Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Our thanks to Minister Finlayson for his lucid and constructive input from the very beginning on this particular issue and if I may say so on his whole handling of the bill. We do admire that. The Green Party simply wishes to put forward two proposed amendments to Part 6. The second one pertains to the issue of the Intelligence and Security Committee which the Minister addressed and we will get to that in a minute. The first amendment however pertains to clause 155 which has to do with the selection of the Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. Our proposal is that after the word report" in clause 155(1)(g) we insert a new paragraph which would read: "(h) to consider recommendations from the Prime Minister for candidates for the role of Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants." The purpose of that particular proposal is intended to provide further transparency and oversight to the key positions in the new framework particularly the Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. So the idea would be that there would be more than one candidate—for lack of a better word—and certainly more than one nomination for the role of Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants and that that would broaden the representation ultimately of that role. Now I want to move to the second issue which also pertains to the question of the committee. It is its number and its composition and indeed the principles that underpin the composition and the process of selection. Our proposals are already set out there in Supplementary Order Paper 268. They are composed of two components. One is to delete clause 155(2)—I will not read out the subclause but it is necessary to delete it to move on to clause 156—and replace clauses 156(1) and (2) which have to do with the membership of the committee with the following: "(1) The size of the Committee should reflect the average number of members for other select committees with a minimum of six members." The purpose there is to reflect our belief that the Intelligence and Security Committee in full recognition that it is not a select committee but is a statutory body should reflect more closely other select committees on questions of transparency accountability and membership. We appreciate the points the Minister has made. We appreciate the fact that his proposal goes a small but significant way towards that. Our view is that the step we could take in this legislation could be larger so we suggest that the committee should reflect the average number of members for other select committees with a minimum of six members. On to the critical point you might say of the membership and the process by which the membership is constructed would be new clause 156(2): "The membership of the committee must comprise—(a) the Prime Minister; and (b) the Leader of the Opposition; and (c) no fewer than 4 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the leader or a co-leader of any other party represented in the House of Representatives in any parliamentary term." It will not be lost on colleagues that the purpose of that is to ensure that you might say it reduces—I appreciate increasing the number to seven goes some way towards greater proportionality in the committee. It does not guarantee that that proportionality is strictly observed in the context of every political party being represented. We heard the Minister say in the case of the UK that those parties or most of the other parties were represented. We could do one or two things today and this coming week: we can increase the number to seven and then rely on the two senior members of the House of Representatives to ensure that proportionality is observed through their judgment on the basis of an increase in number or alternatively we can simply require in the legislation that proportionality is strictly observed and respected through enabling each party represented in Parliament to nominate one person. Whether it is the leader oneself or somebody else to that extent there is a degree of discretion but the requirement is imposed through the law on the House to ensure that each political party has at least one representative. We put it forward in good faith. We think that every party—New Zealand First the Green Party United Future—in this Parliament by definition of having been voted by the people into this Parliament is justified in being represented on the Intelligence and Security Committee. We can have sufficient faith in the personal competence of every one our 121 members on a collegial basis to be reassured that the personal input on behalf of that party will be adequate and sufficient. So we can take a half step today or we can take the full step today and next week. We are in favour of a full step. I assure the Chairman I assure the Minister and I assure colleagues it is not pure self-interest on behalf of the Green Party that promotes this. It is a belief—a genuine sincere and deeply held belief—that proportionality should be strictly reflected in this statutory committee. So that is our proposal. We put it to the Committee with respect to the Minister and colleagues that we should proceed along those lines."