner’s decision to accept Ms Longstone’s resignation I had been involved in earlier discussions.Chris Hipkins: Why did she indicate that the State Services Commissioner had not consulted her about Lesley Longstone’s resignation?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because I had misunderstood the question relating to the final decision-making powers which rest exclusively with the State Services Commissioner.Chris Hipkins: When did the State Services Commissioner first discuss Lesley Longstone’s possible resignation as the Secretary for Education with her?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I was first informed on 6 December 2012 that Ms Longstone and the State Services Commissioner were in discussions as part of her annual performance review and that Ms Longstone was considering returning to the United Kingdom and if so would step aside from her position. I was informed on Tuesday 18 December that Ms Longstone had resigned and the State Services Commissioner had accepted her resignation and that he would be holding a press conference the following day about this.Chris Hipkins: Did she indicate in any discussions with the State Services Commissioner a preference that Lesley Longstone should not continue as the Secretary for Education; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As is standard practice for all Ministers I was involved in the State Services Commissioner’s annual performance review process for chief executives. As part of this process I provided a wide range of feedback on Ms Longstone’s performance to the commissioner. There are contractual arrangements between the State Services Commissioner and Ms Longstone regarding her employment. I have been advised that to go into any further detail about performance matters would be a breach.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask about any performance matters to do with Lesley Longstone. I simply asked the Minister whether she indicated a preference that Lesley Longstone should not continue as the Secretary for Education.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point of order. I listened carefully to the question and the answer and I think it has been adequately addressed. The member has further supplementary questions.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not overly labour this but the question is—I did not ask—Mr SPEAKER: I know exactly what the member asked and I listened very carefully to the answer. I think that on this occasion the question has been addressed. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before I ask a further supplementary question which I would like to do if you could indicate to me whether the answer was affirmative—Mr SPEAKER: No. You had the opportunity to listen to the answer as I did. If the member wants a further supplementary question I advise him to take it.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order on a completely different matter?Chris Hipkins: It is a completely different point of order.Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order?Chris Hipkins: It is a completely different point of order. This is a relatively serious matter and there is very—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order is being heard and it will be heard in silence.Chris Hipkins: That is actually the point of order I was going to raise. There are very clear rulings from the Speaker that points of order are to be heard in silence. I do not think I have raised any trivial matters in points of order. Is that standard still going to apply?Mr SPEAKER: Yes it does. The House has been particularly noisy from all parts of the House today but the member has further supplementary questions.Chris Hipkins: Did she indicate to the State Services Commissioner at any stage that Lesley Longstone should not have to work out her notice as Secretary for Education; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Matters of that nature are exclusively the preserve of the employment contract and its processes between the chief commissioner and the employee.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask her about matters relating to the State Services Commissioner and Lesley Longstone. I asked her what signals she gave to the State Services Commissioner. That is actually her responsibility as a Minister.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is quite clear from what Minister Parata has said to the House that it would be inappropriate for her to give any sort of indication about what were effectively and what are effectively—and people on the other side of the House who have been Ministers will know this—confidential discussions between the State Services Commissioner and the Minister about the performance of chief executives. I think the way she answered that is effectively saying it is not in the public interest to continue and that should be accepted.Hon Trevor Mallard: I speak with some experience both as a portfolio Minister and Minister of State Services—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence otherwise a member is going to be asked to leave the Chamber.Hon Trevor Mallard: Ministers have on a number of occasions been asked to indicate in this House whether or not they have confidence in their chief executives. This question goes to that. The question goes to the spending of probably a quarter of a million dollars extra because of the lack of notice. My experience is that a Minister’s opinion would be sought on that by the commissioner. On the question of whether a Minister could work with the chief executive that opinion would be sought and justlike a Minister can be asked whether they have confidence in the chief executive that response should be a matter of record. It may well be that the Minister indicated that she could not but I think given the large amount of money—public money—that was spent on someone to be sent back to the United Kingdom we have the right to know whether Hekia Parata indicated that she thought that was appropriate.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have with the last point of order is that it is not actually the question that was asked. It is sort of the information that the member is trying to obtain—I accept that. The question was whether the Minister indicated whether it was her preference that Ms Longstone work out her notice etc. and the answer which I think Mr Brownlee has put very succinctly and the way I interpreted the answer was that it is a private matter and it is not in the interests of an employment agreement for that to be breached. That is the difficulty I have as Speaker but the member has further supplementary questions. I invite him to ask them.Chris Hipkins: Was she made aware when she was consulted about Lesley Longstone’s resignation that her early departure rather than working out her notice would cost the taxpayer an additional $267952?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I had no knowledge of those arrangements until after they had been finalised. They were an employment matter between Ms Longstone and the State Services Commissioner.Chris Hipkins: Did she indicate to the State Services Commissioner at any stage that she would be happy for Lesley Longstone to leave her contract early and not work out any notice period?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The employment relationship was between Ms Longstone and the State Services Commissioner. Therefore any details related to that were properly the preserve of those discussions and I was not involved in them.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not what I asked the Minister. I asked her whether she indicated that she—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to invite the member to ask that question again.Chris Hipkins: Did she indicate at any stage of her discussions with the State Services Commissioner that she would be happy for Lesley Longstone to leave her contract early rather than work out her notice?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I have indicated in my previous answer as those matters are part of the employment process between Ms Longstone and the State Services Commissioner I was not involved in them. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 12 the Hon Tariana Turia. [Interruption] Order! I have called the Hon Tariana Turia for question No. 12.Young Offenders Māori—Prosecution Rates12.Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to theMinister of Police: What instructions will she be giving to New Zealand Police about the fact that despite a plethora of research reports and strategies to reduce youth crime today’s report from the youth law advocacy group Just Speak has just revealed that young Māori between the ages of 10 and 16 have a much higher chance of facing prosecution than young Pākehā?Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister my office has been advised that this may be a longer answer than normal.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): The figures released by JustSpeak need to be read with extreme caution. They are a basic comparison between the number of apprehensions and the resulting number of prosecutions. The figures do not show the number of offenders nor do they show the number of repeat offenders. The figures do not take into account whether evidence is available to successfully prosecute the seriousness of the offence an offender’s criminal history or an offender’s supportnetwork and these are all important factors when the police make decisions on whether to prosecute an offender or to use an alternative resolution. Although the Policing Act prevents me from instructing the police on operational matters I have discussed with both the police and the Department of Corrections how we can address Māori over-representation in the criminal justice system. An example of this is the Turning the Tide action plan which was released by the Commissioner of Police and prominent iwi late last year. One of the aims of this plan is to reduce the proportion of first-time youth and adult offenders who are Māori by 10 percent. The police also launched their national youth policing plan last year which aims to prevent first-time and repeat offending by young people with a focus on Māori.Hon Tariana Turia: Does the Minister agree with Tai Ahu who was speaking on Radio New Zealand National this morning that the way the criminal justice system is affecting Māori is disproportionate and it suggests that there is some level of systemic bias in the criminal justice system; and what strategies has she in place to address institutional bias?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I strongly disagree that Māori are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system because of institutional bias. People are prosecuted because they have committed a crime. Police have been working hard to build positive and constructive relationships with iwi and the community. These relationships are focused on preventing crime and victimisation and the fact that the crime rate has fallen for 3 years in a row is testament that this approach is now working.Hon Tariana Turia: Moana Jackson’s reportHe Whaipānga Houidentified these very issues about 30 years ago—what radical reform is the Minister planning to tackle this decades-old problem?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a number of programmes in play at the moment which I will list for the member that have a particular focus on working with Māori youth. For instance the national youth policing plan that was launched last year focused on ensuring that police interact positively with young Māori people and focused on early intervention to stop childhood offending becoming a lifelong issue. I would also point to the police partnership with Blue Light the successful CACTUS programmes that the police are involved with many of which are done out of hours by police and also the police in schools programmes. All of these are in play at the moment and are part of a determined effort by both the police and iwi to ensure that young Māori people do not enter the justice system as young people and that they do not continue reoffending and appearing in front of our courts.Urgent DebatesGovernment Communications Security Bureau—Review of ComplianceMr SPEAKER: I have received letters from Grant Robertson and Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the release of the Cabinet secretary’s report on the Government Communications Security Bureau. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Given the public interest in this matter and the need for a high level of public confidence in our security agencies I consider it important enough to warrant the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate.As Grant Robertson lodged his application first I call on Grant Robertson to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I moveThat the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. New Zealanders can no longer trust John Key. They can no longer trust his word and they can no longer trust that he is acting in the interests of New Zealanders. That is the lesson of Rebecca Kitteridge’s report.John Key knew in July 2012 that New Zealanders may well have been illegally spied upon and he covered up that fact. He stood in front of a press conference in September 2012 and he was asked whether the Kim Dotcom spying was an isolated incident. What he said was: “The advice I have had in 4 years as a Minister is that in no way ever has there been an indication of unlawful spying.” yet he was told in July 2012 that there was a concern about unlawful spying. He covered it up. But what is even worse is that he did nothing about that information. He was given that information in July 2012 and he sat on it.Today in the House Bill English has stood up and said: “Oh no. That’s not what happened.” Well I want to quote to Mr English from John Key’s press statement yesterday: “I was first told of a potential issue in July by GCSB Director Ian Fletcher. Lawyers from GCSB and NZSIS were in correspondence with the Inspector General and Crown Law and I asked Mr Fletcher to keep me informed.” Here is the money shot: “The issue was unresolved …”—the issue was unresolved. So Mr Key knew that there was considerable doubt about whether or not New Zealanders were being spied on illegally and he did nothing. He sat on his hands and allowed New Zealanders to be spied on unlawfully. He is the first Prime Minister to have had that drawn to his attention and he did nothing. The question for Mr Key and Mr English is: how much of that spying went on after July? How much of that spying went on when the Prime Minister had been informed?New Zealanders have been let down time and again by this Government and by this Prime Minister. On every aspect of this issue—the issue of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Kim Dotcom—John Key has had to be dragged up to give us information to give New Zealanders information about how their spy agency is operating. Time and again he has left out details has forgotten information and has been unable to recall briefings. That is not acceptable.We rely on Mr Key as the Minister responsible for the GCSB to be on top of his job and to know what is happening in his job and he has failed. He has covered up and he has failed to manage the bureau in the interests of New Zealanders. He has let New Zealanders down when it comes to his management. His oversight of this agency is lax at best and deliberately misleading at worst. The bureau operates in a space where the fundamental freedoms of New Zealanders are in question—whether or not people will be spied upon—and Mr Key has been lax enough in his oversight that when he was told in July 2012 that the spying may well be unlawful he did nothing. He sat on his hands and he allowed New Zealanders to be spied on unlawfully. He is not up to being the Minister responsible for the GCSB. He has let New Zealanders down. New Zealanders do not know whether they can trust their Prime Minister and there is not much worse than that.But we need to go back a step in this because this fits into the whole Government Communications Security Bureau - Kim Dotcom debacle. It is important to go step by step through the Prime Minister’s role and the extent to which he has been prepared to cover up what has happened here. In 2011 the United States authorities were working with the New Zealand Government on the idea of being able to arrest Kim Dotcom. In December 2011 and January 2012 the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand and the Government Communications Security Bureau were monitoring Kim Dotcom. We know that—it has come out. They discussed his residency status.In February 2012 Ian Fletcher came in as Director-General of the Government Communications Security Bureau—and I am going to return to that appointment shortly. On 16 February Ian Fletcher attended a debriefing meeting about the Kim Dotcom raids.Hon John Banks: When?GRANT ROBERTSON: On 16 February. At that meeting Mr Dotcom’s residency status was raised and we know from court affidavits that immediately after that point the bureau believed that the spying was unlawful.On 22 February bureau staff wrote that they believed that the spying was unlawful and we have been asked to believe time and again that Ian Fletcher did not think that this was important enough to talk to John Key about in the numerous meetings that he held with him. Magically 5 days after this someone fathomed up some legal advice to say that actually it was lawful after all. There were five different versions of that legal advice in those 5 days. We have not had access to that because that material was deemed by Chris Finlayson to be legally privileged but somehow at the end of that the bureau thought that it could justify this.Then in May 2012 Paul Neazor raised the question with the Government Communications Security Bureau as to whether its spying was unlawful. He raised that question with Ian Fletcher—that is what the Rebecca Kitteridge report tells us. Somehow or other he waited a little while and then he told John Key in July 2012 that there were concerns that the spying was unlawful. John Key has been a part of this process all the way through.But then mysteriously in August 2012 when it became time apparently for Mr Fletcher to pop across the road to Parliament and say: “We need a ministerial certificate signed to suppress the involvement of the Government Communications Security Bureau in this case.” John Key was not there. He was overseas. So the person who signed that ministerial certificate to suppress information about the role of the bureau was Bill English. Bill English signed that certificate off.I know that the relationship between Mr English and Mr Key is not everything that it could be given their history but we are asked to believe that when Mr Key returned from overseas he did not even talk to Bill English about this. A ministerial certificate that has never been used—the power that has never been used—and Bill English did not bother to tell John Key about it. It defies belief and there are certainly questions to be answered around that ministerial certificate.Then finally in September last year John Key fronted up for the first time about Kim Dotcom—in September 7 months after the bureau identified unlawful spying. And we heard Bill English stand up today and say that as soon as the Government became aware of unlawful spying it stepped in. That is not true. The Government knew in February it was raised again in May John Key found out about it in July Bill English signed a certificate to suppress the evidence in August and John Key tries to tell New Zealanders that September was the first time he had heard about it.That is misleading. That is why New Zealanders cannot trust John Key any longer. This debacle with Kim Dotcom and the Government Communications Security Bureau is at the feet of the Prime Minister. He has let New Zealanders down with his lax oversight of the bureau and he has let New Zealanders down by not being up front with them.I do want to briefly refer to the questions that were not put in this report by Rebecca Kitteridge. There is no mention in this report of what happened in the Kim Dotcom case. That is a remarkable thing given that the Kim Dotcom case is the reason the report got written. Rebecca Kitteridge states in here—and she clearly was concerned enough to write this—that she was not asked to do that. She was not asked to look at that. Well there is a reason for that. It is that the Prime Minister does not want it looked at.The Prime Minister does not want his role to be exposed because there is also nothing in this report about ministerial oversight—about how ministerial oversight should work in an agency like the Government Communications Security Bureau. Thebureau has powers that many New Zealanders are uncomfortable about—powers to spy on people—and there is nothing more important for Mr Key in his job in my view than protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of New Zealanders to know that they can go about their business and not be spied upon unnecessarily. In this case this report does not go there.It is also very important to look at what this report says. John Key is the first Prime Minister acting under the 2003 Act to have been told that there may be problems with unlawful spying—the first Prime Minister to do that. That is what this says and there is nowhere in here where we actually get John Key fronting up and saying: “Ministerial responsibility is important. I’m acting on behalf of New Zealanders. I’m going to make sure I act in the best interest of New Zealanders and adopt a precautionary approach that says that if I get information that there may be unlawful spying I will inquire into it.”We desperately need as David Shearer has suggested a full and comprehensive inquiry into all the intelligence agencies. It is not good enough for the Government to propose piecemeal reform where it will try to make legal what has been illegal in the past. There are too many questions to be answered about that. Bill English put up a straw man today about the fact that the Security Intelligence Service can spy on people. The point is Mr English—Hon Bill English: A straw man!GRANT ROBERTSON: —the point is Mr English—that the Government Communications Security Bureau is not allowed to spy on New Zealanders. The bureau is not allowed to spy on New Zealanders because it works with foreign Governments. The Security Intelligence Service can spy on New Zealanders because that information will stay in New Zealand. Mr English knows full well that that is why there is a difference between the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service.Finally I want to turn to the appointment of Ian Fletcher. John Key was asked direct questions in this House about his relationship with Ian Fletcher and the role he played in Mr Fletcher’s appointment. He avoided those questions. He did not tell the truth to this House about his knowledge of that appointment process.We have been told by Iain Rennie that John Key was the person who scrapped the short list of candidates and that it was John Key who made the phone call to Ian Fletcher that fundamentally changed that appointment process. Ian Fletcher was the only person interviewed for that job 5 days after John Key made that phone call. That is not a proper and fair and transparent process and all that John Key could do in response to that was to blame the messenger and call the media knuckleheads. Well those journalists have done New Zealanders a favour because they have exposed that this is a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted who is more interested in jobs for his mates and not interested enough in the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders. New Zealanders cannot trust John Key.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): Well my colleague asks a very good question: how was Sir Bruce Ferguson appointed to the head of the Defence Force and then head of the Government Communications Security Bureau? I would ask the gossipy member for Wellington Central Grant Robertson to—Hon Phil Goff: By proper procedure—that’s how. Proper procedure.Hon BILL ENGLISH: And proper procedure was applied in the case of Mr Ian Fletcher. Of course the appointment of the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau is the Prime Minister’s appointment—the appointment of the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau is the Prime Minister’s appointment.Grant Robertson: Why wasn’t that the process Bill? Why wasn’t that the process?Hon BILL ENGLISH: OK so despite Labour peddling gossip it got nowhere on the issue of the appointment of Mr Fletcher as the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau. In the end it is the Prime Minister’s appointment and as the Kitteridge report now makes plain the job of sorting out the mess left by the previous Labour Government with its lazy approach to intelligence is a very substantial and complex job. It is a great thing for New Zealand that we have a Prime Minister who has been willing to take it on—has been willing to take it on.The last Prime Minister clearly took no interest in the legality of the intelligence agencies. But worse than that the previous Labour Government passed a piece of legislation that was a result of the kind of shonky political deals that have upset many of the institutions in this country. The reason that we ended up with a provision in the Government Communications Security Bureau Act that said the bureau should not spy on New Zealanders paraphrasing it is that that is the only way that the Labour-led coalition of the time could pass the law. It was a last-minute addition thrown in by the Prime Minister of the time to get the votes in the House. That is how it happened. The fact that that provision was not properly understood was assumed to codify existing practice has led to the circumstances in which we find ourselves today.Let us just pull back a bit about the context in which these discussions have been going on. This is not an issue as the member for Wellington Central said about “whether or not New Zealanders can be spied on.” The answer to that question is that they can and they are. With a warrant and following the proper procedures they can be put under surveillance by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. That was the case still is the case and always will be the case because we have national security interests that are quite real because there are real threats out there not imagined threats and because we need agencies that have the capability of dealing with those threats. Some are external and sometimes those threats are New Zealand citizens. That is why the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service can put New Zealanders under surveillance.So the issue is not as the Labour Party is trying to couch it whether the Prime Minister cares whether New Zealanders can be under surveillance. They can. Every Prime Minister New Zealand has ever had has endorsed that position. The issue here is whether the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service can use the Government Communications Security Bureau to carry out some of that function. The reason historically that it has used the Government Communications Security Bureau is that the bureau has technology no one else has that it uses for surveillance particularly of foreign nationals which is the bureau’s territory and it contributes to international intelligence gathering. That is the question and the assumption has always been that it can.Up until 2003 the Government Communications Security Bureau had no legal framework in which it was operating. That is why it was a good thing that the previous Government set out to put a legal framework in place for the operation of that agency to ensure its legality and its constitutional position. After the passage of that Act in 2003 the assumption remained in place that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service could use the Government Communications Security Bureau as an agent in its surveillance activities. When the issue came into question of whether that was legal an issue raised by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security the clear advice from the agencies was that it was legal—it was legal.At this stage can I just make sure that we disentangle a couple of different sorts of legal questions related to the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau. The issue of Kim Dotcom was primarily and still remains an issue around hisstatus as a citizen. It turns out he is a New Zealander under one piece of legislation and not a New Zealander under another piece of legislation.Louise Upston: Bizarre. Bizarre.Hon BILL ENGLISH: It seems bizarre but this is what happens in legislation. The issue had not really been tested until his case came along. That is one set of issues.And then there is a set of issues about whether the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau itself are actually legal. What the report has uncovered was a culture of low levels of compliance within the bureau. It was a culture where people were not aware of their statutory obligations not as aware as they needed to be of the legal processes that they should follow and it was an organisation that had been operating to legal advice that is now held to be doubtful. It was legal advice of experienced legal counsel who worked in the area for years—decades in fact—and it turns out that there are questions about that legal advice.The role of the Prime Minister as the Minister in charge of these intelligence agencies has been to bring these issues to resolution. The Prime Minister initiated the Kitteridge report. I think any parliamentarian who has read that report would acknowledge that for an independent report it is actually hard-hitting. This is not the report of someone who does not understand the issues or has tried to soft soak them. This is probably the toughest report on the intelligence agencies that we have seen in a long long time. So the Prime Minister has raised those issues and initiated the Kitteridge report.The question has arisen around the timing of actions. I go back to what I said in question time: no one in this process can act on what they do not know before they know it. Of course it would a reasonable expectation that if the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau had been handed advice that said those activities are not legal and they should be stopped then those activities would have stopped when that advice turned up. As it happened that kind of advice turned up around the time of October when the bureau actually did put a stop to a range of activities because of doubt about the legality of those activities. Again I would stress that even as of today it is still not clear whether the activities we are referring to here are illegal or not illegal. It is still not clear. The Prime Minister and the agency itself have acted with reasonably expected caution as the situation has developed and the understanding of the legal situation has developed.Of course now that the Kitteridge report is here it is easy to see an environment in which the Government Communications Security Bureau was operating that was not apparent then. Now that there have been 6 months or 9 months of legal discussion it is easy to sound knowledgable about the legal issues. But if we think of the context in which the Prime Minister was first informed about these matters it amounted to the inspector-general making a suggestion to the Prime Minister that there were questions about the legality of some of the operations of the Government Communications Security Bureau. The initial advice in response to those questions was that the operations were legal and of course any Prime Minister would take that position very seriously. The member from the Labour Opposition is simply wrong to assert that the Prime Minister did not act with the seriousness every New Zealander would expect of a Prime Minister dealing with these significant national security issues.When it became significant enough that there was doubt over the legality of the operations of the Government Communications Security Bureau those operations were stopped and then the Kitteridge report was put in place. That report has yielded the information that going back to 2003—that is from the passage of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act—there are 88 cases in which the question arises. It is not the case that the newspaper headlines describe that accurately. There are 88cases in which the question arises. Of course by today’s measure it is quite possible there are cases before 2003 where the question would arise about whether the bureau was acting consistent with the expectations—one cannot say the law because at the time there was no law. The process from the middle part of last year has been thorough and it has been suitably cautious in that when doubt arose activities have been stopped. Independent oversight has been employed both through the Kitteridge report and the inspector-general who oversees these intelligence agencies.The next step in this process of course is the resolution of these issues because let us be clear: we need functional intelligence agencies. We need the ability to monitor the activities that and the people who could be a threat to our national security—of that there is no doubt. But we need those agencies to be updated in the first place because of the massive changes in technology since their legislation was put in place even as recently as 2003. We need the agencies to be updated but we also need the agencies themselves to be reformed. These are agencies with less transparency than your average Government department. They are not subject to competition or contestability. If they are left alone for a long time they can end up as is shown in the Kitteridge report as agencies that have lost the awareness of their need to be compliant.The Government is moving to expose all of these issues. The Prime Minister has worked extensively over recent months to bring forward resolutions to these issues and we would expect that over the next couple of months both this House and the Intelligence and Security Committee will have the opportunity to debate fully the means by which this situation that has arisen can be corrected and more important than that the steps that this Parliament should take in order to upgrade and modernise our system of national security.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in this urgent debate related to the Kitteridge report on the Government Communications Security Bureau. The Government Communications Security Bureau is a very unusual agency in New Zealand. To some extent it is under the control of the New Zealand Government and to some extent it is not and that is I think where a lot of the problem arises.I think it is pretty illuminating as a starting point to quote from David Lange. David Lange was the Prime Minister of course and was responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau some years ago. When Nicky Hager wrote his bookSecret Power exposing the role of the bureau David Lange had this to say in the preface that he wrote for the book. He said about the satellite station at Waihopai that the bureau built—that the New Zealand Government built—“We even went the length of building a satellite station at Waihopai. But it was not until I read this book that I had any idea that we had been committed to an international integrated electronic network.”So the Prime Minister of New Zealand who was responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau at the time the Waihopai spying station was built had no idea what the purpose of the station was. The bureau did not tell him because it is a secretive agency that works mostly for the US spy agencies rather than for the New Zealand Government. And that is just a fact.The thing that Mr Lange went on to say in this book was that “… an astonishing number of people have told him”—that is Nicky Hager—“things that I as Prime Minister in charge of the intelligence services was never told.” The Prime Minister was kept in the dark. David Lange went on to say that “… it is an outrage that I and other ministers were told so little and this raises the question of to whom those concerned saw themselves ultimately answerable.” The truth is of course that the Government Communications Security Bureau sees itself as ultimately answerable to the US spyagencies and that is the problem: the Government Communications Security Bureau is a rogue agency. It does not report to anybody.The Prime Minister does not know what is going on at the Government Communications Security Bureau as the report illustrates. The bureau acts illegally as the report illustrates—that is as I think Bill English was just saying it did not pay very close attention to its compliance with the law. To put it mildly it acted illegally.It is an agency that does not really have any parliamentary oversight. There is no parliamentary committee that looks over the intelligence services. There is the Intelligence and Security Committee but it does not have any power to see what the bureau is doing. There is the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who has a woeful record of not providing any proper oversight of what the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau are up to and it means that the bureau and the SIS are free to do as they want. And what they want to do is engage in unlawful activities it turns out as we have discovered from this report.The reason why this matters so much is that it goes to the heart of fundamental rights and freedoms for New Zealanders. When you think about it do you want to live in a society where you have these rogue State agencies looking at all of your emails and you have these rogue State agencies opening all of your correspondence spying on you listening to all of your phone calls monitoring all of your internet use and breaking into your house and putting bugs in your house? These are the activities that these agencies undertake lawfully or unlawfully. These are the kinds of activities that the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS actually do.So ordinary New Zealanders if you were to think about it what kind of bar would you have that would make it acceptable for the State to so breach your fundamental rights and freedoms that the State could break into your house and put a bug in your house and the State could monitor all of your emails and all your conversations on the telephone? The bar has to be very very high if you are to let the State engage in those kinds of activities. The problem is that because nobody is watching what the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS get up to nobody knows whether the bar is being met for SIS and bureau activities.There is insufficient oversight as this report amply demonstrates to double-check on the people who are supposed to be watching. There is a Minister in theory who is supposed to be watching what goes on inside the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS. The Minister is clearly either asleep at the wheel or just does not care what is going on inside the bureau and the SIS and is letting them get on with their business. From my point of view when you are talking about fundamental rights and freedoms having a Prime Minister who is asleep at the wheel in his job as the only democratic official having oversight over the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS is unacceptable. There is only one democratically elected official who has oversight over the security agencies and that is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister has manifestly failed to do his job. That is his job and he has completely failed to do it.Obviously the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has failed to do his job as well. There is no question about that. It is as plain as day.This also cuts to the Prime Minister’s role as the head of the SIS and not only the SIS but also the Government Communications Security Bureau. Let us remember that the interception warrants that were signed off so that the illegal activities that the bureau did could take place were signed by John Key. John Key signed the interception warrants as the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service and then the other ministry that he is responsible for illegally implemented those interception warrants.Hon Gerry Brownlee: How many of the 88 were signed by Helen Clark? That was OK was it?Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: That is the basic truth. Now we hear the shouting from the Minister who does not like the truth as usual. But I am sorry Mr Gerry Brownlee it is just the fact that is in the report. It is simply in the report that the Prime Minister signed the interception warrants that were illegally implemented by the bureau. You do not like it but it happens to be true. So the Prime Minister—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I didn’t like it when Helen Clark did it either.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Mr Gerry Brownlee brings up the previous Government. I fully agree that the previous Government was as culpable because it put through the legislation which the National Party supported. It put through the legislation as did the National Party. It supported it. You voted for it did you not Mr Brownlee?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do not bring me into the debate.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Yes that member voted for it. So the National Party voted for the legislation as well as the Labour Government which pushed it through even though the Green Party at the time warned that if you set up spying agencies that do not have oversight they will abuse their rights—and it has become so. What this report shows is that if you set up an agency like this that does not have proper oversight it will abuse its rights. That is exactly what it has done—abuse the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders rather than protect them—and that is a tragedy.I was saddened to hear the Deputy Prime Minister criticise section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act and I think it is important to read out section 14 “Interceptions not to target domestic communications”. It states: “Neither the Director nor an employee of the Bureau nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person … who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.” Parliament chose to put a very clear legislative direction in place. It is in black and white. The Government Communications Security Bureau and the National Party come along now and say that it is not very clear. For anyone reading this section of the Act it is patently clear that what the bureau did was illegal and unlawful. It is in black and white. You have only to read the Act. Parliament purposefully chose to constrain the bureau and prevent it from spying on New Zealanders and then while John Key was supposed to be providing protection the bureau went ahead and spied on New Zealanders and broke the law.So it seems to me that we need a fundamental reform of the oversight of these agencies and the agencies themselves. If we are to have these kinds of Draconian authoritarian dictatorial powers in the hands of a State agency that breaches the highest levels of our rights and our freedoms then there needs to be very strong oversight. There needs to be very powerful justification for any agency to exercise these kinds of powers and there needs to be very powerful oversight. So far we have not had that oversight and—surprise surprise—the agency which is not being monitored by the democratically elected officials who have that job has abused its power and acted illegally to spy on New Zealanders in spite of that.It seems to me that if we are to protect freedom and democracy in our society we have to keep the spy agencies in check in order to protect those fundamental rights and freedoms. The present Government has clearly failed to do that and based on this report it clearly appears that the previous Government failed to do that—to keep the spy agencies in check. The Green Party will keep pushing to make sure that that happens.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): The Government Communications Security Bureau issue has been an utter fiasco from beginning to end and no one not even theNational Party can deny it. The National Party cannot deny that this has been an utter fiasco. Today in this Parliament during question time I tabled the time line of the coincidences that have occurred with the Government Communications Security Bureau with the SIS—Hon Tau Henare: No you didn’t.ANDREW WILLIAMS: —yes I did—with Warner Bros with the Motion Picture Association of America and with the Prime Minister and other Ministers. And quite frankly this has been a litany of cover-up throughout.Here at the heart of Government we have seen a litany of failure and incompetence and John Key was right at the centre of it. He is full of blame for the whole affair and he is trying to wash his hands of it from afar in China. It is worse than a disgrace; it is an appalling breakdown in an agency that works behind closed doors that works hidden from public scrutiny. It is the one agency in this country that handles our international intelligence affairs. It is answerable to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself has been found sadly lacking. It is appalling management of the agency and appalling governance of it. Quite frankly if he held to his own standards when he was the Leader of the Opposition—he said he would hold his Ministers to the highest level of account—if he was to hold himself to the same highest levels of account by now he would have tendered his resignation. Quite frankly if any other Ministers had performed so badly in overseeing a department—and at this stage I rule out the likes of Hekia Parata and Gerry Brownlee with the Christchurch situation because they are probably close to it—if any other Ministers had been so incompetent such as the Prime Minister in overseeing the Government Communications Security Bureau by now they would have been stood down; by now they would have been stood down.The mess must be cleaned up and it must be cleaned up fast. That calls for the Prime Minister to admit his culpability and that he is simply not up to the task of having oversight of this agency.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Tell us what the problem is.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Patches and quick fixes will not do; we are beyond that. The Hon Gerry Brownlee asks how we will fix it. Well we will fix it by having a proper independent judicial inquiry. That means taking it out of the hands of the Ministers with all the vested interests. That means taking it out of the hands of the Ministers who are highlighted here with their paw prints all over the time line and putting it in the hands of an independent High Court judge to independently review this whole process. Sending in Ms Kitteridge the Prime Minister’s Secretary of the Cabinet is hardly an inquiry. That is sending in your person to get the answers that you require to find out something that will help sort yourself out to get yourself out of a mess.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do not bring the Speaker into the debate.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Sorry Mr Speaker not yourself but the Prime Minister. It was to get the Prime Minister out of the mess.The former Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau Sir Bruce Ferguson who has a long and distinguished military career this week has said that the Prime Minister must be smoking something. He said that the Prime Minister must be smoking dope. He must be smoking dope. For somebody like Sir Bruce Ferguson—and I know Sir Bruce from his days in the air force—to make a comment like that is extraordinary. There has never been in this country a situation where somebody who has held such a high office in the Civil Service has said that the Prime Minister must have been smoking dope. Quite frankly perhaps that question must be asked of the Prime Minister. Was he smoking dope? Because he seems to have an incredibly poor memory. He seems to have an incredibly poor memory. We all know that people who smoke a lot of dope tend to have a very poor memory. So the question that needs to beasked as Sir Bruce Ferguson said is whether the Prime Minister is a dope smoker. Is he a dope smoker? He seems to have a shocking memory or a conveniently shocking memory when it comes to important facts.This is the same John Key who in his own electorate of Helensville did not realise that there is a 250 kilogram German—the size of a German tank—living in his own electorate. He did not realise that this guy the wealthiest man in his electorate—wealthier than John Key himself—was living in his electorate. It is unbelievable that he did not know. But is there a pattern here? It also beggars belief that John Key does not recall meeting Mr Tsujihara in Hollywood.Mike Sabin: Who’s that?ANDREW WILLIAMS: Mr Tsujihara happened to be the director of the Motion Picture Association of America and conveniently was involved in the anti-piracy programme for Warner Bros to stop the likes of Dotcom operating in New Zealand. But conveniently the Prime Minister cannot remember actually having a meeting with Mr Tsujihara and the Acting Prime Minister today could not answer four of my questions on the subject.Again you sort of wonder: is it not convenient that he cannot remember meeting with the Government Communications Security Bureau he cannot remember the briefings he cannot remember a 250 kilogram German in his electorate—he cannot remember all sorts of things. It is incredible. But what you do have to wonder is where the leak came from. Where did the leak come from? Is it maybe finally that other Ministers within the National Government have woken up to the fact that their Achilles heel is one Mr John Key? Have they woken up to the fact and thought “Ah!” as happens in many countries when the boss is away overseas. When do you go for the jugular? You wait until they are overseas and then you shaft them—and then you shaft them. It is almost coincidental that the minute John Key puts his foot on the soil in China—the minute he puts it on there—somehow the Kitteridge document gets leaked. Did it come from the eighth floor? Did it come from the seventh floor? Did it come from the sixth floor? Gerry what floor are you on?Hon Gerry Brownlee: A floor you’re never going to be on fella!ANDREW WILLIAMS: Did it come from your floor Gerry? Tony—did it come from your floor Tony? Whose floor did it come from? Somebody over there leaked the document. It came from somebody who has got higher aspirations and would dearly love their beloved leader to not come back from China—and certainly not come back from China as the Prime Minister.So it is very clear—it is very clear—that something has got to be done here. Bill English the Acting Prime Minister today said the appointment to the Government Communications Security Bureau is the Prime Minister’s appointment. At the end of the day that is correct but it is not the Prime Minister’s prerogative to go out and shoulder-tap people—his mates—for the appointment. We still in this country have an independent Civil Service. We still in this country pride ourselves as being recognised after Finland—Gerry you would know this—as the second least corrupt country in the world. Gerry you should know that. In this situation this Prime Minister is bringing that into disrepute. He is seriously undermining our Civil Service and the independence of our Civil Service.New Zealand First calls for an independent judicial inquiry. Let us get to the bottom of the Government Communications Security Bureau. Let us stop the cover-up let us stop the litany of lies and let us find out exactly what is happening behind the smoke and mirrors of this National Government.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): These are serious issues and they deserve better than the drivel we have just listened to from Andrew Williams.These are important issues and as Alan Martin would say it is the putting right that counts. The great thing about what has happened here is that a secretive spy agency has been exposed to sunlight has been exposed to a cold hard review and that is what I want to focus on this afternoon. I certainly do not want to focus on the unprofessional comments of Sir Bruce Ferguson who was seen deep in conversation with Geoffrey Palmer on Lambton Quay this afternoon. I certainly do not intend this afternoon to comment on the role of “H3” as he then was when he served Helen Clark and Heather Simpson on level nine. What did Mr Robertson know and when did he know it? He is the one who had quite a number of interactions with the Government Communications Security Bureau when he was “H3” and it is going to be very interesting to explore that issue in the months to come.What I want to focus on—and focusing on principles not personalities—are two issues. The first is the 2003 legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau Act. Mr Goff was one of those nodding automatons in the Cabinet committee who approved the bill for introduction. The fact of the matter is that this legislation was drafted when Helen Clark was Prime Minister. It went through Parliament very quickly. It was a classic case of legislative negligence quite frankly. It was drafted by the Government Communications Security Bureau. It was not tested independently.Grant Robertson: Who voted for it?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government Communications Security Bureau assumptions and advice were relied on and it was a totally unsatisfactory way of making law for which I say to Mr Robertson that all parties in this House bear some responsibility although I do observe—I do observe—that the Labour Party at that time was riding triumphant. It had 52 seats although over the detested foreshore and seabed legislation it was shortly to lose a few members. We had 27 but we stand up and say that in so far as we voted for it there are questions that looking forward we do need to address because the legislation is poorly drafted. Section 14 which the Green co-leader Russel Norman relied on is clear enough on its terms but then you go to the definition of what is a “foreign person” or a “foreign organisation” and there are difficult questions.Grant Robertson: Very clear-cut.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They are matters that were identified—well I suggest and I am quite happy to talk off-line to Mr Robertson about the definition of “foreign organisation” because it is not clear. Go to the passage and look at it and the member will find that his superficial third-rate analysis is inadequate.The other thing that needs to be addressed is that the legislation needs to be redrafted but we also need to look at issues of compliance—issues that go back for years. Frankly when I read the Kitteridge report I was not at all happy because the Act is one thing but there was no reference in the legal section of the Government Communications Security Bureau to any other legislation. There was no reference to clear international law texts. There was no reference to jurisprudence—for example the Supreme Court judgment recently on the issue of spying in the Ureweras theHamedcase was not referred to. And it is important—and I say this in answer to some of the questions that were being raised this afternoon by the Green Party co-leader about the Crown Law Office involvement because he is right: the Crown Law Office is there to provide authoritative legal advice for the Crown and it is very important for every public sector organisation to keep close to that organisation. But as the report says on page 25 it did not. Twelve opinions were provided by Crown Law to the Government Communications Security Bureau between 1988 and September 2012—24 years—and only three dealt with operational matters but in the last 6 months 10 opinions have been provided.So quite frankly there is a lot to be learnt from this exercise but the legal compliance the fundamental primer 1 compliance that Sir Bruce Ferguson and others should have been looking at over the years did not happen and it is totally unsatisfactory. For all the cries and the screams and as I said the adolescent piffle that we heard from Andrew Williams let us get down to what the issues are and what the issues are not. It is important to get this right going forward. It is very good that this secretive organisation has been exposed to sunlight and as I said it is the putting right that counts.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Talking of negligence one wonders what role the Attorney-General did not play in advice to the Prime Minister. He is full of sound and fury now but was obviously pretty silent when it came to giving advice to the Prime Minister from July last year through to very recently.Some members of this House will be well aware of that comic stripSpy vs. Spy. It was first seen in theMadmagazine in about 1961. I am pleased to say it is still going. It is great political satire and many of us have had a good laugh over the years. Well I have to say that in New Zealand over the past 2 weeks we have seen behaviour straight out of theMad magazine. If it was not so serious you could have believed that the whole thing was a political spoof or political satire.I mean we have just heard from the Attorney-General about conspiracy theories—someone was seen talking to someone up Lambton Quay. Well I believe that most of us who walk up Lambton Quay meet somebody we know—maybe people we do not even like—and we might even talk to them. But heavens this is now a conspiracy! But I have to say I thought the whole thing was summed up this week in a cartoon by Emmerson. Here it is. It says: “Spy vs. Lie”. Here we have the Government Communications Security Bureau as the black spy and here we have John Key as the white spy saying: “Psst! I think they’re on to us.” Well I think that sums it up.John Key has to get the award for the best shimmy in living memory because he has been caught out. He has been caught out on his terminological inexactitudes over Dotcom. He got caught out on his less than honest answers about the appointment of the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau. He said on Tuesday: “I hardly knew him.” He said on Thursday: “Well our mums were friends.” And in the following week he said: “Well you know I did know him a bit better. He knew my brother.” It has been a moving feast as to whether he knew him or whether he did not know him. The truth is that he knew him well enough to have his number in his telephone book. I have to say I do not think I have got any of my primary school friends’ numbers in my phone. I did have a quick look to see whether I had any. I have not got them but he does. He does not know him very well he hardly remembers him but there is the telephone number.He also got exposed over the dates and the times that he knew about illegal spying on 88 New Zealanders. He got confused over what he knew and where and how. It is really hard for him to keep up with the very tangled web that he has woven around this whole issue. Now he has performed a beautiful political shimmy. He has shifted the blame from himself and his inadequacy on to inadequate legislation. This is legislation that we heard from the Attorney-General is inadequate that is very badly drafted that the National Party voted for that it looked at at the select committee and supported and that has been in place since 2003.I have to say that if you use the Prime Minister’s standard of behaviour he must step down from his position as the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau. He ought to stand down right away if he is to follow through with his own standard. After all think of the standard he applied to Nick Smith to Pansy Wong toRichard Worth to Phil Heatley and to Kate Wilkinson. He would be gone before breakfast if he applied that standard to his behaviour in terms of this whole issue.He is the only Prime Minister in the last decade who has been told that his agency was spying illegally—the only Prime Minister who has been told this and that is a fact. He was told in July last year. He covered it up for 9 long months. It only came out in the Kitteridge report. Did he do something about it as we have asked today? Did he move to stop it spying illegally? No he did not. He hoped it would not come out and he covered it up for 9 months. He had no plan in place as to what he was going to do. He put the issue on the back-burner because he wanted to have all those photo opportunities over in China but he got caught out. He got caught out and New Zealanders I believe cannot have confidence in a leader with his record. They cannot have confidence in a leader who cannot remember who cannot perform and who covers up.Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): It is worth reflecting on what the key issues are associated with this debate and with this issue. There is a role for the Government Communications Security Bureau in New Zealand—that is agreed by virtually all parties in this Parliament—and the previous Government brought in legislation in the early 2000s to legitimise this. In the legislation they made it very express that the bureau was not to spy on New Zealanders. That is what they did in that legislation. But there was another piece of legislation that also said that the bureau could work with other agencies as appropriate. So this comes down to a fine legal point of two potentially conflicting features of legislation: working with other agencies or not surveilling New Zealanders. That was the issue. What has come out of this case and out of the Kitteridge report are those issues—that fine contrast between those two cases.Clearly what has happened here is the Government Communications Security Bureau has been working with other agencies at their request believing as it did that the law provided it with the scope to do that. So it then assisted those other agencies with their work on people whom those other agencies had legitimate authority of one sort or another to monitor or surveil or do whatever they were doing with them. Those agencies that had those people in their sights had a legitimate and legal right to surveil monitor or do whatever they were doing with those people. They then asked the bureau because of its unique equipment and skills to support them in that work. The bureau believed because of its interpretation of the law that it was entitled to support those agencies. It is not a question of the bureau illegally surveilling a number of New Zealanders. It is a question of the fact that they thought that in support of the other agencies that were legally monitoring or surveilling these individuals they were doing what they were doing in a lawful way.What has clearly come out of the Kitteridge report is the fact that there is this confusion over the legislation and that needs to be dealt with—and the Prime Minister has said as much. But those cases now the so-called 88 are being referred to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who is the legal authority to determine whether or not there has been a breach of the legislation. That is set out in the law. It is up to the inspector-general to decide whether or not there has been illegality. What we know from the Kitteridge report is that there are questions over that legality resulting from the lack of clarity now about the two legal provisions. That is what it is about here.It is quite wrong for Opposition members to make the comments that they do. How do we know that the Prime Minister is the only Prime Minister whom these issues were ever raised with? How do we know? How do we know whether this was the case? How do we know whether Sir Bruce Ferguson never raised it with Helen Clark? How do we know whether this happened or not? What we do know is that this hinges on a very technical interpretation of two clauses in the law. That is what the Kitteridge report says and that is why the inspector-general will investigate those. That is what is set outin the law. It is clear that in the case of the 88 people who were being surveilled or monitored it was being done with the proper legal authority of the agencies that were doing that. The law does allow the SIS to spy on New Zealanders—OK. So those people were allowed to be spied on. The confusion relates to the legal provisions that allowed the Government Communications Security Bureau to assist the SIS and other agencies. That happened under Labour and it happened under National. It will fall to National to work with other parties in this Parliament to fix those provisions. It is a very fine technical point established in the Kitteridge report.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): It gives me pleasure to follow my colleague Tony Ryall who I think has laid out very clearly the real issues that we are facing here today. Firstly it is important that we understand that the New Zealand SIS is able to spy on New Zealanders if there is a warrant which means there is a court process and if in order to get that it has very good reasons to suspect that people are up to nefarious activities. So the New Zealand SIS is entitled to spy on New Zealanders. Under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act which has been in place now for 10 years—and we have heard my colleagues in this House explain that yes it was passed under Labour in 2003—there was a provision put in that said the bureau could not spy on New Zealanders. But the practice was continued. The bureau and organisations like the New Zealand SIS the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Defence Force believed the practice was legal because of some legal technicalities and that the bureau could use the very expert technology skills and resources that it has to act as agents for those other organisations. Those other organisations would have the legal right to spy on or surveil or monitor individuals in New Zealand or organisations in New Zealand that they had evidence that a court had agreed was sufficient to enable that monitoring. So this was an attempt to act on behalf of and to use the surveillance mechanisms that they have in place. And everyone believed they were acting within the law—everyone. That has happened for the last 10 years under both the previous Labour Government and under this New Zealand National Government.The second issue that I think needs to be put in play here as we look at what the issues are and how we resolve them is that we are in a very different world technologically today and as a result of the increasing developments in technology we face from a cyber-security perspective much different threats than we faced even 10 years ago when the Government Communications Security Bureau Act was passed through this House. So we have agencies that are dealing with a whole range of different organisations and methods of committing cyber-crime that perhaps were not envisaged 10 years ago. I think those are the two issues: first of all that we have legislation that does allow interception monitoring of New Zealanders and that people believed that they were acting in good faith and within the bounds of the law.I think we in New Zealand are very lucky that we have a Prime Minister like John Key who when it was brought to his attention that there was some doubt as to whether these practices were legal and the risks that we ran if they were not legal took immediate action. He put in Rebecca Kitteridge to do an enormous review of the Government Communications Security Bureau in order to make sure that that organisation was well positioned both legally and capacity wise to deal with the real threats that the modern world poses to New Zealand. I think the Kitteridge review which is a very hard-hitting pull-no-punches review is excellent. I have no doubt that this House given the comments that have been made today wants to address the issues and I look forward to the support in this House for putting right the legislation that will enable those organisations that have the responsibility for ensuring the security of New Zealand to get on and do their jobs and be confident that they are acting within the law.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): There are two problems with the Kitteridge report. The first is that the Kitteridge report does not examine the critical issue which was the role of John Key in exercising his ministerial responsibility to have oversight of the Government Communications Security Bureau. It cannot do that. It was unfair to expect Rebecca Kitteridge to do that. She is Secretary of the Cabinet. She is having day-to-day meetings with the Prime Minister. Is that why the Prime Minister chose a person who could not go to the heart of this problem and say: “Why was the Minister responsible for the GCSB unable to do his job of exercising adequate and proper oversight of this agency?”You know we give our spy agencies incredible power. We need them—people have talked about cyber-attacks and that is quite right—but they have incredible power and they exercise that power with total secrecy. We therefore rely on the Minister responsible for the GCSB to make sure that safeguards checks and balances are in place to ensure that that agency behaves legitimately under the law and in a proper way. I have to say this: John Key failed absolutely in that responsibility.Hon Anne Tolley: Rubbish!Hon PHIL GOFF: I remember John Key as Prime Minister in 2009 Anne Tolley coming into this House and saying that he would expect higher standards of his Ministers. Those higher standards surely need to involve competence they need to involve a readiness to exercise proper oversight and they need to involve a readiness to be open and transparent. On every one of those criteria John Key failed. By his own standards he should have sacked himself as Minister responsible for the GCSB. He failed on every one of those fronts.But there is a second thing that the Kitteridge report fails to do. The Kitteridge report fails to go to the heart of where this affair began which was the raid on Kim Dotcom’s house. The first thing we know about that is that we went in with a combination of the Keystone Cops and Rambo—I do not know which is more appropriate as a description—with helicopters and the Special Tactics Group—Hon Chester Borrows: You Labour guys love the police eh?Hon PHIL GOFF: —full use of force and for what Mr Borrows? And for what? To issue an extradition warrant for copyright infringement!Can anybody in the world believe that the New Zealand Minister of Police allowed her police to go in fully armed with helicopters as if it was an attack on Hanoi during the Viet Nam War all to serve an extradition warrant and to seize a couple of computers? It was bizarre. You know probably the police and the Government Communications Security Bureau wanted to impress their colleagues in the United States the FBI. Far from impressing them sadly they showed their utter incompetence in the way they carried out that role and I hold the Government Ministers responsible for their failure of oversight.Secondly they went in in this dramatic way without the legal authority to do so. A High Court judge in this country Justice Helen Winkelmann found that they had no right of search or seizure and they had an invalid warrant. So when Chris Finlayson as the Attorney-General gets up to spout in this House I want to know why there was so much incompetence and how you could conduct a raid that will make New Zealand liable for tens of millions of dollars in legal suits from Kim Dotcom. I want to know why there was so much incompetence and why there is not an inquiry into that facet.Then there is the third aspect of that raid and that is that Kim Dotcom and a number of other people were subjected to a month of covert surveillance without there being the legal right to conduct that surveillance. That is correct Mr Brownlee is it not? There was no legal right to conduct that surveillance. They said they did it on the basis Mr Brownlee that they did not know that he was a New Zealand resident. But theImmigration Service had told them that very shortly afterwards and your Government concealed it from the public—it told them that they had acted illegally but your Government concealed it from the public.But John Key concealed something much worse than that. For the first time a Minister in charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service was told that there had been spying for a significant period of time in a comprehensive way and that the legal authority to do that was in doubt. John Key was told that in July.Hon Gerry Brownlee: 19th of March.Hon PHIL GOFF: How do I know he was told that in July? Because he said so yesterday in his press statement. He was told that in July. Then for 9 long months he sat on that. He did not just sit on it—when he was asked in September whether this was an isolated incident he said yes it was an isolated incident. John Key knew he was not telling the truth. He knew that he was not telling the truth. He had known since July that there had been a pattern of activity that was illegal. And did he tell the New Zealand public? Not a word for 9 months. For 9 months he kept that from the public.John Key has a parliamentary committee the Intelligence and Security Committee which should have the right to know that sort of information. During that 9 months did he call the committee together to give the parliamentary oversight that that committee was set up to provide and tell it the truth? No he did not. So John Key needs to come into this House and say why he would not front up to the New Zealand public and why he would not front up to the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee and tell them the truth about what the agency that he as a Minister is responsible for was actually doing.But there is more to it than that. Can we really believe that John Key did not know anything about what was happening in the biggest operation that New Zealand has mounted in association with the United States on New Zealand soil involving the Ministry of Justice involving the Crown Law Office involving the Police involving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and involving the Government Communications Security Bureau? Can we really believe that as being credible?Can we then believe that the Government Communications Security Bureau for months and months and months never told him the truth about the illegality of the actions? Well you know there are a couple of explanations. One is dishonesty and incompetence and an arrogant disregard for the rights of New Zealanders to know. Sir Bruce Ferguson came up with another explanation and he said it publicly. That is very unusual for a top civil servant. He loyally served the country for four decades. He said: “When I dealt with John Key he wasn’t interested in what we were doing.” But that does not explain why he was never told by Ian Fletcher because Ian Fletcher was the man whom he had personally hand-picked in breach of the normal procedures of the State Services Commission to put in—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not true.Hon PHIL GOFF: It is true and Iain Rennie made it clear that it was highly unusual for him to do that. That isYes Minister talk for: “I was astonished and I was shocked that he did it.” He went in and he hand-picked his own person to head the Government Communications Security Bureau. He did not just hand-pick the person. There was only one interview—one interview—and they chose the person who interviewed best. One interview—that really smells.The Prime Minister is meant to be the Minister in charge of that agency. He is meant to know what is going on and he is meant to hold it accountable and he failed on every front. But can we believe this too? Bill English signed a ministerial warrant covering up the role of the Government Communications Security Bureau in this affair. That has never been done in New Zealand’s history before—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Tell us about Bruce Ferguson.Hon PHIL GOFF: —Chris Finlayson. It has never been done. Can you really believe that Bill English took an unprecedented step acting as Prime Minister and never told John Key when he came back to New Zealand that he had signed this warrant covering the matter up? It has never been done in history and he did not bother to tell John Key? Hey pull the other arm. Nobody believes that.The fact is that this affair smells. It smells in every aspect. There have been too many brain fades. There have been too many lies by omission. There have been too many times when the Government has not been prepared to be open and transparent. As Chris Finlayson quoted before Oliver Wendell Holmes said that “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” and what we need is a full and independent inquiry to allow the sun to shine in on this murky affair.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): This is a serious issue but that was a very sad speech from Phil Goff. It was a sad speech on a number of points. Firstly a great deal of it was simply fanciful made up by Phil Goff to suit the mantra of the Labour Party. He is a man who was formerly the chairman of the Cabinet external relations and defence committee and who also sat on the Intelligence and Security Committee and therefore for a very long time presided over the illegal activities that have affected 88 New Zealanders since 2003. He comes into this House and starts pointing the finger at the current Prime Minister who has had the courage to say: “No more. We’re sending in someone to make an inquiry so we find out exactly where the weaknesses are so we can sort it out.”The Labour Party knows that this is a minor issue. It knows that it is a fine point of law that we are dealing with and if Labour was really serious then today it would not have had Grant Robertson request the special debate; it would have had its leader David Shearer request the special debate. Why did Labour not get David Shearer to lead the debate today? Well the problem is that the first speech is a 15-minute speech and Labour could not guarantee that by the time David Shearer got to the end of it he would remember what the debate was about. Phil Goff over there talks about forgetfulness and about omissions and all the rest of it. Well the biggest forgetful moment in this House—the greatest omission in this House—demonstrated this year is the secret bank account of David Shearer which he still will not tell New Zealanders about.What you have got is essentially a party trying to create a degree of outrage over what is a very fine point of confusion between the two spy agencies in New Zealand. The Security Intelligence Service can with a warrant spy on New Zealanders. It can intercept. It can surveil. What it has done for years for decades is in fact get hold of the Government Communications Security Bureau to do that listening capability. That is where the problem has come from because the Government Communications Security Bureau does not have the legal right to do that. That is what this report from Rebecca Kitteridge makes very clear and the Government response is that that will be cleared up.I want to turn also to a couple of points that Miss Kitteridge has put in her report that I think are particularly important. She says: “The time I have spent within GCSB has left me in no doubt that New Zealand needs this organisation now more than ever. The increasing threat of cyber attacks and the protective role GCSB plays is one part of this story but GCSB does a wide range of other things that are essential to the well-being and prosperity of New Zealand.” That is a very powerful statement from someone who went into the organisation wanting to know where the bad bits were and what the good bits were. When the report is boiled right down we get to that very fine legal point that can be fixed up.What we have heard from the Labour Party is it is throwing in all sorts of other red herrings particularly around the appointment of the new chief executive—the chief spy if you like—of New Zealand Mr Ian Fletcher. Can I say for a start that I was fascinated by the speech from Russel Norman where he decided—Chris Auchinvole: Ha!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well it does not happen very often but it did on this occasion. He decided to quote from David Lange’s book where he said in that book effectively that when he was Prime Minister he had no idea what theGovernment Communications Security Bureau was up to that it would not tell him anything and that it just went about its business as if he did not exist. Well the odd thing is that he got to appoint the chief spy. So I want to know why he appointed someone who would not tell him what was going on. What that shows I think is a general omission that you get from the left of politics in New Zealand which wants to say that the rights of criminals are just as great as the rights of those who are offended against. I for one do not accept that.When it comes right down to it the appointment is made by the Prime Minister. I cannot for 1 minute believe that Helen Clark did not make a personal approach to Sir Bruce Ferguson. I believe that Mr Key has in identifying Mr Fletcher recognised that he needs someone from way outside the system not someone who is sort of in the club and part of the network but someone who is very very far and remote from it who has an excellent Public Service record in other jurisdictions and who can come in and clean up the outfit. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that this is an essential organisation for New Zealand and that it must continue to exist.I think the other things that have been mentioned this afternoon have all been designed to perhaps get the media excited about little bits of this and little bits of that losing sight of the big challenge that this organisation has. I turn again to Miss Kitteridge’s report at point 183 which says: “My belief in the importance of the work carried out by the men and women at GCSB has only increased as this review has proceeded. The world is becoming more complex and physical borders are less relevant. The nature of the threats to national security is shifting so rapidly that keeping up with them is a challenge—let alone getting ahead.”So let us be clear. We have the Security Intelligence Service surveilling some New Zealanders because presumably they were identified as being ratbags and up to things that were not good for this country were not good for our economy were not good for wider prosperity and were unreasonable for New Zealanders to have to put up with. To help it in that work the Security Intelligence Service effectively contracted the Government Communications Security Bureau to do the listening side of that surveillance.That was not legal. That is well accepted. That is noted. The Prime Minister knew formally of that on 19 March this year and I think has acted appropriately ever since. The outrage that you get from the other side of the House is somewhat laughable.Can I just point to the comments that came from the New Zealand First Party. There has never been a party in this Parliament that has been softer on crime than New Zealand First—utterly pathetic always on the side of the criminal always wanting to put forward the rights of the so-called oppressed in the justice system. The member who spoke Andrew Williams talked about the lack of memory that seems in his opinion to have characterised this whole saga. Well I have simply got to say one thing to him. Go back to the office Mr Williams. Go into Mr Peters’ office and say: “What was it that made you forget a $100000 donation to the New Zealand First Party and then go out publicly and say that you forgot about it?”. This is a serious issue of the pot calling the kettle black.No one’s history in this particular issue is good. Since 2003 when the Government Communications Security Bureau was finally put into a legislative framework there has been a series of illegal surveillances carried out. No one denies that but it is quite reasonable that there could have been a mistake or a misunderstanding between the two sides the two agencies of State in this particular case.In conclusion my point is simply this. The Labour Party has had an enormous amount of fun over the last few weeks trying to ramp this up into something that it is not. It is one of those things that has unfortunately happened but it has been exposed and made certain only by the fact that Rebecca Kitteridge was sent by the Prime Minister into the Government Communications Security Bureau to investigate what the situation was. There is a commitment from the Government and a commitment from the Prime Minister that he will talk to other parties. We know that the Labour Party will not support the legislation New Zealand First will not support the legislation and the Greens do not want anybody who does anything illegal to be confronted at all so they will not support the legislation but the sensible parties in this House will pass the legislation in order to make it clear that this sort of activity cannot continue in the future. I think this is all summed up by the fact that the leader of the Labour Party was himself not prepared to lead this debate this afternoon.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.General DebateHon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. That has been a very interesting debate on the Government Communications Security Bureau and what it shows us is that New Zealanders cannot trust this John Key - led National Government. We have seen confidence in this Government reach basement level over the last 2 or 3 weeks. In fact there has been a slow drip drip drip on the stone of confidence now for about the last year. It has reached basement bottom now and why? Because what we have from the National Government is a lot of very arrogant members who are very dismissive of any suggestions ideas or debates that do not suit their ideas. They are very evasive in their answers. In fact in this House I have seen the worst answering of parliamentary questions I have seen in decades and we have also seen diversions. Whenever an issue arises that they are not happy with they set up a diversion. They usually use Paula Bennett to pull out yet one more of her welfare reforms so that they can head off over there bashing up beneficiaries because that always gets a good headline. So what we have got is a Government that cannot be trusted. It would rather not front up to the issues; it would rather divert from them.I think the biggest diversion is the Prime Minister who heads off to China to get plenty of publicity knowing that at home there was a report into the Government Communications Security Bureau that showed he did nothing for 9 months—that he allowed illegal spying to continue on New Zealanders for 9 months. I think it was summed up by theDominion Postwith this headline that said “Illegal spying kept secret for months”—illegal spying kept secret for months. So he heads off to China and he leaves his hapless team here in New Zealand. Only somebody leaked the report. Well I have got a theory about this: Mr Key wanted the report to be leaked. He wanted it to be leaked because poor old Bill English is having to stand up in this House day after day facing a barrage of questions difficult questions that John Key does not want to face. He is hoping that when he gets back from China this might have all blown over and there will be another diversion created by the National Government. Well I can tell Mr Key that this is far too serious for him to think that this is going to go away becausewhat we need to have is an independent inquiry and review of the Government Communications Security Bureau and in my view the SIS and the roles that they play in New Zealand. We need that independent review not some idea that has come from John Key.What did he say on the television this morning? He said he is going to change the law. He said he is going to bring in legislation to allow the Government Communications Security Bureau to legally spy on New Zealanders. Well to begin with he is going to do that with no consultation with anyone in this House. He has not taken it to the very committee that has been set up for him to consult with. He just gets on television and says he is going to change the law and make illegal spying legal. That is not the way you deal with an issue like this. You do not go for the quick-fix fast-draw solution. You work through the issues carefully. Perhaps you might even use the legal brain of Chris Finlayson in this respect but you do not suddenly announce on television that you are going to change the law and the rest of us are all meant to trot along behind. That is not how it is going to be done and we are going to demand in this Parliament across the Opposition that there is a proper review of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS—a proper look at the roles they play. I would be very concerned if we were to put together both those roles because the only countries that I know of that do that are those that have authoritarian Governments that have organisations like the KGB. We have separated out those two roles and we need to look very carefully before we make such changes.New Zealanders have every right to lose confidence in this Government. Illegal spying—what a mess! Then we have all the privacy breaches—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Under your watch.Hon ANNETTE KING: Nick Smith says it was on our watch. Let us deal with that. He is such a brain that he sat in the Opposition looked at the legislation that Labour brought in it went through a select committee and did he vote for it? Yes Nick Smith the brains trust of the National Party voted for it. It was all right then; suddenly it is not. New Zealanders have every right to be very suspicious of this Government.Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): How ironic that we have Annette King a member of the previous Labour Government’s Cabinet who has just sat down in her seat. She happened to be one who put blinkers on over the troubles that were going on with the Government Communications Security Bureau which go right back quite frankly to that time.Hon Annette King: No troubles then.Hon PAULA BENNETT: “No troubles then.” she says—“No troubles then at all.” Has that member then read the report which quite clearly slates it right back over a long period of time—when the blinkers were on ignore what is going on head down.Here you have a Government where the Prime Minister himself calls in one of our most senior civil servants to go in and look at what is happening to present what I thought was a very very in-depth report that actually shows what needs to be done and what is most important. Here we have—she has been playing some cards there but now it is time she got into work—what we see as conspiracy theories from the Opposition that quite frankly do not wash when you read the report and you see what needs to be done. But I say to you that it is quite clear that there are no ideas coming from the other side. Those members are frustrated because they are not making any leeway and they have started clutching at straws which is what we are seeing.This week alone to give you an indication we have seen the biggest fundamental changes to welfare that this country has pretty much ever seen. And what have we had from the Opposition? Not one question. Not one question in Parliament about the biggest welfare reforms that are going through Parliament.We get this sort of faux mock anger occasionally. I notice that Mr Twyford there has found his little mock anger so he stands up and does it. I heard various speeches last night. What I do not hear is solutions and what I do not see is any real heart as to what those members would like to see for people. What it is is all this little bit of mock anger but they do not really mean it—if they can be clear—because actually they know that the public is onside. As much as they would like it they know that there are no big protests in the streets and that actually people are not being kicked out unnecessarily. People are getting the sort of support that they need and deserve when they need it but we are balancing expectations and being fair and reasonable.They know that. Quite frankly the Labour Party New Zealand First and the Greens are hearing that out in the community. So they sort of stand up in here and do the odd little belly dance around welfare reforms but they do not really mean it because if they did mean it they would actually be asking questions in the House. They would actually be doing rallies and they would be doing all sorts of other stuff to try to hold us to account. But quite frankly we could talk about their competence in actually getting their message across. I think it is a combination of competence but actually not really believing it because they know that this country knows and really believes that this Government is on the right track when it comes to welfare reforms supporting people and getting stuff right.Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is not speaking on the subject of this debate. She is talking about—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No the member will sit down. That is a frivolous interjection and I am almost tempted to let the Minister start again—almost.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Are we not in the general debate?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a general debate.Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is a general debate Mr Williams. If you are going to be in this place keep up—yeah? What has actually happened is the urgent debate has stopped and we are now in the general debate where we can traverse—and this is the problem. I mean I am 4½ years in the job. We have now made the biggest fundamental changes that we have ever made to welfare and we are seeing more people get better results.I do not know whether everyone saw theNew Zealand Herald this morning but we have the story of a young man who is actually because of our welfare changes seeing a change in his life. So at 22 years of age he has had it a bit rough at times with four children and he has not been in work before and had the sorts of opportunities he needed. When the one who was under his care was turning 5 we said to him that it was time he looked at work and what could happen. An automotive industry in Palmerston North took him on. They brag about what a great worker he is. He talks about what a difference that has made to his and his children’s lives and how he is turning round his life. That is thanks to the support he has got and the clear expectations about what he can do for his family. Quite frankly Labour does not know what to do with this.Here we are in the general debate—it is Wednesday and this Parliament is sitting—we hear there is the biggest scandal ever and we have how many people sitting on the Opposition benches? You know pretty much none. The cameras will be scanning and they will see that actually Labour’s heart is not in actually standing up as the Opposition. It has been abysmal. It has been a bit of a joke. Those people have to be really willing to stand up and be counted and see themselves as the party that holds—what we are seeing at the moment is a real balance. We are seeing people getting into jobs—and we are.We would like to actually have the “Where are the jobs? Nothing’s happening.” They talk it all down and make it doom and gloom saying: “This is the worst thing that’s ever happened.” I see their headlines where they try to put them out where they say “... biggest boot in guts since ‘91 cuts” “Welfare reforms mark the end of social contract” “Mama is opposed to this all the way” and “Kids need a Government that cares not punishment”. But none of that means anything not even for the paper it is printed on because Opposition members know that this is fair they know that this is reasonable and they know that fundamentally this is making a difference to the families that are most vulnerable in this country. They will see this having the kind of heart—Phil Twyford: You’re wrong and you’ll be gone in 2014. You’ll be gone.Hon PAULA BENNETT: I challenge that member to stand up and campaign on running this stuff back. I challenge that member to go around this country saying that Labour will run back on all of the proposed changes that have now happened and the welfare reforms that have gone through. What has actually happened is we have seen fundamental changes and a difference in families’ lives. We believe in them. They believe in their own abilities. They do not really get into the hand-wringing victimisation stuff that Labour tries to do. We are making a difference and we are seeing results for it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the honourable member Steffan Browning can I just remind members that interjections are predicated on the presumption that members interject on a member who has the call. I have seen two members interjecting on each other when neither has the call. I call the honourable member Steffan Browning.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I would like to speak about the security and intelligence travesty called the Government Communications Security Bureau.Hon Member: Name and party.STEFFAN BROWNING: The failure of Governments to get control and deep oversight of this foreign-dominated intelligence beast and its unsavoury Echelon alliance—and apparently I should state that I am speaking for the Green Party on this. New Zealand as an independent State should have a role in promoting civil rights and peace reducing conflict confronting injustice and protecting the environment. We have shown an example with our nuclear-free policy. However operating the eavesdropping facilities of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s bases at Waihopai and Tangimoana makes a mockery of New Zealanders’ preferred peace-based role in the world.First announced in 1987 Waihopai is operated by the Government Communications Security Bureau in the interests of the foreign powers grouped together in the very super-secret UK-USA agreement known as Echelon. Echelon shares global electronic and signals intelligence among the spy agencies of the US UK Canada Australia and New Zealand. Waihopai’s satellite interception dishes intercept a huge volume of civilian telephone calls telexes faxes email and computer data communications. Waihopai spies variously on Latin America Russia China Japan other Asian neighbours of ours our very close friends in the South Pacific and now illegally also on us—New Zealanders. This material is forwarded on to the major partners in the UK-USA agreement specifically the US National Security Agency the NSA. Mr English in his faux pas today speaking on behalf of the Government Communications Security Bureau would have been a lot more accurate if he had said he was speaking on behalf of the USA.Waihopai’s targets are international civilian communications including the interception of New Zealanders’ international phone calls. New Zealanders will also be really intrigued to know that their mobiles even when they are not speaking on them assuch are effectively Government Communications Security Bureau microphones if that is the will of the spy agencies—or maybe of the Prime Minister.Nicky Hager’s book published back in 1996Secret Power: New Zealand’s Role in the International Spy Network included a foreword by David Lange: “In the mid-1980s we bucked the system. We may have been ahead of our time on matters nuclear but we were out of step with what was called the ‘Western Alliance’. It took a break with the United States and Britain to make the people of New Zealand aware that we were part of an international intelligence organisation which had its roots in a different world order and which could command compliance from us while withholding from us the benefits of others’ intelligence.” He went on: “Life at the time was full of unpleasant surprises. State-sponsored terrorism was a crime against humanity as long as it wasn’t being practiced by the allies when it was studiously ignored. In the national interest it became necessary to say ‘ouch’ and frown and bear certain reprisals of our intelligence partners. We even went the length of building a satellite station at Waihopai.”—in my words for the USA and maybe the UK. Lange continued that “it was not until I read this book that I had any idea that we had been committed to an international integrated electronic network.” So even the Prime Minister of the day did not know what our security chiefs had hooked us into.But now we have got John Key wanting to legitimise his mate Ian Fletcher’s illegal spying on New Zealanders for the USA and it was not just Ian Fletcher; it obviously went on for some time before that. But it suited to carry on for the 88 people that little bit longer until they realised they could not get away with it any longer. Waihopai needs closing down. The Government Communications Security Bureau has been given well over $600 million of taxpayers’ money in the past two decades.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would you be able to just remind the gentleman that it is a general debate and we would not expect to see a member reading a speech—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! No that is not—[Interruption] Order! That is not a point of order. It is a general debate it is a full robust debate and the member is entitled to speak about whatever.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point is about reading straight from a speech in the House. You know that members are not meant to do that apart from for a very technical speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member will be seated. Members should not refer to members reading speeches. That is a matter for the Speaker.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): This afternoon I want to talk about a subject that will affect all of us at some point in our lives. A few days ago I saw a billboard that said that 15 percent of the children born this year will live to be well in excess of 100 years. The issue that that highlighted and highlights for us is the issue of superannuation. This country has been grappling with that issue unsatisfactorily really for the last 30 years.At the last election we saw the position taken by the two major parties which was a polarised extreme in many senses: the National Party saying that the age of entitlement will remain 65 in perpetuity effectively; the Labour Party saying that over a period of time it wishes to raise the age to 67. The problem with both those positions is as follows: one is inflexible and the other imposes a burden on working people to stay in the workforce well beyond the time that they might have planned to retire.We are starting to see a rising tide of public information and public questioning now about the viability of the system. No one is seriously suggesting that we should cut the pension—no one apart from the far right. No one is seriously suggesting a radicalincrease in the age of entitlement. But what people are seeking is more flexibility and more choice and I note with interest a recent newspaper survey that put a couple of propositions before New Zealanders. When people were asked whether they favoured the status quo of 65 raising the qualifying age to 67 or giving people the option of retiring later for a bit more or earlier for a bit less nearly 50 percent—49 percent—favoured the flexible approach. The status quo was favoured by 29 percent and 15 percent wanted to go to 67.Within that survey is the answer to the question that New Zealand confronts and that is why United Future as part of its confidence and supply agreement is promoting the concept of flexible superannuation. A person who makes the choice to retire early at say 60 would get around 65 percent of the core entitlement of New Zealand superannuation the person retiring at 65 would get 100 percent and the person who chose to defer retirement until age 70 or to defer picking up their superannuation would get around 130 percent of the core entitlement. What that recognises is a couple of things: firstly New Zealanders are working longer and secondly—and probably most important in the context of this debate—they want the choice about when they retire. They do not want to be told by the State that they have got to work 2 more years to 67 to qualify. They are uncertain about the viability of 65. They want to be able to arrange their affairs in a way that they can make the choice.What makes this policy even more attractive is that with the increasing uptake of KiwiSaver in years to come we will have many many more New Zealanders qualifying for a KiwiSaver payout at the age of 65. So the argument that is raised by some that you cannot afford to retire early on a reduced rate of superannuation will be diminished by the fact that people actually know that there is a big nest egg coming at 65.Flexible superannuation provides an answer to the issue that confronts New Zealand. It does not cut the overall level of pension expenditure but it certainly stabilises it. It gives New Zealanders more choice about when they retire and people who feel that they are physically exhausted long before 65 can make some plans with certainty about picking up superannuation at a reduced rate at an earlier time. Others who feel hale and hearty or who are in a position where they are financially independent could well choose to work later and then pick up their superannuation later.There will be within the next few months a discussion paper issued publicly as part of our confidence and supply agreement inviting public feedback on this issue. But what I note with interest is the overwhelming support that the newspaper poll indicated already before this issue has really had a huge amount of traction in the public. I note also the interest that I have had from the Leader of the Opposition and from Government Ministers.This is an idea whose time is rapidly coming. New Zealanders know that things have got to change. If you go back 50 years the age profile in New Zealand was the classic Christmas tree. Now it looks much more like a lamppost. It is probably going to become more like an inverted Christmas tree in the future. What we have to do now is plan for that time and put in place a sensible approach to superannuation that is sustainable and that will last for future generations and Flexi Super is that answer.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Today 1300 food service workers who work in our public hospitals were told by the Minister of Health Tony Ryall and this Government that they are just back-office workers—just back-office workers. These are the 1300 workers up and down the country in every hospital in small towns and large who prepare cook and serve meals to hospital patients—those people who are in hospital relying on decent nutritious and healthy food in their recovery after illness or surgery. That comment from the Minister Tony Ryall shows just how much regard this Government has for hard-working New Zealanders who are out there doing their besttrying to do their best for the community and their families and that is why we cannot trust the John Key - led Government. Those people from what Tony Ryall said today are just figures on paper. They are not real people; they are dollars to be mined on an already stretched budget. There are no worries no concerns about the families and communities that will be affected no concerns about what will happen to those hard-working New Zealanders and their families and no worries that there are another 1300 jobs on the line to add to the thousands and thousands that are part of this Government’s disgraceful record of job loss and failure to do anything about it.Today the Minister and the Government not only demonstrated their ignorance about the work that our food service workers do in our public hospitals but also demonstrated their complete ignorance about the difference between contracting in and contracting out. Let us be clear. This is not about food service workers in hospitals working for contractors as indeed many already do; this is about closing hospital kitchens and having food shipped in from central food production factories in Christchurch and Wellington and heated up like TV dinners in the wards. There is already a preferred provider being indicated which is multinational company Compass. What is indicated is that it will have a 15-year contract so no one else will get a look-in. This proposal will be in place by the end of the year. Compass is proposing to use its product called Steamplicity which is pretty common in the UK. You do not have to go far online to find out all of the issues there have been about food in hospitals in the UK but they are currently trialling it at Hillmorton Hospital. I am told that even the potatoes there are imported from Holland. In a country like New Zealand it is importing even the potatoes.At the same time this is happening when the Government is proposing to make major changes to the laws that protect food service workers in hospitals and throughout the country and that is with the changes to Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act which I understand will be introduced very shortly. But it is typical because the Government always picks on the lowest paid when it comes to changes. It always goes after the food service workers. It always goes after the cleaners. It always goes after the orderlies.It has done it before. We have been down this path before and it has failed. In 1993 when that member Nick Smith was in Government a National Government brought into New Zealand a new company called Tempo Services. It came to town promising hospitals and the Government massive savings on food service production and cleaning. What we saw was large-scale job losses—massive job losses—and cuts to pay and hours of work. It even subcontracted its work to another catering operation to avoid rights. In 1995 it changed its name to Tempo Delaware North Corporation to provide the expertise and capital to implement a cook-chill catering system which is similar to what is being proposed today. After it unsuccessfully tried to increase its contract rate the corporation then tried to cut the workers’ wages by 25 percent. It failed. The workers refused. The corporation left town with its tail between its legs owing money up and down the country. Let us not go there again.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The test in the general debate this afternoon and for any party in Government is how a Government deals with the tough issues that come on the Government’s plate. This is a Government that has had more than its share of tough issues. What I have witnessed in the House this afternoon is how fit John Key and his Government are to deal with those tough issues and how unfit members opposite are to deal with those issues. What I have witnessed is an Opposition that is more interested in getting into grubby personality politics than dealing with the issues that are relevant. I want to talk about the issues at the GovernmentCommunications Security Bureau. I want to talk about the issues of the economy. I want to respond to the issues that have been raised around the issues of healthcare.Let us be honest: the Government Communications Security Bureau is in trouble. It has got challenges. It has got challenges that go way past the period that we have been in Government—way beyond. What we know is that the bureau was operating potentially outside the law under the previous Government.What would a responsible Government do? A responsible Government would get a respected public servant to turn that organisation inside out. That is exactly what the Minister responsible for the GCSB Prime Minister John Key has done—exactly what he has done. What it has shown is that there is a question mark about our Government Communications Security Bureau complying with a law that was written by members opposite. What it has shown is that during a good period under Helen Clark that organisation potentially acted unlawfully. We are a Government that is fit to fix it.What do members opposite want to do? Well I have to tell you they have learnt nothing. They believe that what the public out there wants to do when we face challenges is to get down into the gutter and try to besmirch people like our Prime Minister and we on this side of the House say we will not tolerate it. We have the best Prime Minister that this country has seen in 25 years. He is a Prime Minister who is prepared to deal with the difficult issues.What we also saw—and this is the part that is really sad for our country. On issues of national security I thought MPs would put their country first—I thought they would put their country first. What we have seen in speeches from the opposite side of the House is that when it comes to politics or the national interest the Labour Party and the Green Party will always choose their political interest over the country’s interest. I was particularly fearful of what I heard from the Green Party. What the Green Party said is that it wants to scrap the Government Communications Security Bureau—scrap the Government Communications Security Bureau. In this time when the threat of cybercrime is higher than ever when all of the international thoughtful press is actually saying that the security threats this century are far more likely in the era of communications security we have Opposition parties saying that they want to scrap the organisation. Well the voters have got a clear choice: a National Government that will fix the bureau or an Opposition that will either play politics with it or get rid of it. I say that is awfully wrong.Let us go elsewhere. Let us look at the economy. No Government in a generation has faced as difficult economic challenges not of its making as this John Key Government. What this Government has done around the economy is something of which I am hugely proud. Let us look at what the IMF has got to say about this Government’s economic record. We have Christine Lagarde the Managing Director of the respected IMF who says if you look at the numbers whether it is growth employment inflation debt or stability New Zealand looks very promising—in fact she said “… it’s certainly a lot better than … [any] other parts of the world.” That is what the IMF is saying about this Government’s stewardship of the economy. I say again that it shows that this is a Government that is prepared to front up to the difficult issues not of its making—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I want to tell this House a story not a fairy tale which we have heard from the Government benches but a true story about the history of the political life of one Mr John Key for its benefit. It all started on Waiheke Island where he turned up with a $200-plus bottle of Larose wine to impress his mates in the National Party so he could get the shoulder-tap to become an MP for National. So having influenced them with a $200 bottle of wine they said: “Oh we had betterhave this John Key. He looks like he is a high roller. He is going to bring us a lot of money.” One year later it is October 2003 and he becomes a member of Parliament. He returns from New York having been a money trader there for Merrill Lynch. At the time Don Brash is challenging leader Bill English for the leadership of the National Party. On the night before the vote honest John Key as they thought he was visits Mr Bill English at his home. He promises Mr English that he will support him in the morning in the leadership vote—he promises Bill English he will support him. English and his supporters rejoice.Maggie Barry: What do you know?ANDREW WILLIAMS: Listen to this because you might need to know this history. Backbenchers you will need to know this when you are doing a leadership reshuffle. Anyway English and his supporters rejoice because they are now confident of the numbers that they have got to retain the leadership. Alas the morning comes. The vote is held. To everyone’s shock Don Brash wins by a single vote. The one vote comes from who? The smiling assassin John Key. He double-crosses Bill English. Is it not incredible! The very same John Key who the night before had promised Bill English his support did not support him. He turned and gave his support to Don Brash and Don Brash carried on into the leadership.The same John Key then carried on to build his political career supposedly on integrity. This is the same John Key who in Opposition railed against corruption demanded transparency and pledged to uphold his Ministers to the very highest of ethical standards in all their conduct. But let us not forget this was the same John Key who forgot to declare his financial interests in Tranz Rail. This is the same John Key who forgot about an incriminating email about the Exclusive Brethren. This is the same John Key who swore black and blue that he did not know about his blind trust only to be video-recorded boasting about his shares in that very same vineyard.What is more this is the same John Key who promised not to increase GST only to go and do so. This is also the same John Key who promised to open the Government’s banking with Westpac to competition. What did we get? Simon Power working for the Westpac bank. That was opening it to competition. This is the same John Key who told everyone he had never met with Steven Joyce’s former company MediaWorks to discuss a $43.3 million loan despite the fact that he had. This is the same John Key who blabbed that Standard and Poor’s would give New Zealand a credit downgrade if it elected a new Government even though Standard and Poor’s utterly rejected that suggestion made by John Key.This is the same John Key who apparently cannot remember when the Government Communications Security Bureau first advised him of the spying on Kim Dotcom and also could not remember shoulder-tapping his mate Ian Fletcher for the job as Director of the bureau.The list goes on and on. Do we see a pattern here? Do we see a pattern? It beggars belief that we have a Prime Minister who cannot recall intelligence briefings and also has times when he cannot remember what the true story is. It is truly incredible. He is very economic with the truth—very economic with the truth. It is truly incredible. Not even Hollywood would come up with a plot as extraordinary as we have seen with this Dotcom - Government Communications Security Bureau affair. The Prime Minister is asking us to believe that either he is the victim of an incredible set of coincidences that make it appear as though there is something to hide or he really does have something to hide. What we want to know is what the true answer is. We—New Zealand First—and other parties are calling for an independent inquiry into this to get to the bottom of it. From the facts of this matter we cannot trust John Key to do anything. The National Party certainly cannot trust him. Let us have an inquiry.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): One thing is for sure: that story would be a great cure for insomnia—there is no doubt about that. I want to speak about some of the good things thathave happened in my electorate of Rodney. In transport investment continues in the design and construction of the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance. This road is extremely important to the people of Rodney for regional economic growth reducing congestion improved safety and reliable journey times. I would invite any of the members opposite to come to Rodney and visit and see just how important this is to the people of Rodney and Northland.In health in Rodney four midwives and 36 nurses have registered to work in hard-to-staff specialties or communities in the Waitematā District Health Board area through the Government’s Voluntary Bonding Scheme. This is an example of Rodney directly benefiting from National’s Voluntary Bonding Scheme.In education the Government has set a target of 85 percent of 18-year-old school-leavers attaining National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 or above by 2017. In the final 2011 figures Rodney had 771 school-leavers sitting NCEA level 2 or above. With 624 attaining it that is an 81 percent success rate. To reach 85 percent our electorate will need an extra 31 students attaining NCEA level 2. Working together we will achieve this.I come to the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative. From July 2013 the following Rodney schools will have ultra-fast broadband: Red Beach School Stanmore Bay School Whangaparaoa School Whangaparaoa College KingsWay School and Mahurangi College. By the end of 2015 97.7 percent of schools and 99.9 percent of students will have access to ultra-fast broadband.When I was privileged enough to be elected as the representative of the people of Rodney I understood clearly that my life and the life of my family were about to change. With the responsibility of providing leadership and advancing and protecting the interests of my communities also came the acceptance that my life actions and character would be subjected to a high level of public scrutiny and require a high level of transparency. One of the first tests of this level of honesty and transparency is the completion of the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament statement that I was required to make. Every parliamentarian understands the importance of this document. It is not a document that you take 10 minutes to complete. It is something that every single one of the MPs who sit in this House makes sure they have right.Most of us have a mortgage and financial commitments that we try to plan for and $50000 is a hugely significant amount of money for any Kiwi family working to get ahead. How on earth did the leader of the Labour Party the man who wants to become the Prime Minister forget an offshore bank account containing at least $50000 and probably a lot more than that? The thing that I find incredible and I feel brings Mr Shearer’s decision-making ability and credibility into serious question is that the money that he failed to disclose was that earned while he was working in environments where bribery kickbacks corruption and fraud were prolific where there is a history of UN officials—often in very senior roles—having been investigated charged and convicted for serious fraud with the ill-gotten gains often being recovered in accounts around the world including New York.I have stated publicly and in this House previously that I recognise and respect the work that Mr Shearer has done around the world in delivering aid—something close to my own heart. But he has shown a stunning lack of judgment by failing to declare this account not 1 year but 4 years in a row. Once you could forgive twice is harder to ignore but three or four times must bring into question intent. The Leader of the Opposition must consider that he has failed to disclose money that he has put into anoffshore account that was likely to have been deposited while he was working in conditions where there are regular accusations of kickbacks and bribes. If he wants to remove doubt then he must be prepared to front up and explain.Finally we have been caught in a global economic storm for the past 5 years. We have watched bigger economies than ours founder breach and take on water. But we have had a Prime Minister at our helm who has hunkered down and kept us pointed into the wind and moving forward when others are failing and sinking.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): What an outrageous set of almost accusations from that member over there Mark Mitchell. Let us talk about the difference between the mistake that David Shearer made and what has been happening with John Key. David Shearer made a mistake. When he realised he had made a mistake he stepped up he went forward and he said: “Guys I’ve made a mistake.” He went down to the press gallery and he told them what the story was. What does John Key do? When John Key knows he is in trouble what is his first inclination? His first inclination is to cover it up tell half the truth obfuscate and stand there and let the truth drip out bit by tiny bit. It is like pulling fingernails trying to get the truth out of John Key. And that is why New Zealanders are losing confidence in this National-led Government. That is why New Zealanders are losing confidence in John Key because they know they cannot trust him. They cannot trust him. They cannot trust this John Key-led Government to be working for them.New Zealanders cannot trust the Government to protect them from illegal spying. They cannot trust John Key. When he found out when he was the first Minister responsible for the GCSB to be told that the Government Communications Security Bureau had been carrying out illegal spying on New Zealanders he did not step in and say: “New Zealand this is what is happening and I’m going to put a stop to it.” He covered it up for months. He held the truth back for months. He refused to tell the truth until he was put in a position where he had no choice. That is the difference.New Zealanders cannot trust this Government to protect their information to protect their privacy. It does not matter whether it is the Earthquake Commission the ACC Work and Income the Inland Revenue Department and now Novopay’s Talent2 and even at the Ministry of Justice people’s information is leaking like a sieve leaking like this Government because New Zealanders cannot trust National to keep their information private. And what does the Prime Minister say? That he is relaxed about it—he is relaxed about it. People’s sensitive information is being made available to who knows whom and John Key is just relaxed about it. That is because he is not working in New Zealand’s interests or in the interests of New Zealanders. Who does John Key work for? He works for his mates. That is who John Key works for. That is what the asset sales are all about—taking assets that all New Zealanders own and putting them out so that his mates can buy them all up. That is who John Key is working for—his mates and multinational companies.The latest we have seen of this is this ridiculous proposition from Simon Bridges to ban protesting by environmental protesters. We live in New Zealand Simon Bridges one of the most open democracies in the world where protest is acceptable. But who is Simon Bridges working for? He is working for some faceless foreign multinational corporation. That is who Simon Bridges and John Key are working for not for New Zealanders. It was the same deal with Skycity—not working in the interests of New Zealanders and not working in the interests of reducing problem gambling; working for John Key’s mates at Skycity. And what aboutThe Hobbit? This Government is not there to uphold workers’ rights or workplace law and not there to make sure that we are the shining beacon of industrial relations that we have always been. It is there to work for Warner Bros a multinational corporation—John Key’s mates again.Of course let us not forget the directors at Mighty River Power who received a 73 percent pay increase when the shares in Mighty River Power are being ripped away from hard-working New Zealanders. And who gets the benefits? It is John Key’s mates who are the directors of Mighty River Power.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They didn’t even ask for it.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: They did not even ask for it. This is just what this Government does. It is there for its buddies not for ordinary New Zealanders. But hey we have known this for some time. We have known that John Key’s memory is a bit shonky. He could not come up with a straight answer if his life depended on it. There were the Tranz Rail shares the South African tour the drinking age the Dotcom briefing calling his buddy Ian Fletcher and being told that the Government Communications Security Bureau was acting illegally. Did he front up? No. Why? Because New Zealand cannot trust John Key.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): It is an interesting thing to respond to such a bellowing individual as that one who has just resumed his seat Iain Lees-Galloway. I believe he is one of your genuine outcasts in this House. He is the kind of guy who would have never fitted in at a certain private school because he was a lefty. He certainly does not fit in with his own mob because he is a King’s College boy in a funny old line-up of socialists and watermelons. And of course he was sacked as the defence spokesperson—he did not get to ministerial level. So there you have a guy who just blathers on.He is similar of course to the fifth-lowest polling candidate in the election for the North Shore the failed former mayor Andrew Williams. There was an individual in whom no one had any confidence whatsoever. Instead of hearing something sensible which of course never emerges what we heard was an attack on the integrity of the most popular leader in politics in the last 25 years as Nick Smith said. I would say that it is probably about the last 40 years. But this is where you come from when you are struggling desperately to be the deputy leader: “Pick me! Pick me!” said Andrew “I’m the one!”. There are a few who have proved themselves totally incapable in New Zealand First—or “Winston First” whatever it is called. But he is yet to come in on that one because the smart money is on him being the next one to fall over while he is watering trees.But let us get back to the reality of what this Government is all about. I am very proud to be part of a Government that actually understands the critical importance of effective resource management to New Zealand’s economic environmental and social well-being. Unlike the previous speakers from other parties I would like to concentrate on some of the matters of substance rather than personal attacks. The Minister of Finance Bill English in outlining our Business Growth Agenda has emphasised the importance of the Resource Management Act reforms and water management. These are important to our overall economy. As we know—on this side of the Chamber at least—job growth will emerge from a strong economy not from a whole lot of unfounded rhetoric and rewriting of history which is what the Opposition specialises in.As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee ably led by our chair Nicky Wagner we have begun hearings on our Resource Management Act discussion document. On Monday we heard 60 submissions. This is a robust document. It is one that actually invites people to come in and make submissions—ones that we will consider because we need to ensure that the overall purpose of the Resource Management Act reforms remain intact. For example section 5 is promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources and that includes the life-supporting capacity of air water soil and ecosystems. These are proposals that also provide that environmental matters of national importance in section 6 of the ResourceManagement Act are also all being maintained. So when it comes to our waterways effectively the changes proposed in that second phase of the Resource Management Act go much further than just simply maintaining protections which was about all that the last incarnation of a failed Labour-Greens Government could manage when it had the chance.Nick Smith earlier actually questioned the loyalty and the patriotism of the Greens because of the way that they have approached the Government Communications Security Bureau and a lot of issues. I would wonder really whether on a daily basis the Greens betray their own oath of allegiance to this House which is to stay loyal to this country. I believe that they do. I think that the constant opposition and undermining does this country no good at all. They do not serve the environment well and they do not serve the country they live in well but maybe that is because they have got a co-leader who does not come from here. Do you think that might have something to do with it? Who knows?Hon Christopher Finlayson: Note they haven’t objected.MAGGIE BARRY: They have not objected; no they have gone very quiet. They tend to do that when facts are put in front of them. This John Key - led Government by contrast has prioritised action in this very important area and we have introduced via the Resource Management Act national bottom lines for the quality of our waterways. That is the very first time in New Zealand’s history that water quality has been prioritised in this way.In the North Shore my electorate where I represent a group of people who are interested in business my constituents have come to me with a lot of complaints. They have said that the Resource Management Act processes are very time-consuming they are very cumbersome and they are very costly and those constituents have urged us to reform them. These reforms are really long overdue. The Resource Management Act system I have been told by my constituents and by the submitters who have come to our select committee is unfortunately difficult to understand and use and the North Shore businesses believe it is actively discouraging investment and motivation. The Resource Management Act proposal is that the decision makers must recognise and provide for the value of public access to and along the coastal marine area the wetlands the lakes and the rivers. These are the sorts of things that we put out for consultation. We are very satisfied that the provisions that we have outlined will very adequately and properly provide for those matters and we are looking forward to receiving more feedback through the submissions.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order in respect of that last speech. It is a serious point of order. You will be aware of the convention in this House that all members are considered honourable members. I would ask you to consider this: the previous speaker questioned—I think these were the words she used in referring to members of this House our Green colleagues—the Greens’ loyalty to their oath of office of this Parliament and I think also their loyalty to the Crown. My simple question to you is that that is a very heavy statement to make and that it does I would submit to you contravene the Standing Order and convention where members are honourable members. If their oath to this Parliament—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I ask the member to resume his seat. I was listening very carefully to all the speeches today. There has certainly been a very robust debate. There have been some personal attacks but they have been across the board. I have taken it as it is and that is the end of the matter. All members are honourable members and I refer to them as honourable members.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a new point of order?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is indeed and I appreciate your ruling. Could I simply ask you and I appreciate your candour if you could consider my point—not at this time—and take some advice in respect of it because that I think is a very very heavy statement.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The presiding officer at the time and in this case myself listens very closely to the debates. No one took offence at the time and if someone takes offence at the time as to what is being said it is up to them. The member it was directed at did not take offence. The Standing Orders allow for the member to take offence.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The member’s not here to take offence.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well no one brought up a point of order at that time so—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: We waited until the end of the speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am actually ruling on this. At this stage I do not intend to do anything further. I hear what the member says. All members are honourable members and we take it from there.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): My contribution I hope will be somewhat different in tone. I want to reflect on some of the events of the week in the health sector. First of all I will pick up on the statement released today by the College of Public Health Medicine which is the professional body representing those doctors who are the experts in preventing illness in New Zealand. What they had to say today was that the long-term effects of child poverty will be too costly for the health and prosperity of all New Zealanders. They finger child poverty as the No. 1 health problem in this country.That comes on the heels of yesterday’s announcement of research from the University of Canterbury that linked New Zealand’s high rates of childhood asthma some of the very highest in the world with New Zealand’s cold damp housing stock. Again that is pretty congruent with what the college had to say today.And then the day before yesterday we read in the newspaper that the Ministry of Health had reviewed the Government’s $24 million campaign on rheumatic fever. What it had to say was that although that campaign was achieving some good things it was failing to tackle the fundamental causes of the rheumatic fever epidemic and therefore would fail in its central objective of stamping out the rheumatic fever epidemic in New Zealand.Again those fundamental causes of the epidemic that the ministry drew attention to were our stock of overcrowded and damp housing poverty—once again—and access to medical care for the poorest New Zealanders. So we have had a week—3 days so far this week—where one wonders what tomorrow will bring. In those 3 days those same factors again and again are being drawn attention to.New Zealand has in addition to one of the highest rates of asthma in the developed world one of the very highest rates of rheumatic fever. The Government’s attention was drawn to this in 2010 by the Public Health Advisory Committee which found that New Zealand has a rheumatic fever rate 14 times the OECD average—14 times. That is an outrage and it is a scandal.The problem with the approach the Government has taken—the reason why it will fail—is that the Government has not understood something very basic about how health outcomes actually get formed. The Government has a model that is based on individual risk factors and individual behaviour such that it cannot understand or deal with the big social and environmental issues that actually shape health outcomes. So poverty it does not understand; overcrowding it does not understand; racism it does not understand; and it does not intervene in those factors as a result.The Public Health Advisory Committee report which I mentioned set out a programme of action to deal with those systematic factors that were driving not only the rheumatic fever epidemic and not only asthma but all of those other big health problems that this country faces. So far the Government has failed to act on virtually every aspect of that plan apart from one.The one element that the Government has so far contributed positively to has been the Warm Up New Zealand campaign a programme of action that the Green Party has been pleased to be part of and to work on in partnership with the Government. Some 200000 New Zealand homes have been insulated and the homes that have been insulated so far have brought this country around an estimated $1.3 billion worth of benefits and yet it seems that that programme may be in doubt for the future. What the Green Party says to the Government is that a warm well-insulated home for every Kiwi family is not a “nice-to-have”; it is something that is a health necessity. We look forward to continuing to work with the Government in the future on that programme.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Is it not wonderful to get into something positive for a change—the ongoing saga of our growing economy—instead of dealing with issues to quote the Hon Annette King straight out ofMadmagazine something that I think we have spent a fair bit of this afternoon dealing with frankly? I also heard Steffan Browning referring to my home town of Tangimoana this afternoon. He was speaking of it as though it was some alien village and I am sure it is not—I live there.The past few months have been very testing for many in rural New Zealand. The drought a significant event across the North Island has had a significant effect on many parts of our farming community. It will also have a long-term effect on many of our rural communities and the economic activity that takes place in those towns. I also want to very briefly mention at the same time the other thing that I think is a significant drain on rural New Zealand and that is the meat industry and the lower sheep meat prices we have been suffering from at this present time. Both of those issues are going to compound in the near future and certainly probably in the next 2 years in the future of our hill country in New Zealand.I want to talk about a couple of the bright lights on the horizon. Certainly the dairy industry in the last few weeks has had a significant lift in price giving new confidence and buoyancy to that sector. I am sure that that is going to assist greatly in the recovery from the drought. The other issue I want to mention briefly—and I think it is very important to us—is the log market. It is apparent by the large number of logging trucks lumbering I guess down our roads on a daily basis to our ports that this industry is in a time of buoyancy that it has not seen for some time. As more and more wood comes to the market in the next few years it will increase the pressure on our roads further justifying the Government’s roads of national significance programme and making the work—particularly in my area from Levin to Wellington or the Wellington Northern Corridor including Transmission Gully as it is known—even more relevant to our futures in the lower North Island. Although Labour and the Greens appear to totally fail to understand the value of these roading developments to our economy the people in my electorate Rangitīkei and oddly enough the people of Palmerston North stand to gain significantly from massive efficiency and cost savings created by these new roading systems. For example we will be able to move an extra truck and trailer-load of logs from the lower end of my electorate to the port of Wellington on a daily basis making those trucks almost 30 percent more efficient. That is a significant productivity gain for the lower North Island.I talked of the drought in the North Island having seriously affected the ability of our farmers and it has seriously affected the ability of our farmers to bank anything. Unfortunately they all fully understand the content of their bank accounts. Certainlymany would love to suffer from the affliction suffered by the Leader of the Opposition that of not needing to remember what they have or do not have in their bank accounts.I wish to commend the performance of Federated Farmers during the course of this recent drought and record the fact that I believe that they have been outstanding in their efforts to assist farmers. They strive for solutions to what is certainly a serious economic event for our rural towns and indeed our farmers. It also needs to be recorded here I think that our farmers have become much more resilient over the years and for the most part have very good contingency plans in place to manage this type of event. The difference in this instance is that this drought has affected places such as the West Coast and the Taumarunui and Taihape area which is certainly a rare event.There are some very positive things happening in my region. Over the hill in John Hayes’ electorate the Wairarapa we at last have an oil rig setting up business. I hate to say that it is in John Hayes’ region and I hate to say “Watch out Taranaki.” but I can confidently say that the Hawke’s Bay will be the next oil boom in New Zealand. I hope the Opposition can again get its head around that.I also want to briefly touch as Maggie Barry has on the Resource Management Act reforms. I have had the privilege I guess of hosting or being part of a number of forums on the Resource Management Act in recent weeks and I think we will make some very positive progress in this area. It will lift the shackles from many of our growth initiatives and improve our environmental responsibility at the same time. Often one finds that when you give people their head they take responsibility they did not take before.This Government has made some great progress with its policies to grow our economy when much of the rest of the world is suffering from the malaise of the global financial crisis. I want to just very quickly refer to a couple of figures that I think are really interesting. One is the growth of trade with China from 2007 until now. In 2007 that trade was around the $2 billion mark. It is now around the $6.9 billion mark—an extraordinary gain. At the same time trade with the UK has moved from $1.6 billion to $1.3 billion. I think that speaks for the change in our environment. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.VotingCorrection—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment BillMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wish to announce the correction of a vote. On 27 March when the Committee of the whole House was considering the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill the results of two votes were announced incorrectly. The vote of the question that Tim Macindoe’s amendment to clause 5A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203 be agreed to was incorrectly announced as Ayes 36 Noes 80. The correct result is Ayes 36 Noes 79. The vote on the question that Dr Paul Hutchison’s typescript amendment to clause 5A be agreed to was incorrectly announced as Ayes 18 Noes 85. The correct result is Ayes 18 Noes 84. The record will be amended accordingly.Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) BillReferral to Commerce CommitteeGARETH HUGHES (Green): I seek leave of the House to recommit the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill to the Commerce Committee for consideration of Supplementary Order Paper 205 to be reported back by 31 May 2013.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. Leave will not be granted.In CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Crown Minerals Act 1991The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on this part includes schedules 1A to 4.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): What a disappointment it was that the Minister of Energy and Resources himself declined leave for this bill to go back to the Commerce Committee so that the proper scrutiny could be applied to Supplementary Order Paper 205 which the Minister decided to produce on Easter Sunday a mere couple of weeks after the committee had reported back to this House. The Minister of course has then gone on to say that he has been thinking about this for a long time and that it was well flagged. My question to the Minister in the chair is why was it not flagged at all with the select committee? At no point during the process was the select committee told that this was being worked on that this was being proposed or that this was needed. Why when the Local Government and Environment Committee was considering the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill where we had broad-ranging discussions about our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was this never raised as an issue in terms of being compliant with our international obligations? Why was the select committee not given the ability to scrutinise this particular Supplementary Order Paper? What was the Minister afraid of that he needed to hold on to this keep it secret until the select committee had reported back to the House? Well I think we know the answer to this. It is an utter dog of a Supplementary Order Paper. There really is no other description for it.We have got this National Government which presided over the worst economic record in 51 years and which has no plan for the economy apart from oil and gas exploration and mining. That is it. Regardless of what you might think of those activities it makes sense to be doing other things as well. This is the problem the National Government has. It has put all its eggs in this one basket. If this does not fly—and so far it has not flown in the way that National thought it would. We have had Exxon Mobil pull out we have had Petrobras pull out and we have had Apache Corporation pull out. This is a high-risk area. The likelihood of finding commercial returns is very small. It is incredibly risky. In fact the Government is negligent in its duty to the people of this country by putting all its eggs in this one basket. This is all the Government has in terms of economic development. It is not doing anything else. So if this does not work then the Government is kind of stuffed and it knows that.What the Government is doing is attempting to grease the wheels as much as it can to reduce standards to reduce not even the difficulty but to make it as easy as possible for these activities to go ahead regardless of the outcomes. So the environmental impacts do not matter. Safety does not matter. Regardless of the outcomes this National Government is ripping the guts out of existing legislation and is introducing new legislation to make it as permissive as possible a regulatory environment for these activities to go ahead. We have only to look in our own country at what happened in terms of Pike River overseas in terms of the Gulf of Mexico disaster and our own ability to clean up after theRena disaster. It was not because of a mining activity but oil in the water is oil in the water and no matter where it comes from we need to be able to deal with that. You have only to look at those risks to realise that what we need is robust effective legislation. What we need is legislation that protects the environment and ensures as much as we can that where this activity goes ahead it is done safely and it is done to the absolute highest standards.Instead what we have in the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is the opposite. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 205 which is about stopping people from protesting against oil and gas exploration in the exclusive economic zone is an absolute outrage of a Supplementary Order Paper. If it was not then the Minister would not have announced it on Easter Sunday and he would have sent it to the select committee. His own behaviour shows us that this is not something that he wanted to be scrutinised on. He has consistently refused to front up to media to do interviews on it to talk about it—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: He’s on the TV all the time. Every time you switch it on he’s there. What are you talking about?MOANA MACKEY: Jonathan Coleman is jealous that apparently Simon Bridges is getting too much TV time. Unfortunately Mr Coleman Mr Bridges is not talking about the issue of Supplementary Order Paper 205 which is what people wanted to talk to him about.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Who’s interested in that for God’s sake?MOANA MACKEY: Who is interested in that? How about the 10000 people who have signed up in support of the Greenpeace legal opinion in 24 hours?Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: The sad lefties.MOANA MACKEY: Mr Coleman calls them the sad lefties. People who want to protect the right to protest are sad lefties. They are probably knuckleheads as well. Well that shows the arrogance of this National-led Government. I see the Attorney-General hovering there ready to jump to his feet no doubt in some defence of Minister Bridges. But the reality is that when you look at the legal minds who have said that this is an outrage it is clear—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The honourable Moana Mackey.MOANA MACKEY: Thank you—a very good decision Mr Chair. When you look at the legal opinion that Greenpeace produced it is clear that at the very least this Supplementary Order Paper needs to go back to the select committee so it can have proper scrutiny. If this was about safety—the Minister says it is about two things. It is about safety and it is about meeting our international obligations.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Yep.MOANA MACKEY: Well if that was the case Mr Coleman why would we not extend the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act which cover this activity in our territorial waters into the exclusive economic zone? Then it would cover all vessels and all dangerous and illegal behaviour for any reason. Oh now he is reading something. He is pretending to read. I am sorry. I will not interrupt you. I will not interrupt you while you are pretending to read Mr Coleman.But the reality is that this applies only to protest vessels and it applies only to protest vessels that are protesting against oil and gas exploration. Yesterday when the Minister was doorstopped by the media he said as much. “I don’t know why they’re complaining that this is a breach of people’s rights because it is only protesting against oil and gas exploration that we are stopping. The anti-whaling stuff can go ahead. The antinuclear stuff can go ahead.” Well actually that is the problem. If this is about safety and if this is about bridging a gap in our international obligations—apparently the Minister thinks that we are not compliant with the convention. Well actually the convention talks only about installations. It does not talk about vessels at all. The convention is also very very strong on the rights of navigation. So what the Minister is doing here with his 500-metre zones where these boats cannot go in is actually contrary to the convention. But in reality the National Government really does not care about the convention otherwise it would not have passed the exclusive economic zone legislation. We know that that is just a smokescreen.But here is a very simple question Minister. If this is about safety and our international obligations why would we not extend the regime that exists in our territorial waters into the exclusive economic zone and cover every vessel and every incidence of dangerous or reckless behaviour? That absolutely should be addressed. Why are we targeting only one group of vessels? Silence—there is absolute silence. The reason we are targeting only one particular group of vessels is that this is all about sending a very strong message to the oil and gas industry that this Government is prepared to do anything for investment. We have legislation for sale once again. The Minister said that yes he had been lobbied about this and he had met with companies that had complained to him about what had happened around Petrobras on the East Coast.I tell you what. No one from the Government ever fronted up on the East Coast to the public meetings or to the community forums. One was run by the chamber of commerce—hardly a left-wing or green organisation—and no one from Government not even our local MP would turn up to those meetings. There have been plenty of protests onshore. Minister Bridges said we should go and protest at Petrobras’ headquarters. Well they are in Brazil so it is a little bit difficult. There have been protests. There have been numerous attempts to get the Government to listen and the arrogance of this National-led Government has meant that not a single Minister or MP has fronted up to those community forums. So then yes protesters have taken their protests to the seas to try to get the Government’s attention and to tell the Government that they are concerned that the regulatory regime under which these activities are going to be operating is not sufficient to protect our marine environment to protect our local economies—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why don’t they just send an email?MOANA MACKEY: Minister Coleman says they should just send an email. Well they did actually. They have been sending hundreds and hundreds of emails telling people they are concerned about this but the phone is off the hook with this National-led Government because this is all they have. This is it. All the eggs are in this basket.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.MOANA MACKEY: As I was saying before the dinner break this is bad legislation made worse by a very bad Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges. Why Labour objects to this legislation—we did welcome the approaches that were made to us by the previous Minister of Energy and Resources Phil Heatley to try to see whether we could find some common ground on this because we would like to be able to get as much certainty as possible but we were unable to for a number of reasons. The main ones being that the shared decision-making power between the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation is we believe entirely inappropriate.Once again as I was saying before the dinner break the National Government has no other plan—other than oil and gas exploration and mining. That is it. That is the sum total of its economic development plan and if it does not work it has nothing else. So this is not about not liking oil and gas exploration or not liking mining; this is about saying that we need to be doing other things as well in case this does not pan out. As I said we have had Exxon Mobil Corporation leave we have had Petrobras leave and we have had Apache Corporation leave. This is not an area where we are certain that firstly they are going to find anything or secondly that what they find is going to be in commercial amounts that are able to be exploited. So a sensible Government even if it was as keen on oil and gas and mineral exploration—Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I was most interested in that florid contribution by Moana Mackey before the dinner break in this debate on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I have been very interested also in comments about the Minister of Energy and Resources’ Supplementary Order Paper 205 that have been advanced by some of our most distinguished and leading citizens who say that the proposed amendments breach international law and attack our democratic freedoms. When I heard that I thought well we had better have a good look at that because they are very serious allegations.I then found out who were the authors of the statement. They were Dame Anne Salmond who wrote a most interesting book on Captain Cook which clearly qualified her to speak about the high seas and former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer who could only be described as a sort of apotheosis of constitutional virtue whose voice was particularly quiet when the foreshore and seabed legislation was being debated in this House mainly—I think probably—because he was acting for the marine farming institution and it was very quiet when the dreadful Stalinist electoral finance legislation was going through the House. But it is great to hear that he has found his constitutional voice again and has been opining at great length in between talking to Sir Bruce Ferguson presumably about Government Communications Security Bureau matters on Lambton Quay this afternoon.I took a good look at the legislation and was immediately drawn back to Sir Geoffrey’s lectures in 1975 when he taught me Legal System because Sir Geoffrey the great teacher that he was said how important it was to focus on the wording of the legislation. I can recall a lawyer appearing in the Court of Appeal many years ago telling the Court of Appeal that there were 12 possible interpretations of a section of an Act. After about 2½ hours of driving Their Honours nuts the President of the Court of Appeal then Sir Robin Cooke said: “Well there’s the 13th.” The fellow said: “Well what is that Sir?”. He said: “The plain meaning.” I really think that this is a situation where if one gets away from the hyperbole if one gets away from the purple prose and the waffle and the politically inspired criticism of the Supplementary Order Paper and focuses rather on the wording of the legislation one sees that the answer is tolerably clear.I come to new section 101B in new clause 46A and note that it has nothing whatsoever to do with protest. People are fully entitled to exercise their democratic right to protest. What that clause which my friend the Minister of Energy and Resources is seeking to introduce here deals with is the commission of an offence if damage is caused under subclause (a) “damage to or interference with any equipment ...” under subclause (b) or “interference with any operations or activities ...” under subclause (c).So the proposed amendments which have excited the great and the good of the area inside the beltway—as I say these apotheoses of constitutional virtue Sir Geoffrey and Dame Anne and other members of the great and good—relate to damage or interference not protest. There is no reason at all why people cannot exercise their democratic right to protest but it has to be protest that does not result in damage to or interference with—for example under subclause (a)—the structure or the ship. So it is quite a straightforward matter—Moana Mackey: How embarrassing—this is the Attorney-General.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —and I hear the creatures on the other side yelling out: “How embarrassing!” but I think that Sir Geoffrey always said when he was teaching me law to “Focus on the words—focus on the plain meaning.” He did not say it like that. He was acting like some ranting Jehovah wandering over desks as he used to do because it was more important to create an impression rather than teach at times. But focus on the words—focus on the words—is the suggestion that I make tomembers on the other side of the Chamber. Get away from the purple prose; get away from the hyperbole. This afternoon we have experienced some tragically hyperbolic speeches on the Government Communications Security Bureau. It is all so very simple. Focus on the plain meaning focus on the words and the answer will become tolerably clear.That is why I believe that Sir Geoffrey and Dame Anne great people though they are have got it wrong and their statements about the amendments breaching international law although which particular principle of international law is not immediately clear to me or “attacking our democratic freedoms”—you can just imagine Sir Geoffrey declaiming on that theme—I am sorry it is just plain wrong. If Sir Geoffrey followed the advice that he gave to me in 1975 when he suggested that we focus on the words of the statute the words of the bill then I think we can get to a very happy place very quickly indeed.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If the Minister has a legal opinion I would ask that he table it.Hon Christopher Finlayson: That is not a point of order. It was a very positive contribution and—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Well if the member is actually quoting from the legal opinion and has the piece of paper then yes it is in order but I do not believe he is doing that. I think he was just speaking from notes and so—[Interruption] He was speaking off the cuff—all right. So the point of order is not upheld.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I do not wish to dwell on this too much in the short time I have but I would like to note that as the previous speaker Hon Chris Finlayson has said words are incredibly important and the words on the page are very important. But delivering sarcasm and dripping bile and venom against people who are not in this Chamber to defend themselves is not what one would call parliamentary behaviour. And I think that that kind of behaviour against people of great standing—let us just remember that just recently Dame Anne Salmond was made New Zealander of the Year. I did not hear the Attorney-General object to that and I think it was a very appropriate award to give her. To come into this Chamber and use that style of venom to which we are accustomed from that member is beneath him and that patronising attitude that he takes does not advance the words on the page to which I come.I come to the words on the page because the words on the page are inadequate. Let me speak about this. I want to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of the Minister of Energy and Resources and I want to draw attention to a possible interpretation of Supplementary Order Paper 205 that I do not believe the Supplementary Order Paper intends or covers adequately. It comes to the words on the page Mr Finlayson. The words on the page that I am reading which is printed in the Bills Digest say: “the area of the non-interference zone to which the activity relates”—and we are talking about the banning of protest activity within this non-interference zone of structures or ships to which the activity relates; in other words those that are working at oil exploration and such activities—“(which may be up to 500 metres from any point on the outer edge of the structure or ship to which the activity relates or if there is any equipment attached to the structure or ship 500 metres from any point on the outer edge of the equipment);”.Given that the National Party is so well-endowed with lawyers I wonder whether the Minister could address the issue of this non-interference area of 500 metres. If for example Greenpeace in the course of its lawful activity protesting against oil or mineral exploration in the deep sea were to pull up within 500 metres of a ship that was engaging in that activity and that ship itself decided to breach the 500-metre limit and move towards Greenpeace in a threatening manner as we have seen Japanese whalingships do in the face of protests on the high seas then where is the Minister’s law and words on the page? Who is breaching the 500-metre limit in that instance?If they try to provoke democratic and legitimate protesters into activities that they will not resile from—in other words they have done what the law says and pulled up within 500 metres of a ship that is carrying out this activity—and that ship itself then broaches the 500-metre limit who is at fault? Who gets the $100000 fine? Where does that responsibility lie and why has the Minister not got the words on the page right? He has got the “archbishop of words on the page” sitting on his right hand and really quite frankly I would think—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Cardinal.Hon MARYAN STREET: Cardinal-something—cardinal-something. I might come to that in a later speech on another subject perhaps—cardinal-something. However on this matter the man who sets himself up as the one with the greatest knowledge of the words on the page should surely have counselled his junior colleague and said: “I’m sorry. You haven’t got the words on the page quite right.” But in addition to that carelessness that sloppiness of drafting what we see from this—because the words on the page are not accurate are not sufficient—is the actual design of this Supplementary Order Paper 205.I would have supported Gareth Hughes’ procedural motion earlier this evening which was not allowed by the Committee to have this Supplementary Order Paper referred back to the Commerce Committee so that people could tease it out and see whether or not it was appropriate. But this Minister clearly did not want public scrutiny of this because as Paul Buchanan said of the Prime Minister just last week when he was talking about the Prime Minister and his poor oversight of the Government Communications Security Bureau: “This behaviour may be appropriate—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Members can use examples but I just need to say right at the start that we are actually debating the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill and we are not going to extend into other debates.Hon MARYAN STREET: I was not intending to. I simply wanted to quote Paul Buchanan because he said that the Prime Minister’s cavalier behaviour might be appropriate for the chief executive officer of a private company but it is not appropriate for the Prime Minister of a democratic nation. I think this is the point that the Minister is missing with this Supplementary Order Paper. He thinks—because he is being tutored by his colleagues by some who think that the private sector rules and that the private sector rules are OK—that it is adequate to put up a curtailing of legitimate democratic expression without taking it to the public for comment without putting it through a select committee process where the public can make submissions and to bring it in through the side door because he might have had a phone call from a company that said: “Oh by the way we’ll come and prospect and drill for oil around your borders in your economic zone if you make it easy for us because we’ve heard from our friends at Warner Bros and we’ve heard from our friends at Skycity that this is how the New Zealand Government does business.” It is really just one private chief executive officer talking to another private chief executive officer.Well if this junior Minister thinks that that is the way to run a country somebody needs to tell him that it is not the case. There are democratic principles at stake and there are democratic rights of protest that people have. Yes there should be safety on the high seas and in that case why does this Supplementary Order Paper not morph into a piece of legislation that applies to every vessel on the high seas and not simply to those who are going about their business of protesting legitimately in a difficult area?Of course we do not want accidents at sea. We do not want Japanese whalers splitting protest boats in half. We do not want them threatening life. We do not wantthat kind of lack of safety on the high seas. But if it is good enough to bring this in for protest boats it should be good enough for every vessel on the high seas. There should not be any tolerance of health and safety threats on the high seas.So I would ask that the Minister goes back and gets the words on the page right tutored by his superior counsel—superior in so many ways—Chris Finlayson. I would ask that he gets some advice about how to write this properly to say what he means to mean what he says and to make sure that this is not simply an isolated exception which could be something applied to every vessel on the high seas.This is a democratic country. We do prize our democratic right to protest. We do guard that jealously. This is not a private company to have rules dictated by the chief executive officer. This is a democratic country and it should be run with that in mind.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am delighted to take a call in the Committee stage of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill which was a bad bill to start with and has got only worse in quite an astonishing way really. It was bad enough at the Commerce Committee going through clause after clause of facilitating mining—andPart 1 is extremely focused on assisting the mining industry—and promoting the role of the Minister not as a regulator but as a facilitator and great attractor of industry. But then to have Supplementary Order Paper 205 sprung upon us on Easter Day was another extraordinary experience that has made this bill which was bad enough a whole lot worse. My colleagues will speak more about this Supplementary Order Paper.As to my own experience of what can happen I would say looking around the Chamber that I am probably the most experienced protester in this Chamber. I have had more experience of non-violent protest than many of you have had hot dinners. I have experienced what can happen on the high seas. I have had experience of what non-violence means and how the law can be misinterpreted to privilege certain industries.Once when we were the Cook Strait in Greenpeace protesting against a whaling supply vessel it was really interesting because our own people were thrown off that vessel by the port police from Wellington who were assisting the Japanese whalers to throw people into the Cook Strait 40 kilometres off the coast. I remember thinking at the time that it was not very safe but of course health and safety was not the concern of the Japanese whalers or the New Zealand police in that situation. Fortunately our people were picked up by some very skilled captains of inflatables who saved their lives. When I read Supplementary Order Paper 205 I thought: “Great it’s all about those who dare to challenge but it is not about the behaviour of people who believe that their right to extract a resource is under challenge.” So it is a very concerning Supplementary Order Paper.Basically when you have been in the front line of this you know that it is not necessarily like the lawyers think it is going to be and it is not just words on the page. It is about what happens to human beings who non-violently challenge the right of others to rip off resources. It can be extremely dangerous if the rules are not fair to everybody and this Supplementary Order Paper demonstrates that it is actually dangerous.I was astonished at the Minister of Energy and Resources saying in the Chamber: “No I don’t need to consult the Attorney-General. No I don’t need to think about international law. No I don’t even need to answer this question.” because I think that will come back to bite him in the future. People in this country including the New Zealander of the Year are watching and those people are there because they are concerned about what we pass on to mokopuna what we pass on to future generations. They do not regard this as something to be treated with lightness or contempt in any way.But I want to talk about Part 1 in terms of another Supplementary Order Paper which is Supplementary Order Paper 211 in my name. I want to talk about this one because this is about another bad aspect of this bill which is the ambiguities around the use of schedule 4. This needs to be clarified once and for all and this bill is a positive opportunity I believe to do that.In my Supplementary Order Paper what I am suggesting for section 25 in clause 16 is to insert after subsection (6): “(6AA) The Minister must not grant a permit of any kind in respect of a Crown owned mineral or petroleum in any Crown owned land described in Schedule 4” and then it goes on to describe the land and water. The purpose of this is to make it crystal clear to anybody that schedule 4 land is not open to mining and it is not open to exploration and prospecting either because exploration and prospecting are being carried out for mining.We know that because if you go to the Coromandel right now and you go to the Coromandel Harbour you will find a mining company that has made public statements about its intention to mine that exact piece of harbour—that exact piece of harbour—for tailings. It is not looking to get a grid picture or an aerial magnetic survey; it is there to mine that exact spot. So we need to clarify for it and also for the Broken Hill mining company over at Tairua which has a mining permit application in front of the Minister at the moment that this area in schedule 4 was set aside by Governments by people—and we had 30000 people march on this issue—to protect it.So what my Supplementary Order Paper does is clarify that there is no point in playing games it is time for clarity. Let us say schedule 4 is OK if you want to fossick for gold with your kids for fun but it is not for anything else. It is not for prospecting and exploration in order to facilitate your access for mining. Otherwise the Government is playing games with the miners and the miners are confused.So I am hoping that the Committee will see the clarity and the logic of what I am proposing here because it would be very straightforward if we could then say to everybody concerned: “You can have certainty. There will be no mining on schedule 4 so don’t bother to waste your resources looking for it in those exact spots where you want to mine because you are not going to be allowed to.” That kind of clarity would be welcomed by the public of this country and that is why I have put up this Supplementary Order Paper—it is an opportunity to clarify this once and for all.The whole issue in this bill is unfortunately not towards creating certainty for the public; it is for creating certainly for industry. That is why the Supplementary Order Paper that Minister Bridges put up at Easter was written as well. It was to make sure that industry had certainty. But industry probably did not have to complain. I would not be at all surprised if it did not. Why would it need to? A Government that will let Warner Bros write legislation does not really need much incentive to write legislation to facilitate people like Petrobras. It did not even have to hear from Petrobras. It may have but it did not have to because actually it was very very upset.The plain truth of what happened in Te Whānau-a-Apanui is that Elvis Teddy and Te Whānau-a Apanui with Greenpeace went out there and said: “No we do not accept this in our waters. We do not care what you call them but these are our waters this is our rohe—you can call it what you like—but we are not having deep sea oil. We are not having it off the East Coast.” And do you know what? They won in the court and that of course is completely unacceptable!Imagine—a rural iwi and Greenpeace actually beating a Brazilian mining company that the Government had facilitated to come into their waters. It was not acceptable and that is why we have got Supplementary Order Paper 205—because apparently we cannot have that kind of thing going on in this country and we cannot have legitimateprotest by tangata whenua about their right within their own fishing waters to say no to an industry that has the risk of polluting their fishing waters.That is what it is about and that is why Dame Anne Salmond from the East Coast is standing with those people because that is where she comes from and that is what she stands for. You will find that she is standing up more and more on environmental issues since she moved on from the Historic Places Trust because some people at some time in their life will take a stand and say “No it is not all right.” She has got to that point where now it is not about getting successful it is not about being approved of by everybody—strangely for New Zealander of the Year—but actually standing up for something worthwhile which is our environment because without it we are nothing—we are nothing. And that is what is so repellent about a Supplementary Order Paper that tries to take away from Elvis Teddy Te Whānau-a-Apanui and Greenpeace the right to stand up.Interference can be interpreted in a million ways and it will be. Sometimes just standing there and breathing or being in the water breathing in the right zone is interference. I have been told we are interfering if we bear witness if we stand in the way if we put our bodies on the line. Some of the most important justice changes in the history of the world have come from people non-violently taking a stand. We stand proud in the tradition of non-violence of taking a direct stand and putting our bodies between things that are acceptable and things that are not. We will continue to do that despite this Supplementary Order Paper. But this Supplementary Order Paper has been misjudged and it is misjudged by people who do not understand what it is to bear witness in that situation. It has not been designed to protect everybody’s rights. That is why there are all these people making a fuss.Hon Member: Oh you’re making me cry.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: However there are lots of other aspects of this bill and I am proud to stimulate emotion across the Chamber. This is actually an emotional issue for the people who are not the lawyers who are not the clever people who sit in Parliament deciding what will be legal and what will not be but who care about this country and whose true commitment to the environment is going to be what gets us through what is actually quite a dark time in terms of the environment.So back to the bill; back to Part 1. Part 1 has a purpose that many people came to the select committee and objected to. They objected to the purpose of the bill and what they objected to was this. Most people think that the Minister’s role is to be a regulator—to be a fair unbiased regulator on behalf of the community to represent the community to represent a fair balance of issues. Instead what we find in the purpose of this bill is that it is there for the efficient allocation of resources supposedly for New Zealand’s benefit and also to be the great attractor—the attractor of permits.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I am proud that the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is in my name. I am proud of that because this bill is about higher-paid jobs in the provinces—the provinces that some of those people on that side of the Chamber say they represent. But let me tell you that this bill is fundamentally about development and promoting development. To refer to the purpose in new section 1A(1) set out in clause 6: “The purpose of this Act is to promote prospecting for exploration for and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.” This bill is for the benefit of New Zealand.The benefits from petroleum are immense in this country: royalties and taxes are 42c in every dollar of profit billions of dollars to the Crown over the years that go to pay for the schools and the hospitals and the roads that yes even the Greens drive on in oil-filled cars. There is direct employment in the provinces and very high-paid jobs—I have seen them. Young men and women are earning $120000 $150000 and in some cases$200000 a year—ordinary Kiwis in indirect jobs in terms of the architects the engineers the hoteliers and the coffee-makers. It is quite clear in Taranaki where you see that.Yet we have in the Green Party one Gareth Hughes about whom this was reported in the media: “Citing changes to employment legislation made to mollify the makers of The Hobbit movies and controversy over the SkyCity national convention centre Hughes believed there was a trend to change rules to benefit a ‘corporate few’.” Well I have contempt for that statement because there are 4000 New Zealanders in Taranaki making a living out of this industry in direct jobs and another 4000 making it indirectly—the hoteliers and so on. They are not the corporate few Mr Hughes. They are ordinary Kiwis of all ages and of all ethnicities. They are not corporates. They are just ordinary Kiwis who want to get ahead in this country and want to do well. They do not get a fair go from parties like the Green Party over there which does not actually believe in sensible development that takes into account and protects health and safety and the environment and that is exactly what this bill provides for. In fact it ups the standards in those areas quite considerably and yet we have the kinds of bogus claims we have seen from the other side.Then we come to Supplementary Order Paper 205 which Labour the Greens and Moana Mackey go on and on and on about. What drivel they are speaking—what absolute drivel! When they read it—I know that is difficult for one or two of them—what is very clear is we are stopping criminal damage and criminal interference. Protest does not even come into it and here is the problem with the Labour-Green position effectively. I challenge Gareth Hughes when he takes a call. I understand that Damien O’Connor would have voted for this bill but he was muffled by his party. He would have voted for this bill but he was muffled by his party. Well I say to Mr Hughes that here is the problem with your position. What Mr Hughes Moana Mackey and sadly Damien O’Connor—because he has to vote against this even though he does not want to—are saying is: “Yes to democratic rights for our mates for people who share our political beliefs actually our political prejudices but not real rights for people who disagree with us.”Moana Mackey: Why doesn’t it apply to everyone?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I will tell you what I learnt at law school Ms Mackey. It was that real rights are rights for people who disagree with you—not just your prejudices Mr Hughes. Real rights are rights for people who disagree with you. So I ask Mr Hughes to give me an answer in this House to this question: do Kiwis working hard on those exploration vessels not have rights as well? Do they not have the right not to be subject to criminal damage to interference and frankly Mr Hughes to some of your mates’ harassment? I reckon they do and I reckon most New Zealanders believe they have actually got a right to a fair go as well.Moana Mackey: Why doesn’t it apply to everyone?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Rights are a two-way thing Ms Mackey. So Gareth Hughes I want you to tell me whether they have rights as well. Or do their rights not count? What is quite clear over that side of the House is a view that says the ends justify the means right? The ends justify the means. They are so clear in their smarmy little chardonnay socialist world that they are right that they do not care about other people’s rights—“Rights for our side; no rights for anyone else!”. Well I will tell you Mr Hughes that business people in this country have rights too actually and talking about business and development is not a shameful thing. Actually it is what makes the world go round and it is what pays for all your socialist ideas frankly.It has been good to take this brief call and to ask what is so wrong actually with these vessels going out exploring and seeing what lies underneath our feet hundreds ofmiles outside. Be very clear Mr Hughes that there are Kiwis on these vessels. I have met them. I met a chef from Invercargill on a seismic vessel who loved the work loved the people and was proud of what he was doing. He was proud to be out there. So I say to Mr Hughes that actually this bill is about development this bill is about higher-paying jobs in the provinces that National holds—because we actually care about the people out there—and also this bill is about rights not just for the trendy lefties that Mr Hughes and Ms Moana Mackey talk to but also for other people whom they happen to disagree with. That is the real test of rights—rights for those you disagree with.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is astounding that we can hear a rant from a Minister about upholding rights from a party that implements so many wrongs.I object to this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill exactly on the basis that the Minister of Energy and Resources speaks of—rights. If I were a mining company or a landowner in this country I would be worried about this bill because it does a couple of things. Firstly it assumes that mining rights are above all else and that we should drive through anything to make sure mining occurs.The last brainwave that the National Government had was “We should mine schedule 4 national parks.” Nick Smith agreed with it. National members thought that was going to save this economy and drive us forward. Well we very quickly saw them turn tail and scarper off with their tails between their legs when they started to understand that New Zealanders who also understand rights know that there are some values in this country that need to be upheld. These are not just selfish property rights but responsibilities towards landowners.The Minister of Conservation is a landowner on behalf of the rest of us. He probably does not appreciate the job he has but that job is to protect conservation land. What this bill does of course is say that the landowner the Minister of Conservation does not have the right because he—or she—has been irresponsible with that right and blocked mining. Well I know that on my patch down there on the West Coast a lot of people make comments about the Department of Conservation but I also know that Labour in Government supported by the Greens—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Put mining in national parks.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —here he goes; he should keep his mouth shut—opened up and developed more mines responsible mines than this National Government has done in its whole time in Government. It makes lots of noise but it does not make much by way of progress. In fact the mining industry was outraged by the inept and stupid way that the National Government handled the whole schedule 4 issue because now what we have got is anyone who has any concern about mining jumping up and down and objecting to any sensible mining proposition. National has skewed the whole debate and the balance around mining.What we have also seen here is that we have got property rights perhaps under threat and that the Minister for Economic Development Mr Joyce—well good God would you trust anything with Steven Joyce? I certainly would not trust my second-hand car with him let alone the conservation estate of this country or the future drive of our economy.We need mining. Labour supports mining. We appreciate the jobs and the benefit out in the regions but we also know that it must be done responsibly. There are a number of proposals in the pipeline now Bathurst being one of them. I think with adjustment—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Do you support it?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yeah of course I have. I have always supported Bathurst.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Your colleague Maryan Street says “Leave the coal in the hole.”Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No we do not. Can I say that we support a process that is absolutely robust. I have been there and talked with people on the ground and I got changes put in the proposition by the company to make sure we have better environmental outcomes and I support it. That is under the current regime—a robust regime. This dumb Government thinks that it has got to tip it on its ear and hand all the rights to the Minister for Economic Development because he or she knows best.We cannot trust the economy to this National Government. We are seeing what is happening now. It is flogging off the silver selling it to its mates and setting everything up to benefit a few people at the top at the expense of poor people who pay GST who are trying to find a job who are stuck on a benefit and who are now going to be kicked around because the National Government thinks that if we kick these people into work then the whole economy would be better off. There should be members at the back there ashamed at what is going to happen to people who want a job but who are now going to be forced out into a job of 10 hours a week.Let us come back to mining. Let us bring things back down to earth. There have been some very pertinent points made by my colleagues about the Supplementary Order Paper that is coming in. I will stick to land for the moment. Let us take a look at the issue of property rights and the fact that the Government is now saying that the rights that the Minister of Conservation upholds and implements on behalf of each and every one of us over conservation land should be compromised by a mining company or a Minister who might be pressured by a mining company. I do not accept that.I have seen the Minister of Conservation—under pressure yes no doubt—make changes force changes and implement trade-offs to ensure beneficial outcomes for conservation and to allow mining to proceed. That is the way it should be. It should not be for the Minister of Conservation to be bullied by some Minister who has got a mate who wants to set up a mining company. That is what is going on in this economy at the moment.So I am not supporting the bill because I do not want Auckland investors or Chinese investors or American investors to get absolute carte blanche and the right to come down to the West Coast rape and pillage our region and walk away and leave it. We need proper environmental safeguards. We need the Minister of Conservation to protect the conservation estate. We cannot rely on Nick Smith so we are going to have to have robust laws that ensure that the next Minister of Conservation can protect areas like the West Coast like Kahurangi National Park like all the national parks around this country because the National Government—through the back door no doubt—will continue to try to open up the door for mining on schedule 4 areas. I can say that—Jonathan Young: Come on Damien. Tell us the whole story.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No no no. I know what is going on here. I accept that yes there are provisions in this bill here to uphold some of the requirements and the protection for schedule 4 areas but I also know that you are rolling over the Minister of Conservation. Yes you are.The bill does implement and insist on—we hope—some better standards of health and safety before any mining proposals go ahead and we acknowledge that. It is needed and no project—no prospecting—should go ahead without the most robust levels of health and safety. I am not going to go on. We all know why we need that and it is a sad sad outcome.Let us go back to property rights. Farmers up until 1992 of course had no ability to object to mining. Up until 1992 the people who had the mining rights had the right to go and mine regardless. The bill was changed—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who changed that law? Who changed it?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: National changed that.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Good job.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That is right. National changed that. It was a good job. It said that the owner of the land be it the Minister of Conservation or a farmer ultimately had the right to say no to a mining proposal on the land because they owned the land. The owner of the mineral rights under the land which is the Crown had no superior rights. That is the way it should be. We should ensure that be it a farmer be it the Minister of Conservation or be it a State-owned enterprise the person who owns the land should have the ultimate say as to whether or not the mining proposal goes ahead.I think that whether it be Magna Carta rights which I hear of from time to time or normal property rights in more recent legislation—there will be a few over there in the National Party who probably refer back to the Magna Carta—I do not necessarily accept them as a mandate for property rights of today. Farmers now are looking at issues like pylons on their land whereas in the past the Public Works Act ensured that the pylons could be put on land—a bit of goodwill and “She’s all right.” Now farmers and the Minister of Conservation are looking at the rights on their land and judging them assessing them and protecting them.As the Minister of Conservation now looks for more commercial opportunities on the conservation estate and he cuts back the budget and fires people from the Department of Conservation it is inevitable that the pressure will build to trade off those values for mining. There will be some in my West Coast electorate who do not like me saying that but they do understand property rights and they do understand—ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First. Once again New Zealand First will be the party in this house with a level sense of reasoning and balanced judgment on this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill.Jonathan Young: Once again?ANDREW WILLIAMS: Once again. Because we tend to be the party that has the sensible balanced common-sense views on these things. We have said in the past that we see merit in aspects of this bill because we do understand that New Zealand is sitting on significant resources significant natural resources that the people of this nation can benefit from. I do not think any New Zealander really would say that we should not be doing the best by our people so that we are more prosperous than we are today and can pay for the services that are required of this nation.Having said that we have always said as a party New Zealand First that any such mining or any such taking of resources must be done in an environmentally sustainable way and must be done so that the environment gets the benefit of the doubt but that at the same time we do not give away economic opportunities in this country. Our party supported the exclusive economic zone bill; others did not. Again we said that we had the fifth-largest economic zone in the world and we had to take advantage of the opportunities out there responsibly and take care of those opportunities.But we are in two minds on some aspects of this bill and we do wonder—and I have spoken to the Minister of Energy and Resources—why this particular aspect about protesting on the high seas has been put in under this particular bill because we do have some concerns. Our caucus discussed this on Tuesday and we just could not understand why it was put into this particular bill. We New Zealand First feel that it should really have gone in under the Maritime Transport Act and it should have been incorporated there. If there were going to be some provisions under controls on the high seas in some form or other it should have been done under the Maritime Transport Act.I have looked at the Maritime Transport Act and there are already provisions in that in terms of duties of the master where: “The master of a ship shall—be responsible for the safe operation of the ship on a voyage the safety and wellbeing of all passengers and crew” and further the master must “be responsible for compliance with all relevant requirements of this Act and regulations and maritime rules made under this Act”. So there already are provisions that could have been beefed up to ensure that for anyone going to sea the master of the vessel—I have got a small launch and I know that if I take people on my launch I am responsible for their safety I am responsible for the vessel and I am responsible for insurance on the vessel. I know that at the end of the day I carry the can. We cannot understand why the Government did not look to perhaps beef up some of the provisions of the Maritime Transport Act if it had concerns about this area. Furthermore under the Maritime Transport Act section 65 talks about dangerous activity involving ships or maritime products and it says: “Every person commits an offence … which causes unnecessary danger or risk to any other person or to any property irrespective of whether or not in fact any injury or damage occurs.”These sorts of provisions are therefore there and we feel that in a sense this is already covered. It is covered to a certain extent but it could have been perhaps that that particular Act could have been amended. So we do have some concerns that this bill is perhaps being railroaded through for other purposes to do with mining or drilling or exploration offshore and it could well be a little bit of a smokescreen to perhaps hide activities that are not necessarily in the interests of good lawful everyday protest.I can remember—and I know the Hon Simon Bridges was born in 1976 so he cannot personally recall this—and we all remember the HMNZSOtago and the HMNZSCanterbury or those of us of who are of that age heading off to Mururoa atoll in 1973 when Simon was still the twinkle in his father’s eye—well not even that probably. I think as a nation we were all very proud of those two frigates going off to Mururoa to uphold our protest against nuclear testing. We as a nation said there was a right for us to go and protest on the high seas and make our voice known. I do not think anybody in this country would ever say that that was a wrong decision. We made it and had we not done that—and the Minister has said: “Oh well you can protest outside their head offices and go on the footpath outside their building.” We could have stood outside the French embassy here in Wellington or we could have gone to Paris and stood in the Champs Élysées but it would not have had the same effect as having a New Zealand warship at Mururoa. That certainly really brought it home on the international stage.Likewise some of us were around at the time in Auckland in 1979 when the USSHaddo submarine came up the harbour and there was protest at that. Again that was all around the antinuclear protest period and again that was very effective because there was a sufficient protest on the harbour to say we did not want those nuclear vessels coming into port. That was a very strong message. Again it would not have been the same just standing outside the US consulate and having a few flags and banners.It is part of New Zealand’s psyche—the right and the freedom to protest to be able to go wherever you wish whether it be on land or sea and have your say. But having said that we agree it must be done in a safe manner and a responsible manner. The master of the vessel and the crew are responsible for the safety of those people on the vessel and it must be done in a responsible manner. We do feel that there needs to be a little bit more thought from the Government on this. Perhaps it needs to just think through the whole Maritime Transport Act. Perhaps it needs to withdraw this and take this out of this particular bill and look at how perhaps provisions can be rightly done so that responsible protest is not stopped in what we see as a law-abiding country where we do uphold the right of law but we also uphold the right of free protest. So in that respect we are having difficulties with it.Having said that we support aspects in terms of the mining aspect but we also say as New Zealand First—and it has got a huge amount of support around New Zealand—that any resources taken whether it be via the Crown or via private mining must end up returning greater royalties to the place where they are taken from. We released a policy just a month ago where 25 percent of all royalties taken by the Crown in any part of New Zealand—25 percent of those royalties—must go back to the region from where they were taken so that the people who are perhaps affected by any mining or any taking of resources actually get a benefit from it. It does not just all disappear into the central treasury in Wellington and the places that are affected by it do not see the benefits.So at this point in time New Zealand First regrettably is not going to be able to support this bill unless the Government really has a bit of a rethink and really looks at it and decides what it is after here. Is it after responsible consideration of our very very important minerals and resources in this country or is it looking at other ways of stopping the rightful freedom of speech freedom to protest and the freedom of every New Zealander to go about their actions in a reasonable law-abiding manner? At this stage unfortunately New Zealand First cannot now support this bill.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I moveThat the question be now put.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): New Zealanders love and want to protect the places in our country—our distinctive and unique and precious plants and wildlife their habitats and our quite dramatic landscapes. They do not want miners to have a go first and that is why 50000 people marched down Queen Street. So I am pleased to stand here for the Green Party to speak for nature and for those wild places that so many New Zealanders treasure to speak for a smart and sustainable economic plan and to oppose this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill.The bill represents a profound change in the way conservation lands are managed and the way in which mining applications are considered. It is a major change in our whole philosophy about the place of conservation in New Zealand. As Damien O’Connor noted when those 1991 changes came in with the Crown Minerals Act and the Conservation Act in 1987 there was a recognition that as manager of conservation lands holding them in trust for all New Zealanders the Minister of Conservation had a right to say no to mining applications in the same way that private landowners through the Crown Minerals Act in 1991 were also given the right to say no. This bill makes a major change to that because it puts the Minister of Energy and Resources as the decision maker alongside the Minister of Conservation for any applications to prospect and mine on conservation land. By doing that it is failing to give adequate weight to the Crown’s other statutory responsibilities in the Conservation Act. But we know that this Government does not care about conservation because it has cut the funding to the department it has axed 140 jobs and it is proposing new legislation to further change the Conservation Act potentially to weaken it so that it can “extract greater value” from conservation land. This is what the bill is all about having conservation land opened up for mining rather than for the preservation and protection of the species and landscapes that we value.I would like to talk specifically about clauses 31 and 32 and the changes they make to section 61. It is there that we have got these changes that put the Minister of Energy and Resources inside alongside the Minister of Conservation as a joint decision-maker. There was a small change by the Commerce Committee to restrict this to tier 1 applications for exploration and mining. But given that the threshold between tier 1 and tier 2 is how much the mining company estimates it will spend on its work programme for exploration permits and what it estimates will be the annual production and royaltyfor mining permits I imagine that most applicants will make sure that their estimated expenditure exceeds the $1.25 million threshold.One of the very troubling things in this clause—that is clause 31(1AA)—is that it is not only giving this joint decision-making power to new applications but also potentially making the law retrospective because the joint decision-making power applies to a variation to an existing access arrangement if the purpose is to allow significant exploration or mining activities. So that means as I read it that any existing mining or exploration permit that has been granted can potentially be significantly expanded and the Minister of Energy and Resources will have a role in that decision rather than just the Minister of Conservation. It is potentially allowing existing applications on conservation land which the Minister may have decided to restrict to smaller areas with less impact to actually significantly expand.This whole joint decision-making power implies that the Minister of Conservation as advised by the department cannot be trusted and is not competent to assess the effects of mining applications and decide them. As submitters noted and I would like to quote Linda Conning who said: “it is an unwarranted increase in ministerial power where there is no … obligation to promote the purpose of conservation and it is an undesirable precedent for joint ministerial responsibility to enable interference in other portfolios.” We do not see the Minister of Conservation able to make decisions alongside the Minister for Primary Industries on the total allowable commercial catch regardless of the fact that fishing has a lot of impact on our wildlife and on marine biodiversity so why should we have the Minister of Energy and Resources making decisions on conservation land? Are we going to see under the new changes to conservation legislation that have been highlighted in the briefing to the incoming Minister the Minister of Tourism having a joint role in decisions about tourism concession applications? It is showing the double standard that the Government is applying to the exploitation of our public protected lands that is at the heart of this bill.It is interesting that when National amended the Resource Management Act in 2009 to remove the Minister of Conservation’s role in relation to restricted coastal activities such as big reclamations or major dredging that was done because it was seen to be inefficient to have two decision makers: the regional council and the Minister. Yet here when we can encourage exploitation of our conservation lands the National Government is quite happy to have joint decision-making. There is nothing in the legislation that highlights what happens when there is a difference of view between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources and as Damien O’Connor noted there will be significant pressure applied to the Minister of Conservation to do what the Minister for Economic Development who is actually pulling all the strings here wants. So we will have the Minister of Conservation who is supposed to be the guardian of our protected conservation lands not having control over what happens on those lands. As Mr Finlayson noted words are important.The Conservation Act is about the preservation and protection of natural resources. That is a completely different statutory test to the one in this bill about the promotion of mining. So where you get the Minister of Energy and Resources involved it will be overriding protection and preservation and overriding the fact that in 1987 the Conservation Act highlighted the views of all New Zealanders that these landscapes should be protected for present and future generations so that we could protect their intrinsic values and we could enjoy those lands recreate in those areas and enjoy wilderness. This bill actually cuts across that by opening up the conservation estate for much greater exploitation. The other way it does that is by the change in the decision-making criteria and the introduction of a new test of direct net economic benefits of the application. That will have to be weighed alongside the impacts of the application onconservation values and the impacts of the application on recreational use. But with economic benefits as we all know it is much easier to quantify jobs and much harder to quantify intrinsic values so you will get the jobs that are potentially created—short-term jobs often by people coming from offshore—trumping intrinsic values and trumping conservation values.So there is a fundamental change in this bill that undermines the way in which conservation has been valued since 1987 through the establishment of the Department of Conservation and the protection of the conservation estate. That is because this Government has a very empty economic agenda which is all about the exploitation of nature. It is not about sustainable economic growth; it is all about short-term dollars setting aside areas that have been protected just to allow companies like Bathurst Resources to come in. That is another noxious part of the bill the transitional provisions which mean that the Bathurst Resources application will potentially benefit from this joint decision-making. Where the Ministers in answer to questions have already flagged that they support this Bathurst Resources application we potentially see those protected conservation lands on the Denniston Plateau with those distinctive ecosystems being opened up for large-scale mining open-cast mining which would destroy those pygmy pines those quite special landscapes just to provide a few short-term jobs for a Perth Australia-based mining company. This bill is bad law because it reneges on the protection of conservation values and the Green Party will oppose it.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I want to begin by saying that I come from a region where minerals extraction particularly of the hydrocarbon type is common and long established. It is an area that has long needed an improvement in its road north State Highway 3 which is the source of some mirth for the uncaring Government. It does not see the value of it and does not see any need to put any money into it. But it is a road that plays an essential and critical part of the mining industry in Taranaki as it is at the moment.What I want to comment on is Supplementary Order Paper 205 and make the point that that Supplementary Order Paper ignores the genuine anxiety even in places like Taranaki which is quite familiar with mining and hydrocarbon extraction. Nevertheless there is anxiety about where the future of oil and gas exploration and production is going particularly with deep-sea oil drilling. That anxiety is felt in all parts of New Zealand and just as much in Taranaki as anywhere else.What the community is looking for is assurances—and I know the people of Taranaki just as much as anybody else are looking for assurances—not only from the industry itself but also actually from the Government the regulator of the industry that proper precautions are being taken when new permits are being let particularly deep-sea oil exploration and drilling permits and that the Government and the industry are taking seriously the concerns that people have. Those concerns and anxieties are real. People look around the rest of the world see the mistakes that have been made and quite rightly when it comes to their back doorstep they are asking what precautions are being taken here.In Taranaki before the change of Government we were on the cusp of having a rapid response unit for marine drilling and that seems to have been shelved and has gone nowhere. That is an important issue. Indeed when Maritime New Zealand was asked about it in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year it knew nothing of it but when you talk to the Mayor of New Plymouth His Worship Harry Duynhoven about it he will tell you chapter and verse the work that had been done in preparation for a rapid response unit in the event of an incident or an accident offshore in Taranaki. Where is that sort of reassurance here?What we have—the response of the Government—is that if anybody opposes this type of activity in our seas there is something wrong with them and they are to be punished they are to be shut down and they are to be locked out of any legitimate protest activity. The Government would be better off and the Minister of Energy and Resources Mr Bridges would be better off to work with those in the industry and ensure that they are working with the communities and providing the information that gives them some reassurance that the risks are understood that they have been properly assessed and that they can be properly handled and also to have the honesty to say that if those risks are too great then they will not embark on that sort of work. We are entitled to nothing less.It is a very sensitive issue wherever you go. In Taranaki whether it is exploration drilling and production or whether it is the seabed ironsand mining these are legitimate issues that members of the local community have and are entitled to see reflected and respected by the Government in the legislation it passes. This legislation does not do it. This Supplementary Order Paper 205 does not do that. It rides roughshod over longstanding basic rights that people have and ought to have to raise their concerns and anxieties about this sort of activity much of which is dependent on new and developing technology and in many places it is untested. The waters off Taranaki are not the easiest to navigate or indeed to drill within as has been proven over the last 30 or 40 years there.This is an opportunity for the Government if it has a mind to do so to provide some reassurance not simply to regulate for its ability to ride roughshod over those who have a different view and who are seeking that reassurance and who want something different when it comes to this very sensitive sort of activity.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I just have to take a call to expose some of the bunkum and contradictions that I have heard from members opposite. You see all year we listen to the argument that New Zealand needs to create jobs and wealth. There is wailing and moaning about the job opportunities in Australia and the number of people who are going there particularly to Western Australia and you have a Government that is committed to growing the mineral and the petroleum industries here in New Zealand and on every one of those tests members opposite say no—members opposite say no. I say to the Andrew Littles and the Damien O’Connors of the Labour Party—who I hoped would bring to this debate on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill a little bit of common sense and a little bit of balance—that they have let down middle New Zealand who are looking for jobs and looking for opportunities for wealth.Let me go through a few of the contradictions. The first of those that I challenge Mr Little on is this: for the 9 years that Labour was in Government there were no environmental rules about mining in the exclusive economic zone—zero. There were no environmental rules about mining in the exclusive economic zone. We did not hear a peep from the Greens or the Labour Party about this and I am proud to be part of a National Government that has put in place a law that requires consents for petroleum exploration and other activity that occurs within the exclusive economic zone—absolutely. The challenge I have for Mr Little and others on Labour’s side is this: if somebody has gone and got a consent from the Environmental Protection Authority to be able to explore to be able to do surveys of resources in those areas will Labour defend the rights of people to use those rights? That is the question.Let us read exactly what Supplementary Order Paper 205 which Mr Little objects to says. It says that it will be an offence for people to interfere intentionally with a person who is out exploring. What the Labour Party is effectively saying is that it thinks it is OK for people to interfere in people going about their lawful exploration activities.What Mr Little said was this: if people legitimately think that they are right they should be able to interfere. Well I have to say to Mr Little that there are New Zealand citizens who quite properly believe that there should be no exploration of petroleum or minerals anywhere. I have met those people. So because those people hold those legitimate views Mr Little are you saying that they can interfere and damage people’s property? I am proud to be part of a Government that says no.You see—Andrew Little: Why are you breaching the Convention on the Law of the Sea?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It does not. It does not. I have read the Crown Law opinion that makes that point that Mr Little interjects with absolutely wrong—he is wrong. Let me put it this way. Let me put it just very simply for members about protest. It is absolutely their right for people to protest outside Parliament; it is absolutely the right of people to be able to protest outside my electorate office; but it is also the law set down very clearly in court decisions that they may not stop my legal right to be able to access Parliament or my legal right to be able to access my electorate office or other citizens and that is what this law is intended to do.Then I come to the contradictions. I stood on the electoral platform at the last election next to Maryan Street Labour’s environment spokesperson who said in respect of the Bathurst Resources mine on the West Coast: “Leave the coal in the hole.” That is what she said—“Leave the coal in the hole.” Now I have Damien O’Connor who purports to represent that community saying: “Oh no no no. They are in favour of Bathurst.” Well I simply say to the Labour Party that it is no wonder it is in Opposition. It is no wonder the public has no confidence in it when it does not even know its position and it sends such contradictory messages on those sorts of issues.The last point I would make is this: this bill provides for decisions made around minerals to be made jointly by me as the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources. That is because we believe in balance. I will tell you something else. Actually we are a Government that agrees to work together. We are a blue-green Government. We have a balance of both conservation interests and economic interests.Hon Phil Goff: Yeah right. Ask Guy Salmon about it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Goff says that actually he does not agree with balance in these decisions. Well I actually stand up front as a Minister of Conservation who says this country needs prosperity this country needs jobs and we as a Government are going to make balanced decisions about how we create jobs how we use resources wisely and how we also ensure that we protect—Hon Phil Goff: Balanced decisions yeah—like mining in schedule 4 areas. That was balanced!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I hear Mr Goff interjecting. I have a question for Mr Goff. Given all the rhetoric that I have heard in speeches from members of the Labour Party that mining in national parks is absolutely sacrosanct why did the Labour Government in 2006 approve the mine in the Paparoa National Park? I tabled the documents in Parliament where its Cabinet approved a mine in a national park and then they get up in this Chamber and pretend that somehow that is absolutely sacrosanct.This is a Government that is about jobs this is a Government about balanced environmental protection and this is a bill that is about New Zealand in an environmentally responsible way taking advantage of our minerals and our resources to create jobs and wealth which this country has to do if it is going to be able to provide that sort of future for New Zealanders. Members of the Labour Party who scream about jobs and about wealth and about higher pay are absolutely contradictory because every time a bill comes to this House to do anything to create jobs—whether it is the film industry whether it is the mining industry whether it is any area—Labour says no andthat is why it is completely out of touch with New Zealanders and their desire for growth and jobs in an environmentally responsible way.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call Brendan Horan.Moana Mackey: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair referred to a legal opinion that he had on Supplementary Order Paper 205. I ask that he table it.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I do not recall that occurring.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I said very clearly in my speech that I had read an opinion. I did not quote it. The Standing Order is very clear and what is more actually the member is simply incorrect in the way in which she is quoting me.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): New Zealand has a proud tradition of democracy. We have fought in wars—World War I World War II the Korean War Viet Nam Iraq and we had representatives in Afghanistan. We fought for democracy. Then along comes the honourable member from Tauranga and he decides “Let’s just redefine democracy shall we? Let’s just tear it up.” If that member has his way then people like Lucy Lawless ofXena: Warrior Princess would be languishing in jail for a peaceful protest. That is what democracy also means because our forefathers fought for the right to peacefully protest. I wonder why the member would try to enact this Supplementary Order Paper 205. Then I thought about theRena that pimple on the rock which is still on the rock from over a year and a half ago. Actually it is more like a festering sore that is polluting and still leaking oil and who knows what else into our pristine beautiful ocean. Did you know that the divers who go down off Astrolabe Reef have to wear special dive suits for protection? We wonder what chemicals still lie at the bottom of the ocean. But democracy has not been served here because neither you nor I could go out and dive on Astrolabe Reef today or tomorrow because of the exclusion zone that they have. So it is no wonder that that member from Tauranga thinks that he can tear up the word “democracy” or redefine it with that Supplementary Order Paper.So I ask what the real reason is: is it drilling for oil? Well it cannot possibly be because this Government has proved that we cannot remove or clean up oil from a ship that is on a rock let alone oil that would leak from 1500 metres below sea level or dare I say 3000 metres below sea level in earthquake-ridden areas. So what is it about our mineral wealth? Do the people of New Zealand really understand just how much mineral wealth we have? I think not because it has accumulated over millions of years and it is down very deep. But this Government has decided to just give that away and to give it away not necessarily to the highest bidder but to companies such as Rio Tinto which has a licence to mine there. And while we are talking about Rio Tinto perhaps the Minister for State Owned Enterprises would like to apologise to New Zealand for being so helplessly and hopelessly outmanoeuvred when it comes to Tīwai Point and Rio Tinto.But there is also Trans-Tasman Resources which is about to start exploration and who is the ex - National Party Prime Minister who is on that board?Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s that woman isn’t it? The woman.BRENDAN HORAN: Yes Jenny Shipley. Is she still getting $1500 a day for the rebuild of Christchurch by the way? That person is on so many boards that I get splinters just thinking about the amount of boards. There we have a company that is going to bring its ship and it is going to take what it says is iron ore but what is it that it is really taking? And where are the checks and balances for that? And what is New Zealand going to get out of that—out of giving our mineral wealth away? Within that iron ore we have gold and we have titanium which is far more valuable than gold. We have all sorts of minerals that New Zealand could take and process itself with onshore facilities. But no this Government would rather give it to a company that will take itaway to a foreign country and then somehow the company is going to tell us what its net profit is and give us 1 percent. That sort of reminds me of the Tui ads really does it not? But I will speak more on that later.What I would like to do is say that when I heard the honourable member from Tauranga speak in his flagrant cliché-ridden abuse of the English language that member did speak of employment. I would like to help that member—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Tim Horan.Hon Ruth Dyson: Brendan.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Brendan.BRENDAN HORAN: Mr Chair I wish I could play rugby as well as that player.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well you might be able to one day.BRENDAN HORAN: I hope that with my return to the Parliamentary Rugby Team I may get that opportunity yet but I fear it is a pipedream. What was I talking about? I was speaking about an error-ridden twist a juxtaposition of puns and clichés from the Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges. But hidden beneath that dense foliage was the word “employment”. I would move that clause 12 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill be amended by replacing the proposed new section 7(g) with the words: “ensuring that all activities conducted on land or at sea under this Act are only done so with at least 50% of the people working (whether employees contractors or otherwise) being New Zealand citizens or permanent residents” and also by adding new section 7(h) with the words: “ensuring that all activities conducted on land or at sea under this Act are only done so with at least 50% of the payments made to people working (whether as employees contractors or otherwise) being payments made to New Zealand citizens or permanent residents”. This amendment would provide for 50 percent local content of labour working on all prospecting and mining under the Crown minerals legislation so that at least some value will go back to New Zealand and the downstream of the dollar and that the areas from which the minerals are raped and pillaged from our oceans have at least some benefit going back to some New Zealanders. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is a pleasure to take my first call on this matter the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I want to talk this evening about a different aspect of Part 1 of the bill and I intend to take a couple of calls at least. Yesterday I had the pleasure of being able to speak in favour of a Government bill. It was the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I began my contribution on that bill by remarking that we were all regulators now and that actually it was a bill that controlled a health and safety risk by means of regulation. In this generally awful bill we are debating now there is an aspect that I find myself able to support. On 19 November 2010 the Pike River coalmine exploded killing 29 people. The Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy was convened. It was the 12th commission of inquiry into a coalmining disaster in New Zealand—the 12thover the years. That royal commission reported in October of last year. For all of us who have been able to read that report it is an extremely sobering report and its recommendations were very widely supported indeed.In all of the dross that makes up the rest of this bill the one diamond is that this is the opportunity that the Government has taken to pass into law the legislation that is necessary to give effect to its commitment to enacting and implementing all of the royal commission’s findings and it is that aspect that I want to talk about. I was a submitter to the royal commission and indeed attended many of the hearings in my home town of Greymouth. It was an extremely sobering and scary experience because what wasrevealed was the most extraordinary list of failures. Some of them have been relayed in this House previously. I will give you some now. For example members may recall the disastrous second exit from the mine up the ventilation shaft which would have required a sheer vertical climb—actually overhanging for one part of it—up a 55-metre ladder which Mines Rescue characterised as extremely difficult to use in normal circumstances and impossible in a fire. Oh and the ladder could support only eight people at one time in contrast to the 60 people who could often be expected to be inside the mine. The inquiry heard about broken smoke lines which miners use to find their way out of the mine when there is limited visibility. Methane gas sensors were disabled in the mine. There were very infrequent disaster training exercises and wholly inadequate gas drainage plans. Drilling in the mine occurred immediately adjacent to cavities filled with pressurised flammable gas. There were reports of multiple ignitions inside the mine. Telephone and air supply was decommissioned to a fresh air base part-way along the drift which is the tunnel leading from the portal into the mine and the area inside the working mine that was called a fresh air base was not in fact a fresh air base because it could not be sealed from the atmosphere in the mine itself. That is just a small selection. It was an appalling and sobering list.The royal commission heard that the Pike River mining company which is now facing charges under the Health and Safety in Employment Act—I will not say more about those particular matters—was a company that was cash-strapped and that it was well behind on its production schedule. There was a good deal of evidence given to the royal commission about a number of short cuts taken in the health and safety area. The terms of reference that were set for the royal commission—and I give the Government credit for this as well as for implementing these recommendations today—were broad. They were broad enough for the royal commission to look beyond the immediate in-the-mine causes of the explosion. That was very important. The royal commission heard from an expert in human factors involved in disasters—in fact specialising in aircraft crashes—Dr Kathleen Callaghan. Dr Callaghan gave evidence about the importance of upstream factors what we might think of as the causes of the causes. What she said was that although of course it is possible to reflect on the immediate in-the-mine causes of the explosion a much more effective set of recommendations emerges by going further and further upstream to identify the causal factors and environments that enable those risk conditions to develop. That is what the commission of inquiry did. Dr Callaghan referred to James Reason’s Swiss cheese model. If I get another call I will talk a little bit more about that because it is very important in the context of this bill. She referred to the particular risk of process risk incidents. Process risks are ones that are very low frequency so they do not get picked up by regular incident monitoring but have high consequences. The type of explosion coal dust or gas explosion that can occur in a mine is precisely that kind of thing. That is why she said you need to get the regulatory framework right.The royal commission identified the failings in precisely those upstream factors in the regulations that applied to the coalmining industry and in the inspectorate that was holding Pike River Coal to account in meeting its obligations under those regulations. In particular the regulations included this test of practicability that is right in the heart of the Health and Safety in Employment Act. Practicability is all well and good. The example I used to give of a company that was very well resourced and able to implement all of the health and safety requirements was Solid Energy. Let us say that a notional coalmining company that is very well resourced would be able to implement all of the health and safety requirements but a company that is cash-strapped that says it cannot afford to build a proper second exit actually finds that to be not practicable andis able to get away with that under the regulations that applied in that mine on that day. So that was one of the fundamental issues.We heard too about the mines inspectors. There were at the time of the disaster two mines inspectors trying to inspect every mine and quarry in New Zealand and that was an unmanageable workload. The royal commission heard from those inspectors that they had inadequate training. They had no training for example in systems approaches. They frequently appealed to their bosses in the Department of Labour for more resources for more access to training for more access to systems that would enable them to do their job and they were turned down.What we heard about was a complete failure of the regulatory framework and of the inspection framework. So where does that come from? Well those failings found their origin in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. What that Act did was move from prescriptive standards for health and safety to an approach that placed the onus on employers. Why that was disastrous was that the Government of the day completely failed to see that actually employers had incentives to cut corners—financial incentives. If they could reduce their costs by not doing something and no one would pick it up that is what they would do. That is actually how economic theory works and market theory. That is exactly the outcome that we would expect.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I hope Mr Hague gets his third call because it was a substantive contribution. What he points out is that there are some strong health and safety aspects in this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill that the Green Party supports but it is the dross I think Mr Hague called it the rest of the bill that we are opposing. Unlike the Minister of Energy and Resources when he got up from the chair I am going to dispassionately stick to the facts. What we saw from the Minister was an embarrassing display when he made up for a lack of substance with bombast with bluster with hyperbole and with name-calling. It was an embarrassing display from a Minister clearly on the defensive a Minister who is losing the public debate.In this call what I want to talk about is Supplementary Order Paper 205 introduced on Easter Sunday by Simon Bridges. It has been called the “Petrobras law”. Greenpeace is calling it the “Anadarko amendment”. I think historians in the future will call it a bridge too far. It has not been a good day for the Government. We have got leaks. We have got privacy breaches. The Government is on the back foot when it comes to unlawfully spying on Kiwis. And here is the Government spending its scarce legislative time focusing on criminalising a human right—Kiwis’ freedom to protest on the sea. It is unneeded because we have got it going through the High Court at the moment. The Government is taking Elvis Teddy to the High Court. It is an overreaction because the penalties are far higher than what we have in the criminal statute. It restricts Kiwis’ freedom. It is a grotesque attack on Kiwis’ rights. I know that the Greens have a number of calls and I would like to apologise to Mr Hague. I have just realised that in fact it was not his second call; it was only his first. I hope to hear from him again. I apologise wholeheartedly.In this call what I want to touch on is why it is a bad amendment the shocking process we have seen it go through and what the real agenda behind it is. First up it is a bad amendment. This Supplementary Order Paper 205 amendment to Part 1 of the bill establishes five new criminal offences including damaging and interfering with a structure or a ship interfering with equipment and interfering with operations and sets up these new exclusion zones around the vessels. It is bad lawmaking because it is targeting one specific activity. It is targeting one specific industry. This quite legitimately opens up the Government to accusations. This is law for one industry by one industry. It is lawmaking at its worst. What we see is not what Minister Bridgestalked about—that the Greens are advocating for more rights for protesters. Protesters’ rights in New Zealand are the same rights all New Zealanders have. It is called the law. What Supplementary Order Paper 205 is doing is setting up specific penalties if you infringe one specific industry. If you do this to the fishing industry you are not going to face these penalties. It is only if you impact the Government’s mates its oil-driller mates whom it is trying to bring down to the great waters of Aotearoa.It is bad lawmaking because it is extending police powers to the military and to the navy specifically. Extending powers of arrest and detention to the military should be used sparingly and it should be used only in exceptional circumstances. What we are seeing here is the Government setting up the New Zealand Navy to be a private petroleum security company. We should not be passing laws like this one with this amendment. It interferes with the freedom of navigation in the exclusive economic zone of New Zealand.We have got a legal opinion from Duncan Currie an eminent international legal expert who points out that when you look at the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and say the Australian legislation which Ministers Bridges and Heatley have modelled this Supplementary Order Paper on the 500-metre exclusion zones relate only to installations and not to vessels. What this Supplementary Order Paper is doing is rewriting international law to suit one specific industry by having the 500-metre exclusion zone surround vessels. These are exactly the same types of tactics and dubious legal justifications that New Zealanders rightfully question when it comes to Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. It is something our Government rightfully challenged when the French tried it on Mururoa and we sent our frigates to protest at their nuclear testing in our backyard. Quite rightfully it is something that our officials criticise North Korea for doing—for making up laws like this on the fly. Mr Currie I think quite rightfully writes in the legal opinion which the Government has treated with disdain that “There is a good reason that UNCLOS does not allow safety zones around vessels. In contrast to installations such as oil rigs which are subject to the exclusive justification of the coastal state ships are principally subject to their flag State laws while sailing in the EEZ or on the high seas. Safety zones around vessels would create confusing zones of coastal state jurisdiction around foreign flagged vessels—a very confusing state of affairs which is not contemplated by UNCLOS or the law of the sea.” So here we see Minister Bridges with no legal advice.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want first to comment on the extraordinary contributions made by Ministers in the chair tonight. First of all we had an appalling attack from Chris Finlayson the Attorney-General denigrating people like Dame Anne Salmond who has just become New Zealander of the Year and Sir Geoffrey Palmer for reasons it seemed that Mr Finlayson did not like the lectures Sir Geoffrey gave when he was a year 1 student. I think it was jealousy or maybe it was just sheer bitchiness. Actually I think that is the best way of describing it. But I regret the fact that when prominent New Zealanders who have contributed so much to this country speak out against a piece of legislation because they see that legislation as breaching fundamental rights set out in our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the response from the Government is to denigrate the people who complain about the right of protest being breached. And that man is the Attorney-General. He has the responsibility to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and yet he is supporting a piece of legislation that the Government did not have the guts to put before a select committee or to get the normally required submission from the Attorney-General as to whether this legislation is in fact in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Then we had an unbalanced contribution from the Hon Nick Smith—that is the only way I can describe it. He had the temerity to talk about jobs—Hon Member: Oh come on. Below the belt—below the belt.Hon PHIL GOFF: He talked about balance and I will come to that in a minute. He talked about balance; this is a Government that destroyed the balance in the Resource Management Act. That balance once existed between conservation values and development in a carefully crafted piece of legislation that has lasted through successive Governments and has been endorsed by successive Governments which they are ripping apart to the extent that a prominent member of the National Party Guy Salmon who actually does believe in conservation values has said that it is an absolute disgrace that his National Government is putting through something like that. So Nick Smith has some cheek talking about balance in this House.But then he came into this Chamber to talk about jobs. “This is all about jobs.” he said. This is from a Government that has destroyed more jobs than it has created in the last 5 years—destroyed 30000 more jobs than it has created. Government members are talking about mining. Mining is one of the areas where proportionately they have destroyed the most jobs. Then in the House today they said they were going to destroy another 1300 jobs in the hospital wards so they could give frozen pre-cooked meals to sick patients who need decent nutrition. Do not come in here Dr Smith and talk about balance and jobs because you are on very weak grounds on both fronts.But what I really want to object to in this bill—well actually there is another thing that I want to object to. It is about something that Simon Bridges said. You know I think arrogance is often proportionate to youth but Simon Bridges had the cheek to say that rights were a two-way process—a two-way process. You know it is terrible that Government members have to protect those huge multinationals with all of their resources and all of their wealth and all of their power against the ordinary New Zealander who has no wealth has no resources and has no right other than the right of protest and now they want to take away that right of protest. That is a disgrace. Do not come in here Mr Bridges and talk about rights being a two-way process because what this Government is doing is simply being an apologist once again for the multinational companies that come to this country and want to take from this country rather than give to this country. You know representatives from Warner Bros came here and they walked away laughing—laughing at the naivety and the amateurism of the Prime Minister who handed out another $67 million to Warner Bros and then gave it a piece of law that his own legal advisers said was not even necessary.So here we have another example. We have got Warner Bros. We have got Skycity and now we have got the multinational oil companies. This Government has decided that it will bring in a law abrogating the longstanding right of protest on the seas in order to satisfy the big business that came along to them and said: “We want you to do this.” Simon Bridges young and naive as he is immediately brings into this Chamber a Supplementary Order Paper which he never put before the select committee to judge whether it had substance and whether it was appropriate. The fundamental thing about democracy in this House is that legislation goes to a select committee and before the select committee ordinary New Zealanders can have their say. Simon Bridges has stopped ordinary New Zealanders having their say on this piece of legislation and that is a disgrace. This is obnoxious legislation brought in by bad process and—Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I moveThat the question be now put.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Just to continue my call from before in the first section I talked about the first reason that I am opposed to Supplementary Order Paper205 which is because of the substance. It is bad law. Eminent legal professionals have said that it breaches international law.In this short slot I want to talk about the process because that has been equally shocking. What we are seeing is lawmaking at its worst by a new Minister of Energy and Resources and started by the previous Minister Phil Heatley. Supplementary Order Paper 205—the “Petrobras amendment” the “Anadarko amendment”—was announced on Easter Sunday on the television. This got absolutely no select committee scrutiny because it has been introduced as a Supplementary Order Paper. Even this afternoon when I put to the House a motion that we recommit this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill to the Commerce Committee to consider just this specific amendment—it could have had a constrained time—this Government refused to grant leave. It does not want to have select committee scrutiny. It does not want to put the detail in front of the public.Denis O’Rourke: They’re ashamed of it.GARETH HUGHES: The Government is ashamed of it Mr O’Rourke. It does not want to hear from the legal experts. It would rather keep its hands over its eyes and its fingers in its ears—blind to international legalities and law and blind to the experts—because it does not want to have the questions answered. So we have not seen any select committee process which is traditional with something with such far-ranging constitutional democratic and human rights significance and implications. Of course because it is an amendment we have seen no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet which is traditional with first readings of legislation. We are avoiding that entirely because it has been introduced as an amendment.What we saw tonight was I think shameful for a democracy. We saw the Attorney-General crack a couple of jokes with the energy Minister in the chair. He said he had a quick perusal of it and then went on to slander some of our most eminent legal professionals including former Prime Ministers. I am sure they have got thick skins and they see the politics behind it but I think it is a shameful display that the Attorney-General could treat such eminent New Zealanders including a New Zealander of the Year with such disdain. He is not even doing his job which is as Attorney-General running a Human Rights Act – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act lens over legislation. I think we should have done that. Again in the Chamber the Minister declined my invitation that he invite the Attorney-General to run a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet across it. What we have seen instead is slander and impugning experts which I think does those members no good.What we have seen is an incredibly rushed process. This was introduced only on Easter Sunday and now we could see it passed in a matter of weeks. The Minister could not even give examples of why this is needed. He says the industry had not been complaining about it and had not been requesting it. So what is the rush? Why can we not have a select committee hearing on it? Why can this not be introduced as a stand-alone piece of legislation with the appropriate right select committee hearing and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet? But I guess this is the real question: what has the Minister got to fear? What is he worried about? What are the answers he is worried about hearing? Maybe that is the entire problem: he is worried about what the answers are because the eminent legal professionals say it probably breaches international law and it is an attack on our key democratic rights. I guess the question for the Minister in the chair the Minister for Courts is whether the Minister bothered getting a Crown Law Office legal opinion. Did he go to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and request its legal briefing over it? If he did he should table it—he should have nothing to hide. If he did not I think that again is a shocking abuse of a rushed process to support matesin the oil industry from afar. What it does of course is open up New Zealand to years potentially of legal cases as these dubious laws are challenged in the courts.The third point I want to touch on is the agenda—what is driving the Supplementary Order Paper and is behind this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Despite the grotesque egregious nature of Supplementary Order Paper 205 you know what? I actually see this as a sign of fear from the Government benches. I see it as a sign of weakness. I see that the Government is actually losing the debate. The fact is that its oil-drilling plan for this country is in tatters. Apache Corporation is gone Anadarko has delayed Petrobras has gone and Phil Heatley has gone. The Government is losing the debate. What Supplementary Order Paper 205 does is send a very clear message to New Zealanders which is that protest is feared by the oil industry. The industry fears Kiwis standing up and exercising their democratic rights.It sends a message to New Zealanders that protest works. We have seen it in the Southern Ocean this season where Japan caught only 103 whales. It was trying for 1000 but protesters stopped it. We have seen it in New Zealand when we stood up for Pacific nuclear test - free zones. We have seen it with bottom trawling when I did what the Government refused to do to go out on the high seas and stop deep-sea bottom trawlers and now that has been banned between New Zealand and Chile. Supplementary Order Paper 205 is a challenge to protesters. Protest works the industry is fearful of it and I think protesters are not going to step aside. I think they are going to just ramp up the actions because what they love which is our beaches and our marine environment they want to protect. They are standing up for it. So despite the Government doing everything it can—KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I moveThat the question be now put.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I have been in the Chamber listening to the debate on this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill since 5.40 p.m. and this is the first time that the Chairperson of the Committee has acknowledged me in the many many times that I have sought a call. So congratulations Mr Chairman I am very very pleased about that.I want to talk first of all about the fact that this is the biggest change that we have had in the way that our conservation estate is considered the way our conservation values are respected and the way that our Minister of Conservation is regarded as an advocate since the introduction of the Conservation Act in 1987. It is the biggest leap backwards in the conservation space that could be taken. The whole of Parliament should be ashamed that this bill is going through.One of the many things that we love about our country is the pride that we have in and the care that we take of our public areas our conservation estate. We feel a moral responsibility if not a legal responsibility to ensure that those precious areas are protected for future generations and to be able to share those areas with the same passion and love that our generation has for them. This legislation says we now have a different regime. We have to somehow balance those values—they are more than policies they are more than laws; they are human values—of our conservation estate against how much money we can make out of them. Actually we in the most generous sense—because it is actually not “we” as a nation that generally makes money out of the exploitation of our conservation estate it is generally overseas interests. Leaving that aside I do not think that it is a matter of weighing up our conservation values against making money. Actually some things are too precious to sell and our conservation estate is one of them.We have moved in this legislation the advocacy role of the Minister of Conservation about as far down to the back of the bus as you can get. The Minister of Energy and Resources is now running the show and that is a tragedy. I held out quite alot of hope when the Hon Dr Nick Smith was given the conservation portfolio because I know that he has a passion for conservation values. I have no idea what agreements he made in order to be restored to that ministerial portfolio but I have not seen any sign of his personal passion for conservation let alone his advocacy skills coming through tonight. In the earlier contribution that the Minister of Conservation made I actually thought that he was speaking on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources. Not one word did he say about the protection and advocacy for the conservation estate and the values that New Zealanders have held so dear for so long.Some things are just too precious. It is our responsibility to ensure that those precious parts of our country are maintained for future generations to enjoy and to be proud of and it is for them in turn to maintain those areas for future generations. National is walking away from that responsibility and is putting in law an abdication of the supremacy of the decision-making power of the Minister of Conservation. This bill divides that decision-making role between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources. So we are now saying that the conservation values can be just trampled over. I think that is a huge shame for this Parliament and I look forward to being in a Parliament that reverses that and restores the advocacy role and the primacy of conservation values in our legislation.I just want to briefly touch on another sadness that I felt tonight and that was the immaturity with which both the Attorney-General and the Minister who was in the chair at the time the Hon Simon Bridges referred to other contributors in the debate but more important—because we do have the right of reply in this Chamber—the denigration to which they subjected Dame Anne Salmond and Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I do not think that that is necessary in this Chamber—MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I moveThat the question be now put.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): It is very disturbing to see the changes that have been put forward in this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill particularly by Simon Bridges and his attempts to basically stifle free speech and the efforts of communities to look out for what is actually important to them which they have proven to him is important to them. I will talk of Anadarko at this point. The Minister of Energy and Resources came toKaikōura which is sort of in my home turf to talk to iwi and the local community along with Anadarko and some of the officials who are basically from the minerals part of our bureaucracy. They came along and were theoretically there to listen and to make good sense of what the community’s concerns were. What did the Minister do? He came along and he then attempted to ensure that its voice its protest in the future against such exploration and such attempts to do stuff that could have a devastating effect in its territory was totally dumbed down. It is an atrocious part of his activity that he would go there front up attempt to charm the people and then take away their rights as such.However what is really concerning beyond that is that this bill does this throughout the country. It is not just for the areas around Kaikōura; it is for the areas that I am familiar with in the Marlborough Sounds and it is right through areas of the Coromandel too. It is just right through this country that this Government is prepared to really limit what can be protected in our environment.It is interesting to see that the Department of Conservation is further reduced in its capacity through this where it has been reduced consistently for some time. I will use some examples from the Marlborough Sounds area where we have had significant help given to the community from the Department of Conservation to put some resources into identifying the biodiversity issues around aquaculture and into some of our precious places out there and around Mount Stokes and the like as well. But what has happened more and more as its resources are being pooled and the Cabinet influencethat we see is about to come in much harder in this bill is that it has actually been reduced more and more to the point that it was not even doing submissions on important applications that were definitely going to have effects on very important biodiversity areas in the Marlborough Sounds. For this bill which actually reduces that further to come up on top of the cuts that the Department of Conservation has just had is appalling. It is absolutely appalling.What we had hoped and expected was that the Ministers who have spoken here previously including Nick Smith who speaks so strongly about balance out there—what is that balance? The balance is about bursting in over what the local community has said is important whenit has actually zoned areas to make sure that certain developments do not happen—after absolutely full consultation with the community including industry including different users including tourism including iwi. We have come to those conclusions and what does this Government do? It comes in over the top and allows and promotes development in areas where communities decided it was not appropriate. This is absolutely appalling and we have got a further extension being moved here and in other bills that this Government seems to have forthcoming. I am not quite sure what the Government expects of the community when it keeps getting hounded like this.ALFRED NGARO (National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to:replace “satisfy the” with “must satisfy those” in new section 19(1A) in clause 15; andomit amendment to new section 90(12) in clause 38.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments to the amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges and the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes52New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of Catherine Delahunty to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 212 in the name of Moana Mackey to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendan Horan to clause 12 be agreed to:replace paragraph (g) in new section 7 with the following new paragraphs:(g)ensuring that all activities conducted on land and sea under this Act are only done so with at least 50% of the people working (whether employees contractors or otherwise) being New Zealand citizens or permanent residents:(h)ensuring that all activities conducted on land or at sea under this Act are only done so with at least 50 percent of the payments made to people working (whether as employees contractors or otherwise) being payments made to New Zealand citizens or permanent residents:(i)any further functions conferred on him or her by or under this Act.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes35New Zealand Labour 34; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions22Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of Moana Mackey to clause 31 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Moana Mackey to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is in relation to exactly what is included in Part 1. In the index of the bill as we have on the Table of the House at the moment on page 5 it refers to Part 2 including “Savings and transitional provisions” new section 106 and clauses 51 52 53 53A 54 and 54A before going on to Part 2 “Amendments to Conservation Act 1987” but in the body of the bill those parts that I have just referred to from 106 through to 54A are actually under the heading of Part 1. So I am just seeking clarification about that first part of Part 2 which is on page 5 of the bill is referenced to Part 2 and which in the body of the bill is referenced to Part 1.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I understand it is an amendment to the principal Act as contained in Part 1. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to Conservation Act 1987Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Was my microphone not working? You did not seem to hear me the first time I called.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No I did not hear the member actually.Hon RUTH DYSON: I have never ever been accused of being too quiet so that is a first. I am speaking on Part 2 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill which is specifically in relation to amendments to the Conservation Act. Before I address my primary comments in relation to Part 2 can I say that the lack of ability to debate some of the more substantive issues in Part 1 is a cause of frustration to me. I was sitting in the Chamber from the very beginning of this bill prior to the dinner adjournment I sought a call at every single opportunity and I had only one so it was immensely frustrating actually. We had three Supplementary Order Papers amending Part 1 that we did not get an opportunity to talk to and obviously Part 1 is the primary substance of the bill.Part 2 like a lot of the bill has some—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I can hear people on my right and my left who do not have the floor.Hon RUTH DYSON: There are some parts of the bill that Labour said right at the very first stages of the debate in the House we agreed with. I suppose that really highlights the even more frustrating feeling I have than that of being denied the call earlier in the debate and that is that on serious issues such as this—where we have the conservation estate values that many New Zealanders hold dear to them and investment opportunities which are very important as well—we should whenever possible try to reach agreement.Where it has not been able to be reached it is not because of lack of goodwill and I have to say that when I have sat on the Commerce Committee looking at this bill I think every single member of the select committee that heard submissions on this bill tried really hard to understand the different perspectives that were raised the different points that were being made and the pros and cons that submitters raised. In many instances accommodations were able to be made but on this Part 2 the very fundamental point is that this once again is undermining the role of the Minister of Conservation. The Minister of Conservation has been the voice the conscience and the advocate for our public estate since the Conservation Act was introduced in 1987. In the same way the recent reforms of the Resource Management Act are the first time since the very first time we had an environment Minister that our environmental standards are being lowered by Minister Amy Adams. That is exactly what is happening in this bill in relation to the Minister of Conservation. For the first time ever the status the advocacy role the decision-making power the mandate of the Minister of Conservation is being weakened. And it is for nothing. It is not for the betterment of any value or any piece of land in New Zealand. It is not for any gain at all.I find it a very frustrating occasion and a very sad occasion in an area that is as important as this where had we worked together and had the latecoming Easter Sunday brainwave of the Hon Simon Bridges been referred to the select committee for debate and discussion we may have heard a lot more than we have during this debate. The select committee and members of the public have not even been shown the courtesy of knowing for sure whether there is a legal opinion that was presented to Cabinet Ministers or the full Cabinet in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 205 which has recently been passed. This is an area that should have been considered rigorously and carefully with solid public input. The submitters whom I heard were overwhelmingly opposed to the mandate of the Minister of Conservation being weakened but that is exactly what this part does. It extends the decision-making power to the whole of Cabinet. It once again says that the Minister of Conservation is not a decision-making person any more but that decision has to be shared around. What happened to the time when we recognised the importance of that portfolio the status and the responsibility that it carried with it and we gave that role to the Minister on his or her own? The National Party has said: “No we’re not going to have that. We need to make sure that we have Steven Joyce and Simon Bridges and”—heaven forbid—“the Hon Chris Finlayson running the show.” They will be making the decisions alongside the now seriously demoted Nick Smith. This is a significant weakening—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON: —of the role and it is not to anyone’s advantage.Moana Mackey: Mr Chair—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Oh I thought the member was seeking another call.Hon Ruth Dyson: Moana Mackey was seeking a call.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Oh I see. In that case I will call the honourable member Moana Mackey.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Part 2 of this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is in relation to amendments to the Conservation Act. Had I been able to take further calls to speak to my Supplementary Order Papers on Part 1 I would have addressed some of these issues as well such as the dilution of the powers of the Minister of Conservation and what a significant change that is. I would like to say that there are some aspects of Part 2 of this bill that we agree with in terms of the automatic addition of new reserve land into schedule 4. We agree that is a good change. That is appropriate. We welcome that change. But unfortunately as we see right throughout this piece of legislation wherever we get an advancement or an improvement double-whammied against it is something that is so bad that we cannot support the improvement. That is a real disappointment because there was a real opportunity here to yes streamline and modernise a piece of legislation that is important for our economy and our environment and that has unfortunately not occurred. What we have done is—as my colleague Damien O’Connor said on the debate on Part 1—created this false idea that somehow this is going to assist industry by skewing things so far towards it that it is not going to have to face the same level of hurdles that it faces under the existing legislation.The reality is that the existing Crown Minerals Act has worked just fine. We have mining activities going ahead on the West Coast and in Taranaki. We have heard about how great Taranaki is—well that all occurred under the existing legislation. It was not too difficult too tricky or too burdensome for industry to be able to go ahead under the Crown Minerals Act as it stands. Instead what we have done is we have made the bill so skewed in favour of industry and away from protecting our conservation values that we are going to have people far more concerned. Because if you get the process right thenthe overwhelming majority of people are happy to let it play out. If they trust the process if they trust that the protection of conservation land is going to be paramount and that the Minister of Conservation is going to be able to exercise his or her powers as the custodian of that conservation estate to ensure that it is protected for the enjoyment of all New Zealanders and if you have a process in place that adequately addresses the environmental concerns and the health and safety concerns that come up in the mining industry then most people would say to let that process go ahead. And if a mining activity is then consented that is good. And if that process says no and that in fact the risks are too great or it is not believed that the risks around the environment or health and safety etc. have been adequately addressed and that it is not going to go ahead then that is fair enough as well and industry accepts that. That is the position we have now with the current Crown Minerals Act.When the Government comes in here and rips the guts out of this legislation rips the guts out of the Resource Management Act and passes a piece of exclusive economic zone legislation that is appallingly inadequate it is not helping industry at all because the public no longer trust the process. When they do not trust the process they are going to want to have more input into it. They are going to want to have more scrutiny.Hon Ruth Dyson: They don’t trust the Government.MOANA MACKEY: That is right; they do not trust the Government either. They are going to be more likely to appeal and to try to get that fair process through the rights of appeal than they would otherwise be. They are going to protest and they are going to complain because they no longer trust that the process Parliament has put in place is going to adequately address the very real concerns. This is not helping industry at all. In fact it is a false economy. When I look at the shared decision-making power between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources I have never seen an area more ripe for judicial review than giving the Minister of Energy and Resources half the say in decisions on conservation land. When the Minister of Energy and Resources stands up in this Chamber and does a merry dance about Bathurst Resources and about Denniston then gives himself overwhelming powers to make decisions on Department of Conservation land including around Bathurst and then tries to tell us that that is not going to open the Government up to judicial review that is la-la land stuff. If the industry thinks that that is going to help it I think it is going to be sorely disappointed.The best thing we can do for industry environmental groups and the public is to get a process in place that addresses those concerns—a process that the public has faith in so that they know that when they go through that process part of that process has to be public input and right of appeal. Part of that process has to be that. As we have seen with the Resource Management Act most consents we do not have any problems with. Yes there are going to be some where there are concerns but usually and often that is around the way the Government has handled things and the way the Government has handled the Denniston issue has been appallingly bad promising things that it then did not deliver on. It has been that project that has been used as a test case because of those points. It has been the way the Government has handled these issues and these processes that has lead to overwhelming public concerns and that Denniston issue basically has been used as an example of bad process bad interference by Government and bad promises being made that were not upheld.So I very very strongly believe that these changes we are making and the changes we are making under the Conservation Act are not going to help industry in the way that the Government thinks they are going to. They are going to undermine environmental values and undermine health and safety values. I have to say here that we do support the Supplementary Order Paper on Pike River. Again that SupplementaryOrder Paper was allowed to go to the select committee and more submissions were called for. That is the correct and proper process when you introduce a significant Supplementary Order Paper. We thank the Government for allowing the select committee to consider that Supplementary Order Paper and not doing what it did with Supplementary Order Paper 205 and just dumping it on the Committee beforehand—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): 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 Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill no progress on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) and no progress on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.