Mallard Trevor: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12623. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):The Labour Party is going to oppose this particular Supplementary Order Paper because it is our view that it will be appropriate to have such a confused such a badly drafted such an ill-advised bill in the most confusing form that it can be and that will be as a result of having a stand-alone piece of legislation rather than having this in the various bills as is the intention of the Prime Minister. The really important point with legislation is that it is well drafted that it is well understood and that people can easily go from part to part of it. It is really important that as legislation is drafted and as it is divided properly the particular sections have in them exactly what is meant to be there. To do that what is required is for a proper motion for the division.Grant Robertson: There isn’t one on the Table.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I just want to question the order of the debate that we are now having in that it is my understanding that in order for a Supplementary Order Paper to be debated there is a requirement for it to be on the Table of the House. It is my understanding that there is not one of these currently on the Table of the House.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member is correct. As we speak copies are being prepared. It is a debatable motion and I ask for a bit of forbearance while that actually happens.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am seeking a bit of advice on the matter. It is customary to have papers on the Table. It does not prevent the debate from occurring. The member may continue.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Speaking to the issue now I think the last time that I can remember an issue being debated in Parliament without it being on the Table of the House was in the time of Muldoon. A tradition of the New Zealand Parliament is that if you are debating something you have the courtesy to tell the House what you are debating. Here we have the principal law officer of Parliament sitting in for the Prime Minister who does not have the fortitude to come to the House because the Government does not get itself properly prepared and have the requisite motions sitting here. It is a hopeless disorganised useless Parliament. And what is so silly is that anyone would think that a damn QC would be bright enough to get out a pen to write something down to send it out and get the 10 copies and put it on the Table of the House. But—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come to suspend the House in Committee for the dinner break. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The House in Committee on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is resumed. The Committee is considering the motion of the Minister responsible for the GCSB to divide the bill set out on Supplementary Order Paper 307. For some members who may not have been part of this debate before let me just say this is the narrowest of all debates. It is whether the bill should be divided or not and the debate should relate and pertain to those matters. The Hon Trevor Mallard has the call. He has about 2½ minutes remaining.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Thank you—I am on my first call Mr Chairman. I do want to compliment the Minister currently in the chair the Attorney-General for at last getting the Supplementary Order Paper that we are debating on to the Table. I see that the Attorney-General the one with the various jurisprudential fetishes is waving his finger around. Of course he knows what that means. He gets off on technicalities. In this particular case what we have is a motion to divide the bill and a Supplementary Order Paper to do that but unfortunately the ill-prepared ill-disciplined and generally useless Attorney-General who is sitting in for the Prime Minister on this particular occasion did not have the foresight to make sure that this was on the Table of the House at the appropriate time. It is a pretty basic job for the Minister who for the time being is in charge of the legislation in the House to ensure that this particular Supplementary Order Paper that we are debating is available. It was not available.The Minister got up and moved a vague motion—and in fact it is interesting now that you Mr Chairman have stated a motion that the Minister did not state when he actually moved it. So we are in an interesting position now but I accept that maybe you have in your very generous way done the work for the Attorney-General in getting himback into line when he was so far out as a result of his lack of preparation. I think that generally on this side of the House we will almost certainly vote for this Supplementary Order Paper when and if—tomorrow or the next day whenever—we get to the decision on it. But we do so only to have a very disorderly bill a little less disorderly than it would otherwise be and to make it slightly easier when—well I suppose it is mainly done online now—the poor people have to go around sticking the amendments into the various hard copies of the legislation and to make their job somewhat easier than it would otherwise be.I think it is fair to say that getting this bill divided in the way that is proposed will be useful. I think everyone should be aware of the fact that this will be legislation that is looked at much more—I was going to say much more than a fisheries amendment Act but of course with snapper that is probably not quite the case. These Acts will be looked at much more often than will be the case for the general run-of-the-mill legislation that this House considers from time to time.The proposition is from the Prime Minister and I will be interested to see whether the Prime Minister decides to take the chair for this particular debate. It would be precedent setting. He does not appear to want to take the chair for any part of the Committee stage of this bill. Of course being across the detail of legislation is something that he does not want to do. But Supplementary Order Paper 307 is in the name of the Prime Minister and what he is proposing to do is to drop out a number of words and to put in some new headings. What the headings effectively do is divide the bill into three. That is exactly what we are debating and whether in fact the title—I mean one of the questions I have is whether even at this late stage it is amendable. Well I am not sure.If one looks at the name of the legislation there is the title of the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act 2013. Like a number of people over the dinner break I have had a look at this area. I can see thatMcGeeis open not far to your left Mr Chairman. To be fair to Mr McGee he should be right in front of you. To suggest that Mr McGee is to your left or to your right would be something. Although I think the last time we had this approach it was from—just a slight diversion—the Rt Hon Sir Muldoon before he was knighted. He declined to appoint Mr McGee—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Come back to the debate.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —to the Clerk-Assistant position because he did not like Mr McGee’s rulings. But that is not to suggest that Mr McGee should be placed to your left; he should be front—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The debate—Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is right. The point that I am getting to is that not only shouldMcGeebe considered on this question but I am looking for and cannot see that you have referencedErskine May . If we are actually going to look carefully at the appropriateness of this particular Supplementary Order Paper—and what I have said is that the Opposition is ready to be convinced. If the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister if he decides to take the chair comes to the Chamber and makes an argument I am certainly prepared to vote for this Supplementary Order Paper.Darien Fenton: Eh?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: For the Supplementary Order Paper only—to divide it. I am prepared to be convinced. [Interruption ] No it is not a conscience vote but the question is whether this will make a disorderly bill slightly more orderly than it would be.Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s a harm reduction.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well you know I am not sure. The depth of the debate around it and the points that should be raised and should be looked at—later onin my next call and future calls we can go more deeply intoErskine May  although I think it is fair to say that the position in the British Parliament and the relation between the House and the Committee is somewhat different. Although the Attorney-General may think he is a lord I note some of the detailed discussions that are had in the British Parliament. Is the Attorney-General mute in the British Parliament? It would be a great thing. I know that the whips are mute. The whips are mute in the British Parliament.