Volume 694 Week 56 - Thursday 17 October 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 694 Week 56 - Thursday 17 October 2013[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13997. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 17 October 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 22 October the Government intends to progress the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. With the agreement of the Business Committee the sitting on Tuesday 22 October will be extended on the morning of 23 October and the House will consider the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill theNgātiHauā Claims Settlement Bill theNgātiKorokiKahukura Claims Settlement Bill and theMokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill. Wednesday 23 October is a members’ day.Questions to MinistersHon John Banks—Ministerial Resignation1.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that Hon John Banks is a “credible” and “trustworthy” individual?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes.Grant Robertson: If he believes that John Banks is a credible and trustworthy individual why did he accept his resignation as a Minister given that Mr Banks continues to insist he has done nothing wrong and has nothing to fear nothing to hide?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because Mr Banks indicated to the office of the Prime Minister late last week that in the event the judge ruled against him he would tender his resignation as a Minister. The judge ruled against him he kept his word and tendered his resignation as a Minister.Grant Robertson: Given his statement yesterday that he would reinstate Mr Banks as a Minister if he managed to avoid a trial can he confirm that he regards Mr Banks’ conduct as acceptable for Ministers who are part of his Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member has misrepresented what the Prime Minister said yesterday.Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that Mr Banks’ actions make him acceptable to be a Minister in his Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the member may have noticed that Mr Banks is not a Minister in the current Government.Grant Robertson: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister is the last person left in New Zealand who thinks that John Banks is credible and trustworthy and that he is saying that only because he desperately needs to cling to that political corpse to prop up his Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the benefit of the member if he looks at the confidence and supply agreements which are publicly available the Prime Minister commands a majority of 64 votes to 57 in this Parliament. No single vote is critical to the Government. Secondly if legal proceedings continue as indicated yesterday and Mr Banks does go to trial he will benefit as every other New Zealand citizen does fromthe presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Labour Party may know the result already. Fortunately the legal system is more even handed.Grant Robertson: Does he now regret refusing to read the police report into John Banks filing a false electoral return given that he had all the information he needed to know that Mr Banks should resign as a Minister last September but he failed to act on it?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The correct way of handling allegations that someone has not complied with the law is through the legal process.Hon John Banks—Potential Conflicts of Interest2.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister for Economic Development: Has Cabinet discussed delaying the passage of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill until the Hon John Banks prosecution is resolved; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): No. I am relatively new here but it is my understanding that the executive proposes legislation and then a properly constituted Parliament of the House of Representatives debates and votes on legislation. I dare say that is what will actually happen in this case.Metiria Turei: Has Cabinet discussed the conflict of interest arising from Mr Banks having a crucial vote on the Skycity deal at the same time as Skycity is a witness in the court proceedings against Mr Banks regarding a $15000 donation that Mr Banks received from Skycity?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not really sure what the member is trying to imply here but my understanding is that Parliament gets to vote on legislation. Every member of Parliament in this House has the opportunity to do that and to vote according to how their party and their caucus want them to vote. I think that is what is appropriate. It is generally what occurs and I am sure that is what will occur in this case.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question expressly asked “Has Cabinet discussed the conflict of interest”—Mr SPEAKER: I agree with the point the member is raising. Would she please ask the question again.Metiria Turei: Has Cabinet discussed the conflict of interest arising from Mr Banks having a crucial vote on the Skycity deal at the same time as Skycity is a witness in the court proceedings against Mr Banks regarding a $15000 donation that Mr Banks received from Skycity?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I reject much of the supposition contained in that question but the answer is still no—the same as it was for the primary question.Metiria Turei: Why does the Minister not believe that there is a conflict of interest when Mr Banks’ seat in this House is potentially dependent on the evidence that Skycity will present at his criminal trial andSkycity’s $400 million deal could stand or fall on Mr Banks’ vote?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well this Parliament is the master of its own destiny and every MP who sits here sits here because of this Parliament and are entitled to do so. While they are here I presume they are entitled to vote. I might be old-fashioned in that respect but that was my understanding of it.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be—[Interruption] Order! A point of order has been called and there were interjections coming from two quarters of the House. If that continues you leave me with no choice but to ask the member interjecting through a point of order to leave the Chamber.Metiria Turei: Again my question expressly concerned whether he believed there was or was not a—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened carefully to the question and on this occasion the Minister addressed it to my satisfaction.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister believe it is good for democracy to pass a law benefiting Skycity while relying on the vote of a man whose seat in this House and even his freedom may depend on the testimony that Skycity presents at his criminal trial?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Speaking to the question there are two answers to it. Firstly I disagree with the member’s characterisation of the benefits of the legislation. The benefit of this legislation is to the people of Auckland and to the people of New Zealand who would obtain a $400 million convention centre for the benefit of economic growth and jobs in this country. I know that member disagrees but it is democratic for people to have different views.Hon Dr Nick Smith: What reports has the Minister received on the precedent that was set when retrospective legislation for paying for credit card costs in the 2005 election came before Parliament in which every member of the Government had a vested interest—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: I cannot see how that could possibly be relevant to the primary question.Mr SPEAKER: I agree with the member.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister think that a Government deal that causes people harm in order to increase casino profits is morally bankrupt?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I completely disagree with the premise of that member’s question and here is the problem. The tenor of the questions of the member today is that she does not want a properly constituted Parliament of this country to vote on this legislation because she disagrees with it. I am sorry but that is wrong.Metiria Turei: Will the Minister meet with the victims of problem gambling and explain to them why he feels comfortable using the vote of a disgraced MP to pass a law that will increase the harm that problem gambling causes to our communities?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Everybody has a different view on what is disgraceful and I think it is actually reasonably disgraceful to run a political campaign with taxpayers’ money during a term but that is just my view. Of course what is allowed to be done is allowed to be done. But my view on that is that every human activity involves some risk and every risk has to be managed and that is what happens. The member unless she is proposing to ban casinos and ban all gambling and ban lotteries has no right to lecture me on that subject.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I expressly asked the Minister whether he will meet with the victims of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was far more loaded than that.Metiria Turei: Is this not the truth of the matter Minister that the Skycity bill—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask a supplementary question.Metiria Turei: Is it not the truth of the matter that the Skycity bill is a sleazy deal in which his Government trades harm—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is now out of order.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I just want to check first of all that the member is not going to question the decision I have just made.Metiria Turei: No I am not going to question your decision. I would like your reasoning as to why you now consider that question out of order. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need assistance. The member can just go back and look at the wording of her question and some of the words she used in that question and I am sure she will figure it out for herself.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just again clarify that we are not in any way questioning a ruling.Metiria Turei: I am not questioning your decision.Mr SPEAKER: Then I will hear a fresh point of order.Metiria Turei: Does your ruling now mean that the word “sleazy” is a prohibited word in this Parliament?Mr SPEAKER: No it does not.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member because she is getting very very close to having to be asked to leave the Chamber that if she continues to raise points of order that I consider are trifling with the Chair Speakers’ rulings—Speaker’s ruling 20/8 from memory—will suggest that she leaves me with no choice.Metiria Turei: I understand.Mr SPEAKER: OK we will hear one more—hopefully one more—point of order.Metiria Turei: At the point that you declared my question out of order which is your right to do so the only phrase I had used was “sleazy deal”. I am not sure—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. I have ruled the question out of order. That is the end of the matter. It is not something that is relitigated in this House.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been the practice under your term as Speaker for members both of the Government and of Opposition parties to seek clarification from you on rulings. It is a perfectly legitimate part of all the time that I have been in the Chamber that that has been done and that when a ruling appears to be a new one members have the right to raise points of order with you and you have in the past responded. Or if not that day you come back with a considered ruling to explain why you made the ruling you made. I think that would be the appropriate course in this case.Mr SPEAKER: And I agree with the member. Metiria Turei raised the question as to whether “sleazy” was now an unparliamentary term and I said no.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear but I just want to warn the member that if we are any way addressing a decision I have made I will be immediately sadly asking the member to leave the Chamber.Metiria Turei: Absolutely Mr Speaker. My point of order to you—Mr SPEAKER: I just want to check that it is a fresh point of order.Metiria Turei: It is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Good.Metiria Turei: What part of my question was out of order?Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet.Metiria Turei withdrew from the Chamber.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have a point of order and it will be heard in silence. [Interruption] Order!Iain Lees-Galloway: I ask that you reflect on the original decision to rule MetiriaTurei’s question out of order and perhaps bring a considered response back to the House. You have now left members in a difficult situation I submit in that it is difficult to craft questions that are in order because we do not know why it was that MetiriaTurei’s question was out of order.Hon Anne Tolley: I suggest that every member in this House has a responsibility to read the Standing Orders. If you read Standing Order 377 it makes it very clear. Standing Order 377(1)(b) states: “arguments inferences imputations epithets ironical expressions or expressions of opinion”—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the member. I do not need further help on this point. Iain Lees-Galloway—[Interruption] Order! Iain Lees-Galloway has asked a reasonable question. I will have a further consideration of it but I again say exactly what I said to Metiria Turei. I think that a reread of the supplementary question that was asked would help the member understand. But I do want to point out that Metiria Turei was not asked to leave the House because she asked that question. She continued to raise numerous points of order that were relitigating—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. She continued to raise numerous points of order that were in effect relitigating a decision the Speaker had made.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification and it is simply this. It is not to challenge your ruling but to ask you whether the statement that rules out that word is a precedent or is it based on a precedent?Mr SPEAKER: No again the member is now raising exactly the same point of order that was raised by Metiria Turei—whether the word “sleazy” is unparliamentary. I said that no it was not necessarily unparliamentary. It was the total content of the question that I was not satisfied with.Infrastructure Investment Programme—Progress and Future Investment FundNICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): What progress is the Government making with its multi-billion dollar—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry that question was very difficult to hear at the start because of the level of interjection. Would the member start again?3.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister of Finance: What progress is the Government making with its multi-billion dollar infrastructure investment programme as part of its wider plan to build a more productive and competitive economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The 2013 National State of Infrastructure report issued today shows that the Government is making good progress. It shows a pipeline of around $14 billion worth of investment including large investments in electricity transmission; the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband; and major transport projects including roads of national significance completion of the Auckland metropolitan rail network begun under the previous Government and the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan. It also shows that regulatory changes made by this Government to the relevant statutes have enabled 13 large projects to be consented in recent years when this would normally have taken up to 7 years.Nicky Wagner: Why has the Government made investment in modern infrastructure a high priority within its wider economic programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It has made an investment because we have a very optimistic view about the future for growth in New Zealand and we want the infrastructure investment to permit that growth rather than to smother it. So despite the recession and a tight financial situation the Government has set out on a large-scale programme which through difficult times in the job market has supported thousands of jobs acrossNew Zealand. We have also welcomed more private sector involvement in delivering public infrastructure and this has been important in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of this investment.Nicky Wagner: What are some of the main areas to benefit from the Government’s significant investment in infrastructure?Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 377(1)(b) actually applies to all of the questions that Nicky Wagner has asked and I was wondering whether you were going to rule on either of the first two—that is questions must not contain “arguments inferences imputations epithets ironical expressions or expressions of opinion”. All of her questions have done that and they should all be ruled out of order.Mr SPEAKER: I certainly did not interpret that question in that way. If members want to get down to adhering strictly to Standing Order 377 I can do that. But it will hardly make it an interesting—[Interruption] Order! I ask the member to ask her question again.Nicky Wagner: What are some of the main areas to benefit from the Government’s significant investment in infrastructure?Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: If the member is going to say that that question is out of order then he is wrong.Grant Robertson: I am seeking clarification from you about whether speaking about the benefits of significant investment amounts to a breach of Standing Order 377(1)(b).Mr SPEAKER: I would have preferred the question to be asked without the word “significant” but I am not ruling the question out of order because it included the word “significant”.Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer is really a matter of fact rather than opinion. The significant investments—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. That interjection from Grant Robertson directly questions the impartiality of the Speaker.Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s right.Mr SPEAKER: Well that is a very serious interjection. The Hon Bill English is to answer the question.Hon BILL ENGLISH: The investments are significant because they are so large. There has been a $5.9 billion investment in roading $3 billion for rebuilding Christchurch $1.7 billion in the health sector $900 million for education $690 million for the housing sector and $430 million for ultra-fast broadband and these are for just the years 2012-13 and 2013-14.Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia oratātou. What can the residents ofRaetihi Turakina Whangaehu and Whanganui expect to receive out of the Government’s multibillion-dollar infrastructure investment programme to support them in facing recent crisis events such as flooding and diesel spills in their river?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Certainly in the case of the flooding there are arrangements in place between the Government and local councils for a degree of cost-sharing where that is appropriate. These are provisions that have been in place for up to 10 years and were used for instance in the case of extensive flooding in theManawatū a number of years back. I cannot comment in detail on the diesel spill issue; it would be better to ask the relevant Minister.Nicky Wagner: How will proceeds from the Government’s share offer programme to be invested out of the Future Investment Fund help to pay for new public infrastructure?Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the benefits of the Government’s share offers is that they generate significant amounts of cash from New Zealanders who have the opportunity to invest in large New Zealand companies and that cash is paid into the Government bank account. In the case of Mighty River Power it is around $1.7 billion. We can then use that cash to invest in public infrastructure without having to go and borrow it from foreign lenders as any number of other people would prefer that we do. In the past two Budgets we have allocated around $2 billion from the Future Investment Fund into 21st century schools new hospitals and the rebuild of Christchurch.Superannuation Fund—Commentary and Contributions4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he agree with theDominion Post report that “Bill English was gushing about the NZ Super Fund yesterday” saying it was “one of the best-structured sovereign wealth funds in the world”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No I do not agree that I was gushing; I was simply pointing out what is a widely acknowledged fact. As the member may want to point out to the House I went on to praise the architect of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund Dr Michael Cullen who was the finance spokesman when Labour had finance spokespeople who knew how to handle Labour’s spending instincts. That is why he set it up—to protect New Zealand from the Labour caucus—and he did a great job.Hon David Parker: Is it correct that he voted against the New Zealand Superannuation Fund voted against the formation of KiwiSaver as Minister of Finance halted contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund opposes universal KiwiSaver and will not address the age of eligibility of New Zealand superannuation?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am just trying to remember the order but it goes something like yes yes no no yes—I think—to answer any one of those questions. Of course the Government has made pragmatic decisions about contributions to the Superannuation Fund. The fund was designed to make contributions when we had surpluses. Dr Cullen made sure that happened so that Labour did not waste them. Unfortunately we have had to deal with the legacy of deficits that Labour left behind. When we have cleared up that mess we will start making contributions again.Hon David Parker: Given that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation estimate that the fund would be a net—that is net of the extra contributions—$2.2 billion better off had he not suspended contributions in 2009 is he now prepared to admit that his suspension of contributions has decreased the wealth of the fund?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In fact our policy simply follows the Labour policy as articulated by David Shearer when he said: “We have listened. That’s why I won’t continue with [the] previous policy to restore contributions to the … Super Fund until … we can afford it.” That is our policy too.Louise Upston: What were Treasury’s fiscal and economic forecasts in late 2008 and into 2009 which influenced the incoming Government’s decision to temporarily suspend contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The forecasts actually showed that if the Government had maintained the spending and policy track it had inherited we would never return to surplus and that net Government debt would have exceeded 60 percent of GDP by the early 2020s. Under this Government’s sensible policy debt will be around 20 percent of GDP—around one-third of that projected as a result of the Labour Party policies.Hon David Parker: Did the temporary suspension of contributions to which Mrs Upston referred begin in 2008 and is it predicted to end under his Government’s policy only in 2020?Hon Steven Joyce: Well if it was Labour it would be 2030.Hon BILL ENGLISH: My colleague makes a good point. If we followed the Labour Party policies that we inherited we would be restoring contributions in about 2070 because it would have taken that long to get debt back to some kind of reasonable level. I do not think that the member’s party’s policy has changed. His previous leader said a Labour Government would make contributions when the country can afford it. We think that is reasonable and we agree with that policy.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for and should not misrepresent Labour Party policy.Mr SPEAKER: The question was around when the—[Interruption] Order! The question was really around first of all when did the contributions conclude and then when they might start again. He is allowed to justify that in my opinion.Hon David Parker: How can he be gushing about the Superannuation Fund when he voted against it and said at the time that the scheme was “a dog”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fact is that at the time there was extensive discussion over whether the New Zealand Government could maintain the surpluses required to continue making contributions. It turned out that within 4 or 5 years that was not the case so I think we were probably half right. On the other half the fund has turned out to be well structured making good returns and we support its continuation.Louise Upston: What reports has he seen setting out sensible approaches to making contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I saw one report that I thought was pretty sensible. It said that “The government will make contributions to the Fund from available surpluses. Where these are insufficient for making the required contribution a reduced contribution would be made.” I would venture to suggest that if the speaker had contemplated deficits he would have said that if there were deficits we probably would not contribute. That comment came from Dr Michael Cullen. I think the legislation was structured in a way that allowed the Government to make up its own mind about whether to contribute and we have and the Labour Party now supports National’s policy.Welfare Reforms—Impact5.MELISSA LEE (National) to theMinister for Social Development: What reports has she received on the progress of the Government’s welfare reforms to date?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): We are seeing more people coming off benefits as a result of the Government’s efforts to support more people off welfare and into work. Benefit numbers are at the lowest they have been since 2008. In the September quarter the number of New Zealanders on benefits fell by 5388 people to just over 304000 which is the third straight quarterly drop. A year ago there were almost 321000 New Zealanders on benefits. This has fallen by 16500 people since September 2012.Melissa Lee: How is the Government’s new work bonus payment supporting people to transition into work?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The new work bonus payment allows people who are not work tested and who go off that benefit and into work to keep their benefit which reduces by $100 a week. In just the 6 weeks since the new work bonus policy was introduced 706 people have come off benefit into work seeking out and landing jobs even though they have no requirement to work. As I said this means that they can keep their benefit for longer and it is easier for them to transition to a wage.Melissa Lee: How are the changes making a difference for people in the regions?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have seen significant drops over the last year in particular for sole parents in the Bay of Plenty where that number is down by 524. In Canterbury it is down by 721 in the central region it is down by 500 in Waikato it is down by 689 and in Auckland it is down by nearly 3000 people. As for job seekers in Auckland there are 4500 fewer people; in Canterbury the number is down by 2162; and in Mrs AnneTolley’s own East Coast it is down by 815 people which is really significant.Sue Moroney: Given her assertion that 2000 people every week have their benefits cancelled even though they have no job to go to can she guarantee that those 2000 people and their children are not falling further into poverty?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The number of people who leave for reasons other than finding work has not changed. It was the same in 2007 as it is now.Sue Moroney: I didn’t ask that.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well it is significant. What we have got is people leaving for the reasons of getting into a relationship changing benefit categories or going into study so they change benefits. Those numbers have not actually changed in the last 13 years. They leave for many different reasons. Some will do so as I said for relationship reasons and other reasons. What has changed is the number of people who are leaving to go into work and as I have expressed that has gone up.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very straightforward. I asked for a guarantee—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I apologise to the member. I was concentrating on another matter. I did not hear the question to know whether it was addressed. I invite the member to ask the question again.Sue Moroney: Thank you. Given her assertion that 2000 people every week have their benefits cancelled even though they have no job to go to can she guarantee that those 2000 people and their children are not falling further into poverty?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The assertion of the question is that we cancel 2000 benefits each week. Those people cancel them themselves right? They say they no longer require a benefit because they are in a relationship because they have gone into study or because they have transferred on to another benefit. This may help the member: since welfare reforms 37 percent are cancelling into work compared with just 30 percent in 2007.Primary Industries Ministry—Performance and Resourcing6.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to theMinister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Yes.Hon Damien O’Connor: Does he stand by his statement following the Fonterra botulism scare that “What you have seen in the last couple of weeks is MPI performing really well.”; if so how does he reconcile that with his senior colleague’s comments yesterday that “Clearly we did not have enough resources in MPI and I know this is a little bit unusual but whenever I’ve raised this issue the response is ‘Well this is an operational matter minister don’t worry your little head about it’.”?Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes of course I stand by my comments about the response of the Government. That was the same acknowledgment that Mr Shearer made in the House at that time as leader of the Labour Party when he said: “The Government was quick off the mark. I commend it for its speed in being able to do that. I believe that the response the Government has made to the emergency up to now has been a good one.”Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Minister now consider that cuts to his own ministry of 200 staff and $26 million have been a disaster given yesterday’s statementby his colleague and given that Michael Barnett chair of the infant formula exporters said that up to 30 New Zealand businesses stand to lose tens of millions of dollars and that New Zealand’s reputational damage may amount to hundreds of millions of dollars because of the Minister’s under-resourcing of the Ministry for Primary Industries?Hon NATHAN GUY: I refute those numbers. I do not know where the member has made those numbers up from. I do acknowledge that staffing resources in China have not kept pace with the growth and as a result of that the ministry—Hon Annette King: Of what?Hon NATHAN GUY: Growth in trade—Grant Robertson: So you’ve under-resourced them.Hon NATHAN GUY: —which has gone up three times Mr Robertson in the last 5 years. I acknowledge that. That is why the ministry has a 25-point action plan. It is beefing up its resources in China and also here in Wellington.Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table a transcript of an interview and a quote from Minister Groser who says: “Clearly we did not have enough resources in MPI …”.Mr SPEAKER: The source of the transcript?Hon Damien O’Connor: It is a transcript fromMedianet. It is one that we have paid to be transcribed.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will put the leave. It is over to the House. Leave is sought to table that particular transcript. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Damien O’Connor: How can we believe the Minister’s reassurances on biosecurity protection for New Zealand given the honest admission by Minister Groser yesterday the interception of a live onion fly in imported garlic and the control of the great white butterfly relying on consumers catching flies and Cubs and Brownies catching butterflies?Hon NATHAN GUY: We have got a world-class biosecurity system and part of the biosecurity system is the intelligence from the New Zealand public. They play an important part. I think it is great that the Department of Conservation is working so closely with the Ministry for Primary Industries on getting on top of the great white butterfly issue. But if the member wants to come in here and say that Labour was squeaky clean on biosecurity I have a list in front of me of all the incursions that occurred under his watch.Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from the Ministry for Primary Industries to a constituent of mine who found aDeliaantiqua or onion fly in a bag of garlic—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter from the—[Interruption] Order! Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Phil Goff: Does he agree with all three statements that Tim Groser made yesterday regarding the debacles over trade with China: firstly that his ministry was understaffed secondly that his communications strategy was poor and thirdly that there was an inadequate regulatory framework; if so why has he been hiding from those realities when Mr Groser said: “There’s no place to hide.”?Hon Tim Groser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a complete misstatement of what was said.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The Minister can now answer the question that has been asked.Hon NATHAN GUY: I agree with MinisterGroser’s comments that the Ministry for Primary Industries has been under-resourced in China because the growth up there has been beyond everyone’s expectations. So I will take the member through what we are doing about it. We are increasing the staff numbers up in China. I announced that in June this year. What we are also doing is we are beefing up our capability here in Wellington from eight to 16. What we have also got in front of us is a 25-point action plan that the Ministry for Primary Industries is working through. What we are also doing is we are working closely with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to make sure that China is our No. 1 focus because it is a hugely important market to us. We are doing a lot.Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the notes that I took carefully when Minister Tim Groser was replying—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The speech has been well-recorded and is available to members.Welfare Reforms—Evaluation and Individual Case Management7.JAN LOGIE (Green) to theMinister for Social Development: When she said last month “for every example that the member can give I can give another 10 of people who are grateful for the help that they are getting” was she saying that it is acceptable that a large portion of people are not getting the help they are entitled to?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I have seen absolutely no evidence that there is a large portion of people who are not getting the help that they require. In fact evidence speaks otherwise. For example access to hardship assistance has not reduced. Since September last year as I have already stated in the House benefit numbers have reduced by 16500 people or 5.2 percent. Over that time grants of hardship assistance have fallen by just 1 percent. The other example is the triage rates which are those who go into Work and Income to go on a benefit. For the last 3 years or 4 years they have averaged around 42 percent; they are currently at about 37 percent. So actually more who walk through our door are going on benefit than were previously 12 months ago. Who we are working more with though are people who have been on longer putting more support up front around them and doing more face-to-face interviews and we are seeing great progress from that.Jan Logie: What prompted her U-turn on our request for an evaluation of the implementation of the welfare reforms including clients’ perspectives?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not believe there has been a U-turn. I think that we are constantly looking at the way that we are implementing what is happening. We are doing pilots. We are testing things. We are prepared to change. We are always refining. I think we are having a better look and more transparent look at the welfare system now than we ever have before.Jan Logie: I seek leave to table the as yet unpublished response to my written question about the evaluation of the welfare reforms.Mr SPEAKER: In that it is unpublished—it is in the 3-day time frame?Jan Logie: It is.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the question. Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? No there is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jan Logie: Can she guarantee that this ongoing evaluation will mean no more cases such as that of the young New Zealander required by Work and Income to attend work-testing seminars for job seeker support while still in an in-patient unit at a mental health unit?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would say that the first thing we should look at is what benefit that young person is on. We are always prepared to look at that because actually they should not be work tested if that is the case. They would have received a letter. That letter quite clearly would have said: “Please contact us if there is any reason why not.” We may not have known that they were in the in-patient clinic. So it is hard for me to talk about those individual circumstances but that is not the expectation at all.Jan Logie: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question and the question asked for a guarantee. The Minister did not give a guarantee and was unlikely ever to give a guarantee.Jan Logie: Can she guarantee that this evaluation will mean no more cases such as that of the woman who was told she was not entitled to the supported living payment to care for her 80-year-old mother even though her doctor had certified that her mother needed 24/7 care and who was then turned down for jobseeker support because she was not work-available as she was providing that care for her mum?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well it is impossible for me to talk about individual circumstances. If the member really cared then she would bring them to me and I might be able to look at them and help.Jan Logie: On this day the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty will the Minister ensure that this evaluation will mean no more cases such as that of the young deaf woman who was told she could not even apply for the support living allowance because she could speak?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I just struggle to believe that that is true. As I say if the member wants to play politics that is fine. If she has real cases that she wishes to bring to me I have offered her my door open many times and I am willing to help individuals who may have been unfairly treated.Immigration Illegal—Statistics and Costs8.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to theMinister of Immigration: How many people are currently classified as unlawfully in New Zealand and what steps if any has he taken to reduce that number?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): The most recent figure we have is from 2012 and estimates that 14044—Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —14044—unlawful overstayers were in New Zealand. This is the lowest number this century and is more than 20 percent less than in 2007 under the Labour - New Zealand First Government when—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can anticipate the point of order but I will hear it from the member.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Great minds think alike. There was no New Zealand First - Labour coalition Government.Mr SPEAKER: It would be helpful to the order of this House if the Minister would not refer to it as a “Labour - New Zealand First Government”.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There were still 3000 more overstayers in 2007. To the second part of the question the Government has incentivised voluntary departures by banning anyone deported from New Zealand from coming back until they have repaid the taxpayer for the cost of their deportation. Even then it is unlikely thatthey would be let back in. Those and other changes have contributed to many more overstayers choosing to leave voluntarily rather than being forcefully deported.Denis O’Rourke: If the Government’s policy regarding people unlawfully in New Zealand was actually effective why are the numbers—still at well over 14000—still so high?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would simply dispute the preface to the question. The numbers are low and dropping.Denis O’Rourke: Does the Minister accept that the current high level of people unlawfully in New Zealand and the low probability of deportation constitute a strong signal to others that they can break immigration law with impunity; if not why not?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well I simply do not accept that it is high. It is the lowest figure this century and continues to drop. It is 23 percent lower than when that party supported the previous Government.Denis O’Rourke: What is the estimated cost in terms of health criminal justice law enforcement education and other costs associated with people unlawfully in New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not have that figure to hand. I would be very happy to estimate it if the member puts it down in a written question. But I have every confidence that it would be at least 23 percent lower than in 2007.Denis O’Rourke: What steps have been taken to recoup the costs of deporting people unlawfully in New Zealand and have those steps been successful?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I think it is firstly important to point out that the removal and deportation costs have halved since 2005-06 and the Government has a very strict policy that nobody may apply for re-entry into New Zealand until the taxpayer is refunded the costs of their deportation. That is why although deportations have increased slightly the voluntary departures have more than doubled.Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Environmental Impact of Plan Change Proposal9.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to theMinister of Conservation: When was he first informed by the Department of Conservation that they were considering contributing to any submission on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal that might include nitrogen and phosphorous management?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The first full briefing on Tukituki was on 5 March and it confirmed the department’s role in the process and mentioned nitrogen and phosphorous management. The paper was very positive on the project saying it offered significant environmental and economic benefits. Let me quote directly what it said: “An increased and regulated low-flow level for the Tukituki River would mitigate the dry condition low-flows which affect native fish and in-stream biota. Water quality would be improved in the entire catchment”. If the member read that report she would understand why I was surprised at the content of the leaked draft submission which had a very different view on the effects of the project. This confirms that there were differing views within the department on the Tukituki project.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House in answer to a primary question on 24 September that he was first informed of the submission on 29 July when his weekly report of 20 May stated: “Further work is needed to determine the content of any Crown submission. The Department of Conservation has some concerns with the novel scientific approach for dealing with nitrogen and phosphorous and how this is translated into the plan provisions.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Very easily because the member only half quotes. What it said was that that was in respect of the option of a Crown submission. SubsequentlyCabinet made a decision not to proceed with a Crown submission. What I would also draw to the attention of the member is that the former report said that the Department of Conversation was very positive about the project. The member cannot half quote and needs to consider all the information.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House repeatedly that the first he was aware that the Department of Conservation was preparing a submission was on 29 July when his weekly report on 17 June stated: “At this stage it may be that the Department of Conservation is the only agency that will make a submission.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member half quotes again.Hon Ruth Dyson: I do not.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes you do. Let me see what the report on 17 June says. It says that the Department of Conservation may make a submission—may. It may. It does not say it is going to make a submission. The first report where the Department of Conservation confirmed it was going to make a submission was in the weekly report on 29 July.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House repeatedly that he asked the Department of Conversation to see its submission on 29 July when his weekly report of 24 June stated as an action point from his 17 June meeting: “Any Department of Conservation submission on this proposal needs to be OK’d by the Minister prior to it being submitted.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The word “any” says it all. When it said that any Department of Conservation submission would need to come to my office that makes it plain that at the time it had not decided either that it would make a submission or what would be in that submission.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he have Nicky Wagner ask a patsy question on 26 September in order for him to say that senior management had “not even read the submission prior to 29 July” when as he stated in written question 13184 “senior managers made amendments to or comments on the draft submission.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason the member’s question was so useful was that members opposite selectively ask for just some of the information. It is important if you are going to make a judgment to have all of the information. For instance can I quote the exact information from the Deputy Director-General of Conservation. She said of me that I did not play any role in her decision making that she made the decision about the submission that she did not know my view and that I never saw the leaked draft submission. The members opposite are effectively saying that Doris Johnston was not telling the truth. It is members opposite who are not telling the truth.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was actually going to raise a different point of order but do you consider the answer that Nick Smith gave to be in order?Mr SPEAKER: No. The accusation that the members opposite are not telling the truth is completely unparliamentary. The Minister will stand withdraw and apologise for that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s primary answer he quoted from an official document dated 5 March. He is required to table that document.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member quoting from an official document?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I was going to seek leave anyway to table the official report I received on 5 March. It has been released under the Official Information Act.Mr SPEAKER: It will be tabled. It has been asked for. It is an official document.Document laid on the Table of the House.Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In answer to my last supplementary question the Minister repeated comments in relation to the deputy director-general’s quotes. They were entirely irrelevant actually interesting though they may be to the question that I asked about the question from Nicky Wagner—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite sufficient. Again I invite the member to go back and look at the tone of the way she asked the question. It was likely it gave great liberty to the Minister to then answer the question.Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order or in any way challenging a ruling I have just given?Hon Ruth Dyson: I am seeking clarification Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Points of order are not to be raised for points of clarification. The member was unhappy with the answer. I accept that. That happens frequently. The member asked a question referring to a question asked by Nicky Wagner. It was a patsy question. That gave liberty to the Minister to respond quite liberally.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister think that theRuataniwha Dam promoted by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will solve the problem of low summer flows in the Tukituki River and is that not a problem caused by the regional council allocating more water for irrigation than the river can provide?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is certainly true that in that catchment and in a number of others water management historically has resulted inoverallocation. That is why the good work of my colleague Amy Adams and previously my own work on a national policy statement on water management seeks to put in place a stronger framework to prevent that sort ofoverallocation of water.Better Public Services Targets—Rheumatic Fever10.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to theMinister of Health: What progress is the Government making on its Rheumatic Fever Programme?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The challenge of reducing rheumatic fever rates after years of relentless increases is a real challenge. Working with theMāori Party an important part of the Government’s campaign to reduce rheumatic fever rates is easy access local drop-in clinics. These are very important to local families whose children do not attend schools that have the throat-swabbing services and for out-of-time access for all at-risk kids. We can announce today that eight sore throat drop-in clinics have opened this week as part of the Government’s $45 million campaign to reduce rheumatic fever rates and at least 60 more will open in Greater Auckland and Porirua over the next few months. This is the first time a health system anywhere in the world has sought to reduce rheumatic fever incidence and we are trying numerous innovative ways to achieve this.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What particular steps are being taken in Pacific communities to address unacceptable rheumatic fever rates?Hon TONY RYALL: As the member will know Pacific children are up to 44 times more likely to contract rheumatic fever than their non-Pacific classmates. Several specific strategies are being implemented to turn this round. This afternoon Mrs Turia will announce that the fight against rheumatic fever is now going door-to-door in the high-risk areas ofŌtara Onehunga Manurewa MasseyRānui and Henderson. Eighty-two community health workers have already been trained as part of the Pacific Engagement Strategy with 23 more due shortly. These health workers will visit around 11000 at-risk Pacific families in their own homes and in the community in the GreaterAuckland region. Members will be surprised to know that reducing rheumatic fever rates has been a national priority since 2001 and it has only taken this Government to invest $45 million in this very important programme.Hon John Banks—Actions as Minister for Small Business11.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to theMinister for Small Business: What advice if any has he received on the impact of fraud corruption and dishonesty on small business and what has he done about it?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister for Small Business): No specific advice as yet. However when reading the member’s question this morning it did give me pause for thought. I can think of some examples over the last several years that might fit into the categories the member—Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think he has answered the question.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty is that the Minister certainly answered the first part of the question—no reports have been received. What he has done about that has not really yet been addressed. I will allow the Minister to continue but I will be listening very carefully—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite clear in a primary question such as that that the second part of the question has to relate to the first part of the question and the first part of the question is about advice. The Minister told us he had not had any advice; therefore he cannot be doing anything about it.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I was making the point that I had not had any advice and this is what I was about to do about it. If the member gave me the opportunity to answer the rest of the question I would be happy to do that.Mr SPEAKER: I think the fact there is—Iain Lees-Galloway: I think we should move on.Mr SPEAKER: No the point is that what he has done about it might relate to advice but it could equally relate to the impact of fraud corruption and dishonesty on small business. On this occasion I have got to allow the Minister to continue his answer but I will be listening very carefully to see that the answer is in order.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well quite genuinely when the member gave me the question I thought I had better have a look at what he might be referring to so I tried to figure some examples in recent years that might fit into the categories the member raises and therefore whether I should be acting on them. There was apparently a tiling outfit in South Auckland a Thai tiling outfit that had a little bit of difficulty—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is not going to be helpful to the order of the House.Dr David Clark: Has he received any briefings from the former Minister for Small Business the Hon John Banks given his intimate knowledge of fraud corruption and dishonesty?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will invite the member to read the first part of the question which is in order but the rest is a direct accusation against a member—a personal reflection on a member.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I am asking—Mr SPEAKER: Is the member now raising a point of order?Dr David Clark: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the member.Dr David Clark: The former Minister for Small Business is a former Minister of Police and I would assume that he has knowledge of these activities. It is within his experience.Mr SPEAKER: No we are talking about the Minister—[Interruption] Order! I do not need assistance from 60 or 70 members on my right-hand side. The member has asked a question of the Minister for Small Business. I will allow the question to be asked if it is just the first part of the question.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Every member has a right to raise a point of order.Hon Dr Nick Smith: There is a very clear Standing Order which members opposite have referred to in respect of the Labour candidate MrDaljit Singh who is before the courts on fraud charges that matters before the courts should not be referred to in Parliament while they are there or any evidence about them.Mr SPEAKER: That is true—[Interruption] Order! Would the House please settle down. I invite David Clark to ask his supplementary question with the first part only.Dr David Clark: I will ask a different one.Mr SPEAKER: OK he is going to ask a different question. [Interruption] Order!Dr David Clark: Has he received any advice from the previous Minister on exempting small business from prosecution if they sign a tax return without reading it?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I do not believe that I have received that at this point. There may be some advice but I have not yet had the opportunity to receive the large package of advice.Dr David Clark: Can he list the ways that small business representation at the Cabinet table has suffered in light of police evidence that the former Minister received donations from big business before filing a false election return? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The fact that it is a matter before the courts is public knowledge. We cannot discuss the details of that case. That question is able to be answered by the Minister.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member misunderstands—the Minister was a Minister outside Cabinet so that rather mucks up the premise of his whole question. Actually I know that the Minister for Small Business took a great interest—a great interest—in the activities of small businesses and the member knows that I know that there are lots of small enterprises some of which members on the other side of the House know a lot about that may have misbehaved over the years. I am more than happy to investigate them and actually talk about them in the House if the member wants me to.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a graph prepared by the Parliamentary Library depicting the Cabinet papers submitted by the Minister for Small Business between April and August 2013.Mr SPEAKER: Well it is a graph that shows nothing so it is a blank piece of paper. I am not—[Interruption] The member has made his point and it will not be tabled.Dr David Clark: Did the former Minister for Small Business implement any specific small business policies or provide any Cabinet papers regarding small business; if not is that not because he has been a lame duck Minister?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I think the member is a fine one to call anybody a lame duck. He has been a parrot the entire time he has been in Parliament. He has had nothing to say and that is the reality of it. He is possibly the least productive member in this House. He got thrown out of the economic development portfolio about 3 months after he got the gig and he is criticising the Minister for Small Business.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been called.Dr David Clark: I appreciate the Minister’s intense interest in my activities but surely that is beyond his responsibility.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again it is a classic case. If you ask a question that is loaded about a lame duck Minister you will get an answer back that is relatively loaded.Grant Robertson: I’m glad we’ve clarified he is.Mr SPEAKER: Let me clarify: I am not saying that; I am just repeating what the member said.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a fraud bribery and corruption survey which found that the largest number of respondents believe—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The source of the document?Dr David Clark: It is from KPMG. I have copied a hard copy.Mr SPEAKER: Is it freely available on the internet?Dr David Clark: I am not sure whether it is available.Mr SPEAKER: Well the member is saying he is not sure. [Interruption] Order! We have had enough of an explanation. I will put the leave. It is a fraud report prepared by KPMG. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is.Corrections Department—Staff Safety12.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to theMinister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made on improving the safety of Corrections staff?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): Last week I announced plans to reduce assaults on corrections staff by 50 percent by 2015. This follows the development of a staff safety plan reviewed by an expert panel chaired by former Police Commissioner Howard Broad. Changes include increasing training and mentoring of new custodial staff piloting a mental health awareness programme for staff working in high-risk areas a safety training package for community-based staff and improving accessibility of handcuffs for custodial staff working in high-risk areas. Offenders can often be dangerous and unpredictable and this Government is committed to doing everything we can to ensure the safety of staff working in the corrections environment.Scott Simpson: What steps has the Government already taken to improve the safety of staff working with prisoners?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government has supported a number of new measures to boost the safety of staff working in prisons. Last year the Sentencing (Aggravated Factors) Amendment Act 2012 was passed which made offending against a corrections officer a mandatory aggravating factor at sentencing. We have also introduced batons spit-hoods and stab-resistant vests for staff working in high-risk situations and we have given corrections officers access to pepper spray to use if required. Corrections has also invested in tactical communications and de-escalation training for all front-line prison staff to give them the skills they need to manage a volatile prisoner. Although it is impossible to eliminate all risks in prison this Government is making sure that staff have the skills to stay safe at work. I seek leave to table two documents that are not available publicly. These are internal documents. The first is a document entitledKeeping Each Other Safe: Staff Safety Plan 2013-2014—Mr SPEAKER: And the second document?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The second is entitledEnsuring Personal Safety: A Guide for Corrections Staff.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary questionLe’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor.Hon Member: Oh no!Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: Oh yes. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! All members have a right to ask a supplementary question.Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: How can the Minister claim that the safety of corrections staff is being improved when there has been turnover of approximately over 65 percent in rehabilitation and reintegration case management staff in a central region prison since September last year as a result of bullying?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am not aware of those figures but I am aware that we have been increasingly concerned about staff safety over the last couple of years. That is why we have invested heavily in extra training last year and why the chief executive and I convened an expert panel to work with unions and staff throughout New Zealand to develop the staff safety plan. It is an important issue for our staff and we are determined to reduce those assaults by 50 percent over the next 2 years.Urgent DebatesHon John Banks—Ministerial ResignationMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Metiria Turei and Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the resignation of the Hon John Banks from his ministerial portfolios. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not every ministerial resignation will automatically lead to an urgent debate being accepted. Having carefully considered this application I have decided to err on the side of allowing the debate. However I remind members that the particular case that has been accepted is the Minister stepping aside from his ministerial responsibilities. It is not the matters involving the member which are currently before the courts. As Mr Robertson acknowledged in his application the particulars of the case ought not to be referred to. Although I have discretion under Standing Order 112 I have not been asked in writing to exercise this discretion. I therefore intend to be vigilant in ensuring that the House’s rules are followed to the letter.As MsTurei’s letter was received first I had earlier accepted her application. I have therefore allowed her to return to the Chamber at the end of question time and I call on Metiria Turei to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I moveThat the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Disgraced and discredited—this Government is disgraced and discredited having been so reckless as to lose yet another Minister this term; another Minister. Yes one is an accident. Two—well you might be able to justify two. But now it is three and possibly another being returned to having been disgraced again. This Government is fragile it is in tatters and we can see that being played out every day with the desperate measures that this Government is taking. John Key’s Government now relies on the votes on the support of two discredited and disgraced ex-Ministers John Banks and Peter Dunne.The Greens have been very clear from the start: as a result of the reasons behind this disgrace and the reasons behind why he has resigned as Minister John Banks must abstain from voting on National’s sordid Skycity deal—sordid Skycity deal. This conflict of interest is as bad as it ever gets.Hon Members: Sleazy deal.METIRIA TUREI: I would not be one to comment on that word.Skycity’s $400 million deal rests on John Banks’ vote. And John Banks’ future as an MP and as a member of this Parliament rests onSkycity’s evidence. There is a serious conflict of interest. John Key has said: “No nothing to see here.” Steven Joyce has confirmed that yet again today. And yet we know that there have been MPs who have rightly andresponsibly declined to vote for legislation concerning casino deals because they felt that they had a conflict of interest. This was because in that case they were receiving funding from a casino for various reasons. These MPs did the right thing by saying that they would not vote for this bill because they felt that the conflict of interest was too much. This is a statement of integrity. It is an action of integrity. But what is absolutely clear from this Government is that it has no integrity and neither does the disgraced and discredited John Key.The Government is now stumbling from crisis to crisis it has the thinnest of majorities and it is propped up by two lame duck members. New Zealanders are getting sick and tired of having a failed Government. The good news of course is that it is only a year or so until we get to vote this Government out and instead vote in a Green-Labour Government with a real plan for New Zealand.This of course is a very long story. We have to remember quite far back to get to the beginning of this which is interesting because of course it started with John Banks completely forgetting quite a bit at the time. He forgot the whole episode. Did he meet with people and seek donations from them? He could not remember. John Banks forgot. Did John Banks remember that he got a helicopter ride with Kim Dotcom? No he completely forgot about the helicopter ride. Did he remember the discussion about getting donations? No he completely forgot all about that. Did he remember about asking for the donations to be anonymous? No he had no idea. He completely forgot all about that. But then of course he did remember and was sure when signing off that he did not do anything wrong once he had finally remembered. He was sure that he had not done anything wrong in signing off his electoral expenses hence the situation he is currently in.How can this Minister have genuinely run successful businesses? And you know John Banks did. He spent two terms as the mayor of New Zealand’s biggest city he has been a Minister of the Crown and he has been an MP in this Parliament for many years but how could he have done all of those things credibly—and this is the important issue—knowing that his career and his credibility depended on his honesty? He has signed off on documents that have now led him to be in court on a charge of criminal fraud. There is an issue here of honesty an issue of credibility and that has had a very significant and very negative effect on this Government.The impact has also been felt by John Key. John Key who refused to read the police report concerning the case. John Key who was severe in his criticism of Helen Clark over the exercise of Taito Phillip Field’s vote. Some of us in this House may remember the criticism that John Key made. He demanded that she abandon the use of Taito Phillip Field’s vote while he was charged with and was undergoing the court proceedings—also criminal court proceedings—that eventually led to his imprisonment. John Key does not hold himself to the same standard that he requires of other MPs. He made demands of Helen Clark to force Taito Phillip Field to stand down to resign and to not exercise his vote because he was facing criminal charges. Now he finds himself in exactly the same position with a Minister—or an ex-Minister now because he has had to resign—but a member who props up his Government and whose proxy vote John Key and his MPs exercise and he is quite happy to continue to exercise that vote while that member is in court on criminal charges. There is a word for saying one thing and doing another. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!METIRIA TUREI: That is right. You are not allowed to say that word in this House—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!METIRIA TUREI: —but there is such a word. So the rot that we see in this case with John Banks now resigning as Minister and being subject to criminal fraud charges extends beyond just John Key to others in this Government.Nick Smith has now been accused of misleading the House over his involvement in suppressing the Department of Conservation’s very serious very real concerns about the environmental damage that might be caused by theRuataniwha dam. Hekia Parata has now twice been found to have acted outside the law—acted illegally—in her attempt to close schools and her own officials say that they need to find someone else someone trustworthy to try to sell national standards. Even Simon Bridges the man whom John Key calls “my boy” has had his own uncontrolled blowout on television this week. He did look a bit like he was going to cry and I did feel a bit sorry for him. He looked a little teary but he had his own uncontrolled blowout on TV this week as he tried desperately to defend the Government’s environmentally reckless and economically failed fossil fuels policy. He was standing up for Anadarko despite the concerns of theKaikōura community and showing absolutely no compassion for the people who will be most affected by the worst harms—standing up for a multinational corporation against all other odds.All this Government’s big ideas have been abject failures. Asset sales never made any sense and as the costs rise and revenue falls and as mums and dads steer clear of asset sales the case for selling these assets gets worse and worse. The Government should wait for the referendum on asset sales and should listen to New Zealanders who have consistently opposed asset sales. This is what it means to be a good Government: to listen to the people. This is what it means to be a democratic Government: to take account of people’s views and not just the views of those who are the elite not just the views of those who are the most wealthy and not just the views of those who can take the Prime Minister to dinner and bend his ear to get a $400 million deal.National standards and school closures are a mess. Hekia Parata is now so discredited that even her own officials are trying to find someone else to front her core policies.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but I would just ask members to show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the House.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. National’s fossil fuel obsession is also so environmentally bankrupt. It is an economic failure. The jobs have not appeared. The promised rivers of gold are nowhere to be seen.I asked Steven Joyce today whether he thought that the deal that the Government is doing with Skycity which gives Skycity a $400 million deal that is paid for by increased gambling opportunities and that is reliant for its passing on the vote of a disgraced MP who has a serious conflict of interest in that deal was morally bankrupt and he does not think it is morally bankrupt. He does not think that there is a conflict of interest. He does not think that there is anything wrong when New Zealanders all around the country are emailing me all the time and saying that they are the ones who will bear the cost.We know that our family members go to the casino and spend money they do not have and they struggle and struggle and we cannot stop them doing it. We cannot get any help to stop them doing it. The casinos keep marketing to these families and we cannot make it stop. Allowing that to expand through this Skycity deal is morally bankrupt. Allowing a casino to subvert the gambling law which absolutely prohibits any expansion in gambling is morally bankrupt. When it is an exchange for a deal with Skycity it cannot be justified.I think there is great disappointment in John Key and his Government and there is great disappointment in Steven Joyce for their failure to understand the consequences of the deal that they are doing. They are so desperate—so desperate—to see this deal go ahead. When John Key goes to Skycity and plays barman for a couple of hours you can see the cosy relationship that they have. They are so desperate to get this deal through to favour Skycity above the many thousands of families and the kids who suffer.We would expect more. We would expect so much more from this Government. We could have had so much more. But the Government is also doing it off the back of the vote from a disgraced MP who has a serious conflict of interest and it does not even have the decency to accept that it exists. Government members could have the decency to accept that the conflict exists and that they are not worried about it or they do not think it is so serious or they think that it is manageable. That would at least be honest. But to simply say that it does not exist is in my view completely dishonest. What makes it morally bankrupt is that at the end of the day it is ordinary New Zealand families who will bear the cost.New Zealanders deserve a Government that will legislate for their well-being for equality for a good life and for a fair future for their kids. This Government has failed at every step because every action it has taken through all the years that we have had this National Government has been to privilege the most privileged. We see the Government’s desperation to continue on that path with its refusal to even follow its own instructions to others that they do not exercise John Banks’ vote.We are very pleased that John Banks has resigned as Minister. This should have happened a year ago with the police report. It has come far too late. But it has come at a time when the significance of the vote that John Banks will exercise has the greatest impact with the Skycity deal. It is a dirty deal supported by a disgraced Minister and this is a dirty Government which is happy to push it through. Thank you.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): The way the previous member Metiria Turei finished her speech showed the somewhat unfortunate trend for the Greens to use more and more extreme language as they try to compete with the Labour Party for the left-wing vote. It is getting harder for the Greens. There is no doubt about that. Mr Cunliffe is doing a better job of competing for that vote than his predecessor. But for a party that came into Parliament to raise standards the vicious and vindictive nature of the Greens’ language I would have to say is not something that the Labour Party members do that often in the same personal way that the Greens do.Mr Banks resigned yesterday consistent with an undertaking he had made that if the District Court decision was that he would go further down the legal process then he would resign as a Minister and that is appropriate. A couple of issues that I think need to be commented on have been raised by the previous member and by the Opposition during question time. One is simply that in the manner of any New Zealand citizen Mr Banks will go into a legal process where the process assumes innocence until proven guilty. The eagerness of the Opposition to jump to conclusions about the results of that process do not I think really show respect for it. The Greens have raised the issue of how Mr Banks might exercise his vote having resigned as a Minister. Well it is not up to the Government to determine how people exercise their vote.Grant Robertson: Ha! That’s not what you said a few years ago Bill.Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a right of a member of Parliament to exercise—well actually Phillip Field exercised his vote. He voted against the Labour Party on some of the issues he was opposed to. I expect that Mr Banks will do the same. He will exercise his vote as he sees fit. By a constitutional arrangement he is a member of Parliament and it is entirely up to him to exercise that vote.As for the Opposition members’ contention that there is somehow a lack of stability in the Government I would invite them as I did in one of my answers at question time to have a look at the confidence and supply agreements that the John Key - led National Government has in place. In fact the majority of the Government has increased in recent weeks because Lianne Dalziel has resigned from Parliament and we are yet to see the results of a by-election in Christchurch East. Who knows? The Government’s majority might increase as a result of that. You just do not know. So the suggestion that the Government is somehow propped up by anyone is simply wrong.I also want to address one or two other issues that the member for the Greens actually raised. One of them which I thought was quite out of order was the assertion that the Government is somehow failing day by day. When the economy is growing; when employment in the regions is picking up; when it is pretty clear that in every region despite the recession the economy grew; when the numbers grew in all except one region—that is Gisborne—when we see reports today that in the South Island job vacancies are booming; they are not signs of a failing economy or of a failing Government.I would also invite the member from the Greens who decided to focus not so much on the capacities of Mr Banks but on the capacities of other Ministers to look a bit more closely at policy. In fact I would invite the Greens to think pretty hard about their own consciences. In respect of education both the previous Minister and the current Minister have done more than any Green-Labour Government did to focus on those who most need the benefits of public education—who most need the benefits of public education. The Greens have opposed every single policy that is going about the difficult task of providing for those who most need the opportunity of a good education and a better opportunity. We will stand by that whatever ministerial resignations there are.To come back to Mr Banks he has performed his duties as a Minister with consistency. He has stuck to the confidence and supply agreement. I have dealt with him over regulatory issues. They are complex. The Labour Party just agrees on more and more regulation; Mr Banks does not. He agrees with sensible regulation and we have worked quite hard actually to create a regulatory system that deals with the issues of costs and benefits in an even-handed and transparent way. In fact this Government would have among Governments across the world one of the more progressive approaches to regulation. That is evident. As for small business John Banks was a strong advocate for things like a 90-day trial period which encourages employment in small business. The Labour Opposition opposes that. It opposes small businesses being able to negotiate to set their own wages. It wants the living wage for all small businesses particularly retail and those that service the Government. John Banks stood by those businesses.So it is of some regret to the Government that John Banks has resigned as a Minister because he carried out his duties faithfully. Sometimes he had differences of opinion with the Government but nevertheless he stuck to advocating for those groups that would expect a Minister in that portfolio to advocate. Now as with any New Zealand citizen who faces an allegation of unlawful behaviour he will have to go through the legal process. He has outlined his own position about that but it is appropriate that he ceases to function as a Minister while that is under way.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It has been a long 5 years under this Government but I want to take us back to John Key’s statement of November 2008: “I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary”—John Key November 2008. Consistently under John Key’s leadership the standards of ministerial behaviour have dropped further and further and further.John Banks resigned yesterday. Well you know the truth: every piece of information that came out yesterday John Key knew last September and he did nothing. He managed to forget everything that John Banks had said to him or his chief of staff and he managed to turn a blind eye to the conduct that lowered the standards of ministerial behaviour. John Key has managed to combine amnesia with wilful blindness to create a shonky tawdry Government that is now propped up by a disgraced MP. That is where the Government of New Zealand is left today. A tawdry shonky shoddy Government propped up by John Banks and Peter Dunne two disgraced MPs. That is what it has come to under John Key’s leadership.But perhaps we should not be surprised because in the midst of the trouble for John Banks last year here is what John Key said about John Banks: “There is quite a wide definition of ethics … The test I have to apply is the law.” and “I think he did exactly what he’d always said which was comply with the law.” That is what John Key said. He took John Banks’ word he tells us. Well what a big mistake that was for John Key. Does the Prime Minister not now regret not reading the police report on John Banks? Because what that police report told everybody in this country was that John Banks had filed a false return. This is not a matter that is up for debate in the current trial. That is an established fact—that John Banks filed a false return. So John Key’s test that a Minister has to obey the law has already been broken by John Banks. John Key would have known that if he had not wilfully decided not to read the police report.There is only one reason for that. There is only one reason for John Key lowering the standards of ministerial behaviour so low. That is because of his desperate venal attempt to hang on to power. This tawdry Government that we have in front of us today is clinging on on the basis of disgraceful behaviour from one of the Ministers. We need to look at what theCabinet Manual says because although John Key might think that there is “a wide definition of ethics” what theCabinet Manual says is “Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards.” That is not a wide definition of ethics. From day one in this Government John Key has let New Zealanders down when it comes to what standards are acceptable.Today in the House we saw another chapter. Mark my words: the roll of dishonour in this Government is not over. Nick Smith will be back in this House having to apologise. He will be I predict in front of the correct authorities in this complex to justify the fact that he intervened inappropriately. That is the record of this Government—taking away New Zealanders’ democratic rights intervening in processes and not behaving in a way that most New Zealanders would regard as acceptable.This is the standard we have of John Key’s Government. This is the style of John Key’s leadership. Anything goes as long as it justifies the ends. It is the classic money trader’s approach. One day you will trade a currency up; the next day you will trade a currency down. John Key actually used to do that with the New Zealand currency. That is the approach he takes to the way he leads a Government. There is no moral compass. In fact I am going to credit my colleague Moana Mackey for this because she said very early on—I think before John Key became Prime Minister—that he is all map and no compass. That is what John Key is: all map and no compass. He knows he wants to be the Prime Minister but he does not care about what he is doing and he will try to stay in Government at all costs and with any shonky deals on the table.Let us just remember how John Banks even came to be in this House. A cup of tea—that is what it was. It was the most expensive cup of tea ever sold in Epsom in my view. John Banks is in this House because of a dodgy deal. John Banks is in this House to ensure that the National Party’s cronies continue to be rewarded. And what about the ACT Party?Hon Maryan Street: The what?GRANT ROBERTSON: The ACT Party. I can remember the Rt Hon Helen Clark saying when she stood up in the House that she might disagree with everything the ACT Party stands for but at least it has a principle that it is here for—an ideological principle. Well that time is long gone. It started off with David Garrett. I do not think I will ever forget hearing David Garrett stand up in this House and say: “I stole a dead baby’s identity.”—a disgraceful thing. Then we had Don Brash with his hostile takeover of the ACT Party. And now we have John Banks a man who clearly does not even believe in those principles and who is here only to support the National Party.Hon Annette King: What about Rodney Hide?GRANT ROBERTSON: Rodney Hide as well—he disappeared in the middle of that. The ACT Party is over. It is over. It is done. It will not be back. John Banks has played a role to prop up this Government to allow this Government to go ahead with policies and laws that fundamentally undermine our democracy and that fundamentally go against what New Zealanders want.Bill English stood up in the House twice today to tell New Zealanders that the National Government has got a great majority. Well look at the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) bill. Look at the asset sales. They were passed by one vote passed with the slimmest possible majority in this House and that is down to the dodgy sleazy deals that are done by this Government. That is down to Peter Dunne the self-described “willing buyer willing seller” on the GCSB bill and now John Banks a discredited MP an MP who has indulged in what Annette King calls “terminologicalinexactitude” on a regular basis—terminologicalinexactitude towards the Prime Minister his chief of staff and all New Zealanders.Although John Banks might now be in front of the court he was convicted in the court of public opinion last year. New Zealanders do not trust his word because what he is saying simply does not make any sense. As I have already stated the police report was quite clear. A false return was put in place. We have heard many many pieces of evidence in this case that point to the fact that John Key was misled by John Banks. That is the point at which John Key should have stepped in—September last year. He had the opportunity to do it. He did not take that opportunity and that is because he is clinging on to power. He is hugging the political corpse that is John Banks because he is so desperate to survive for the next year or so.Well the message I have from the Labour Party to the National Party is to call that snap election. Go ahead—call that snap election because we know we can win it. We know we have the agenda that New Zealanders want. This is a tired tawdry Government in its second term behaving like a third-term Government and propped up by disgraced MPs. It is time for it to go.Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): New Zealanders listening to and watching that contribution from the former deputy leader of the Labour Party will sit there unbelieving that they are being lectured on ethics in government by the Labour Party. It is unbelievable to be lectured on ethics by the Labour Party. Do the names Taito Phillip Field David Benson-Pope Ruth Dyson and Lianne Dalziel mean anything to that party opposite? Does the fact that the Labour Government was propped up by a party that was before the Privileges Committee for not telling the truth on electoral donations not ring with that party opposite? That party should not be lecturing anybody in this country on ethics or on doing the right thing because that is the party that took $850000 of taxpayers’ money illegally spent it and then wanted Parliament to retrospectively validate its taking of public money—$850000. It stuck its hands in the taxpayers’ pocket and secretly pulled out $850000 and it was David Henry whoexposed it. It did everything it could to hide it. I am not going to be lectured on ethics by those people opposite.The fact is that Mr Banks has done the right thing. Mr Banks has done the right and proper thing. He indicated to the Prime Minister’s office last week that if he was to go to trial then he would resign his position as a Minister. But as he is still there his resignation makes no difference to the stability of the National Government and that is because this Government still enjoys very broad public support after 5 years in office during very very difficult economic times. In fact New Zealanders know that this country is on the up because this Government has focused on what really matters to New Zealanders and that is jobs and opportunities for our people.The latest ANZ consumer confidence poll which I have just read about in the last hour or so says that New Zealand consumer confidence is really picking up and New Zealanders are feeling better off about the future since January 2008 which was before the global financial crisis. So the whole trend in this country is that things are getting better. There are more opportunities. There are more jobs. Mrs Bennett was talking about fewer people on benefits today and so that is why this Government enjoys the broad support of New Zealanders and the confidence of this Parliament. The Government is determined to continue focusing on what really matters and that is what this agenda and this Government is all about.We have got a huge effort going in to giving the productive sector in this country the boost and the confidence that it needs against the headwinds of the higher New Zealand currency. Every day in this Parliament we see our Ministers talking about the efforts that this Government is making on the international trade front to provide opportunities for our exporters and for young New Zealanders. We see the Government every day talking about the work it is doing in resource management in order to give business a boost and remove red tape with a greater focus on those things. We have seen the Minister of Energy and Resources talking about the huge opportunities for New Zealand in the whole minerals and petroleum exploration area which are all-important for New Zealand.So the Government remains very focused on the work that it is doing. It enjoys the broad support of the New Zealand public. It enjoys the support of the Parliament supported by parties that have a right to be in this Parliament and parties that support the agenda that this Government has. That is why the parties opposite can debate whatever they want to but in the end because we have a Government that is focused on what matters—growing the economy jobs and opportunities Better Public Services the rebuild in Christchurch and investing in infrastructure in New Zealand—that is why this Government maintains such strong support across the New Zealand community.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Several serious questions arise from the resignation of John Banks as a Minister. The first and most obvious of these is about his lack of judgment. It is that lack of judgment that causes me to have some serious thoughts about his leadership of one of the Government’s most important promotions which is that of charter schools. There is already widespread concern about why those schools are needed and whether they will compromise standards because of the use of unqualified teachers and many other aspects of charter schools are at least questionable. So we are entitled to now ask about the ministerial judgment of a man who has had to resign as a Minister because there are questions about the legal propriety of his past mayoral campaign election returns. We are entitled to conclude that this Minister indeed is a Minister who has exercised poor judgment across a range of issues. That includes not only his past behaviour in electoral matters but also his leadership of the charter schools programme. This justifies a total review we believe of the need forcharter schools. at all. If his judgment is so poor then there needs to be another look at them.The question of judgment goes beyond just questions about electoral returns and what that means in terms of Mr Banks’ ability to exercise sound judgment. It goes to how the man has handled the situations that he has found himself in. Most New Zealanders will regard the way that he has handled those situations as very questionable indeed. It is clear to most that Mr Banks has not been as open honest and transparent as we are entitled to expect of a Minister. What this means is that he is not trusted by the community. This defines the nature of the whole Government. The Prime Minister has said that he has been happy to collude with all of this. Even now the Prime Minister wants Mr Banks back. It shows that the Government itself cannot be trusted and that of course is what we are seeing in the opinion polls currently.I have just heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that he regrets the resignation of Mr Banks. Why should that be? Because we all know in this House especially on this side of the House that Mr Banks is the most lacklustre Minister that exists on that side of the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: No that’s not true.DENIS O’ROURKE: Well—Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s a mid-range Minister.DENIS O’ROURKE: I said one of them—one of the most lacklustre. There are many lacklustre Ministers but he is one of the most lacklustre of them all. Clearly he is not really ministerial material. He does not have the talent or the personal ethical standards that New Zealanders expect of Ministers. Nor does he have the confidence of the New Zealand people to be a Minister. He does not even have the confidence of National voters. So why should the Deputy Prime Minister express such regret over this resignation which the rest of the House and I think the majority of New Zealanders actually rejoice in? It is because it makes a Government that does not have the confidence of New Zealanders itself even shakier. It will take more than a manipulated cup of tea to save the Government now. Mr Banks has gone. The Government will be next.The Banks affair is a long-running saga of sleaze of playing the New Zealand people as mugs and of manipulation and deviousness. So the resignation of John Banks has not come a day too soon for most of us. The damage he and John Key have done to New Zealand’s reputation as a well-ordered democracy is huge. The time is well past to put an end to the charade of evasion and double-talk that comes from Mr Banks. New Zealand has been at the top of the international non-corruption index for years. This Government with Mr Banks in support and with his record will put an end to that reputation.The spin now has to stop. The process of justice must be allowed to take its course—no thanks by the way to the wimpy cop-out by the New Zealand Police; thanks only to the efforts of MrMcCready. Electoral law is a cornerstone of our democracy. Electoral law can be flaunted and manipulated with apparent ease if you look at Mr Banks’ behaviour. The integrity of our entire system is put at risk by that behaviour. The law is the law for all but Ministers have a special responsibility to lead in this way and so indeed do all MPs. New Zealand First itself has had to face electoral accusations in the past. New Zealand First has had to run the full gauntlet of police and serious fraud investigation. The accusations were of course found to be utterly groundless. We did not get the easy ride that Mr Banks has had. We did not get officialdom looking elsewhere.There is no tenable way Mr Banks could continue as a Minister. A Government Minister is in a position of great trust and responsibility. This Minister has grosslybetrayed that trust and that responsibility and this Government has colluded with him every step of the way. This Government is just as guilty as Mr Banks has been in that respect. The public must have absolute confidence in the probity and judgment and honesty of Ministers and of the Government. A more honourable person would have resigned when the allegations of electoral misconduct surfaced in the first place. Instead of that we have had nothing but double-talk manoeuvring and in fact strategic silence from Mr Banks for more than a year. He has clung to office by his fingertips and in that he has been aided and abetted by the Prime Minister and by the whole National Government not because they have any particular regard for Mr Banks as a Minister but because they know that they have to have his vote to stay in office. I heard Mr English say today that in fact the Government had more than that but the truth is that it needs every vote that it has got. In reality its majority is just one so without Mr Banks’ vote this Government would not be able to cling to office in the way it has.Finally all of this reflects no credit at all on the Prime Minister of this country. He has allowed this tawdry tale to run on to discredit his Government to damage the reputation of New Zealand and to make it possible for the people of New Zealand to lose confidence in the whole political process. This is a sad day for New Zealand not because Mr Banks has resigned but because he has taken so long to come to that conclusion.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a 5-minute call.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): From this side of the House we are detecting a stench. We are detecting the stench of a Government that is rotting from within. We are detecting a Government that is rotting from within because not only are Government members becoming hysterical—and we saw Tony Ryall whose voice goes up about an octave every time he gets under more pressure—but what we are seeing is a Government that is relying on not one but two liars. We see Peter Dunne who has denied leaking a report when everyone knows that is not true and we see John Banks who has denied knowing he got donations—and he has done it publicly—when in fact everyone who has read the relevant reports knows that that cannot possibly be true.So what do we have? We have a Government led by John Key who promised higher standards that is held together by two liars.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No the member knows that Speaker’s ruling 42/4 says you cannot refer to a member as a liar. I will ask him to desist from that from now on.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Would it not be nice if the Government relied on people who could be relied on to tell the truth? Would it not be nice if there was a sense of integrity in Parliament—if there was a sense of integrity in Parliament and people told the truth? People refer to me and MrMcCready. I think it is an interesting situation that you have a liar a fraudster a bankrupt a convicted blackmailer and he has embarrassed two Cabinet Ministers both of whom have been quite senior in their time. At least he is equal opportunity MrMcCready—he is equal opportunity. But what he has recognised is what the police refused to recognise and that is that the facts of this matter are abundantly clear. No one can receive an envelope be told it is a donation and pretend that it is anonymous. No one can ask for—Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the beginning of this debate the Speaker made it very clear that we could not debate the substance of the case that is before the court and that we are debating the resignation of the Hon John Banks as a Minister. I suggest that the member on his feet is now starting to stray into those points.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. Mr Speaker made it very clear that we were to look at under the Standing Orders the issues relating to the Hon John Banks as a Minister. The issue if one wants to go beyond that is that he knowingly filed a false electoral return. That is out of order. It has not come up earlier but I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 28/4 31/1 and 31/3. I think the key one here is Speaker’s ruling 31/1 and I will just read it. “Where a matter is under adjudication before a court the important thing is whether there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the case if it were to be discussed in the Chamber.” I will ask the member and each subsequent member to be very mindful of that.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: John Banks resigned because a court found that there was a prima facie case that he had not told the truth. That is the matter and what we have had is no further information on that issue for a year. John Key has known for a year that John Banks cannot be relied on to tell the truth but he was a satisfactory member of Cabinet because he meets the standards—the standards for Ryall and the standards for Nick Smith in particular. He meets the standards for Simon Bridges.There is no requirement as part of the Key ministry to tell the truth either in this House or outside. The only requirement that John Key has is that a court does not find in that way. What sort of ethical standard is that? This is the ethics of someone who does not care. John Key is holding on to power by his dirty grubby fingernails because he wants to see his time out. He is getting contradictory advice. Judith Collins is saying: “Take the country to an election.” because she knows that when National loses she will be the leader. Steven Joyce is saying: “No no no. Let me have a go.” “No no no. Let me have a go.” is what Steven Joyce is saying. But one thing that we know for absolute certain—and it is in the polls that members opposite have been crying over as they have been consulting their Apples today—is that they are nudging on 40 percent and many of them are going to be goners.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): It is good to take a call in this and save the Hon Phil Goff—[Interruption]Moana Mackey:Texting in the classroom.Texting Anadarko.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well in fact it was Phil Goff’s call Ms Mackey. [Interruption] I do not think it was. I want to talk about John Banks who actually I think we know knew quite a lot about small businesses who started out in small business who grew a business and one thing is for sure who knew the effect as a Minister—and still does as a member of Parliament—of poor public policy on the vulnerable in the area of employment law.That is not something we can say for the Opposition in this House. We have seen some atrocious policy statements coming out of the Hon David Cunliffe the new leader of the Labour Party when it comes to these sorts of things. These policies actually make it very clear the Labour Party is not the party of workers. It is not the party of the vulnerable because if it was how could it raise the minimum wage to $15 a policy that would cost some 7000 jobs? “No more fire at will.” says Mr Cunliffe—that would cost 13000 jobs. Scrapping youth wages would cost 2000 jobs. Supporting the living wage campaign would cost potentially up to 26000 jobs.Well John Banks as Minister for Small Business knew that you cannot have frankly numbskull policies like that—policy by wishful thinking policy that hurts those you are most trying to help. That is why he supported as a Minister and continues to support as a member this good Government not lumping hundreds of millions of dollars—maybe billions of dollars—of costs on to the poor businesses that he represents and that this Government represents.We can also say about all of this that what is very important which seems to be lost in the speeches on the other side of the House is that here we have a case as TrevorMallard made quite clear the police did not see fit to prosecute. The police went through. There are two bases for the police: evidential sufficiency and public interest. I have not gone back and checked the papers and how it went at that time but clearly they decided on the basis of evidential sufficiency that there was no reason to prosecute. So we have a private prosecution. They are quite different as Trevor knows—Hon Trevor Mallard: Who?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As Trevor Mallard knows sometimes these prosecutions are successful but they are quite different from a police one with the processes that go through that.Really my point simply is that in this House in this country we all have the right to be held innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So to have the kinds of kangaroo court statements we have heard particularly from Metiria Turei—particularly nasty vitriolic comments from her—about what a disgrace it is and so on well I would have expected better from someone with a law degree actually; from someone like Metiria Turei. Because actually in this House we should uphold the fact that Mr Banks is innocent until proven guilty.He has however of course done the right thing. He has done the right thing because as soon as his case has been committed for trial he has decided that he does not want to be a distraction to the Government and he has stood down as a Minister. As I think Tony Ryall said he did it much quicker and with integrity unlike many of the numerous cases we could list from the other side of the House—one Taito Phillip Field for example.. It took months and months—actually years was it not? Was it not years Phil Goff that you took defending him? Saying that all he was guilty of doing—all he was guilty of doing—was looking out for his constituents?We on this side of the House follow good process. We look after workers actually—real workers. That is what John Banks was about as Minister for Small Business and what he is still about I think as a member of Parliament. I would much rather be supporting this Government any day of the week than that poor sorry lot over there who stood up for Taito Phillip Field for far far too long.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): We are here today in this urgent debate on the resignation of the Hon John Banks as a Minister. As my colleague has said he has not been found guilty of anything. Many many New Zealanders are accused they stand trial and many many of them are not found to have broken the law. So in this House we owe a responsibility to our justice system to uphold that premise that New Zealanders are innocent until they are proven guilty. I just want to commend the Hon John Banks for doing the right thing and resigning as a Minister outside Cabinet in this Government.It is quite interesting. I thought it was interesting that the Hon Trevor Mallard stood and took a call in this debate because the same private individual took a private prosecution against the Hon Trevor Mallard accusing him of assault. Of course someone who has stood and lectured us on morality would have stood down as a Cabinet Minister himself you would have thought when that prosecution was brought against him.Hon Simon Bridges: Did he?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Did he? In actual fact he did not. In actual fact he was excused from a Cabinet meeting in order to appear in court. That is the calibre of the person on that side of the House who is standing and talking about the integrity of being in Government and the requirements to be a Minister and the integrity required for that. Actually Trevor Mallard pleaded guilty and paid a fine. He did not get a criminal conviction—Hon Simon Bridges: And he spoke in the House on this.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —and he talked in the House on this. But he did not stand down.I just want to comment on the fact that the Hon John Banks has a long record of service to this country both as the Mayor of Auckland and also as a member of Parliament in this House and in fact he is a fellow Minister of Police. In October 1990 he came to Parliament and was made Minister of Police. Within a month he was facing as Minister of Police the Aramoana massacre where a 33-year-old unemployed man shot and killed 13 people in that small township. I would hate to have been—and I am sure every member in this House would hate to have been—in the role of Minister of Police and have to face that. The first responder was a local sergeant Sergeant Stewart Guthrie and he was shot. I raise this only because I visited the Dunedin Central Police Station and commented to the Hon John Banks that that police station was built following the Aramoana massacre and as part of the entrance there is a memorial to that sergeant who was the first responder to that massacre. That as I understand it was at the instigation of the then Minister of Police the Hon John Banks.I just want to reiterate that we should not in this House take the opportunity to make cheap political points. It is sad when a member like Metiria Turei who consistently is nasty raises nasty personal attacks on individuals in this House sees fit to use an opportunity like this where we are discussing a particular Minister and the difficulties he is facing and then spews out a barrage of abuse at a whole range of other Ministers about her perceived faults in their behaviour. This House should uphold the fact that every person is innocent until they are proven guilty.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): This Government is now clearly developing a reputation for not only being a shonky Government one that is tarnished by poor ethics and poor behaviour but also as a shaky Government.Hon Steven Joyce: Long way to go to recognise the Labour Government mate.Hon PHIL GOFF: Those two things are connected of course Mr Joyce. The only reason that you have not sacked members of your ministry—you would like it to be your ministry; Mr Key’s ministry—is that you know you have to rely on discredited members of Parliament to maintain your tenuous control on power.I want to say this. You know the Government is in trouble when National has the call and nobody rises to their feet. You know a National Government is in trouble when the acting Leader in the House of this Government Bill English gets to his feet and cannot do 5 minutes let alone 10 minutes in defence of the indefensible. We saw that over John Banks. This is a Government that has been there only 5 years and it has lost seven Ministers—seven Ministers. Let us go through the list shall we.Richard Worth—sacked when it was clearly revealed he was sending inappropriate texts to another woman. That was Richard Worth. Then there was Pansy Wong—sacked for the inappropriate use of the travel allowance. Richard Worth Pansy Wong and Phil Heatley. Phil Heatley was sacked because he was inappropriately using allowances for wine and for travel for his family. That was Phil Heatley. Then we had Nick Smith. He was inappropriately making submissions on behalf of his friend BronwynPullar. That is quite inappropriate for a Minister to do when that person is in conflict with his ministry. And he resigned. He has resigned once and I will give you this undertaking: we will see him resign again because he has been inappropriate in the way that he has effectively stopped his department the Department of Conservation from putting forward submissions on an important public issue that it should be heard on. It is not the role of a Minister to silence his department because he has a different point of view. That department was entitled to put forward submissions and I believe that the comments made about the reason why it did not make that submission are clearly misleading. Then we had Kate Wilkinson. Well she is in a different category to be fair to Kate. Sheresigned because her department was failing in its responsibilities and it is still failing in its responsibilities.But the worst cases are the two members who have been absolutely discredited in the court of public opinion who are—or were—Ministers outside Cabinet: Peter Dunne and John Banks. Peter Dunne let us face it leaked a report theKitteridge report on the Government Communications Security Bureau to a journalist. The evidence is there. That is why he would not submit the emails. The Government pretended that it was somebody else. The poor old civil servants had to line up and give their testimony on oath but not Peter Dunne. He was never required to do that. There is not one member of the National Party with their head down at the moment who does not know that Peter Dunne leaked that report. He should not have just resigned from the ministry he should not be in this House. He has no credibility. Why does National keep him there? It keeps him there because it relies on his vote for it to maintain its grasp on power. No matter how tarnished no matter how tawdry this Government keeps Ministers in place and will not sack them for behaving unethically because simply it wants to maintain its grip on power. [Interruption] “Exactly” Anne Tolley says. Anne Tolley has just agreed with my point that they keep tawdry discredited Ministers in place to maintain their grip on the reins of Government.Then you have got John Banks. Well you know one of the things that a Minister should do is have a good memory and remember what he has done. Mr Banks does not remember Kim Dotcom—an easy man to forget I guess! He does not remember his mansion—only a small shack; I suppose he might have overlooked it. He did not remember the ride to the mansion in the helicopter—well he takes helicopter rides all the time! He did not remember asking for donations and he did not remember receiving them. John Banks as the police report states filed a declaration that was false.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: That is not in debate Mr Speaker; that is the police report.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I just remind members as I did before that we have to be very careful with an allegation like that. That is what is before the court—whether John Banks seemingly and knowingly filed a false return. That is what we cannot refer to in this House because it could be prejudicial to the court case. I will ask the member just to be very mindful of that. I mentioned that earlier. There is a Standing Order specifically on that point.Hon PHIL GOFF: That is why I did not use the word “knowingly”. That would have been quite inappropriate because it is before the court. But there is no doubt no debate and no question that the declaration was a false one—no doubt about that at all. That is established.Hon Steven Joyce: Like 2005 and the credit card eh?Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Joyce might remember that when he swore his oath of office he was expected to behave as theCabinet Manual says: “Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards.” Six Ministers Mr Joyce did not uphold those standards.Did the Prime Minister do what he promised when he took office? “I expect” he said pompously and self-righteously “high standards from my Ministers. If they do not meet the standards I set then obviously I’ll take the action if necessary.” “Read the full quote.” the Prime Minister would say. Well it was not in the quote unfortunately. But what he was saying was: “I will take the action when I have no other choice.” when everybody else in this country has reached the conclusion that a Minister has behaved wrongly unethically and sometimes illegally. Only at the end of the day when he was forced to do it did the Prime Minister sack those six Ministers each of whom behavedunethically. This Government has reached the end of its time in office. Already out there in the electorate people are saying “It’s time for a change.”Hon Steven Joyce: Ha ha! In your desperate dreams.Hon PHIL GOFF: Keep giggling Mr Joyce. Giggle to keep your courage up but you know that to be the truth. You know that is what the polls say you know that is what your polls are saying and you know that is what people are saying out on the street. This Government has reached the end of its tenure. It is tarnished. It is tawdry.What I object to most about the Prime Minister’s failure to do what he promised—to uphold ethical standards—is that this country actually has a good reputation. In Transparency International it is the least corrupt country in the world. But you know Mr Joyce that to maintain that reputation standards have got to be set at the top. If Ministers do not maintain those standards then that will filter down through the rest of our society and we will see a diminishing of the standards that we have long been proud of and have upheld. This Government is not upholding those standards.John Key did not even read the police report. Can Mr Joyce if he is taking the next call say why the Prime Minister never read the police report? He said: “I’m taking Mr Banks at his word.” Well that is leadership is it not! It is leadership to say: “Here are the charges against the man. Here is the pile of evidence. But no I won’t read the police report because it’ll confirm it and I’ll take him at his word.” Why did he not just honestly say as Anne Tolley admitted to the House that he is keeping people in ministerial posts because he needs their votes to stay in power? That is what it is about. It is not about taking people at their word and it is not about not being obliged to read the police report. He should have upheld those ethical standards. John Key is the man who is on trial in this House because John Key has not done what he promised the country 5 years ago that he would do—uphold high standards.We have seen low standards. We have never seen lower standards than we are seeing at the moment even in the way Mr Banks got into power. He is in this House for one reason—the National Party gifted him the seat of Epsom because it wanted to rort the political system to get extra people in the House. That is why it put Don Brash in—Don Brash a former leader of the National Party and John Banks a former Cabinet Minister. The National Party put those people into the seat of Epsom to rort the political system. The public will judge National on that as well.Let us have a quick look at the ACT Party. I have never agreed with the ACT Party but once upon a time I could at least respect it because it had a principled point of view. It does not have a principled point of view now. It is being manipulated as a tool of the National Party to keep a National Government in power a Government that the people have had a gutsful of and now want to get rid of. The ACT Party the party of Donna Awatere and David Garrett—they have certainly—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Time has expired.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Earth to Phil Goff. The Minister has resigned. The Prime Minister has upheld the standards. Earth to Phil Goff—who just popped a vein for the last 10 minutes trying to argue for something that has already happened. Oh dear Phil. The other thing that you should never do is if you live in glass houses you should not throw stones—you should not throw stones. I will take a lecture from the Labour Party when it apologises for its deliberate rorting of the electoral system in 2005 when it created an extra $900000 of electoral expenditure and it lied like a flatfish before it was able to go to an election. The Labour Government had to pass legislation to validate that appalling deliberate rort of the New Zealand electoral system which was authorised by Helen Clark with the toadies in her office like GrantRobertson. That is the appalling example—and Grant hates it—but it was a stain on his reputation before he even came to Parliament. It is the most appalling rubbish.We will also take a lecture from the Labour Party when it apologises for keeping Taito Phillip Field in the ministry for months and months and months. This is the guy who went to jail. Phil Goff a senior Minister in the Labour Government says “Nothing to see here—nothing to see here”. I will take a lecture from Phil Goff when he finally turns round and says that the Labour Party was wrong about Phillip Field. And I will also take a lecture from the Labour members when they stop acting like immigration advisers instead of like a Government when they actually do immigration advice and their Ministers pretend to be immigration consultants and they get this dodgy deal done and then they give the guy a citizenship ceremony in the Parliament. That is appalling and these guys talk about transparency. They talk about ethical standards. Well I am sorry that is the most appalling lapse of ethical standards that these guys have been involved with.So there you have a problem. You have the Labour members get up in this debate and start trying to lecture people about ethical standards. They try to lecture a Prime Minister who has accepted a Minister’s resignation as if he did not and yet they were the dodgy ones who for 9 years actually lowered the standards for ministerial conduct which the Prime Minister has then raised again. These guys are hypocritical and they are in glass houses throwing stones. I strongly suggest they stop because they look like the clowns they are. They look like the clowns they are.I could do a whole roll-call of Ministers—one two three four five six seven eight nine 10 11—12 Ministers during Labour’s time in Government who kicked the bucket one way or another. That is an appalling record. This Prime Minister has upheld the highest ethical standards and when Mr Banks knew that he was going to have to stand trial he went straight to the Prime Minister and said that he had to stand down. The Prime Minister accepted. So let us compare that with Taito Phillip Field. How does that go with the Taito Phillip Field test? [Interruption] I will say “Taito Phillip Field” all afternoon if you like Phil because that was the most embarrassing and pathetic example of prime ministerial accountability in New Zealand’s recent history. That was absolutely appalling.But let us forget the Labour Party because it is just wrapped up in all this rubbish. Let us talk about the Greens. Let us talk about the Greens because it was the Green Party that started this debate and with the greatest respect to it it really does need to start thinking about what it is about. The Green Party’ssanctimoniousness on this issue is appalling. If Green members genuinely want to stop the convention centre in Auckland and if they genuinely do not want the jobs then they should have the courage and conviction to go out and argue for the closing of the casino industry for the closing of the community gambling industry and for the closure of the Lotteries Commission. They do not do that because they know that that would be politically unacceptable. So they allow themselves to go out there and harrumph and carry on about an additional number of machines in the casino to build a big convention centre—something that by the way they forgot to do when Labour was in office—and they expect us to treat the Green Party as some sort of principled left-wing political party.Worse than that it does not like jobs. The reality is that it does not like jobs. This is what we get all the time from the Greens. They do not like jobs. The Labour Party does not like jobs. That is the problem. That is why you will not get back into Government apart from the obsession with the beltway that Grant Robertson and Phil Goff are wrapped up in. The reality is that the Labour Party will not get back into office next year because it is not about jobs and growth for New Zealanders. It is about making up stories about the Government and opposing jobs at every opportunity.What will be remembered about the bill that is behind this discussion today—what will be remembered about it—is that it will create 1000 jobs in construction. It will create 800 jobs once it is constructed. It will be an asset for Auckland. It will be an asset for New Zealand. It will be like theHobbit movies. It will be like the Resource Management Act changes that have helped to speed up development. It will be like oil and gas exploration the biggest summer in New Zealand for oil and gas exploration and all the jobs that go with that. It will be like all these other things that the Labour Party and the Greens have opposed.Increased irrigation—there we have the pro tem candidate for the Labour Party in Napier running around today saying he is against irrigation and against oil and gas so he is out. He will not be standing and if he is he will definitely not be winning the Napier electorate at the next election because actually New Zealanders are interested in jobs. They are interested in growth. They are not interested in Grant Robertson—we have actually established that. They are not interested in Phil Goff. They are not interested in the Greens running around the place setting up taxpayers’ money to do a stunt at Aotea Square in Auckland with cardboard boxes. They are interested in a Government that builds a brighter future for this country by ensuring opportunities for companies to invest and grow jobs and to succeed and for New Zealanders to succeed here and bring up their families here. That is what New Zealanders are interested in and they are also interested in a Prime Minister who has the highest ethical standards and who delivers on that on an ongoing basis.The Labour Party’s constant desire to pull the Government down into the mud that the Labour Party lives in is not working this time. It has not worked at any time and New Zealanders know that this Government is working for them. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 16 October.Part 4 Registration enforcement and miscellaneous provisions(continued)CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It will be interesting to see whether the Minister in the chair the Minister of Defence is able to answer the specific questions that are put to him during this part of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. This is Part 4 of a badly drafted bill that sits alongside the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act to create a surveillance State in New Zealand that ignores and disregards the rights of New Zealanders and that includes unprecedented powers for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and for Ministers to interfere in the activities of our digital businesses and our telecommunications networks with no checks or balances. Part 4 of this bill is where the rubber hits the road because this is the part where the expanded regime is set out for the registration of network operators and for the security clearance process of nominated employees within networks. It sets out how they will interact with these GCSB operatives that will work within the networks inside New Zealand how the compliance and penalty regimes for networks will operate and how those compliance networks will operate for those who do not comply.I want to focus on clauses 96 to 98 in Part 4 of this bill for my contribution in this particular speech because this is the part that talks about protecting classified information. It certainly did impact on a number of submitters who put in some verystrong pleas about how this part of the bill was exercised. They did not say that there could not be and should not be a mechanism for the hearing of secret evidence to be presented in court in the absence of a defendant and their lawyer. Where there is a dispute or where there is a problem and if it actually gets to court this is the part where the secret powers can be most concerning if they do not have adequate checks and balances.Tech Liberty NZ which is a significant civil society organisation in our country and has presented on a number of bills before this House in the last almost 5 years around the rights of citizens and the privacy of citizens submitted quite strongly with regard to clauses 96 to 98 which provide for secret evidence to be presented in court in the absence of the defendant and their lawyer: “As a matter of civil liberties and the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act we reject the ability of the government to use secret evidence. Secret evidence that cannot be challenged or responded to is a grossoffense to the idea of a fair trial. These provisions should be removed from the bill.” but “If this is to be retained we would expect that the appointment of a special advocate as mentioned in 97(3)(c) would be the barest minimum required to provide any semblance of fairness. This appointment should be mandatory and not at the discretion of the court.”Well I will tell you what the response was to that suggestion. We on this side of the Chamber would probably not take as strong a view as Tech Liberty NZ did on this in the sense that there may be times when there could be secret evidence provided in court but we think that the provision of a check and balance through having a special advocate is an integral part of a system that holds up the highest standards of democracy before this country. Unfortunately this Government as we have heard in the previous debate certainly does not do that. So what was said back was that the officials gave us the advice that those clauses should not be removed and that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advice prepared by the Ministry of Justice and by the Attorney-General acknowledged that withholding classified security information during a court proceeding was a limitation on the right to natural justice but given the safeguards put in place such as having a special advocate and the need to keep classified security information confidential it was considered justifiable. Well we will be saying more about the cursory vetting of this bill in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting process by the Attorney-General later on in the debate on this because we considered that it was just a cursory vetting—a once-over-lightly a rubber-stamping process—and we also contend that the amended bill should have gone back to the Law and Order Committee for another vetting against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because of the extensive changes that were made.We were given the advice that the appointment of a special advocate should not be mandatory. If that does not say that there is no serious check and balance being provided in this legislation I do not know what is. On the one hand you have the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting saying that there is a check and balance and therefore it is OK. But on the other hand that check and balance is at the discretion of another process. So it is not there as a right. It is not there as a right for citizens and we contend that this is a serious issue in this bill.We need to talk about costs and the impact of the costs of this bill on companies because when it comes to the compliance regime in Part 4 of this bill this is where significant costs can be realised and may be realised particularly to the smaller companies that we have been warned about through the passage of this bill because of the broad definitions of “network operator” and “service provider” in this bill particularly around what constitutes a network operator. I just want to go back to the letter that we all as members of Parliament received fromNZRise which is a body thatrepresents the New Zealand - owned digital technology sector. This is a group of reputable companies that are trying to be the innovators in our country and we should be listening to them. They say that in practice a small number of businesses—these are the bigger networks the telecommunications companies—will self-identify as network operators and those businesses will notify only a small subset of the decisions covered by the bill. The rest will be in possible non-compliance and as a result can be easily pressured by security agencies. They are warning us that this broad definition of “network operator” could encompass an enormous number of smaller companies that may find themselves in non-compliance and may end up liable under the compliance section of this bill which is overly onerous secretive without checks and balances and could have a huge detrimental effect on our technology sector.They invite us to consider the practical realities of this—that small New Zealand businesses may be likely to be intimidated that the broad powers and expansive wording of the bill could completely undercut New Zealanders’ rights to privacy and protection against unreasonable and disproportionate search. These are obligations that we have contended are onerous. There are not enough checks and balances and the definitions are far too broad in terms of whom they encompass. That is why we have used the phrase “chilling effect” on a number of occasions. We think our technology sector should be driving economic development in this country and we should be giving signals that we want it to drive economic development in this country. What we are doing with this bill is giving it another set of signals that they had better watch out because Big Brother is watching.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much Mr Chairperson for the call.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Big brother just stood up.GRANT ROBERTSON: Sorry what was that?Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I’m talking to Clare.GRANT ROBERTSON: No call has been taken by Sam Lotu-Iiga on this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. In fact no calls whatsoever have been taken on this bill from National Party members other than a brief intervention from the Minister for Communications and Information Technology last night. That is for two reasons. They do not understand it—that is the first reason—and secondly they are not proud of it. They are not proud of it over there because they know that this takes out the balance between protecting the security of New Zealanders and protecting the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders.Sam Lotu-Iiga would not have a clue as to what is in this bill. He is blindly going along with it. He has been told he has got to sit there. He will try to move a closure motion at some point. That is the best he has got to contribute. Well I challenge Mr Lotu-Iiga to stand up get on his feet and say—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. He asked me to stand up to get on my feet. I am up. [Interruption] No no—my name is Sam Lotu-Iiga. Thank you.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): All right. I ask members to pronounce other members’ names correctly.GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand corrected. I would still like to see the member take a call in this debate. [Interruption] Oh! He is off. He is off because he does not know anything about it. He does not know a thing about it. He is going to find the houses in Maungakiekie that he was looking for—the affordable ones. They are not there.There are several issues to come to now in Part 4 of this bill. The first one that I want to pick up on is one of the points that Clare Curran raised which was around the question of the role of the special advocate and whether or not a court can hear mattersin the absence of the defendant in this. This is covered in the bill essentially under clauses 95 onwards.I want to make reference to what was a very significant report written by the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission is allowed under its direct reporting function—section 5(2)(k) of the Human Rights Act—to deliver a report to the Prime Minister. It has delivered in its history as far as I am aware only five of these reports so it is a significant step. It chose to deliver a report to the Prime Minister on this bill and on the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation. That was a significant step. Those who have been following the saga of these bills will recall that that was what inspired the Prime Minister to threaten the funding of the Human Rights Commission and to suggest that it should get its submissions in on time. He actually did not understand that this was a separate process and a very serious one.Here is what it had to say about that exact power: “Of further concern however is the fact that where procedural matters involving ‘classified security information’ relating to administration or enforcement of the Act are involved at the request of the Attorney-General a court can receive or hear matters in the absence of the defendant or the defendant’s lawyers.” The Human Rights Commission notes that there is the provision for special advocates but it believes that this breaches the right to natural justice under section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.So this bill as my colleague Clare Curran said got a cursory look from the Attorney-General and a rubber-stamp through here. Here is the Human Rights Commission saying that this part of Part 4 breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Along with many other issues this is exactly why Clare Curran moved a motion before the second reading to get this bill back to the Law and Order Committee. There is a massive Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister for Communications and Information Technology Supplementary Order Paper 366. There are some significant changes but a lot of issues have been left unchanged. We know from the submissions of agencies like the Human Rights Commission that significant concerns have not been properly dealt with.Interestingly the commission goes on to say in its submission to the Prime Minister: “Despite the opinion of the Attorney-General to the contrary … the Commission considers that the limitation is unjustified and a disproportionate response to the need to protect classified security information in this context particularly since it is relatively unclear as to who will be appointed as a Special Advocate—or if one will be appointed at all.” So that is the situation we now have.I am not a lawyer—my colleague Andrew Little is a lawyer and I am sure he will take a call as we go on through this—but a basic principle of natural justice is that if you are going to be talked about in a court you have the right to be there and be represented. It is a fairly fundamental and basic right and the Human Rights Commission is saying that Part 4 of this bill undermines that. That is an extremely serious allegation and we have heard nothing from the Government to defend that. The Government has given it the rubber stamp and seems to think that that is fine. Well on this side of the Chamber we do not think that it is fine. We believe that it needs to be thoroughly analysed and at the very least defended by the National Government as to why it is prepared to trample on the principles of natural justice in such a way that has led the Human Rights Commission to put this in.The Government may well say—there are no Government members prepared to defend this so let us put up the argument that they might put up. That would be that the special advocate is there to deal with this. Well the appointment—and this is consistent throughout this bill—of the special advocate is right there in the hands of the Government. When it comes to these matters of security and intelligence we on thisside of the Chamber simply do not have confidence that the Government will appoint the appropriate people. We have seen consistently over the term of this Government the appointment of cronies. Obviously the major one of those is the appointment of Ian Fletcher to be the director of the GCSB. That has undermined the confidence of New Zealanders in these agencies. Now we have to accept that anyone who ends up in this process has to go along with the special advocate. We do not even know whether a special advocate is going to be appointed but they have to go along with the special advocate as their person. That fundamentally raises questions of natural justice. That is why the Human Rights Commission raised this.I would ask a Government member to stand up and answer the Human Rights Commission’s concerns. No Government member in this debate has properly responded to the concerns that have been raised. The Minister in the chair the Minister of Defence could stand up and tell us why it is that his Government is prepared to go against the Human Rights Commission which has put out on this bill and on this particular part of this bill one of the very few direct reports that it has done to the Prime Minister. National members should be able to defend that; otherwise it should not proceed because what is the point of having an agency like the Human Rights Commission if it is simply going to be ignored time after time and undermined by this Government? We have not seen any adequate response and on this side of the Chamber we believe that this part in this bill should be opposed in part because of that.Another of the matters that I want to raise on Part 4 is around clauses 70 and 71 which are around the idea that there needs to be a Government-sponsored security clearance for network operators who have 4000 or more customers. I thought that this was a good example of the point that Clare Curran raised about some of the costs and obligations that are being put on companies under this bill. Many of us in the House will have experienced the process of going through a security clearance or indeed being a referee for somebody who has gone through a security clearance. I have to say that it is not always the most reassuring of experiences when that occurs. A person in a long raincoat—Hon Phil Goff: I got through.GRANT ROBERTSON: Well actually Mr Goff says “I got through.” Perhaps members of the Committee may want to consider that that is not that reassuring. But somebody from the SIS comes in a long coat—Hon Trevor Mallard: I never did. I failed.GRANT ROBERTSON: Trevor Mallard failed so the system does work on the odd occasion—Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s right. It meant when I worked at the defence department as a window cleaner I had a pistol-packing guard accompany me all the time.GRANT ROBERTSON: And we have always wanted to keep Mr Mallard under armed guard since then.But the point that I am trying to make is that here is another obligation and another role for a security agency. We on this side of the House have been waiting expectantly for the Security Intelligence Service to be reviewed. It was something that the Government began and then stopped for no apparent reason and without explanation. But here the SIS is involved along with the GCSB in having a role in deciding how network operators are going to behave and what obligations are upon them. The vetting process is the issue that I want to raise. I understand actually that part of the vetting process that the SIS does may have actually been revealed as part of the process of this bill. That in itself is of concern because I would have thought that that was something that the SIS may well want to keep to itself. There will be more to say about that in thefuture but this is just another example in Part 4 of additional costs and additional obligations that are being placed on businesses and network operators.If we look at Part 4 which is essentially a set of clauses that—Ian McKelvie: I can’t believe you’ve got there.GRANT ROBERTSON: No no I have been there the whole time Mr McKelvie. I have been there the whole time. The human rights issues that I raise and that Mr McKelvie has not taken a call on he could get up and respond to. Everything I have been talking about Mr McKelvie is in Part 4 of this bill. If you have read this bill get up take a call and tell me how Mr McKelvie as a member justifies breaching the Human Rights Act. That is in Part 4 and not one of those—Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is a worry that when you have a bill like the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill and you are debating an important part of the bill—which has been introduced under urgency has had the period of time that submitters could make submissions on it curtailed and then has finally come to the Committee where we debate the individual provisions of this bill—that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Defence is not the Minister in charge of the bill and probably does not know what is in it. That would explain why he is not taking the call. But not even the members of the Law and Order Committee who sit in this Chamber have taken a call. The idea of the Committee of the whole House stage is to enable the provisions in this bill to be thoroughly debated. I have heard Clare Curran and I have heard Grant Robertson stand up and raise legitimate questions about Part 4 of this bill and there is no response. There is no response from the Minister in the chair who is not interested and not even listening. There is no response from members on the select committee.This is a really important part. For a start it provides for network providers to be compulsorily registered. We know with this bill and the bill that it actually puts into effect which is now the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) Act that there are intrusive powers. There are intrusive powers against ordinary New Zealanders because an agency in secrecy and without accountability can intrude into their private communications. But Part 4 highlights the other important intrusive powers that this bill provides and those are unprecedented powers in terms of the power of the State to direct private commercial companies to do things that the State wants but the private companies have to pay for. The first requirement in Part 4 is that companies have to be registered. [Interruption] I am sorry?Ian McKelvie: Who paid for your last tax return?Hon PHIL GOFF: I cannot hear the member. He will have to speak louder and more clearly.Clare Curran: Take a call.Hon PHIL GOFF: In fact he should take the call. He should take the call because actually the House has had a gutsful of members of Parliament who interject from their seats but do not have the conviction to actually take the call and debate the legislation.What does this part do? First of all it requires that all network providers be compulsorily registered. Secondly it requires that every one of those companies must nominate an employee who will act on behalf of the State. That employee must get the security clearance to act on behalf of the State. Who pays for that? The State? No I am sorry; the private company pays for it. So you force companies to register you force them to nominate an employee who gets security clearance to do the Government’s work and then it involves a power of the director of the GCSB to require any information or any document that he considers necessary. So the head of the GCSB can demand of a network provider that it provides any information any document that he the head of the GCSB decides is necessary. Do the network providers have any appealagainst that? No. No they do not. They must comply or they are taken to court and they can be fined up to half a million dollars—half a millions dollars—for not complying with these provisions.The enforcement provisions are stringent. The requirements are unusual. You might say that these powers in the interests of national security could be justified. You might argue that. But the onus is on the Government first of all to demonstrate to this House and our country that it is important to have those powers that are exercised by the State and secondly that there are safeguards against the abuse of these powers. I understand and Labour understands that you need security intelligence services. We understand that there are such things as organised criminal activities and terrorist groups that the State may need to be safeguarded against. But where you start is to demonstrate that to demonstrate that these powers are justified.I would have thought that the Government would be prepared to let the critical agencies appear before our select committee—the police the GCSB and the SIS. Those agencies do the work. They could if they wanted have come to the select committee in secret or in private sessions and said that they need these powers because these are the activities that they are safeguarding against. They could have been invited. They could have been invited to appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee to make the same arguments in relation to the GCSB bill which this bill allows to be carried out. But no the Government suppressed the right or the ability of the GCSB the SIS or the police to come before the select committees the democratic institutions of this House. I have not heard one Minister or one member of the National Party stand up and justify why those agencies should not have come before the select committee and said: “This is the reason that New Zealand must have these powers.” That is the starting point. Is there a need for these extraordinary powers? Justify them. That is the role of the Government when it gives extraordinary powers to its agencies. It is to say why. The Government failed and it failed absolutely.Secondly there was the requirement—Jacqui Dean: You sit down and let me take the call.Hon PHIL GOFF: There she goes. She is interjecting from her seat as well so I hope she takes the call. I hope she is going to and then we will get a chance to respond. The other precondition was that when you give these huge powers to the State you ensure that there are safeguards to prevent the abuse of power by those agencies. That is after all why the GCSB bill came before this Parliament. It was because the GCSB was found to have abused its powers in the case of Kim Dotcom and when theKitteridge report came out it was found also to have exceeded and abused its powers against 88 other New Zealanders. So what we know from this is that there must be safeguards against the abuse of power.I want to come back to the safeguards in a minute but the next thing I want to say is this. If we really need these powers because there are organised criminal groups and terrorists out there and we need to intercept their communications does this system put into place by this bill act effectively against criminal organisations and terrorists? I asked the officials that at the select committee. I said: “Aren’t there huge loopholes in this legislation?”. For example an increasing percentage of the population these days are using over-the-top providers likeSkype. IsSkype covered in this legislation? Does it have to have interception capabilities? The answer is no. But the answer is not even no; it is “I’m sorry. We’re uncertain. We’re confused. We’re indecisive. We may put those powers in place but we won’t do it in the legislation; we will do it by regulation. We will do it in a way that does not have to come back to this House. We will do it quietly—or secretly almost. It will not come back to this House.”So first of all you do not putSkype and the over-the-top providers in and then you do not put in the small network providers if they have fewer than 4000 subscribers. This Government finally realised that even if you have got the network providers in because the communications are encrypted and the network providers do not have the means to decrypt the telecommunications messages interception of communications may not be possible. So I asked the officials that question: “Does this bill do what you need to do?” and the answer was: “No there are loopholes that you could drive an articulated lorry through.” If you are a professional criminal organisation you will know where they cannot intercept your communications and you will use those means. So why are we putting all of this effort in when the professional criminal organisations can evade the telecommunications interceptions? And there is no answer to that—there is no answer to that. You might get the dummies who use communications that can be intercepted but the professional crooks or al-Qaeda will not. They know where you can get away with not being intercepted and they will use those routes.What I am worried about with this legislation is that it will not get the real crooks but it will allow these organisations to do what the National Security Agency has done in the United States and what the Government Communications Headquarters has done in the United Kingdom and that is to follow the communications of tens of thousands of ordinary citizens who have no connection with terrorist groups or criminal groups. So we get the worst of both worlds. We do not actually stop the bad guys but we allow the scope for ordinary citizens to have their communications intercepted or recorded in metadata without having adequate protections.I want to talk about why the protections are not adequate. Well for a start the enormous power that exists in this area is—JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The problem that Labour has in opposing this Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is that it is dancing on the head of a pin trying to find reasons to oppose it. What it is conveniently forgetting is that it was that Labour Government that brought in the telecommunications bill in the first place in 2004. What you have to ask yourself is well did Labour oppose it then? Labour did not oppose it then because Labour brought it in. Did Labour understand the need for national security back then? Yes I believe Labour did understand the need for national security back then and somehow it has had this amnesia about its former position which is not unusual for Labour because flip-flopping is what it does.Labour has conveniently forgotten the need for national security and so now its members are making up arguments that even they do not believe in. Phil Goff knows from his former role as a Minister in the former Government that national security is critical to the running of New Zealand. He knows full well the roles of the Government Communications Security Bureau the SIS and the New Zealand Police and the roles that they must must have under legislation to keep New Zealanders safe because that is what this Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is all about. It is about keeping New Zealanders safe. Labour does not get it. But over this side of the Chamber we do.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Well that was a pathetic contribution. I think it is fair to say that there is an old rule in this House that if you do not know anything about it keep your mouth shut because people will think you are a fool. But if you get up there is a likelihood of proving it. And the member just proved that rule.Clare Curran: She’s the chair.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: She was the chair of the Law and Order Committee and the complaint even from the officials was I understand that the member who waschairing the committee just did not bother either reading or understanding the papers that were put in front of her—not that there was that much there; not that the important people who should have given evidence were giving evidence but the member who was meant to be guiding the arrangements through the Law and Order Committee was just so slow and so hopeless that it was an embarrassment to the parliamentary system.I think it is fair to say that it is only in recent days that I have turned my mind to this particular piece of legislation the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. I have not had any involvement with it before. What has become clear to me is that Part 4 unusually for a bill is where the substance and the mechanisms sit. One looks at the registration system the requirement to register the method of application what is on the registration information the purpose the contents the operation and access and the rest of it.I want to ask the Minister a question as to access to the register. Why is it so secret? Why is all the detail on that register so secret? If we have—Ian McKelvie: Why do you think?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well no hang on we are not talking about the private information of individuals that the Government Communications Security Bureau is going after. It is a question of who is registered and on what basis they are registered. Why is that a secret? No no answer. No answer from thenoddies opposite. Their heads all go down and they cannot answer. It is a genuine question. Why can we not know as New Zealanders who are the network operators in New Zealand? Why can we not know? What should be secret about the fact that someone is operating a network here?Ian McKelvie: You’re not much of a detective.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What? Well the bill is so useless—so useless—that no one can explain. It should be pretty clear to most people who is operating a network. So why keep the fact that they are operating a network and are registered to do so a secret? No explanation. The registrar will not even be able to tell us whether Vodafone is registered or not because that is a secret and there is no access. You are not allowed to access it. It is an offence to have it accessed. It is an offence to reveal.Frankly this is nonsense legislation. I do not want to be too critical of my colleagues and I know that Clare Curran has written a superb minority view on this bill but I do not think that actual question—she might have missed one. Why should we try to keep secret the fact that Vodafone will have to apply? Vodafone has more than 4000 customers no doubt about it and will have to apply for registration as a network operator. Why should we keep secret the fact that Vodafone has gained registration as a network operator? One will be able to tell within 3 months whether Vodafone has got its registration or not because if it has not got its registration the switch goes off.Louise Upston: Are you talking about this particular part of the bill?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am talking about Part 4 the changes to the register the security clearance the registration and the certification all of which relate to whether or not a particular operator is able to operate or not and the requirements to keep it confidential.The next point and I think a number of my colleagues are going to be interested in this particular area is the method of nominating employees for clearance. In a slightly jovial way I earlier indicated that even members of this Parliament in their former lives have failed clearance checks in the past. When I cleaned the windows of the defence department as a job when I was a student—I was a window cleaner—I was accompanied by a guard who had a pistol. We are talking about the very early 1970s when pistols were actually relatively unusual in New Zealand at that time. But it was there it was open and it was obvious.The most secret part in those days was the economic espionage section. As an economics student I thought it really interesting that the two books that they had on the shelves because at the time they were studying Viet Nam and the economy of Viet Nam were Samuelson andLipsey which were stage 1 books. They were stage 1 economics books and they were the only books that were on the shelves of the most secret part.But the point that I am making is that people have to submit for vetting; that the operators certainly those that have got more than 4000 customers have to nominate a person or persons who are vetted. The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) goes to work in a way that Grant Robertson described—sorry the SIS I presume will do the vetting on behalf of the GCSB for these particular individuals.I would like also to turn now to clause 75 of the bill. What it says here is that “A network operator must comply with a notice under section 72 or 73 despite anything to the contrary in any deed or contract”—or most important—“or any other enactment.” So the question that I have is that if a court makes an order under another particular enactment and the director of the GCSB issues a notice why should the director of the GCSB override the High Court of New Zealand? Why should the GCSB director a close friend of the Prime Minister have the right to override the High Court or for that matter the Supreme Court of New Zealand? It is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It gets the law of New Zealand upside down and back to front.In New Zealand what we are meant to do is have legislation that is interpreted and ruled on by the courts and the Minister and his lackeys do not have the right to tip it over. I do not go a long way back but I rememberFitzgerald v Muldoon because that case established that principle pretty well. That principle is that if you want to change the law if you want to tip over a decision of a court you come to Parliament and do it. You do not have the director of the GCSB write out a bit of paper get it ticked off by one of his mates and override the rule of law in New Zealand by that particular process.Clause 75 also says that the operator must comply even if the compliance notice involves a breach of an obligation of confidence. If that obligation of confidence is established by a court in New Zealand then my view is that it is absolutely wrong for the director of the GCSB to make an order that overrides that court order. It is just wrong. If the GCSB does not like it there are two avenues: you appeal—and appeal again if necessary—and if you do not like the result at any of those—Dr CAM CALDER (National): I moveThat the question be now put.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 4 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. I just want to back up a little bit because we have got a bit of a theme emerging not just in relation to this bill but in relation to a number of the Government’s activities. Although it might sound as if it is recalling some of the echoes of the previous urgent debate it is entirely pertinent to this bill. Mr John Key the Prime Minister said in November 2008: “I expect high standards from my ministers … If they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary.” He said: “If they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary.” What we have with this bill is a bill that the Prime Minister controls. It is my suggestion that the Prime Minister far from requiring high standards of his Ministers—standards repeatedly broken by some who have been ostensibly punished but then rehabilitated—does not even apply high standards to himself. There is no accountability there is no transparency and there is no appeal in this bill.In this part this is the bit where we are talking about registration enforcement and miscellaneous provisions. One could be forgiven for thinking that it is pretty pedestrian stuff and it is just the mechanics of what has gone on before. But the point is that whathas gone on before in this legislation which sets the context for these mechanical pieces to apply has not had any transparency or accountability or appeal processes within it. What we see repeatedly is a reference to the only person or delegated person who may be able to take action and it is constantly repeatedly either the Prime Minister or the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau. Here we have a registrar as well within the police. Unfortunately the police were not allowed to present evidence in the select committee process. The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) was prevented from presenting evidence. The SIS was prevented from giving evidence. Immigration New Zealand and the Customs Service were not allowed to give evidence. So that was the whole process by which this offensive at worst and inadequate at best piece of legislation has come back to the House.The follow-up to my quotation from John Key from November 2008—“I expect high standards from my ministers … If they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary.”—is that having seen that breached on a number of occasions which have been rehearsed in the previous urgent debate I just want to say that in relation to this bill the Prime Minister being the architect of it the designer of it and the person who gives effect to it has not upheld high standards at all. He has not upheld any expectation that people in this country have of the laws including mechanical things like miscellaneous provisions registration and enforcement that are found in this bill having any comeback to those matters.One of the other quotations I would like to offer comes from the State Services Commission’s code of conduct. It says: “failure to meet expectations causes people to lose trust in Government.”—failure to meet expectations causes people to lose trust in Government. For the first time in this country despite the protestations from members opposite about the original legislation existing and coming in under Labour’s term the GCSB can spy on ordinary citizens—for the very first time the GCSB can spy on ordinary citizens. It was not able to do that under previous legislation. So it does not matter how much Jacqui Dean says “Oh well this was really introduced by the Labour Party.”; this is qualitatively different—qualitatively different. We now have the sanctioned ability for the GCSB to spy on ordinary citizens and that has never happened before. It happened previously in error and instead of correcting the error this Government has gone on to compound it by not getting the provisions right.In Part 4 we do not see any further ability for ordinary people—or in this case network operators in particular—to get the Government or the GCSB or the Prime Minister to revisit any decision. They do not have that ability they do not have that right and they must do what is asked of them at every turn. If we go to clauses 75 and 76 of the bill—and I would like to go on from the point that my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard made about clause 75—as one goes down that page the miscellaneous provisions only compound the absolute power of this bill. There is no comeback. There is no ability for a network operator or anybody who has had a document seized or a system seized to get that back or to be able to withhold that information. The point remains that in this section we have the nuts and bolts of some of the things that are operational in the bill but it cannot be seen separately from the context in which it rests. That context has not got either the protection of citizens or the protection of citizens’ rights in balance. The protection of citizens—that is the protection of our security—is terribly important but so is the protection of citizens’ rights. Those things are not in balance in this legislation.What we have throughout these rather mechanistic bits of registration enforcement and other provisions is the repeated reference to the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau who may require information who may seizematerial and who may really examine and cause to have under surveillance the networks that service the information and communication requirements of New Zealanders. In the course of that the rights of New Zealanders to have their communications kept private have been breached. Where there is a security risk certainly there would be a need for the correct authorities through the proper processes which are always transparent accountable and appealable to be able to carry out proper surveillance and proper seizure if necessary. But there is no nod even in the direction of—IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I moveThat the question be now put.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): In Part 4 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill there are a number of particular issues that concern us and there is an overriding aspect of human rights. But right from the start the network operators must register. As we discussed in other parts of the bill we are a little bit unsure how far that goes as to who is a network operator. It is not clearly defined enough or it may come right back to individuals having minimal networks but they might be included as well. But there is an obligation on those people to identify themselves and register. Actually theoretically it could even be people in this room—but hopefully not enforced—having to identify themselves and register. That is how I can best interpret it. On looking through it I cannot find why that is not the case. If that is the situation it is an unbelievably onerous and unfair thing to put on society in New Zealand to be looking and really thinking deeply having to know the law—because of course lack of knowledge is not an excuse around law—and having to find out whether I am a network operator and if so I have got to register with the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) of all people.Then it goes on. What is the information required for someone registering? If you are an operator and you have got employees you have to give the name and contact details of a suitable employee. That is seen by submitters as not being too fair and 2degrees submitted—and there was no change made to the bill from it—and said: “Look the characteristics required of an employee to be cleared should be listed.” Who is a suitable employee? What are the characteristics? There should also be a requirement for the employer to consult with the employee before nominating them and there are some provisions and some discussion around that. But there is no definitive list of characteristics and it all goes back to the GCSB to have the ultimate powers. And yet the operator is to find those suitable employees. The security agencies want the names and the contact details. The employee’s life suddenly becomes fully exposed to the security agencies of New Zealand to look at and to get their clearance. The agencies will be into their family and they will be into everything around the employee as those sorts of clearances go. What rights has that employee got? What rights do their associated family have when this is going on?They also want to know the total number of the network operator’s customers and in the case of an operator that offers retail services an estimate of the total number of end-users across all the services telecommunications services and the networks associated with them. The geographical coverage—OK how powerful is your gear? How far is it reaching? Do all network operators know? Is it hundreds of metres kilometres or whole regions—all of that? They want the lot. The whole lot is to go into this registration. Any particulars of any outsourcing arrangements including the date of the arrangement the names of the parties and the general nature—it is the works that is being required of the operators. Of course we know that the costs associated with setting up capability have to be taken on by the network operators and in our view that is quite an unfair arrangement.I would like to also talk about clause 76. There has been a further change to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 366. The purpose of the change is to put it beyond doubt that the information-gathering provisions cannot be used to obtain information that would have been provided under an interception warrant or lawful interception authority. My interpretation of that is that the sort of eavesdropping that we anticipate through drug surveillance maybe—the sort of surveillance that we anticipate—is to be sieved out somehow from the material that might be covered under this bill and obviously under the GCSB legislation. It is sieving the different parts. How are they to tell the difference between this bit and that bit when they are doing these big grabs of information? I am just wondering how that is going to happen. I think part of that is some of the stuff that needs to be looked at under the Human Rights Act as to what material by whom and how it is going to be avoided.There is another aspect around that. There is a cost thing. The network operators are fully responsible for those costs of setting up but then there are issues around how they retrieve costs for when there is some actual spying going on the spying itself and the operational costs that the operators are able to retrieve. There is some intention there that if there is some argument then there is some arbitration.The piece that I was going to connect with—that sieving and the Human Rights Act—is actually about the liability as well. The liability provision to release operators from being liable is around good faith and as long as somebody is doing the job in good faith there will not be any sort of hitting on them by the people who are affected. You have to think about the 80-odd people who were spied on illegally in the past. They had no idea they have no recourse but this legislation sets it up as well that if the operators—not just the GCSB the SIS the police or whoever else ultimately gets access; the actual operators the neighbours the people in our community who will be providing those provisions—muck it up there is no recourse it seems for those spied on or even for the operators in turn if they are subsequent to other operators because there is an immunity effectively from liability. So that is something that really needs further addressing and there is a Minister in the chair today and there still is time for the Government to make some changes. [Interruption]There is plenty of noise about the thought of making some changes. There are a number of things to have changes made to them but the Green Party as we stated before in the other parts of the bill will be driving to have a full independent investigation of security services: how they are operating; how they have operated in the past; what went wrong; who was being slighted; who in fact was being disadvantaged; whose human rights were being breached; and how we might protect them in the future. So the Green Party will still be driving for that independent investigation to allow a proper community-agreed approach to surveillance interception capability and security. Thank you.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): 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.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 366 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 4 as amended agreed to.ScheduleThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 366 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to the schedule be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the schedule as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Last night I received an email from a librarian who was trying to determine whether the National Library and libraries with over 4000 clients particularly in our large metropolitan centres may be caught up in the definition of a being a “service provider” under the auspices of this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. Well I can tell you that under the definition of a “service provider” which is “any person who from within or outside New Zealand provides or makes available in New Zealand atelecommunications service to an end-user (whether or not as part of a business undertaking and regardless of the nature of that business undertaking);” the answer would be yes—yes. If it is going to be the libraries that are caught up in the definition of “service provider” in this legislation then who else is going to be caught up in the definition? What other organisations?We have heard through the debate on this bill that there may be schools or networks of schools—even the Government’s new Network for Learning—that may be caught up under the definitions in this bill. There are organisations and services that provide public services for hundreds and thousands of New Zealanders that may get caught up under the definitions of this bill. We are told that this is all pie in the sky. The problem that we have is that these definitions are far too broad and the rights that New Zealand citizens and New Zealand companies may have to operate under a regime that is considered to be democratic are impinged in this bill.If libraries are caught up under the definition of “service provider” there is another chilling effect that this bill has that a Minister has under the powers given to them in this bill. That is at clause 35 of this bill where a Minister could on the recommendation of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)—with no recourse to public discussion to any evidence provided or to any independent organisation or entity that gives advice to that Minister—decide to deem in any service provider and turn it into a network operator which means that they would be under Part 3 of this bill subject to having the most extraordinary interventions in their organisation.This is all hypothetical but this is the thing with legislation: if the potential is there then it has to be considered possible. Why make the powers available in the bill if they are not able to be used? So if there is the power for a Minister to deem the National Library to be considered a network operator which means that there could be GCSB operatives put in to determine the business of the National Library where else could this be occurring? This is not pie in the sky. This is entirely possible and it has been pointed out to the Government on numerous occasions in recent weeks by New Zealand technology companies that are concerned that they are going to get caught up in the definitions of this bill.That is one of the reasons why under clause 2 of this bill Labour has submitted an amendment which we believe is absolutely important in order for New Zealand citizens to feel reassured about their rights and the rights of businesses under this legislation—that this bill be submitted for Royal assent only if a select committee has reconsidered it and reported that the bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of 1990.The problem we have is the cursory rubber-stamp vetting process that this bill went through at the beginning of its passage through this House. It is a very different bill now. It is a bill that is definitely impinging on the rights of New Zealand citizens and on the ability of New Zealand companies to go about their business confident that although there is a regime in place that might be protecting national security it also recognises their rights as entities and provides adequate checks and balances to ensure that the unfettered powers of a Minister are not being exercised to their detriment and to the detriment of innovation in this country.On this basis this bill could affect the National Library of New Zealand it could affect many of the media organisations in this country and as we have heard it could affect many of the small innovative technology companies. I want to read to you the concerns of one of those companies which wrote to the Minister several weeks ago and raised these concerns. It said that its company’s platforms “service New Zealand businesses Government and general public by providing them with internet based services that allow them to communicate electronically. These facilitate communication”—remember this definition is included in the bill—“publishing andbroadcasting in various fields. For example more than 3000 students across New Zealand use theMyPortfolio social learning platform that we support. Under the terms of the current definition(s) anyone who contributes to enabling schools to use that platform (including [this company]) can be argued to be a network operator under the above definition. In fact by enabling schools to useMyPortfolio to facilitate communication with and amongst their teachers and learners it appears to us that the Ministry of Education itself is also a network operator.”The people on the other side of the Chamber may laugh and scoff but the problem that we have is badly drafted law. If this is not the intent of the Minister and if this is not the intent of the Government then why is it not clear in the law? It is bad law and it has not gone through a process of being put against a rights-based set of legislation that we have which actually draws out the problems and the concerns that have been raised by reputable business entities in this country around the impact of this bill have not been properly considered.This is a travesty of law and it should be sent right back to the select committee that it came from. It should be put right up against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and there should be another process back through this House. The Minister who brought this legislation before this House should be held accountable for what a dreadful Draconian piece of legislation this is. It is shameful for this country.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It seems a shame to have to take a call this late in the Committee stage of this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill—Grant Robertson: He’s taking a call?IANMcKELVIE: —yes—but I have sat here and listened to Clare Curran make the same speech four times this afternoon and a number of times yesterday and I cannot believe the absolute nonsense that I have heard. I have heard Mr Goff complain about the fact that the companies have to pay to be part of this. If that is the case why does every other business in New Zealand have to pay for almost everything we do when we transact with the Government? Those members clearly do not get it. The Opposition has talked about putting more checks and balances in place. In one mouthful those members are telling us that the obligations are onerous and in the next they say that they want more checks and balances in place. Yesterday they wanted to insert a technical advisory board. In fact they talked a lot about the technical advisory board. We heard during the submissions—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.