Mallard Trevor: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9680. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I am surprised that no one from the Government is prepared to defend this rorting of the parliamentary process that is being attempted by Judith Collins and John Key today. We set up rules for the running of this Parliament. We set up rules for the running of it and one of the great things about our democracy is that just about every piece of legislation is referred to a select committee—a proper select committee of this House—and the public have the right to come in to have their say and to be considered.You will have noticed that on an earlier motion the Labour Party voted against this bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill going to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We did that because we thought that that was not the appropriate committee. It would be better to get it to a proper select committee one in which the normal rules of Parliament work and where there is an opportunity for proper discussion and proper debate. In fact I think that if the Government looks at this carefully it could think about referring the bill from the Intelligence and Security Committee to the Government Administration Committee or a similar committee which works on the edge of these matters but has I think some independence to consider matters carefully.But even if the bill did get cross-referred to that committee I would still be opposed to this shortened time. My view is that what we need is a period long enough for there to be a proper review. In fact if there is an exception to be made to the normal Standing Orders of the House with regard to the length of time that this bill is at a committee then consideration should be given to making an exemption to the 6-month maximum—the normal maximum period—that a bill is at a select committee in order to ensure that a proper inquiry takes place an inquiry with people who are experienced in intelligence matters preferably someone from overseas and preferably people who have been involved in the Australian arrangements. To do that we know—to do a proper job—it cannot happen in 5 minutes or in the 10 weeks that John Key has decided that this committee will have.I also want to refer again to the busyness of this period. There is a by-election to be had. It is my expectation that our representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee the leader of the Labour Party will be actively involved in that by-election. It is not like it is a minor wee seat that sits in one of our metropolitan areas; it stretches from Wainuiōmata around the top of the East Cape. It is an enormous seat and it is our expectation that our leader will be out. I know that the National Party has run up the white flag as far as that by-election is concerned and that that problem will not affect the Prime Minister in the same way because he will not have the expectation of being involved.The other not so minor matter that is occurring I think in another couple of weeks around which there is going to be quite a lot of debate and quite a lot of business is the Budget. I do accept that there are one or two engagements that follow the Budget that the Prime Minister takes—about the same number as for the Leader of the Opposition—but all of the party leaders and all of the people who are members of that committee will have quite a chunk of their time taken out around Budget matters.We know that by now the Budget is in bed. It is finished. Its proofs are probably being read at the moment. The Prime Minister’s work in understanding the Budget is now finished. He will not be involved in that because he will be right across it like he was right across the paper boy tax last year and a number of other things that he missed. But for people who are not part of the Government it takes a lot of time for them to getunderstanding of the Budget matters and the things that are within it and that is time that will not be available. If the Intelligence and Security Committee is going to be meeting around that time—the time immediately after the Budget—again that is time that is not available for the leaders of the other parties to be doing what is essentially what I would describe as their core work for June. Most of this period is in June. It is the biggest chunk of it and post-Budget the last week of May and the weeks of June are when that occurs.Again I want to just go back to a point that I made with regard to the legislation generally when I was talking about it and that is the importance of consensus wherever possible around this sort of legislation. I think there should be consensus around the process. I reiterate what I said before that I do not expect total consensus as to the results. We have parties that have different views and I do not think we will ever quite get there by way of agreement. But if we could have consensus around the process and an acceptance that those views that might be described as outside the mainstream have an opportunity to be heard and at the end of it there can be some bipartisan agreement to the legislation then that means that New Zealanders are more likely to be happy or accepting of the result. I think to be absolutely fair most New Zealanders are not happy at the idea of video cameras in their bedrooms. I mean most people do not want that—Grant Robertson: If they put them there themselves Trevor—Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member might. We are talking about the ones that John Key puts in there and looks at. Most people—most people—are not happy with the idea of intrusions video or audio into the personal parts of their lives. But what we are doing here is for the first time granting the right not of the police who are trying to stop a crime but of an agency that feeds material to the United States and the United Kingdom to make video and other surveillance of Kiwis. Previously it was not allowed to. There can be with a judge the right for the New Zealand Police to use that sort of approach. But if we are going to extend it we need to make sure that a consensus can be built around it.The other obvious point is very clear from listening to the Prime Minister about this. You know I acknowledge that Clare Curran and Grant Robertson have both got their heads around some of this cyber-technical stuff much better than I have but I know that I can understand it better than the Prime Minister. What we do need to know is that there is enough time at that committee for the proper briefings to build the Prime Minister’s understanding of the technology in order to make sure that both the current technology and the stuff that is coming in are one properly covered and two properly protected. It will take much longer than 10 weeks for the Prime Minister to understand that. It will take much longer than 10—Grant Robertson: It’ll take years.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No I disagree. I think if the Prime Minister focused on it if he put his mind to it and if he worked hard at it he could understand it—Grant Robertson: He’d quite probably forget.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well no there is no chance of him remembering. All we are talking about is understanding for a short period of time so that the committee can make decisions. If he forgets after that well we understand that that happens with him.