Volume 684 Week 24 - Thursday 27 September 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 684 Week 24 - Thursday 27 September 2012 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5737. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 27 September 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Ombudsmen Office—50th Anniversary of Establishment 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion in the Business Committee I seek leave to move Government motion No. 1. I move that this House place on record— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I had better put that leave to the House. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I move  
That this House place on record that 1 October marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of Ombudsmen in New Zealand the first in an English-speaking country and a model for the spread of the office throughout the world and note the important contribution that the office makes to the preservation of administrative justice in this country 
. 
The Government is pleased to recognise the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen. The concept originated in Sweden in the early 19th century. The Swedish Ombudsmen had jurisdiction over almost all national and municipal officials who could be disciplined and even prosecuted for incorrect behaviour. Champions for establishing the Ombudsman in New Zealand included National Party politicians John or Jack Marshall and Ralph Hanan. 
The Office of the Ombudsmen in New Zealand was established under the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act 1962 as an independent office protected by the authority of Parliament. This set an international precedent as in other countries Ombudsmen were appointed by the Government. The first Ombudsman Sir Guy Powles a former lawyer soldier and diplomat was sworn in on 1 October 1962. He held the office until 1977. His performance made the institution widely respected and its authority and scope were extended. The Ombudsmen Act 1975 allowed the appointment of several Ombudsmen and their jurisdiction was extended to statutory boards and local government. Successive legislation has solidified the Ombudsmen’s position. The 1982 Official Information Act the 1987 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 and the Crown Entities Act 2004 have all added to the transparency of governing. 
New Zealand has been blessed to have had a succession of successful and influential Ombudsmen: Sir Guy Powles Sir George Laking Eaton Hurley Lester Castle Sir John Robertson Nadja Tollemache who was New Zealand’s first Ombudswoman Susan Richards Sir Brian Elwood the Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand Mel Smith John Belgrave and the two current Ombudsmen Dame Beverley Wakem and David McGee. So on this 50th anniversary we congratulate them on all they do for New Zealand and we look forward to the next 50 years. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Since its creation half a century ago the Office of the Ombudsmen has been occupied by a number of truly gifted New Zealanders. The Deputy Leader of the House named them and many of those names resonate with us still: Powles our last Governor of Samoa; Laking our ambassador to Washington in the years of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations; Robertson a former State Services Commissioner Secretary of Defence and Secretary for Justice; Satyanand a District Court judge who would go on to be Governor-General; Smith a former Secretary for Justice; Belgrave a former Secretary for Justice and also Secretary of Commerce State Services Commissioner and Comptroller of Customs; McGee a long-serving and distinguished Clerk of this House; and last but of course not least Wakem previously Chief Executive of Radio New Zealand and a member of the Higher Salaries Commission. These have all been Officers of Parliament of significant stature who have served the public and our Parliament with distinction since 1962. 
The Ombudsmen perform an extremely important role. As we look forward to the work of the office over the next 50 years we must all take seriously our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that it is properly resourced to do its job and that we treat the office and its staff with the respect and the compliance that the law properly demands. The Labour Opposition is pleased to support the motion. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support the motion on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen. When New Zealand’s first Ombudsman Sir Guy Powles was sworn in in front of the Speaker of Parliament in 1962 he said “The Ombudsman is Parliament’s person—put there for the protection of the individual”. New Zealand was the fourth country after Sweden Finland and Denmark to establish the Office of the Ombudsmen and was the first country outside of Scandinavia. It is an idea that has caught on and now according to the International Ombudsman Institute there are more than 150 countries with Ombudsmen-like institutions around the world. 
We would like to acknowledge the work of all the Ombudsmen including the current two Dame Beverley Wakem and Dr David McGee and also all the staff who have worked for them over the years. They play an important role in our democracy. 
However we would also like to note the importance of adequate funding for them to be able to do that important role. In the 2011 financial review of the Office of the Ombudsmen the Chief Ombudsman stated that the office was in crisis and was now handling a significant increase in workload. We share what the member Charles Chauvel has said about the responsibility of all in Parliament to adequately fund the office. 
We have not agreed with every decision made by the Ombudsmen and probably Governments have agreed even less which I guess is testimony to the independence of the office. But I would like to share one positive example. In 2009 councils in Tasman and Canterbury were refusing to release important information regarding thousands of potentially contaminated toxic sites. As a result of the action by the Ombudsmen that information is now public. We believe it was the right call and it would not have happened without the intervention of the Ombudsmen. Fifty years on we would like to acknowledge the establishment of this important office. Kia ora. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First joins with other parties in acknowledging the celebration of this 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen. As has been said to be correct New Zealand was the first country outside of Scandinavia to establish an Office of the Ombudsmen. Since then the Office of the Ombudsmen has come to play a significant role in our democracy. 
How ironic it is that we are marking this event this week. Thomas Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This week we have had a perfect illustration through the revelations of unlawful surveillance activity of the Government Communications Security Bureau of the importance of ensuring open transparent and accountable Government. We have been reminded that the greatest threat to our democracy is secrecy and the abuse of power that occurs when the public are denied their right to know. Once again we have seen that those in power are given to ignoring due process and the law and that an effective democracy requires a range of supporting structures and institutions. 
The Office of the Ombudsmen has proven a powerful mechanism for keeping the public informed but there is a deeply troubling tendency for Government to apply obfuscation and delay in responding to Official Information Act requests and all of us around here have been privy to that. New Zealand First considers there is a strong case that additional funding should be allocated to the Office of the Ombudsmen to ensure the public can gain access to official information without the inordinate delay that is often now the case. And probably the same should be said about the Neazor report and that office as well. 
It is appropriate that we mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen because it plays a vital role in supporting democratic processes in New Zealand. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I want to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by others to first of all recognise and secondly congratulate the Office of the Ombudsmen on the attainment of its 50th anniversary. 
When the office was established in 1962 times were much simpler and the notion that there should be some sort of independent watchdog able to call Government agencies to account for actions where the individual citizen felt aggrieved was a pretty attractive one. For the first 20 years of the office’s existence that was largely its primary function. But the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen has changed significantly since the advent of the Official Information Act and the Ombudsman has become much more of an arbiter of decisions as to whether or not certain information should be released. I often fear that that may be to the cost of the individual citizen. The aggrieved small person who wanted to take an action before the Ombudsman may now find that the pressure from other claims usually associated with Official Information Act requests in and around Government is reducing that authority. I am not saying that the two are inconsistent. I guess I am supporting the role of the office and the need for it to be resourced to do the job. 
Finally can I conclude by noting the high calibre of people who have served in the role of Chief Ombudsman over the years. I have had the privilege of working at various times with every one of them bar Sir Guy Powles and I think that they have all brought a uniformly high standard of integrity intelligence and perspicacity to the role. At the end of the day what has made this office the success it has been aped by so many other countries around the world but also now a revered New Zealand institution has been the calibre of people who have served in that role. I think the challenge for this Parliament in the future when it appoints the next round of Ombudspeople is to make sure that that consistently high standard is maintained and developed and that the office in its next 50 years continues to receive the respect that it deserves from the citizens of New Zealand. 
Motion agreed to. 
Obituaries 
Sir John Wallace KNZM QC 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the passing of Sir John Wallace who as you know was the Chief Human Rights Commissioner a High Court judge and the chairman of the royal commission on the electoral reform structure that we now have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I move  
That this House note the passing of Sir John Wallace KNZM QC former Chief Human Rights Commissioner judge of the High Court of New Zealand and chairman of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which recommended the MMP system for selecting elected members of Parliament 
. On behalf of New Zealand First I wish to pay respects and to mark the passing of an eminent and distinguished New Zealander. Sir John made an outstanding contribution to public office in New Zealand in all the roles he fulfilled with distinction. As chairman of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which recommended the introduction of MMP Sir John made a lasting and profound difference to our parliamentary system and democracy. We extend our condolences to Sir John’s family. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business Statement 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 16 October the Government will complete the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and the Committee stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill and the Legislation Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can the Deputy Leader of the House inform us as to whether it is still the Government’s intention to make a little progress on the alcohol reforms the following week? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Depending on discussions in the Business Committee the Alcohol Reform Bill is intended to return to the House on 23 October. 
Points of Order 
Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is in respect of the tabling of documents. As you know we have discussed whether or not Speakers’ rulings 147(4) (5) and (6) are being followed when there is the injection of commentary into the tabling of documents. I raise this in respect of the documents tabled by the senior Opposition whip yesterday in response to an oral question to the Minister of Education where he paraphrased and I quote—I will not quote exactly but it is basically suggesting that the Minister’s time frame would be 5 to 6 weeks. On analysing the document when it was tabled it eventuated that neither was it the Minister’s time frame nor was it in respect of mergers and closures in Christchurch but in fact of the special education review that was under way. I do not want to suggest to the House that the Opposition whip misled the House or if he did that it was intentional but I raise it as an example of the risks involved in the commentary that goes around the tabling of documents and I would ask that you would again review that with a view to curtailing the commentary that is attached to the leave that is sought. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point that is being raised is an interesting one. I ask members naturally to say sufficient about the document to enable the House to make a rational decision about whether members should allow it to be tabled. But I think the point is well made that that should not include going into great detail of what is in the document. Members must be careful when they indicate what is in the document. I think members need to have some idea of what is in the document in order to make a decision about whether it should be tabled but the need for absolute accuracy there is crucial. Seeking leave to table a document is an action of some formality. Members have thought about the desire to seek leave. The House considers the matter and gives leave. It is an important process. Therefore careful thought should be given by members when they do indicate what is in a document. 
Questions to Ministers 
Job Creation—Statistics and Reports 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How many jobs have been created in the New Zealand economy over the past two years? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! I apologise to the Minister. The question contains no assertions of fact. It just asks a straight question. Before the Minister had even opened his mouth there was totally unacceptable interjection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: A net 57000 more New Zealanders have a job now than 2 years ago. That is according to the household labour force survey seasonally adjusted which is the standard internationally recognised measure of employment and unemployment. 
David Bennett 
: What examples has he seen of jobs being created in the infrastructure sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Thanks to the Government’s multibillion-dollar investment in infrastructure after years of under-investment and also of course the Christchurch rebuild many projects are being undertaken to help create a faster-growing economy. Some specific examples include 1000 new jobs over the next 4 years with the Waterview Connection construction 1000 new construction jobs at Wiri Prison nearly 2000 people in employment thanks to the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband and 1000 employed on the horizontal infrastructure rebuild in Christchurch. Together the total construction workforce required for the wider Canterbury rebuild is estimated to be around 32000. 
David Bennett 
: What examples has he seen of jobs being created in the manufacturing and information and communications technology sectors? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The manufacturing sector has grown 6.1 percent by volume in the 2 years to June 2012. Some specific examples of jobs in this sector include the Continuous Catalyst Regeneration Project—which is just about to commence—at Marsden Point which will employ around 350 people; the recommissioning of the second train at Methanex’s methanol plant in Taranaki which has involved up to 500 jobs; and the new $200 million Fonterra plant at Darfield which has involved more than 1500 people during its construction. In the information and communications technology sector examples include 400 new jobs in a partnership between IBM and Unitec 128 new jobs at Xero this calendar year more than 100 new jobs at software company Orion Health plus jobs at other great New Zealand exporting organisations like Tait Communications Oktobor Animation and many more. 
David Bennett 
: Has he seen any other examples of projects that would create jobs that have not yet been able to proceed? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Minister has seen some examples of that. For example a new international convention centre in Auckland would create around a thousand new jobs during its construction and around 800 jobs once it is up and running. Of course that is being opposed as much as possible and slowed down by the Greens and Labour. Then there is the Bathurst Resources escarpment mine project on the West Coast which would employ 225 people if objectors withdrew their appeals of course. I would say again to the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Labour and the Greens that if they were serious about helping Coasters they would call on opponents to drop their objections and allow this project to proceed. 
David Bennett 
: What reports has he seen about support for jobs in the mining sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Minister has seen three quite intriguing reports. The first a recent statement said “Let me be very clear here I have always supported mining on the West Coast.” the second said that “undeveloped coal reserves should be left in the ground.” and the third said that “Our position on mining has never been unclear and has always been consistent.” Those three statements came from Labour MPs Damien O’Connor Maryan Street and David Parker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear this question. The Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he seen the letter from Orion Health—which he referred to in a supplementary answer—to Craig Foss the Minister of Commerce indicating that its business had been placed at risk as a result of the decision of Mr Foss to override the unanimous decision of a select committee of this House to do with the patenting of software and that its business could well go offshore as a result of that? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I am not aware of a letter in that regard. I suggest that if the member has a question in that respect he puts it down to Mr Foss who is in charge of that portfolio. Also from my brief knowledge of the matter that the member raises I do not think his assertion is correct anyway. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a document compiled by the Parliamentary Library which shows that there are more New Zealanders unemployed as of June 2012 than there were in June 2010. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Question time interrupted. 
Personal Explanations 
Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a misrepresentation that has just been made— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yes that is right to correct a misrepresentation made by the senior Government whip. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have got to be a little careful here. We have got to be a little careful with seeking leave to make a personal explanation. We had a situation yesterday where a member was granted leave and then started to talk about another political party. If the member is clear that he wishes to make a personal explanation because something has been said that is personally offensive to him then I am perfectly happy to seek leave from the House for that. If the member wants to contest what another member has said for its accuracy the member should write to the Speaker. There is a procedure about that. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I think the difficulty we have is that the senior Government whip has made an allegation about me by way of a point of order. 
I have now had the opportunity to consult the document that I tabled yesterday and it is incorrect. That was raised— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now by way of a point of order trying to—I think if the member is going to exclusively speak about his situation I am prepared to put the leave to the House for the member to make a personal explanation. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yesterday in question time I sought leave to table a document and I paraphrased from the document what I believed that it contained. The document is in fact itself a series of paraphrases of the discussion that took place at a meeting that was run by the Ministry of Education and therefore it does not necessarily follow a logical flow. Questions were raised regarding special education but questions were also raised regarding the time frame that schools would be required to take. For the benefit of the House I quote directly from the document which I did not do yesterday but I will do now: “The advice from National Office regarding the likely timeframe for community consultation was that a recommendation would go to the Minister suggesting five to six weeks.” The following paragraph then goes on to say that if the board decided it needed more time or the Minister decided it needed more time there can be a further 28-day period. I am of the understanding from people who were at the meeting and from the context of the rest of the document that that does not in fact refer to special education but refers to the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now starting to debate what was said by another member. I think he has made his position fairly clear in the personal explanation that he has made. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Dotcom Case—Role of Government Security Agencies 
2. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When was his Chief of Staff first informed about the role of the GCSB in the Kim Dotcom case and when were officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet including the Intelligence Co-ordination Group the National Assessments Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service first aware of the Kim Dotcom case? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development)  
on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister’s chief of staff was first informed of the role that the Government Communications Security Bureau played on Monday 17 September. He had been alerted the previous Thursday that there was a potential issue of illegality relating to an operation that the Government Communications Security Bureau had conducted in relation to Kim Dotcom but at that time was given no details of the role the Government Communications Security Bureau had played. His office advised the Government Communications Security Bureau that the director needed to directly brief the Prime Minister as quickly as possible face to face. That meeting was arranged prior to the end of the week and took place on Monday 17 September following Cabinet. I am advised that there was no involvement by any Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet agency prior to the arrest of Kim Dotcom. With regard to the Security Intelligence Service I am advised that its involvement was limited to routine checks which were made when Dotcom applied for New Zealand residency in 2010. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that that was a detailed question and I also appreciate the Minister’s answer. In respect of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet all he told us there was that it had no knowledge prior to the arrest. That does not really answer the question of when it was first aware. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has gone to some trouble to answer the question with some particularity. When I read the question I made notes of the first part of the question—that the Minister should give a precise answer to that because it is something that there should be a clear answer to. The second part of the question asking when those various agencies were aware is a matter that is far more vague. I think it would be difficult for me to try to pin the Minister down on that when there are further supplementary questions available. I think the Minister has made a pretty reasonable fist of answering that question. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he confirm in light of that answer that his chief of staff did in fact find out about the Government Communications Security Bureau’s role on the Thursday before 17 September not on 17 September as he told the House yesterday? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can only repeat what I said in the first answer which was that the chief of staff had been alerted the previous Thursday that there was a potential issue of illegality relating to an operation that the Government Communications Security Bureau had conducted in relation to Kim Dotcom. But at that time he was given no details of the role that the Government Communications Security Bureau had played. 
Grant Robertson 
: When—on what date—did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet become aware of the Kim Dotcom case? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am advised there was no involvement by any Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet agency prior to the arrest of Kim Dotcom. I presume they read the newspapers at some point. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think that ignorance of the law by the Government Communications Security Bureau and the police is an acceptable reason for what has occurred? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Prime Minister has released a press release this afternoon that indicates his concern and disappointment at the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau and at the errors that have been made and that is clearly laid out. There is also an associated statement from the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau in terms of the actions it will be taking. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think that Justice Neazor is conflicted in reviewing the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau in this case given that his normal role involves monitoring and working with the Government Communications Security Bureau and is he in effect investigating his own actions here? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the role of Justice Neazor—who I would point out is a former Solicitor-General and a former judge of the High Court—is exactly the role that he has undertaken in doing this inquiry for the Prime Minister. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think that New Zealanders have a right to expect more of him as the Minister responsible for our security agencies than the casual disinterested approach he has taken to this case? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I completely reject that assertion. The Prime Minister was advised and had the meeting on 17 September and promptly called an inquiry which has now been released today. It is pathetic to suggest that he was disinterested. 
Grant Robertson 
: What was discussed in the 15 meetings that the Prime Minister had with the Government Communications Security Bureau this year if it was not about cases that involve the United States Government the FBI and a range of New Zealand agencies? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the Minister is able to answer I call the Hon Steven Joyce.  
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Firstly obviously those are matters of national security. But secondly the member seems to be suggesting that the Prime Minister would involve himself in the operational control on a day-to-day basis of security services. That is a particularly disturbing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! The member asked a question that perhaps there was no way the Minister could answer but that does not mean that the Minister goes on to that sort of material. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he accept that as Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau he acts as the main democratic check for New Zealanders on our security agencies and should he not be taking his role more seriously than to have 15 meetings where apparently he was not briefed about one of these operations? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I appreciate Mr Robertson is trying to obfuscate in this matter but the reality is the Prime Minister was made aware on 17 September and then called an inquiry. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he take responsibility for the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau an agency for which he has ministerial responsibility? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Prime Minister of course is the Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau and as soon as the matters were raised with him he called an inquiry. That inquiry has been announced today. It is exactly the right thing to do and the member is being disingenuous by suggesting anything else. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well if that is the Prime Minister’s answer is he aware that the inspector-general is charged with also reviewing the manner in which the SIS interception warrants are sought that he approved the inspector-general to lead the inquiry before he even ascertained whether the SIS was involved in the Dotcom case and is that not new evidence justifying a full-scale inquiry into the matter covering all departments and agencies involved in the case in order to ascertain what has gone wrong and restore the public’s faith in these institutions? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That was a many-legged question. All I can say is that the report of the inspector-general is on the table today. It lays out clearly the mistakes made by the Government Communications Security Bureau and the actions to be taken by it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware that in the  
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Report 2011 
 the inspector-general states specifically that “In particular the [inspector-general] assists the Minister to ensure that the activities of [the agencies] comply with the law” and hence the inspector-general himself is implicated in the failure of the Government Communications Security Bureau to follow the law so having the inspector-general do the investigation is a conflict of interest? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I reject the member’s supposition and I would point out that the inspector-general has done exactly what is required of him which is to have an inquiry into the matters that have been raised in regard to the Government Communications Security Bureau. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table this document. It is not available online. It is very difficult to get hold of actually. It is the  
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Report 2011 
 from which that quote came. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the precedent for a Minister who is responsible but not aware of an issue comes from Denis Marshall in the Cave Creek situation where the Minister resigned? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I appreciate what the member is trying to do. It is the job of a Minister to respond as in this case as soon as he was made aware of the situation to call an inquiry which has reported today and actions are now being taken to correct the matters that have been identified. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware that under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 there is a much higher level of ministerial control required than of most Government agencies and that section 8(3) says “The performance of the Bureau’s functions is subject to the control of the Minister.”—that is the Minister has specific responsibilities around controlling the actions of the agency; he cannot just take a hands-off approach? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am sure the member would understand that there is a fine line between actually taking control of the day-to-day operations—and I think it would be in fact a pretty disturbing suggestion that the Prime Minister would be required to do that. The reality is that all Ministers are responsible for the actions of their departments and when a department makes an error to investigate that error and take remedial action. That is what has happened in this case. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware that under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act the Minister in charge of the Government Communications Security Bureau actually has to sign off personally the interception warrants which means that the Minister knows the names and identities of the people who are having their communications intercepted? There is a much higher level of ministerial intervention into the operational and day-to-day activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau than for any other Government agency the reason being that there is no other democratic oversight of the Government Communications Security Bureau. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I would point out to the member again that in this instance the Government Communications Security Bureau has made as the Prime Minister has identified two errors. They have now been investigated and they were investigated promptly once the Prime Minister was made aware of those two errors. Despite what the member suggests I think it is difficult for any Minister to be aware of an error before it has been brought to their attention. 
Prisoners Employment Training—Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy and Better Public Services Targets 
3. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What were the results of the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-2012? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Targets set for prisoners engaged in education and employment under the strategy have been exceeded by more than 100 percent. During the course of the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-2012 the number of prisoners in vocational training employment and literacy and numeracy education increased to 7529 from 5359 an increase of 2170 compared with the target of 1000. There has also been a 33 percent increase in prisoners enrolled in literacy and numeracy programmes of which 58 percent are Maori. All evidence shows that prisoners who are released with improved skills are significantly less likely to reoffend. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What are the next steps for the Department of Corrections to further improve the numbers of prisoners engaged in employment and training? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Better Public Services targets for the Department of Corrections will see a 25 percent reduction in reoffending by 2017. This will lead to 600 fewer prisoners and 4000 fewer community offenders being reconvicted every year and 18500 fewer victims every year. Over the next 5 years nearly 3000 additional prisoners will be in education and employment training while 7500 prisoners and community offenders will be given support to find real jobs in new partnerships with employers and industry. 
Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Actions and Confidence in Minister 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in the Minister for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) given the Prime Minister’s statement that the GCSB unlawfully intercepted communications in relation to Kim Dotcom; if so why? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because as soon as the Minister was made aware of the issues in question he called for an urgent inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and that inquiry report has been released publicly into the House today. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can he be confident that the Minister responsible for the GCSB is fulfilling his statutory functions to control the Government Communications Security Bureau under section 8(3) of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act given that the Minister was unaware of the bureau’s involvement in the Kim Dotcom case until last week—a case that began in December of last year? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is important to point out the outcome of the report which may assist the member with his— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We know what the outcome is. Why didn’t he know? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: If Mr Peters knew the outcome he would know that that question was not actually the correct interpretation. Firstly there were two mistakes. The Government Communications Security Bureau originally relied on police information about the residency status of the people in question; it did not check further. Secondly the error was compounded after its operation was concluded simply by a wrong interpretation of the law. Those are two very significant errors that have been identified in the report by the inspector-general. As the member will see the Government Communications Security Bureau is taking action in regard to those matters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member for his next question the Minister’s answer did not actually answer the question that was asked. The question asked about the role of the Minister in relation to section 8(3) of the Act in respect of as the member asking the question alleges the control of the Government Communications Security Bureau and how he sort of justifies that requirement of the Act—or how he lines up that requirement of the Act against the claimed unawareness of any involvement of the bureau since November last year or some time. In order to clarify the situation—because I do not want to destroy the member’s question—I think I should invite Dr Russel Norman to repeat his question because these are serious matters. The member has not made any outrageous assertions in his question at all. He has cited the Act. He has asked how the member justifies what has happened given the requirements of the Act. I ask Dr Russel Norman to repeat his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can he be confident that the Minister responsible for the GCSB is fulfilling his statutory functions to control the Government Communications Security Bureau under section 8(3) of the relevant Act given that the Minister has told us that he was unaware of the bureau’s involvement in the Kim Dotcom case until last week—a case that began in December of last year? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think that a different way of putting the answer is that the Government Communications Security Bureau was operating under the assumption I think that it did not need to advise its Minister because of its interpretation of the residency status of the person involved. Obviously that has proven to be incorrect. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can he be confident in the Minister’s oversight of the Government Communications Security Bureau when the inspector-general of Intelligence and Security in his annual report of 2011 raised concerns about the operation of Government Communications Security Bureau authorisations to intercept communications and so far as we are aware the Minister has never taken any action to follow up with the bureau why the inspector-general has raised these concerns in his last report and what the Minister has done about it? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not able to answer that particular element of the member’s question today but what I would point out is that in response to the Government Communications Security Bureau raising the issue and the errors that it has made the Prime Minister moved very swiftly to act on these matters and called an inquiry immediately and that inquiry has reported today. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware that in relation to the Government Communications Security Bureau there is no standard parliamentary select committee oversight and the Official Information Act effectively cannot be applied because the bureau has a defence for not releasing the information under any circumstances so the sole democratic oversight for that organisation lies with the Minister responsible; and does he believe that the Minister responsible is taking that responsibility seriously enough when we find out he does not know about the Kim Dotcom case which started in December? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think we are all very aware of the unique nature of the Government Communications Security Bureau agency. I think it is indeed indicative of and underlines the Prime Minister’s view of his responsibility in this regard that when the matter was brought to his attention he immediately called an inquiry into that matter. He has advised the public and the inquiry has been reported. I would say that that underlines how seriously he takes his role in this regard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that for months the only person in authority in this country who seemed not to know about Kim Dotcom was the Prime Minister— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is true for God’s sake— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Would the member please just ask his question. [ 
Interruption 
] No order! The member will please ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well “Young Nick” keeps on shouting out. It is very— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will just ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I know he wants to get back into Cabinet. Given that for months the only person in authority who did not know about Kim Dotcom or that plush mansion just down the road from the Prime Minister’s electorate office was the Prime Minister why is he settling on a narrow inquiry into just the Government Communications Security Bureau when five other agencies all responsible in some way to him never ever told him? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: All I can do is point out to the member who claimed he had read the report from the inspector-general—but I now have my doubts given his question— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We do not want interpretation from that amateur. The fact is I have got two copies of the report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member knows that is totally outside the Standing Orders and he is skating on thin ice. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member’s question was not the most simple and direct question I have ever heard in the House and the Minister is doing his best I think to answer it. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I bow to the member’s obviously very very long time in the House but my understanding of it is very simple in relation to this matter: the Government Communications Security Bureau made two errors in relation to this particular matter and when it drew them to the Prime Minister’s attention he immediately called an inquiry. I am not quite sure what the member is asserting the Prime Minister should do in this regard but the bureau obviously made a serious mistake which is now being investigated. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: As I do not believe that the Government has tabled this report I seek leave to table the report from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is publicly available right now. We will not bother with that. 
MediaWorks—Payment of Radio Broadcasting Licence Fees 
5. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did MediaWorks have discussions with him in relation to their application for a deferment of their radio broadcasting licence fees; if so what was the outcome? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has had no formal meetings with the board senior management or representatives of MediaWorks to discuss their radio broadcasting licence fee. On one occasion in 2009 he ran into a Mr Brent Impey at a social event in Auckland where he briefly raised the issue with the Prime Minister. He passed his comments on to the responsible Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did one Steven Joyce present a paper to Cabinet on 12 October 2009 proposing the deferred payment scheme given that both the Ministry of Economic Development and Treasury had advised that the Joyce scheme would expose the Government to unnecessary financial risk? In short why did the deal go ahead? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am sure the member is aware that Cabinet makes its decisions on a weekly basis. I would point out that the matter he refers to was the subject of a Government announcement on 22 October 2009. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether the Prime Minister was aware of one Steven Joyce presenting a Cabinet paper to Cabinet on 12 October 2009. Could we have an answer to that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No well sadly the member did not finish his question there. He then asked: “Why did the proposal go ahead?” and that is the bit the Minister answered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well if that is the case he answered neither question then. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I have an answer to at least one question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! He answered the last part of the question. The member asked why it went ahead and if I heard the Minister correctly he said it was because Cabinet decided it should. That is a perfectly proper answer to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I put the rider on it: given that both the Ministry of Economic Development and Treasury had advised against it then why? We have had an answer to neither question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Well forgive me; in my view the Minister answered it. He said it was because Cabinet decided—and Cabinets often in my experience decide on matters contrary to advice from all sorts of departments—and that was the Minister’s answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has he received any reports regarding the financial trouble of GR Media Holdings the parent company of MediaWorks which recently posted a $305 million loss; and is he concerned about how this will impact on MediaWorks’ ability to pay back tens of millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No and I suggest that if he wants the specifics in this matter he might put the question down to the responsible Minister. But I am aware that this particular payment is completely up to date. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well what responsibility does he intend to take—or what responsibility does Steven Joyce intend to take as the Prime Minister extracted from him—if this company goes belly up as the market says it is and tens of millions of dollars are lost to the New Zealand taxpayer despite his mates’ rates arrangements? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have tried to draw the member’s attention to the Government announcement on 22 October 2009 and perhaps if I could quote a couple of things from it in relation to the matter that the member raises. Firstly it was made clear that this is a commercial arrangement that was entered into at the time to allow the whole radio industry some short-term flexibility of payment terms. Given the very prominent at that stage global financial crisis it was available to all companies that had renewals falling at the time of the height of the global financial crisis. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a paper that sets out that the whole of the industry about which Mr Joyce speaks is $300000 to the rest of the industry and the rest— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Could the member identify the document? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I will get it from the library shortly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We do not— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will get it from the library shortly. I have got time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No we no longer seek leave to table documents that do not exist. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought that the point the Rt Hon Winston Peters was making was that the document exists. I thought that under the Standing Orders we had until the end of play to table documents that we could seek leave— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not going to play around with the Standing Orders at all. In this House it used to happen that leave was sought to table documents that did not exist and we are not going to have members seeking leave to table documents that do not exist and then going to the library to try to assemble a document that might match that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I have seen the document—that is why I know the figures—but I have not got it with me. I thought it would be in my papers today and it is a bit remiss of me in not having it here. All I am saying is I know the document exists. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been sought. As Speaker I must take the member at his word. The member says he has seen this document and therefore he is telling the House that the document exists. Leave is sought for the tabling of that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Member 
: What is the document? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document is a document from the library. The member needs to be able to tell the House what the document is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am at liberty to say my research unit got the information I believe I am certain from the library. That is why I have got the figures already. I mean these are not hidden; they are known. The Government actually made the report on the given day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Now the member is debating. Seeking leave to table documents is now a very precise operation. I think we do not know enough about this document for me to seriously seek leave from the House. 
Oil Gas and Mineral Resources—Legislation and Initiatives 
6. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What steps is the Government taking to encourage the development of New Zealand’s oil gas and mineral resources? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yesterday the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill passed its first reading in this House. The bill is a significant step in the Government’s commitment to promote responsible exploration and production of oil gas and mineral resources. The bill will also ensure that the country receives a fair financial return for those minerals so they can contribute more to our economic development as well as providing New Zealanders with greater confidence in how the Government allocates rights to resources and how it is managing and regulating those rights. 
Jonathan Young 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the potential of the oil gas and minerals sector? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have seen a report from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment that shows that New Zealand is set to earn more than $3 billion in royalties from oilfields and gasfields already in production. If patterns of exploration and development increase future royalty income could generate up to $12.7 billion for New Zealand. This is new money that can be invested in schools hospitals and roads. This is why the Government wants to realise the economic benefits from developing our oil gas and mineral resources in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. 
Jonathan Young 
: What other work is the Government progressing in relation to ensuring a strong regulatory regime for oil and gas exploration? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Government recently passed new environmental legislation that will allow us to carefully manage development in an environmentally responsible way of our enormous resources that lie in our oceans. We also recently reviewed New Zealand’s marine oil spill preparedness and response capability. The Government is also currently reviewing the health and safety regulations that apply to petroleum operations and is reviewing the minimum insurance requirements for offshore installations. I wait with interest for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s investigation into hydraulic fracturing. So as you can see there are several reforms going on at the moment that will ensure that we have a more robust but progressive regulatory regime. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. Does the Minister agree with the submission of Ngati Porou in response to the review of the Crown Minerals Act that preceded the legislation he mentioned earlier that “the Crown is proposing what Ngati Porou considers to be the progressive removal and/or softening of environmental protections and the already limited protections available to iwi.”; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: No. The Crown’s obligations to iwi and to the environment are already significant. Processes for discharging those obligations are established through the minerals programmes. Those obligations and principles set out in the minerals programmes are sound and broad enough to take care of what the member raises. 
Jobs—Statistics 
7. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement “the Government is doing everything it can to give businesses the confidence to invest grow and create new jobs”; if so what was the net change in filled jobs in the private sector from December 2008 to December 2011 according to Statistics New Zealand’s Quarterly Employment Survey? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes the Minister does stand by that statement. The official measure of employment and unemployment which is the household labour force survey shows that 57000 more New Zealanders are in a job now than 2 years ago. In contrast the quarterly employment survey which the member raises has a number of gaps. It does not include agriculture for example which is reasonably significant in the New Zealand context or the self-employed which is also significant and it excludes around half a million jobs in the economy. With that in mind over the period the member has selected that survey reports that the number of filled jobs fell by 30000 but it is also important to note that that loss happened in just one single quarter at the height of the recession and then there was the global financial crisis. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does he prefer the measure of the household labour force survey when just about everyone other than him knows that it counts someone who has three jobs each of which could be just an hour long as three more people employed in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Actually the member’s changing choice of documents is quite amusing. It is interesting to note though that the reason we choose it is that it is the official measure but do not take our word for it. Between 1999 and 2008 the number of press releases issued by the previous Government that mentioned the household labour force survey was 78. The number that mentioned the quarterly employment survey which the member refers to today was two. So I think the previous Government was in favour of the household labour force survey as well. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given his preference for the household labour force survey and given that it now shows there are 162000 people unemployed as of June 2012 does it concern him that on that measure there are more unemployed New Zealanders now than at any other point under this Government? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure about the veracity of the last statement that the member made in that question but what I can say to him is obviously— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member is not allowed to question another member’s veracity. The member made a statement in this House. He can say he does not agree with it but he cannot question his veracity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To disagree with “the veracity of it” I think is getting too precious altogether. I have never known the honourable member himself to be quite so precious to be fair. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said I am not sure about that last statement that the member has raised but I can say that of course the Government is very keen to have more New Zealanders employed. We are actually doing pretty well relative to the rest of the world. I appreciate that we are not doing well compared with “Planet Labour” but we have had of course the global financial crisis we have had the Canterbury earthquakes and actually we are making good progress. And I note that in the business confidence survey released today something like 26 percent of businesses were expecting an increase in activity over the next 12 months and that is very encouraging for jobs in this country. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing that according to the household labour force survey unemployment is now 162000 and that it is the highest it has been under this Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Could the Minister please remind the House what is the official measure of unemployment? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question actually should be I guess “What is the official measure of unemployment?”. What the member said was not actually a question. I invite him to actually pose it as a question. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: What is the official measure of unemployment? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The official measure of unemployment and employment is the household labour force survey which shows some 57000 more New Zealanders are in a job now than there were 2 years ago. That is a good-news story for New Zealand. As I said to the House before the further good news is that business confidence in terms of own expectations is growing very significantly. Actually we are coming out of the global financial crisis which I know did not occur on “Planet Labour” very well. 
Hon David Parker 
: If he came to this House prepared to say that the official measure of employment and unemployment is the household labour force survey why could he not answer my question which asked him directly whether it was now showing unemployment at 162000 and confirm that that is the highest it has been under his Government? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The point is that I acknowledged in the answer that it is higher than we all would like—I think everybody in this House—but the Government is working very hard to improve the confidence of New Zealand businesses. As I say the business confidence survey that came out today is another indicator that that is occurring. It is a very difficult time for the world but in New Zealand we have had a GDP growth rate of 0.6 percent in the last quarter which is one of the best in the world and is equivalent to that of Australia. In the first quarter we had a very good GDP growth figure as well. So yes it is tough but we are growing and that is positive. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he still stand by the promise made during the 2011 election campaign to create 170000 more jobs? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes. I would note that we are actually making some pretty good progress with 57000 new jobs over the last couple of years. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether he stood by the promise at the election to create 170000 more jobs— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister said yes he did. 
Television Switch-over to Digital—Hawke’s Bay and West Coast 
8. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What percentage of households in Hawke’s Bay and on the West Coast of the South Island are expected to go digital ahead of the digital switchover in these regions on 30 September 2012? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 It is expected that around 96 percent of Hawke’s Bay and West Coast households with TVs will have gone digital by the end of the month. At the beginning of the year the conversion rate in Hawke’s Bay was just 80 percent. Thanks to the effort of the Going Digital team there is a high level of awareness in these regions which are now approaching 100 percent. 
John Hayes 
: What is being done to promote awareness in the next region to go digital? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The rest of the South Island will have its digital switch-over at the end of April next year. The digital switch-over awareness campaign has been rolled out across the South Island through community advisers and local advertising. People who may be eligible for the targeted assistance package are already being contacted directly. 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold over my question until the Minister for Social Development is available to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Welfare Reforms—Minister’s Statements and Commentary 
9. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she stand by her statement that “The National-led Government’s initiatives will modernise welfare to better suit New Zealand’s needs and make welfare work”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes within context. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What evidence did she use before deciding to target beneficiaries with her social obligations that they enrol their children with an early childhood educator and general practitioner given that she has said: “we don’t know the exact percentage of which are not enrolled in early-childhood education or enrolled with a GP.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think as the various Cabinet papers and speeches that the Minister has made will make clear the Minister is aware of all the evidence that suggests that early childhood education does help improve children’s ability to enter the school system and to get the rudimentary understandings that they need. We all know that being enrolled in a general practice does mean a child is more likely to have had their immunisation to have had primary care and certainly the B4 School Check. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What is her response to prominent economist Gareth Morgan who said of her bill that “National’s reactionary populism is a giant step backwards in policy sophistication and is depressing.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not think the Minister would be too concerned at that commentary from Mr Gareth Morgan because I think the Minister is very well aware that the work she is doing is to make sure that all the incentives align on rewarding work and independence and that for those who are most vulnerable we have services and obligations and expectations in order to help them to get into work and to ensure that their children are being supported as well as the Public Service can. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—2011 Results 
10. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received on the 2011 NCEA results? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received the final report on 2011 school-leaver qualification data for National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results and I am delighted as I am sure all members of the House will be with the improvements across the board. Last year nearly 72 percent of all school-leavers attained at least NCEA level 2 compared with 69 percent in 2010 and 66 percent in 2009. That is up 6 percent in the last 3 years. I am delighted with this result and I know we can do better and I look forward to further increases next year and in future years. 
Simon O’Connor 
: What does the 2011 NCEA level 2 data show about the outcomes for Maori and Pasifika school-leavers? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I am happy to say that the data shows we are already making a significant impact on the number of young Maori leaving school with NCEA level 2. Last year 51 percent of Maori students left school with NCEA level 2 up from 44 percent in 2009 and 48 percent in 2010. That is up 7 percent in the last 3 years. Similarly 63 percent of Pasifika students left with NCEA level 2 compared with 59 percent in 2010 and 56 percent in 2009. That is up another 7 percent in the last 3 years. Although this is a very good result and shows we are on the right track our Government has much higher aspirations for our young people. We think we can do much better with a clear focus on lifting achievement for five out of five learners. 
Courts—Law Commission Recommendations for Trial Processes 
11. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Will she give full consideration to any recommendations the Law Commission makes on alternative trial processes when the Commission reports back? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Jan Logie 
: Can she confirm that the alternative trial processes report is no longer on the Law Commission’s work programme and is on hold indefinitely despite submissions being called for only 7 months ago and there having been decades of research showing that change is urgently needed to protect sexual abuse victims in our courts? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I can confirm that the Law Commission has a great body of work that it is working through. This report is not the highest priority that it has. I would have to say to the member that I share her concerns for particularly the victims of violent sexual abuse. However we cannot have a system where there is a civil system or one particular system for those victims and those who are accused and then a completely different system for someone who is accused of another terrible violent crime such as murder or kidnapping. 
Jan Logie 
: If she shares my concerns why is this work programme on hold indefinitely despite only 13 percent of sexual violence cases resulting in a conviction and one in five complainants backing out before the case is over? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well of course I share the concerns that the member has for victims of crime. However that does not mean that we should victimise others by way of having one particular trial process for one strand of offences and completely different trial processes for other strands. I know that there has been quite a lot of work that has been done from various quarters on this but at the end of the day we have a system where we have a common law system and there is work that is being done and has been done particularly around child witnesses. That work is ongoing. It is currently with parliamentary counsel for drafting. But this is not something where I believe we could have—and I could note some of the comments that Mr Charles Chauvel has made on this very issue when he has said and certainly the Labour members have said on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill: “We are mindful of the wisdom of warnings from the Chief Justice and others that any change”— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am delighted that the Minister sees fit to quote me with approval but is it relevant to answering the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think there is no need to be quoting. The Minister is not responsible for what Mr Chauvel may have said. 
Jan Logie 
: Why is it off the programme when you share my concern when in the submission in the Law Commission process the inquisitorial aspect was only one small part of that whole piece of research and when one Crown prosecutor describes the system as “brutal” and says “every aspect of the complainant’s character and conduct is questioned and exposed and the likely outcome is not guilty.”? Considering this will she request the Law Commission to put this work back on its programme and report back with recommendations by the end of the year? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. 
Schools Canterbury—Consultation Timetable for Proposed Closures and Mergers 
12. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the consultation timetable for the Christchurch schools she proposes to close or merge including the date of the proposal announcement the date submissions close and the date of her final decision? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I announced the proposal on 13 September and I refer the member to the indicative phases and time line for consultation set out in schedule B also released on 13 September. The schools that are affected by specific proposals to close or merge will shortly receive details of the formal consultation process and time lines that apply to them. In my view they should be the first recipients of that information. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Does she stand by all of the information handed out to schools following the announcement on 13 September; if so why has she decided to send letters to school boards formally initiating the process around mergers and closures when the time line handed out to schools at her announcement suggested that that would not happen until November-December after the open consultation process she initiated? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes I do. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why does the Minister stand by the information that she handed out at the consultation meeting given that she is no longer adhering to the time line that she herself specified? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I answered in the answer to the primary question they are indicative time lines. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How many schools will she be formally writing to over the next fortnight to formally begin the legislative consultation process around school closures or mergers? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Thirty-nine. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is it correct that the current proposed time line for a closure is that on 5 October a letter from the Minister will be sent starting the consultation period 21November will be the deadline for a return from the school on 30 November the Minister will accept or reject proposals and on 13 December the announcement will be made; if not what is the time line? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No it is not correct—no more so than the paper tabled by the member yesterday. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Will the Minister personally read every submission she receives on the proposed merger or closure of Christchurch schools? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: As part of her finer-grained consultations that will be part of the formal consultation process required to close or merge schools will the Minister be making herself available to meet with parents and students to hear their views on her proposals and listen to their possible alternative proposals? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Under the Education Act there are specific requirements for the time line and the process. This process is run by my officials in the Ministry of Education. I will be as available as it is reasonable and appropriate to be. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Point of order the Hon Trevor Mallard—Dr Megan Woods. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think everybody can guess my point of order. I asked a very straight question: will the Minister be making herself available— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. The Minister answered that. She said she would make herself available as much as is possible given her ministerial workload. One cannot expect much more of an answer than that. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Can the Minister assure the people of Canterbury that this is a genuine consultation period? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I can. I am absolutely committed to genuine consultation. No decisions have been made. These proposals represent a $1 billion investment over 10 years. That will mean that Christchurch will have the most modern education system of any city in the country. It is not about simply putting back exactly what was there but about focusing on what can be done better. Thank you. 
Urgent Debates 
Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the release of the inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the circumstances of unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals by the Government Communications Security Bureau. This release is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The Inspector-General’s report was released at 1.42 p.m. today. Mr Robertson’s application was received by me at 1.55 p.m. today. I also received an application relating to the same matter from Dr Russel Norman at 2.29 p.m. today. Applications for urgent debates must be received before the House sits. 
However given the current public interest in the performance of intelligence agencies and the need for a high level of public confidence in their activities in relation to New Zealand I have given particular consideration to Mr Robertson’s application which was in before the House sat today. As there will not be an opportunity to debate the matter for some weeks now I call on Mr Robertson to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. What an incompetent shambles this Government is at the moment. What we have seen around the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the whole of the Kim Dotcom case is a circus from the Government and its agencies. And the ringmaster of that circus is John Key. 
John Key is the person who has the oversight on behalf of all New Zealanders for our security agency. He is the sole democratic check on how our security agencies behave. In fact it is written in law. Section 8(3) of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act says that the functions of the bureau are “subject to the control of the Minister.” That is a significantly higher test than almost any other ministerial responsibility there is yet this Minister has been unable to tell us anything about the activities of his agency—the agency that spies on people. These are serious powers that the people of New Zealand accept will be provided for if there is a democratic check. That democratic check is the Prime Minister and he has not fulfilled his responsibilities. 
The Prime Minister does not seem to know anything about Kim Dotcom. He claims that the first time he heard of him was on 19 January 2012. Well by the time the Prime Minister had heard of Kim Dotcom the following people who interact with the Prime Minister on a reasonably regular basis had: the Solicitor-General knew the police knew the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand knew Crown Law knew John Banks knew—but then he forgot—Maurice Williamson knew Jonathan Coleman knew Simon Power knew Nigel Bickle from Immigration New Zealand knew the media knew John Key’s electorate office knew because they had had contact with Kim Dotcom and a man named Chris who was a contractor on Kim Dotcom’s mansion knew as well. But John Key did not know. 
Chris the contractor had worked it out but John Key did not know that Kim Dotcom was in his electorate. It defies belief and it speaks of a Prime Minister who is so relaxed and so casual now that he is not bothering even to provide proper oversight of the organisations for which he is responsible. 
Here is the list of things that Mr Key does not know. As we have said he did not know about Kim Dotcom until the day before the police raid and he did not know until 2 weeks ago that the Government Communications Security Bureau—the organisation under his control—was actually spying on Kim Dotcom and his associates on behalf of the police. Until this week he apparently did not even know that a ministerial certificate to prevent details being released of what the Government Communications Security Bureau had been doing was provided by his deputy Bill English as Acting Prime Minister. And what New Zealand is being asked to believe is that when Bill English acting as Prime Minister and on behalf of John Key signs off a ministerial certificate John Key will not know about it and that John Key’s chief of staff was not involved nor any of his staff. 
 I was once a staff member in a Prime Minister’s office and I can tell this House with certainty that when the Prime Minister is away the Prime Minister’s office staff continue to work for the Acting Prime Minister particularly on an issue of national security. We are asked to believe that Bill English did not think to tell the Prime Minister did not think to brief him when he came back to New Zealand and did not tell him at the various Cabinet meetings that have taken place. He simply did not bother to say anything and we are asked to believe that. If that is true it speaks of a dysfunctional Government whose members are unable to communicate with one another about serious matters such as the national security of New Zealand. 
While we are talking about Mr English and that ministerial certificate the ministerial certificate says that Mr English spoke with the Government Communications Security Bureau about its activities. He had to take advice from them before he signed the ministerial certificate. So he knew about the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau yet he supposedly did not tell the Prime Minister. All of these people who know this are in the Prime Minister’s life and somehow he does not know about it. He was not even able to tell this House about whether his department the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet actually knew anything about it either. This is a Minister whose attitude is now so relaxed that he has completely taken his eye off the ball. 
New Zealanders deserve better from the Prime Minister. No matter which party is in charge New Zealanders expect that the oversight of our security agencies is taken seriously. Mr Key told this House that he had had 15 meetings with the Government Communications Security Bureau this year. What was he discussing? Were they talking about the rugby or something? He clearly does not appear to have any information about the serious matters that the Government Communications Security Bureau is involved in. Once again the oversight function that the Minister has to provide is simply not being provided. 
The  
New Zealand Herald  
said in its editorial yesterday that the Prime Minister is the sole democratic check for New Zealanders on security agencies. He has let New Zealanders down on this issue. It is as if Kim Dotcom has some kind of amnesia field round him that causes people like John Banks and John Key to conveniently forget important details about what is going on in their areas. Mr Dotcom came to New Zealand in a blaze of publicity he then set fire to $500000 worth of fireworks to celebrate his residency and the Prime Minister did not notice and apparently neither did the Government Communications Security Bureau. 
The focus for this investigation that Justice Neazor has undertaken is the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau. When we look at where Justice Neazor falls in terms of why things went wrong it boils down to this: the Government Communications Security Bureau was not apparently capable of understanding its own legislation as to who a permanent resident is. It was not capable of understanding that the Immigration Act had been changed in 2009 to alter the definitions around who a permanent resident was. It was not capable between the New Zealand Police or the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand and the Government Communications Security Bureau of actually having a look at the immigration file which Immigration New Zealand has said that it passed to police. 
Even having said that the law was changed but there was a whole year between when the law was changed and when the police raid took place and when the surveillance took place—a whole year. It defies belief that the security agency is that incompetent that it could not stay in touch with its own law and clearly the oversight of the Minister in charge was lacking if that is the reason that it committed this error. 
In Justice Neazor’s report there is also a statement around how it is that the Government Communications Security Bureau even came to be involved in this situation because the bureau’s role is to monitor foreign nationals not to monitor New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. However Justice Neazor in his report has said that the Government Communications Security Bureau does have a role in assisting other agencies. It appears from the report that the reason that has now been given is that the police felt that in some way Mr Dotcom and his associates represented a danger to New Zealanders and that is the excuse that is now being used. 
I do not have the evidence in front of me but on that excuse the Government Communications Security Bureau then proceeded to be involved in this case. The Prime Minister as the Minister responsible for that should have known about this should have been advised about this. We have to bear in mind that this is a case involving the United States Government. This is a case where there was an extradition order signed at the highest levels of the US Government and we are expected to believe that John Key did not know about that. Murray McCully must have known about it. He has to have known about an extradition order involving Kim Dotcom but remember that the Prime Minister says he knew nothing about it until the raid itself. Not only that we have a situation here where the FBI are involved. The FBI and the US Government are involved. That would twig in most people’s minds that this was quite a serious issue but apparently not in these agencies and apparently not in the mind of the Prime Minister who is meant to be providing the oversight for this. 
It is quite clear that there has been a massive breakdown in communication among agencies. Those agencies have apologised today—well the Government Communications Security Bureau has. Where is the Prime Minister’s apology? Where is the Prime Minister’s apology to New Zealand for his failure to provide the oversight that he has signed up to under this Act? We have had an apology from the officials but we have had no apology from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the job of control of the functions of this bureau and he has failed in that. The other security agency that the Prime Minister has some responsibility for is the SIS. It is quite clear that the SIS did have some knowledge of what happened in this situation. It was involved in the early days around the granting of the residency. Again another agency that reports to Mr Key on a regular basis knew this. 
So what we now have is a staggering display of incompetence by Government agencies a Minister who does not take seriously his oversight responsibilities a situation where the New Zealand taxpayer may be exposed to costs because of this incompetency and a situation where New Zealanders are losing confidence in the security agencies. They are losing confidence in the social contract that says: “Yes we will allow there to be some spying that takes place but only if we know that there’s some kind of democratic oversight.” That democratic oversight is provided by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has let New Zealanders down. They deserve better from a person whose job is to act on our behalf as citizens and residents of this country to ensure that our security agencies behave well. 
 There are so many unanswered questions in this debacle. It is quite clear that Mr Key will have to front up again to this House and explain how it is possible that he did not know that Kim Dotcom was in this country until he was briefed about the raids. It is implausible that he did not know but more than that he has let New Zealanders down by his lax oversight of his security agencies which he controls on our behalf. 
On this side of the House this report that we are debating today does not represent the end of this matter. It is a whitewash. There are questions around whether the Inspector-General can appropriately undertake this inquiry given his ongoing role working with the Government Communications Security Bureau. This situation deserves a thorough investigation so that we can get to the bottom of what role was played by the agencies of Government what role was played by Ministers and why the Prime Minister was not informed about these situations because in the absence of that kind of investigation New Zealanders will look at what the Prime Minister has done and they will question his honesty. And if New Zealanders are questioning the honesty of the Prime Minister that is a serious matter. This needs a thorough independent investigation so that New Zealanders can have confidence in their security services and get to the bottom of this. 
This has been a shambles and a circus from this Government. It has been staggering incompetence. There has been incredibly poor communication. The Government needs to take responsibility and ultimately the Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for this debacle. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I will choose my words very carefully because I believe that great care is needed in debating this issue because of the fact that proceedings are currently before the High Court. There was a very interesting issue of principle that was raised by the deputy leader of the Labour Party and that concerns the meaning of section 8(3) of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 about the performance of the bureau’s functions being subject to the control of the Minister responsible for the GCSB. And there is no debate that in this instance it is the Prime Minister. 
I always recall when many years ago David Lange first became the Prime Minister and Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service. There was a clip of him on television when he was visited by the director of the SIS. Mr Lange said “Bring me all the files.” in a typical David Lange joking way and the director said “Well it’s not like that.” And it is not like that. The control of the bureau does not mean operational control over particular matters. 
I would venture to suggest that if ever we got to a situation where the Minister in charge of the SIS or the Minister responsible for the GCSB was exercising operational control over particular operations of the agency it would be a very dangerous and improper state of affairs. So it is that I as Attorney-General exercise control over Crown Law. Indeed I have just been hunting for the particular reference but I know that it is set out in the  
Cabinet Manual 
. It would be quite improper and unconstitutional of me as Attorney-General to exercise control over particular cases. During the allegations over the intervention by the Solicitor-General in the case involving the cameraman Mr Ambrose I in fact had nothing to do with it. It would have been quite improper of me to have had anything to do with it. The Attorney-General was named as the nominal defendant in that proceeding because there was to quote the statement of claim “no proper contradictor” and that is why the Attorney-General was named. But that did not give me licence to get involved in the control and operation of that particular case and that is the case here. It has been the Government’s announced position on the use of the capability of this particular agency that in relation to two of the persons whose communications were required the activity was contrary to its governing legislation. But given the confused at times contribution by Mr Robertson I do think that it is necessary to explain something of the background of this case and how we get to where we are and in doing so I emphasise the need for care in talking about this particular matter. 
The background starts in the United States because Mr Dotcom and his associates have been indicted in Virginia on charges related to the theft of intellectual property on an industrial scale. It was necessary for the carrying out of New Zealand’s obligations under its extradition treaty with the United States that arrest warrants issued by a New Zealand court on behalf of the United States were executed in a manner that properly and effectively assisted the US in relation to an operation that involved eight or nine different countries. In those circumstances there can be no surprise in the fact of the police request for assistance in tracking persons who were subject to warrants and in relation to persons who are not New Zealand citizens or permanent residents the agency the Government Communications Security Bureau is entitled to assist. But I emphasise that there can never be an acceptance by the Government or the public of the unlawful use of State power particularly in relation to the acquisition of communications. That must be emphasised. 
The circumstances of the misuse of the relevant power and the question of what follows from that event are now an issue that is squarely before the High Court. The court will deal with that issue as it intimated to Mr Dotcom’s counsel in the fullness of time. But I emphasise that New Zealand is part of the wider international community the lifeblood of which is the acceptance of international obligations—in particular those directed to the detection and suppression of international crime. 
I said that Mr Robertson in his analysis was talking about extradition orders and was explaining the procedure but I do not think it was done very clearly. I think it needs to be emphasised that there are two proceedings here. The first is the request for extradition. That is an act of the executive which is based on obligations undertaken by in this case the United States and New Zealand. Every extradition request will involve the consideration at some point in the process of two competing public interest principles: the interest of comity on the one hand and the liberty of the individual on the other. In New Zealand as we all know extradition is covered by the Extradition Act 1999 and it is administered by the Ministry of Justice but it does as Mr Robertson observed involve a number of agencies at any one time. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for example receives and transmits requests for extradition. The Ministry of Justice will assess requests appearing in New Zealand courts on extradition matters or will instruct other counsel to appear—in this case Crown Law. 
Both countries have a bilateral extradition treaty that forms the basis of their requests to each other. It is important to understand here that extradition proceeds on the basis of a record of the case—that is that the US provides a summary of the evidence supporting extradition and any other relevant materials. And then what the New Zealand court has to do is approach the record on the assumption that it is a fair and an accurate summary of the evidence against the defendants. It is not the role of the courts in New Zealand to try the person for the offence alleged. Ultimately if the extradition takes place that will be the responsibility of the Federal District Court in Virginia. What the New Zealand court has to do is assure itself that there is a qualifying offence on which the person may be surrendered to the other country for trial and that there is sufficient evidence. 
It is also important to understand which explains the detailed nature of extradition that once that preliminary review has taken place the judge considers the evidence and determines whether a person is eligible for surrender. The Minister of Justice will decide whether to surrender the person and if that happens then there is an opportunity for the person concerned to seek judicial review in the High Court of both the judge’s decision to recommend that and the Minister of Justice’s decision to surrender them. So it is very important that we understand that extradition is one particular process and then mutual assistance is another. That is an entirely different form of international cooperation and it is that one that concerns the provision of evidence or information to assist the foreign country with a criminal investigation or prosecution. If New Zealand responds positively to the country’s requests then in turn that country will assist New Zealand authorities when we make requests overseas and that happens on a regular basis. Members may have seen recently that there was a request in Australia that was turned down by the Federal Court there for various reasons. We are all partners in dealing with alleged and actual transnational crime and conventions require New Zealand to provide mutual assistance as part of a global approach to crime. It is important not to muddle up the two processes. There is extradition on the one hand and mutual assistance on the other. 
The other thing that it is important to understand is that whether Mr Dotcom and his associates are rightly or wrongly charged it is ultimately a matter for the courts in the United States. But it is also important to understand as I said earlier in this speech that it is obvious that it is open to Mr Dotcom and his associates to challenge New Zealand’s actions in courts of law. There are open courts and proper remedies that are available for any transgressions of the law and presumably these are the sorts of things that are going to happen over the months to come. 
I have set out these matters in some considerable detail because I do think that sometimes in public discussion on this matter there has been a conflation of what extradition and mutual assistance are about. But I emphasise that these matters are now fairly and squarely before the court particularly as a result of a direction made by the Chief High Court Judge yesterday. That is why it behoves all of us to deal with this matter with some sensitivity because of the sub judice rule which is not a mere rule but actually raises issues of great constitutional importance about the relationship between the executive and the judiciary and also Parliament and the judiciary. They are the issues that have arisen in this matter. There is a question— 
Phil Twyford 
: How about democratic oversight? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —as to what constitutes control by the Minister in this instance and I have said that there is a world of difference. I say this to Mr Twyford because he does raise an important matter. There is a very important point of distinction between exercising control over the agency which is— 
Phil Twyford 
: Democratic oversight is not operational control. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —what I believe that the Prime Minister has done at all times in this case and becoming involved in and exercising control over particular operations. I say to Mr Twyford that to get involved in the detail of particular operations is just as improper as it would be for me to become involved in the particular operation— 
Phil Twyford 
: You’re wilfully misunderstanding. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —of particular cases. I am not wilfully misunderstanding anything. These are matters of great constitutional importance and when one is dealing with the intelligence agencies or in my case one is dealing with Crown Law one has to be very very careful about the extent to which a Minister exercising control gets down into the detail. The line that the member is suggesting is a very very dangerous line. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this urgent debate around Justice Neazor’s report into the unlawful activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau the GCSB. In this instance the Prime Minister has been very relaxed about the civil liberties and freedoms of ordinary New Zealanders. What we have seen is a Prime Minister who is so relaxed and comfortable that he has not done his job which is to protect the democratic rights and rights to privacy of ordinary New Zealand citizens and residents. What this case shows is that the Prime Minister who is the sole person who has the democratic responsibility to protect us from the Government Communications Security Bureau has not done his job. 
The Attorney-General gave a speech before where I believe he fundamentally gave the wrong impression about the relationship between the Minister overseeing the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Government Communications Security Bureau. This relationship is unique within all of the public agencies. The clause that is in the Government Communications Security Bureau Act—section 8(3)—appears in only two Acts. Section 8(3) appears in the Act governing the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Act governing the SIS. It states that the performance of the bureau’s functions is subject to the control of the Minister. There are no other Acts where the ministerial control is so direct than in these two Acts. The reason for that is that there is no other democratic oversight of this organisation. There is no way for Parliament to inquire into the operations of this organisation because there is no parliamentary select committee that can inquire into them. There is an Intelligence and Security Committee which is a statutory body not a parliamentary body. It is not allowed to inquire into the operational matters in regard to the Government Communications Security Bureau or the SIS. The Official Information Act is effectively useless when it comes to these organisations because they always have a strong case to deny the information you are seeking under national security grounds. 
So effectively these organisations operate in secret except for the oversight of the Prime Minister. He is the only person who has that oversight and he has manifestly failed to do his job in this case. The Attorney-General also tried to make a comparison with say for example the police or the Crown Law Office in saying that you would not want the Minister to get involved in individual cases. But there is a world of difference in the way these organisations work. If the police are seeking a warrant they go to a judge and a member of the judiciary has to approve that warrant. If the Government Communications Security Bureau seeks an interception warrant it goes to its Minister. So the Minister overseeing the Government Communications Security Bureau has to sign off every interception warrant that the Government Communications Security Bureau does if they want to put equipment in place. 
So the Prime Minister knows the individuals who are being targeted for every warrant. So it is not like the Minister of Police who does not know all the people who are being targeted by the police in terms of all their interception warrants. The Prime Minister—the Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau—knows every person who is being targeted by an interception warrant by the Government Communications Security Bureau because the Prime Minister has to sign off every warrant. Likewise he has to sign off every authorisation or warrant to intercept or put equipment on a computer. So if the Government Communications Security Bureau wants to get into your computer system the Prime Minister has to sign it off and he knows your name. If you are the subject of one of these warrants the Prime Minister knows your name because the Prime Minister is required to sign off the warrant. 
The Government Communications Security Bureau is manifestly different from the police and the reason it is manifestly different is that there is no judicial oversight. The only oversight is the Prime Minister and that is why the Act gives the Prime Minister much more intrusive powers into the operation of the Government Communications Security Bureau than it gives the Minister of Police for example into the operational matters of the police. There is no one else who is serving that role of making sure that this agency is operating on behalf of New Zealand’s national interest. 
There is a third category of intervention or interception that the Government Communications Security Bureau can do which is when it is targeting foreign nationals and it wants to intercept their communications but it does not require a bug or any of those kinds of equipment. The Government Communications Security Bureau can do that without getting anything signed off by the Minister and that was the case with the Kim Dotcom case. That does not mean that the Prime Minister can wash his hands of it. That does not mean that the Prime Minister can stand up in the House and go “Oh well it’s got nothing to do with me. I’ve got no responsibility in that respect.” The Prime Minister has total responsibility. 
In the third category of cases under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act when the Government Communications Security Bureau is intercepting communications—usually mobile phones or that kind of thing where it does not need to put in place special equipment and hence it does need a warrant signed by the Minister—it does not mean that the Minister has no responsibility to make sure that the Government Communications Security Bureau is operating lawfully because there is no one else. The only other person—and this is interesting—who has a responsibility in this respect of course is the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who must be a retired High Court judge. 
This brings us to the second point I would like to make which is around the role of the Inspector-General. This report today on the unlawful activity of the Government Communications Security Bureau was done by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I would draw people’s attention to the annual report of the Inspector-General from 2011 which says that in particular the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security assists the Minister to ensure that the activities of an agency—the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS—comply with the law. So the Inspector-General has a hands-on operational function to make sure that the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS comply with the law. 
What we know because the Government has admitted it is that in this instance the Government Communications Security Bureau did not comply with the law. So who bears the responsibility? It is the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s primary responsibility for acting unlawfully it is the Minister who did nothing who did not make sure that the Government Communications Security Bureau operated lawfully but it is also the Inspector-General himself who in his own words assists the Minister to ensure that the agency complies with the law. So the Inspector-General himself Mr Neazor has identified in his own report that he is implicated in the unlawful activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau because he did not prevent the Government Communications Security Bureau from operating unlawfully. So given that you have to ask yourself whether the Inspector-General is the right person to inquire into the activities of the Inspector-General and the Government Communications Security Bureau. The answer can only be no. We cannot have the person who is responsible for ensuring that the Government Communications Security Bureau complies with the law being the person who also investigates whether the Inspector-General did his job. 
What did it say in the Inspector-General’s report that was released today about the Inspector-General’s role? It said nothing. It did not say whether he did his job. It did not mention his role at all. But of course it is his job according to his own report to make sure that the Government Communications Security Bureau follows the law. That is why the Prime Minister did the wrong thing when he appointed the Inspector-General to run the inquiry. We needed an independent person who does not have a conflict of interest in this case to run the inquiry. We did not need the Inspector-General to run this inquiry; we needed somebody who was independent of the process to run the inquiry. This is a fundamental principle in a democracy. 
If we are to have spying agencies who operate in secret who are otherwise not accountable to Parliament or the people whose sole point of accountability to the democratic system is through the Prime Minister then we need a Prime Minister who is applying themselves to controlling the activities of this agency to make sure they are operating lawfully—and we do not have such a Prime Minister. We have a missing-in-action Prime Minister. We have a Prime Minister who is relaxed about our civil liberties who does not care about the civil liberties of ordinary New Zealanders who get spied on by the Government Communications Security Bureau—because remember even when the Government Communications Security Bureau is operating lawfully it can intercept telephone calls between foreign nationals and New Zealand citizens and residents; it is just not supposed to use the ones on the side of the New Zealand residents and citizens. 
So we have an agency that has the right to spy on all of us and the only point of accountability is the Prime Minister and he says it is not up to him and it is not his job. Well I have got news for the Prime Minister: it is his job. The job of the Prime Minister is to protect our civil liberties in the case of the spy agencies whose sole point of democratic accountability is to the Prime Minister of New Zealand and he sits here day after day in this House and tells us it has nothing to do with him. Well it has everything to do with him and he should front up and apologise to the people of New Zealand. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I think the best illustration of the Government’s position today was the speech by the Attorney-General because that has got to be the weakest defence of colleagues and a Prime Minister that this Parliament has seen for a long long time. But just to make sure that he felt he was judicially superior to the rest of us he warned us not to go into the legal details here or offshore because we would be walking what he said was a very fine line. Well right now we are not walking any line at all because we do not know what is going on and the Prime Minister is the most guilty party in that level of State ignorance. 
There will inevitably be a diplomatic fallout with the US surrounding this case. This is a Government that keeps on going offshore and talking about punching above our weight and being able to be carved apart in foreign affairs in terms of our numbers and yet still perform and still be efficient and the first time that there is a test internationally of its ability it comes up found wanting. It is going to leave us as a laughing stock on the international stage. The FBI on the other side of the world and the New Zealand Police knew more about the residency status of Kim Dotcom than our top-notch intelligence agency. It is a shame to say this. These two agencies the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau are meant to evince the word “intelligence”. It means “information” and the capacity to gain it and acquire it in the national interest. Do they deserve such a name? 
All this bungling means two things are going to happen. First of all there needs to be a full-scale inquiry because the Neazor inquiry does not answer any of the questions that now the public and the media are screaming out to have answered. The second thing is the Prime Minister had better face up with his Cabinet to the fact that their bungling and incompetence on this matter leads to potentially tens of millions of dollars of compensation going from the hard-working New Zealand taxpayers whom they pretend to be on the side of to a man called Kim Dotcom. 
I am not going to waste the speech on the rest of that but say this: this is a very profound issue. Public faith and confidence in our Government and its agencies has been deeply shaken. It is a long time since I have seen a media scrum where they are in total unanimous disbelief that this could be happening in their country. The junior whip can frown over there as though it is of no moment. Well it is of big moment down in Taupo I can tell you because they will be paying out this compensation in time and they are as concerned as everybody else that we look like a First World nation but I have never seen a media scrum so—not confused—bewildered that this could be the way you handle an issue like this. Internationally our friends must be scratching their heads in bewilderment. What on earth has been going on? 
The unlawful action of the GCSB is an issue that goes to the heart of our democracy. This is because the agencies that guard our freedom and security are given exceptional powers and we do that grudgingly. They are given exceptional powers grudgingly. This is because they guard our freedom and security. We put immense trust in them to follow due process and observe both the letter and the spirit of the law. What the unlawful GCSB surveillance has revealed is that there has been systemic failure across a whole range of agencies—not just one but a whole range of agencies—and most important the ministerial oversight has not just failed it seemingly never existed. It never existed. 
What we have had from the Prime Minister on this issue is simply dereliction of duty another example of his “spray and walk away” approach to politics—“spray and walk away”—as though that will fix it. Of course he should resign. If any other Minister had been that incompetent this Prime Minister would have fired him. And we are saying “Prime Minister fire yourself.” That is how bad your performance has been. The public has been expected to swallow a most astonishing tale. Everyone but the PM knew what was afoot and what was going on. The most powerful man in the country claims that he was in the dark. Just down the road from his electoral office is one of the most plush mansions in the whole country with one of the biggest characters this country has ever seen and the office had been visited twice by Kim Dotcom’s staff and the Prime Minister did not know. They have a massive $500000 Guy Fawkes in Auckland and the PM the man who always has his finger on the pulse did not know. Seemingly all his colleagues over there did not know either. Who believes that? His negligence evasion and incompetence mark a new low in prime ministerial performance. Can you imagine Holyoake behaving like that or Norman Kirk or Muldoon or for that matter Bolger or Clark? Can you imagine them taking those views and treating those responsibilities in such a cavalier fashion? Can you imagine them behaving like that? 
The public wants and is entitled to plain speaking and straightforward answers. We must now have a full-scale inquiry with no stone left unturned with all agencies involved. The police the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the SIS Crown Law the Government Communications Security Bureau and all the relevant Ministers must be asked to account fully for the part they have played in the fiasco. You cannot say it is a matter of the law—that they did not understand the law. Crikey! You have got all manner of immigration agencies and junior lawyers handling immigration matters and they all understand what a permanent resident is. Even this man who cannot speak English all that well but he is acquiring a lot of knowledge now that he is living here as a permanent resident—he is a foreigner—understands the law better than our intelligence agency. Is that possible? Well it defies credibility. 
The Neazor report answers nothing. It raises more questions than it answers. What is at the heart of this fiasco? A Prime Minister who is a CV Prime Minister. He does not take the job seriously but he loves travelling with all the security agents. He goes off to the mansions in Hawaii with a whole planeload of New Zealand security guys and at whose expense? Well I am talking to them right now if they are watching TV. We are all paying. He goes for a coffee uptown along with four security officers. It is unbelievable. I have never seen that before. He loves the job but when it comes to the responsibility—that is the hard yards of doing the research doing some work—no no no. This is a typical Merrill Lynch wide boy. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Smile and spin. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh smile and spin and move on. Decision this hour move on next hour next hour move on—never take responsibility because you do not have to have an enduring principle of accountability when you are a Merrill Lynch man. He would not read the police report on John Banks. He said he knew nothing about his rail shares. He had 15 meetings with the Government Communications Security Bureau this year—15 meetings—and we are asked to believe that Kim Dotcom never came up. Well what on earth did that was more important? What were the other things that came up that were more important than Kim Dotcom given that our relations with the United States are important? 
It all comes down to the question of responsibility. Now is the time for our Prime Minister to take full responsibility and resolve this issue clearly and have a full-scale inquiry. Every time he has answered questions in this House he has been found wanting. “Mr Spray and Walk Away” the man who loves three-party handshakes the man who will go to the opening of an envelope the man who loves mincing on the fashion walks but when it comes to defending the integrity the reputation and the character of our country he thinks it is of no matter whatsoever and that he should not even bother even though he sits there with the warrant for both the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau. No substance is what the Prime Minister is evincing and indicating now and the sooner his colleagues wake up the better because I am afraid that more of this behaviour means it is goodnight nurse for you at the next election. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Charles Chauvel. This is a 5-minute call and I will ring the bell at 4 minutes. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 This is a debate about accountability and we have a Government that seeks constantly to avoid that accountability to the taxpayer. If we want an example in respect of the present matter we need only to look at the timing that elapsed between the delivery of the Neazor report to the Beehive and its making public. That report was delivered to the Beehive at 10 a.m. today by the Hon Paul Neazor himself. It took until 1.42 p.m. for the report to be publicly released. It is quite obvious why that happened. There were two motivations. First of all the Government wanted to put its spin on the report. It wanted to make sure that it had the agencies lined up as to the response and to make sure that it had its tame bloggers lined up so that they knew what to say they knew how to manipulate the media or at least try to so that the Government’s side of the story would be the one that led the news. 
But there was another motivation and that was an attempt to avoid a debate in this place to avoid a parliamentary debate on what was clearly an important current matter of ministerial responsibility and that ought to be debated in this House and now thank goodness is being debated. The only reason it is being debated is that the deputy leader of the Labour Party was quick off his feet. He got a letter to the Speaker as soon as the report was released. But the timing of the release of the report 18 minutes before the beginning of question time is simply cynical. It just shows not only how this Government tries to spin its own lines all the time but how it tries to avoid accountability particularly to this place. So it was willing to let the media have its side of the story to start the spin machines going but to do everything it could to stop a debate happening in this Parliament where it ought to be happening where there ought to be the sort of accountability that we see so rarely. 
There is another issue about accountability and that is the accountability of our security services to the Prime Minister and then the Prime Minister’s accountability in turn to this House and to the people for taking that job seriously. We have just heard from Winston Peters a very apt description in my view of how cavalier the Prime Minister is about these matters. The Neazor report shows some disturbing things about the understanding by the Government Communications Security Bureau of its mandate. The Government Communications Security Bureau can lawfully conduct surveillance only in respect of foreign persons. An opening of the Act a scan of the interpretation provisions which are in section 4 of the Act shows the reader who may and who may not be surveilled by the Government Communications Security Bureau. Only a foreign person can be surveilled. The definition of a foreign person is clear. It is a person who amongst other things does not hold permanent residence. Since the Immigration Act 2009 came into force in November 2010 that has included the holder of the sort of visa category that Mr Dotcom holds. So this has been the law for years and years yet our own security intelligence apparatus appears unable to construe and apply that law appropriately. 
We have a Prime Minister clearly just conducting nominal oversight never asking and never seeking to assure himself as he should given that he is the only effective oversight of these services whether or not they are acting within their mandate. That relaxed confident approach which seemed to be so appealing initially just does not cut it when it comes to the hard work of Government and protecting the interests of the citizen and of the residents of New Zealand. 
Finally we have an issue of accountability generally over this Dotcom saga. It is a sorry saga. It has been characterised in the media as a Keystone Cops saga and I think unfortunately those of us who followed the litigation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Key-stoned” Cops. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Ha! Those of us who followed the litigation in court would agree with that characterisation. Christopher Finlayson tried to draw a distinction between allowing agencies to conduct themselves with operational independence and some sort of overbearing Muldoonist way of holding them to account. Well that is a false distinction. All that the taxpayers of New Zealand are asking for is proper ministerial oversight of this matter before the taxpayer is left holding the baby. And given the events that are revealed by the Neazor report and by the judgments of the court we are in real danger of that. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief moment to echo the very important messages that were delivered to this House by the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. One of those is the fact that great caution is required in this House because there are currently proceedings before the High Court. 
One of the things that has disturbed me is the suggestion by some members on the other side of the House that the Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau should be in charge and in control of operational matters on a day-to-day basis. To go down that track would be a very dark day not just for this House but for this country. 
The Attorney-General also quite rightly pointed out our international responsibilities and obligations in terms of fighting crime across the globe and he made the distinctions very carefully around the two aspects—mutual assistance as very distinct from extradition. So in the air of caution I want to leave it at that but I want to just remind this House that this side is taking great care and great caution in being constitutionally proper. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I would like to take a very short call as well in my capacity as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee essentially to endorse what has just been said by the junior Government whip and the Attorney-General before her. 
I am concerned that Opposition members are jeopardising the integrity and fairness of our judicial system by seeking to make political capital out of proceedings that in fact I believe are currently before the Court of Appeal. That is inappropriate and regrettable—[ 
Interruption 
]—and nothing in the bluster and interjections of Opposition members at this moment will in any way refute that point. So I simply wish to urge Opposition members to exercise better judgment and to respect the very important constitutional and judicial principles that are at stake in this issue. This must be dealt with appropriately. Members of this House should above all respect that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Labour has a 10-minute call but we still have one 5-minute call to go. So— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Andrew Williams. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No on the list here it is actually— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well no. They didn’t call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No they did not call. They should have called. They did not. I am calling Andrew Williams. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is calling for a commission of inquiry as our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters has already said in the House this afternoon. We have heard of so much bungling on behalf of so many agencies in this country in the last 9 or 10 months over this Dotcom saga—including right to the top including the bungling of the Prime Minister and including the incompetent handling by the Prime Minister—that this needs an independent commission of inquiry. 
Let us go back to the very beginning—let us go back to the very beginning. The Orewa community constable Jason Homan visited the Dotcom mansion the day before the raid. He knocked on the front door. He was welcomed in by Mr Dotcom. He was given a tour around the building and they discussed Mr Dotcom’s security. He wanted to assist Mr Dotcom with his security. But what he did not let on was that he had a covert camera hidden on his body and the whole time this community constable who was supposedly there in Mr Dotcom’s interest was actually filming in preparedness for the raid the next morning. The following morning at dawn helicopters start dropping out of the sky and 80 members of the Special Tactics Group of the New Zealand Police come off these helicopters—80 of them—and also via cars and other things coming up the roads and they force entry into the mansion. They drag Mr Dotcom’s 27-weeks pregnant wife out on to the lawn in the rain at dawn. They terrorise the children in the house. They then find Mr Dotcom and drag him outside as well and he is pushed down onto the ground where he sustains some injuries to some of his limbs that were stood on. There were police supposedly in this raid wearing T-shirts jeans and flak jackets which is most unusual for the New Zealand Police and there is speculation that some of those may well have been members of agencies from abroad including the FBI—there is speculation on that. 
This is the sort of thing going on in this country within a relatively short distance and in the Prime Minister’s own electorate of Helensville.  
 In the Prime Minister’s own electorate of Helensville—in his own electorate—this is all going on while he is the Minister responsible for the GCSB—the spy organisation for this country. In his own electorate this sort of thing is going on. That very same spy organisation did not even realise that this individual was living in the most expensive mansion in the Prime Minister’s electorate worth $30 million with 50 staff. How many houses in New Zealand have 50 staff? Not many. Maybe the Prime Minister has quite a few; he is probably the second in the country with staff. But for the mansion to be in his own electorate and not now admit to the fact that he knew of Dotcom that people from Dotcom’s staff had been to his electorate office that there had been numerous dialogue with his office about it and for this Prime Minister to say that he really knew about all the intricacies of the details of this only in the last week or so is balderdash—absolute balderdash. This is a cover-up—an absolute cover-up. The fact that the Deputy Prime Minister as Acting Prime Minister back on 16 August signed a warrant—while the Prime Minister was away at his baseball game in the United States—to provide for a cover-up to bury all the details is even more of an indictment on this Prime Minister that this is an absolute whitewash. 
New Zealanders expect more of any Government—any Government—and in this particular case the Prime Minister himself should be standing down stepping aside and calling for a commission of inquiry. Any other Minister who was this incompetent in handling his portfolio would have been stood down while there was an inquiry. He should stand by the same measures stand by the same standards step aside and let people come in and do a proper job. He should spend less time on the golf course less time in his holiday house in Hawaii and less time on the global stage getting photographs with everybody he can possibly get his hands on and spend more time overlooking his own portfolios. New Zealand First calls for a commission of inquiry. Let us get on with it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I note that the Prime Minister has this afternoon apologised to Kim Dotcom for the basic errors of his agency. What he has not apologised for is what is really the core of this debate and that is his slackness in his oversight of that agency. 
I would like to give many members of the House a little bit of a history lesson going back to 1977 when I had a notable appearance in this House and was in fact arrested during debate on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. The reason that I was arrested then was that I believed that there was too much power being centralised in the hands of one person—at that stage it was Sir Robert Muldoon—and I did not believe that there were systems around them to ensure that there was proper supervision of the Prime Minister. 
Since that time there have been some changes made that have improved the legislation slightly but more important ever since that time there have been Prime Ministers who have treated their role in this area diligently. They have worked diligently. They have been briefed. They have read their papers. They have asked the questions that needed to be asked. I can remember one occasion when I was with Helen Clark in her car early in her prime ministerial time and both the driver and I got booted out of her car. She borrowed my phone because I had a Vodafone phone that was properly secure and she only had a Telecom phone so that she could be properly briefed on an urgent matter. It was so important that she did not want to wait for half an hour to get to a secure landline; she wanted to do that. 
The question I have got is whether this Prime Minister interests himself at all in the work of his security agencies or is he prepared to say “OK boys just go and do what you want. OK boys just go and do what you want. I’m not going to ask because if I ask I might know. And if I know that you’re doing something wrong I’ll be in even worse trouble.”? That is what the situation is here. The Prime Minister was not prepared to apologise to this House for what he knew happened. He was not prepared to go into the detail in Parliament the place where he is meant to be held accountable. He runs away. He does not front up. He does not front up in this House and apologise for the fact that he is not doing his job properly. He is meant to uphold ministerial standards. That is his job. He is the Prime Minister. He is meant to be above all others. 
And in this case his plea of ignorance is just not good enough. Ignorance is not an excuse when you are the Prime Minister who is meant to be supervising an agency an agency where the relationship is much closer and the supervision necessarily much closer than for example with the police or any other Government agency. This stuff very rarely gets anywhere near a court. There is very rarely a check or a balance on the power of the Prime Minister and these agencies. Our entire democracy depends on his agency doing its job properly and for that to happen the Prime Minister must supervise it. To say that he cannot know anything about the operations is just horse shit. It is just absolute nonsense. The Prime Minister must know about the areas where there are operations going on. The Prime Minister has to know that there are matters that he should be looking at. 
We have given this Prime Minister a lot of support in this area. There is an enormous amount of trust that goes to every— 
Scott Simpson 
: Better than that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I agree with that member there. The Prime Minister should be better than that. I agree with that member. Every other Prime Minister going right back in my entire time in Parliament has been better than that. Which member is that? 
Dr Megan Woods 
: I’m not sure. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The one with glasses next to— 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Scott Simpson. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was Scott Simpson I am told. Scott Simpson says we deserve better than that and I totally agree with him. We deserve a Prime Minister who reads his documents a Prime Minister who gets briefed. What we have seen here is a debacle an absolute failure of a Prime Minister to run a spy agency with integrity. It is his job to run it with integrity. It is his job to look carefully at what it is doing because he is the democratic check on the system. And when he does not do his job properly as he clearly has not done now then the democratic check that should be there is absent. The agency runs amuck it breaks the law and it spies on people it is not meant to be spying on. 
There is another question. There is another question that needs to be asked. We know that the information has been flowing. We know that the assistance has been flowing to the United States. Is it correct—is it correct—that US agencies were also involved in covert surveillance within New Zealand with the full knowledge of the Prime Minister’s agency? Did a foreign agency act contrary to New Zealand law? Did a foreign agency act contrary to New Zealand law with the connivance of an agency for which the Prime Minister is responsible? If that is the case then I expect that any Prime Minister with integrity will be a position where they cannot survive—where they cannot survive—because it is the role of the Prime Minister to make sure that these “boy’s own” 
tricks do not occur. It is his job to make sure that the spies do not run amuck. They have an enormous amount of power and if the suggestion is that overseas agencies—as well as our own Government Communications Security Bureau—were acting covertly in New Zealand with the connivance with the assistance with the knowledge of our security agencies if that was occurring then that is even worse than what has occurred here. 
The other question that we still have not heard any confirmation of is whether as was alleged in the  
Dominion Post  
this morning the immigration file for Kim Dotcom was in fact given to the police before the raid—well before the raid—by the Immigration Service. It is a pretty basic question: was it given or was it not given? And if it was given—the Immigration Service says that it was—what we want to know is whether anyone bothered to read it. Did anyone bother reading the file that was supplied? Did Maurice Williamson? Maurice is here. Maurice knows a bit about land information and that sort of area. Jonathan Coleman knows a bit about that area. Simon Power knows a bit about that area. I will just tell you what used to happen. In the old Government if two Ministers disagreed and one overruled the other then you made a file note and the Prime Minister had a look. When you had a difference when you had a Minister overruling another Minister and it was something that was important to the Government you wrote it down. You wrote it down. Maurice Williamson is nodding. You know what I think happened? I think the Prime Minister did not read it. I think the Prime Minister did not read it. Well he did not read the police report wilfully— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I want to just touch on a couple of the comments made by the previous speaker Mr Mallard and in particular his claim that the Prime Minister was not prepared to front up. I think this is something that needs to be addressed because what the member is inferring is that the Prime Minister should act— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot “infer” anything in my speech. I think you mean “imply”. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I infer from those things that the member feels that the Prime Minister should have taken action before all the facts were before him and indeed he called for an apology. But the prudent thing to do was to conduct an inquiry and to need to have the inquiry to establish all the facts. The facts are now on the table. The Prime Minister has apologised to Mr Kim Dotcom and has expressed his disappointment in the events that have transpired. 
But I also think it quite rich for Mr Mallard to say that the Prime Minister should take control of these agencies because Ministers—as that member well knows—do not run agencies. In fact I well recall responses to oral questions in this House when Mr Mallard was the Associate Minister of Transport and calls for him to take control of an issue related to Air New Zealand and the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union in respect of a maintenance dispute at Christchurch Airport. He was at very great pains to point out that it was absolutely not a Minister’s role to interfere with the day-to-day running of Government agencies—so I sense at least an inconsistency—or for that matter a State-owned enterprise like Air New Zealand which would have been even worse frankly. So the member says one thing in Government and another thing in Opposition. 
 But it is clear and indeed the lawyers acting for Mr Dotcom have indicated that information contained in the report that was released today could be used as evidence in the extradition hearing that is currently before the High Court. As such it would be entirely inappropriate for any member of the Government—or this House frankly—to comment on the matters that may yet be before the court. There are very strict protocols in respect of the legislature’s boundaries in respect of judicial proceedings—and vice versa I should add—and I think Minister Finlayson very clearly explained the reasons why and the aspects of the report. I just want to endorse those comments by the Attorney-General and say no more about it. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill be now read a third time 
. I am very pleased to have played my part in steering this National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill through the House. I certainly acknowledge and appreciate the support that has been received from all parties with the obvious exceptions of the Greens and the Mana party. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Disappointing. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am disappointed but not surprised by their attitude. I think what they fail to appreciate is that since I became the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage in 2008 a lot of work has gone into this project to ensure that the cut-and-cover option became a reality. It is simply and plainly wrong to say—as I think Holly Walker said at the Committee stage—that the plans have been around for some years. I think Mr Chauvel may have made a similar allegation in his rather peculiar contribution in the first reading debate. They are both plain wrong. The 2008 plans provided for State Highway 1 to go through the park. I was first alerted to that by Deputy Mayor Ian McKinnon in 2008. I spoke to Mt Cook School and said that I thought that was really most unfortunate. I have worked since then to see if we could get this result and we have. 
We have the bill. The bill was introduced. It was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on 28 August. That committee worked very hard and I salute its chair and members because it reported the bill back to the House on 18 September. I also want to acknowledge the contributions from the submitters and the officials from both the New Zealand Transport Agency and my ministry the Ministry for Culture and Heritage who have worked very hard on this matter. 
This legislation is required to complete the memorial in time for the centenary of the Gallipoli landings and this very speedy progression will enable Government agencies to start work in October on what will be New Zealand’s major legacy project for the First World War commemorations: this wonderful park Pukeahu. It is the centrepiece of the Government’s programme of projects and activities to mark the centenary over the 2014-18 period. The joint agency WW100 Programme Office in the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is going to lead and facilitate commemorative activities in accordance with other organisations of the Crown like the New Zealand Defence Force the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and others and a panel of trusted New Zealanders is going to be guiding and informing these activities. During this period the war memorial is very much going to be a focus of the First World War commemorations and also increasingly of a number of significant 70th anniversaries of the Second World War and as time progresses of anniversaries for both the Viet Nam and Korean wars. This bill is going to ensure that we have a park that provides a more appropriate setting for these very important commemorative activities. 
 What the bill does is it grants resource consents heritage authorisations and building consents and provides for the designation of the land and powers of entry on to the land. It grants rights to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and the New Zealand Transport Agency to complete the undergrounding of State Highway 1 and the memorial park in time for the centenary of the Gallipoli landings in April 2015. In doing so what it is going to do is remove the standard objection and appeal rights available under the Resource Management Act 1991 the Historic Places Act 1993 and the Public Works Act 1981 but I emphasise that rights to compensation under the latter Act are going to be preserved. And should the need arise the bill will also enable the Governor-General to issue Orders in Council to grant further consents than those covered in the schedules of the bill. 
But it is extremely important to note that there are safeguards to provide oversight of these Orders in Council and a review panel is going to be convened to scrutinise recommendations for those Orders in Council. That panel will report to the Minister at 6-monthly intervals and the Minister will provide a copy of that report to the House. Parliament is also going to have the power to disallow an Order in Council within 12 sitting days after the day on which it was presented to the House. So what has happened here is that every step has been taken to ensure that the focus and the purpose of the bill are tightly defined to avoid any risk that powers may be used for anything other than the intended national purpose. The bill also ensures continuing input from important stakeholders like Mt Cook School the Wellington City Council the Wellington Tenths Trust the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and other organisations representing local residents and road users. 
Like many public memorials the development of this National War Memorial has proceeded in fits and starts. In the 1920s there was a debate over what form it should take. There was some talk that there could even be a memorial parade or a new cathedral and then a Wellington jeweller Mr Denton suggested the Carillon with bells of remembrance and that was the idea that was enthusiastically embraced by the community. The Wellington War Memorial Carillon Society raised the money for a 49-bell carillon and presented the funds to the Government. The Government then made its contribution towards the construction of the bell towers to house the Carillon. Gummer and Ford were two persons who won the design competition for the bell tower and the new national museum behind it. Gummer was renowned for his work on memorials. I think he was responsible for the Massey Memorial on Watts Peninsula and the Bridge of Remembrance in Christchurch. And so it was in 1932 that the public flocked to this new memorial. At last New Zealanders had a surrogate tomb for the thousands who had sadly died overseas in service of their country. 
 The next stage was supposed to be an adjoining Hall of Memories but its construction was cut short because of the Depression and then the Second World War. Indeed it was to be 32 years before that building was finally opened in 1964. In 2004 Kingsley Baird’s Tomb of the Unknown Warrior was added to the complex and the remains of an unnamed soldier from Caterpillar Valley Cemetery near Longueval were interred in the tomb. 
I give the House that history because it is important to recognise that this has been a developing project but with this development we will be able to say that we finally have a complete memorial to those who have served this country so well. With the completion of the project the impressive architecture of the memorial is going to be complemented by a park of equivalent substance and design. The National War Memorial and the various elements of the precinct will be unified. It is going to be a place of quiet reflection where people can congregate for important national commemorations and our allies will also be honoured with their own memorials. I emphasise that there is also going to be an interpretation centre where young New Zealanders who attend Anzac Day commemorations will be able to learn more about the tumultuous events that have left their mark on this country. So too will visitors to Wellington from around the country and overseas be drawn to the memorial. 
In the future I believe the precinct is most likely to be included in the Government’s proposed national historic landmark list of places that are significant national treasures to New Zealand. Last but not least the traffic noise is going to be greatly reduced because this tunnelling is to take place. Everyone is delighted that this is going to proceed. To have had State Highway 1 traversing a sacred memorial frankly would have been inappropriate and indeed disrespectful. 
There is keen interest in the development. I am looking forward to attending community meetings to talk to people about it. I am very keen to keep in touch with people. I think this is going to be a memorial of which we are going to be very proud indeed. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in this third reading debate on the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who has just spoken gave us an interesting history lesson around activities in the park and the war memorial. He could not bring himself to say the words “Helen Clark”. It is unfortunate that the Minister whom I think we have given some credit to that he has been a person who has worked on this issue over the last few years—he has stuttered along a little bit but now we have finally got there—could not manage to say that in 2004 Helen Clark put forward this idea. The words could not leave his mouth which is a pity because this is something that people on both sides of the House have certainly wanted. 
I want to make just a few points here. The first thing I want to do is just to thank the officials who worked on this particular bill. This bill was dealt with at speed at pace. A lot of pressure was placed on officials to be able to not only come up with the bill in the first place but also then deal with the submissions. A number of significant changes were made during the select committee process and they had to be made at pace. The officials from the New Zealand Transport Agency the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and also the Parliamentary Counsel Office did do a terrific job in getting that work done. I think in a piece of legislation like this that should be recognised. 
This memorial park will be a place that will become integral I believe to New Zealand’s heritage and history. It will be a place where New Zealanders can reflect on the sacrifice of those who have gone to war and also on the cost of war. It will also be a place where we will be able to highlight our relationship with countries such as Australia which has offered to put a memorial within the park. I was very heartened that at the first of the community meetings we had on this Minister Chris Finlayson said that he would be looking to see within the park some kind of memorial to those who were conscientious objectors to war. He mentioned at that meeting in particular Archibald Baxter. I think that is a very appropriate thing for this park. It should be a place of reflection. It should be a place where people can go to think about the overall impact of war. I was very heartened that Mr Finlayson had said that. I certainly support that idea. 
It is obviously timed to be able to be open in 2015 on the 100th commemorations of the Gallipoli landings. The year 2015 will be a very important time for New Zealanders in terms of our sense of identity and looking back over our history as a country. This is a great legacy project for that time. It would be better if we could have gone through the correct legislative processes regulatory processes and consenting processes that would be required for that but time is against us. On this side of the House we look warily at empowering-type legislation but in this case this is such a nationally significant project—a project that does need for symbolic reasons to be able to be there in April 2015—that we can agree to this legislation. But we make clear on this side of the House that it is not a habit that we want to see in this House to have empowering legislation that does override objection and appeal rights. That is not something this House should do regularly and we certainly will not support it to be done regularly. 
What we have done in this legislation is attempt to put in place measures that mitigate the fact that we are doing empowering legislation. The Minister has mentioned the review panel that will look at any Orders in Council that are being asked for by the Minister and that review panel in turn has to report to this Parliament on a 6-monthly basis so that this Parliament has some role. I think those are important provisions in this law. I think what is particularly important and which was added at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is clause 24(4) which is what we call the last resort provision. This is to make absolutely clear that the use of Orders in Council should be a last resort. The phrase is that the Minister must have considered “all other reasonably practicable ways relevant” to this legislation to achieve the goals that the Order in Council is trying to achieve. That is a statement to a Minister that they must have considered all other matters. We know that an Order in Council which as we know takes away the rights of this Parliament can be used only as a last resort under this legislation. That is a significant clause and I am very pleased that the Government agreed to the inclusion of it in this bill. 
Beyond the question of the Orders in Council I want to speak about the role of the community in this project. The community forum that is being set up with this bill is an excellent process. The addition the select committee made was to include the idea that the local community could have a role in the final design of this park and I hope the Government takes that seriously. The final design of this park will mean a lot to the people of the Mount Cook community and the wider Wellington community and it is important that the Government listens to those communities. There are concerns already being raised by those who are perhaps involved in one part in particular the historic creche that is just on the fringes of the park. They will be impacted on by this. I urge the Government to talk to the community to listen to the community and to use that community forum not just the three times a year that it is possible to use it but more often to ensure that the community is involved. I also urge the Government to ensure that the residents of Wellington not just those in my electorate in Wellington Central but more broadly across the city are kept informed about this project. It will start very very soon and people in Wellington may not be aware of the disruption that is coming their way. 
I want to make reference to a couple of groups that I think it is very important are considered here. The first of those is the Wellington City Council. The Wellington City Council has generously offered $5 million for this project. It is a key stakeholder. It must be involved all the way through this project. Hopefully working with the Wellington City Council we can see the development of this park this great green space for Wellington integrated within other plans that the Wellington City Council has. I thank the council for its support for this project. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Deputy Mayor Ian McKinnon and also Mayor Celia Wade-Brown who have been strong supporters of this project. 
The other organisations I want to mention are the Taranaki Whanui and the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. They are landowners within the park area. They have a long historical association with this area. Their name for this area forms part of this bill. Their rights to be spoken to and talked to are important and I am disappointed that we were not able to perhaps find the accommodation within the bill that they wanted. But they can rest assured that through the schedules of this bill and the community forum the Taranaki Whanui and the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust are acknowledged for their important role and will be a key part of the development of the park. 
The last group that I want to mention in this context is the local community and the fact that in this bill we have added into the community forum and the consultation processes around traffic plans and the future place of buildings in the park the owners of the Mount Cook Police Barracks and the Tasman Garden Body Corporate the two buildings that sit either side of Tasman Street and the intersection with Buckle Street. They are representative of the interests of the local community as is the local residents association Mount Cook Mobilised which has also done a fantastic job of advocating for this park. It wants this park. It will become a vital part of the Mount Cook community. The Mt Cook School with its terrific principal Sandy McCallum is also part of that. This is something that it will be uniquely associated with and it is vitally important that in the development of the park it is a key stakeholder as well. 
Overall the Labour Party is happy to support this legislation. It is not ideal that we are passing empowering legislation but this reaches the threshold of a nationally significant project. I know that veterans their families and all those affected by war will know that this is an important thing. But much beyond that for Wellingtonians this will be a terrific place of reflection a green space and an open place for people to spend time. It will also attract visitors I predict from not only New Zealand but right across the world. It will be something that we can be proud of and that will pay appropriate tribute to the sacrifice of those who have gone to war and to the costs of war. I support this bill. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) 
: 
 I wish to take a call and support in essence the previous two speeches from Minister Finlayson and also the deputy leader of the Labour Party Grant Robertson who was there on the day that this project was launched with the Prime Minister and with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Wellington City. We know that this project is hugely significant. I was there yesterday with the Prime Minister the Minister of Defence and Iain Lees-Galloway representing the Opposition when we were commemorating the 70th anniversary celebrations of the Bomber Command. Of course 32 of those veterans travelled to London and were back sharing their experiences yesterday at the National War Memorial and also at a function in the Grand Hall afterwards. 
It was interesting standing down on the edge of State Highway 1 on Buckle Street waiting to greet the Prime Minister with all of that traffic zooming by. When the Prime Minister did arrive meeting other representatives the noise of State Highway 1 was not something that was desirable for the National War Memorial Park which we want to establish there. So thank goodness that the Prime Minister has stepped up to the plate and sought some extra funding to ensure that we can cut and cover the project so that State Highway 1 can be underground. When we get to the special significance of the centennial of those 2721 who lost their lives at Gallipoli almost 100 years ago—it will be in 2015 when the park is open—we can stand there and celebrate in essence what they did for our country. 
On that note I think it is important for everyone to realise that we are in a space where we have an online survey seeking support from New Zealanders and interest from those who want to travel to Gallipoli in 2015. We are seeking their feedback and we have an online survey that is open until 25 November. I urge those who are interested to get involved and give us their feedback. Early indications are that there will be 30000 or 40000 New Zealanders who want to travel to Gallipoli in 2015. 
For those in the House who have been on the peninsula and I was fortunate to go this year we all realise that it is pretty much a national park that the Turkish authorities have to be involved in managing the numbers and that means that there will be a ballot process similar to what there has been for the Olympics the recent royal wedding etc. etc. We are going to have to manage the expectations and the indications are that we will be allocated somewhere in the vicinity of 2000 places and that is lining up with Australia which will be allocated somewhere in the vicinity of 8000 places. It is in essence going to be sorted by the proportion of fatalities that we lost on the Gallipoli Peninsula. 
 In conclusion this is a very important project. I acknowledge all of the people who have been involved in this project to get it to where it is now. I am sure the whole of the House is going to be really excited that come 2015 we are going to have a very special place to commemorate and say thank you to all the veterans who have served for New Zealand. Thank you very much. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 As you have already heard in this House Labour supports the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill and now we are in the final stages of its passage. It will be welcomed by many many New Zealanders veterans and the community—particularly the local community here in Wellington. This bill has had strong local support not only from those who live in the direct vicinity but also from around Wellington in general and also I think from around New Zealand from those wanting to have a place that we could call a National War Memorial Park. 
This bill will enable the completion of the park by 2015 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli. But as the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage said in his third reading speech it will also be a place where we can commemorate other conflicts that New Zealand has been involved in. There are a number coming up of 70th anniversary commemorations. 
One of those that it would have been nice to be able to commemorate had the park been built earlier was the battle for Crete. I was fortunate to represent our country at the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Crete. It was a most moving occasion but very few people could actually go to Crete to commemorate that battle. Most New Zealanders will never be able to go there so I was privileged. Being able to go to a place like the National War Memorial and being able to commemorate events with others who were there and their families and their grandchildren I think will be a really significant part of this new park. 
It is a little bit like going to the Atatürk Memorial. The Minister in his speech—in fact actually no. It was not the Minister in his speech; it was something that Helen Clark said at the time that she proposed this park. She said it would be a place where other countries could have memorials and be able to commemorate events when they had been in partnership in war with New Zealand. That is why I mentioned the Atatürk Memorial in my electorate. If you have not been there on Anzac Day I suggest that you do so. It is the most moving service that you can go to. It is a relationship between Turkey and New Zealand. I am told that the spot where it has been built is very like Anzac Cove and it has a very spiritual feeling about it. This new National War Memorial Park will mean that other countries will be able to put up memorials as well. 
This bill was not without some debate as to the process that would be used for the establishment of this park because it does remove appeals under a number of Acts and there is the use of Orders in Council. I understand concerns that members have about the use of Orders in Council and proper process but I said in my speeches that it would have been really good if we had complete agreement across this House for the establishment of this park. Unfortunately the Greens have decided to oppose it and to me that is a little bit like having a bob each way. They were in favour of it but they opposed it where on this occasion for something as significant as this that was not going to cause a huge problem because there is so much community support for it it would be good if we had unanimous support across Parliament. Maybe even at this late stage the Greens might like to consider supporting this bill at the third reading. 
Why I think they can have some confidence in what has been put in place are the safeguards that were put in place at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I understand the Greens were very constructive at the select committee in helping to put those safeguards in place. Having done that and having done the best job possible then I would have thought that they are now in a position where putting aside their overwhelming principles they could then support this bill because this does not happen very often. If you look at what this is about then I think that maybe this was an occasion when they could have put aside their objections. 
I think the safeguard of a review panel that is able to scrutinise the Orders in Council and report to Parliament every 6 months is a very good one. Also Parliament can disallow the Orders in Council within 12 sitting days. That means the power still comes back here to Parliament. Also there is the putting in place of a community committee that is able to be involved in the design of the park to involve those local people who will be affected. That is something that they were keen to see happen and I am glad that it has now become part of this project. 
This is a really good idea. I want to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister of New Zealand the Rt Hon Helen Clark. She had a passion—a burning passion—to ensure that we remembered those men and women who had fought in many conflicts on behalf of New Zealanders. Over her years as Prime Minister there were a number of things that she did to ensure that our old soldiers were recognised. One of them of course was the return of the Unknown Warrior and the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. It was a wonderful occasion for New Zealand and for this Parliament when the body of the Unknown Warrior was brought back to New Zealand and lay in state here in Parliament and then was taken on Armistice Day down to where the park will be. It was estimated that over 100000 people lined the streets to see the body go past. It was a very moving ceremony and it showed the depth of feeling that New Zealanders have towards those who have paid the price to ensure that we have democracy free speech and freedom in this country. 
I want to not only say thank you to the former Prime Minister but also acknowledge that belatedly this Government has picked up the idea. I think it is a shame that we waited so long. Money was allocated for this park; I was Minister of Transport at the time. Along with Helen Clark the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage we announced $10.9 million in 2007 for this park. It was then stopped after the election and nothing happened for a long time. In fact it was a piece of land that lay there bare with an old fence around it and lots of paper bags and plastic bags blowing across it. Finally a decision was made to proceed. Well done. I am glad that it is proceeding. It will be opened in April 2015 and I hope that at that time we can all come together and commemorate what is going to be a very significant project for all New Zealanders. We strongly support this bill and look forward to its completion with as much speed as possible. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill which is now in its third reading. I feel like we have been speaking about it a bit lately in this House because we have. With the speed at which this bill has gone through its first reading through a very fast select committee process through the second reading through the Committee stage and now the third reading we have been talking about it a lot so I feel well versed in some of the issues. But I still have not heard anyone from the Government benches talk about the real reasons why we have to go through this extraordinary step of passing legislation to get a park—the extraordinary step of passing legislation to get a park. We have created parks for more than 100 years pretty well without legislation in the past and the Greens would prefer to keep it that way. 
I would like to elaborate and say as we have said in the numerous stages of the debate that the Green Party supports the establishment of this park. We would support it through its normal processes; we want to see it completed in time for the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings for Anzac Day commemorations in 2015. We think that as well as providing New Zealanders and our Aussie Anzac cousins who come and our overseas visitors a tranquil place to enjoy throughout the year it would be an amazing way to commemorate the 100th anniversary of those landings which some people say is when New Zealand came of age which obviously was a significant milestone. It is also an opportunity to remember all those servicemen who have died who are commemorated around this Chamber. 
But the Green Party will not be supporting this bill in its third reading because of the process issues because we are going through this extraordinary step of passing legislation to get a park. We do not think it is worthwhile and we still have not heard from the Government benches—and less so from the Labour benches as well. I do not blame them; I think they did it appropriately by announcing it in 2004 because they put money behind it. But no one on the Government side has said why they—remember they were the Government at that time—scrapped the funding in 2009. If they were such huge supporters of the park why did they scrap the funding? It is the question that those on the Government benches do not want to talk about and of course they do not want to talk about it because it is embarrassing. 
I agree that New Zealanders and Wellingtonians of all persuasions want to see a park. We want to see a respectful war memorial. We want to see it in time for 2015 but we do not want to see an abuse of process. I still have not heard from the Government benches why we have to pass legislation to see it by 2015. If there is such astounding goodwill amongst the community—and I acknowledge the support of the council including the commitment of $5 million and the support including from the Green Party to see the outcomes—why do we have to pass legislation? We still have a number of years before the anniversary. Let us not forget that we have known about this anniversary for 97 years. What we know is that the Government— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Oh there’s always a few crazies to hold the process up. That’s why the Green Party’s in existence! 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Simon Bridges is quite happy to talk in interjections about the Green Party but he refuses to talk about why his Government scrapped the funding in 2009 why his party has to abuse the process and why his party has to go through the extraordinary step of passing such laws. I am sure that the member who is also a learned lawyer would prefer to see in respect of some of the more important pieces of legislation crowding out the Order Paper some actual achievement there. What we are doing is passing a bill to get a park and there is a huge opportunity cost. What this bill does obviously is override the Resource Management Act the Historic Places Act and the Public Works Act. It gives the Crown the powers through Order in Council essentially to do whatever it wants to get this park achieved. We are concerned about the precedent this sets for further legislation. We are concerned about the trend from this Government which can be seen in this legislation. 
Of course the Government talks about consultation because it has to—it is a statutory obligation on many functions—but this Government does not genuinely believe in consultation I believe. You can see it in the earthquake legislation which has extraordinary powers of the highest degree and where the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has extraordinary powers. We can see it in the way Government members have approached controversial transport projects. They do not want to hear from the community. They do not want to have a real conversation about what are the alternatives—how do we have smarter transport options. All they want to do is ram things through a fast-tracked Environmental Protection Agency process where people’s rights to have a say are severely constrained. The rights of appeal are virtually non-existent because people can appeal only on points of law. 
But let us get to the good stuff. I would like to acknowledge the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I would like to thank the submitters. Both groups we have to note went through a very fast-tracked process. I think there was only a week between the first reading and the closing of submissions. We would like to acknowledge them and thank them but note that it was a very fast process. We are very concerned that the trend seen in this bill is being abused by this Government and that is why we are not going to support it. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: We haven’t done any late-night urgency in this Parliament. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Well we are not seeing late-night urgency because we have got the— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I miss it. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: The member Simon Bridges interjects about late-night urgency. It is because we have the support of the House to go through a new process called extended hours to deal with legislation of a non-controversial nature. Obviously this is pretty controversial because we are not doing it in extended hours. What we know though is that we still have a significant number of bills on the Order Paper—important parliamentary work that we should be getting down to but instead we are passing laws to get a park. It is absolutely extraordinary. We have known about it for 97 years. The Government refuses to talk about the real reasons why we have to go through this extraordinary step. It is because it stopped the funding. 
I would like to quickly comment on the comments by the member Annette King that it would be nice to have unanimous support. We agree it would be nice to have unanimous support. However there was a better way to go about this: a better way that did not mean we have to set aside a number of laws; a better way that did not mean we have to give the Minister extraordinary powers to do whatever he or she wants through Order in Council. But I have got to take exception to the comment made by the member Annette King that the Greens should put aside their principles and support the bill. The one thing the Green Party will not be doing is putting aside our principles. We will never put aside our principles. To the Green Party that is the core of why we are in this House. This is why New Zealanders voted for us in record numbers at the last election because they want some principle in this House. They do not want the tired pragmatism the petty point-scoring the tribal battle across the House. 
 They want some principle and the Greens will not be putting aside our principle. [ 
Interruption 
] The House is riled up now that is good. I will let the members quieten down for a second because I would like to finish on a serious note. I would like to finish on a serious note. 
I would like to finish with a comment made in today’s newspaper about this. I would like to finish with the comments of historian and journalist Dr Rachel Buchanan from today’s paper which I think sums up exactly why the Greens are taking this principled approach. Dr Buchanan says: “Pukeahu is a subtle powerful significant site and this place deserves to be treated with more respect than this draconian empowering bill seems to allow.” We will continue to vote with principle we will continue to support this park but we will not be supporting this abuse of process. Kia ora Mr Speaker. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That speech by Gareth Hughes was just totally inappropriate for this National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill and it shows the level of incompetence in the Green Party. It is not a party of principle; it is merely a moon that goes round “Planet Labour”. It has achieved nothing will never achieve anything and will do nothing in this Parliament because it can never ever be part of a Government and because its members are objectors and that is all they are. 
This is a bill that has actually had real consultation and real listening between the parties involved in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I would like to thank all the parties that were on the select committee and that worked constructively together. I thank especially the members of the select committee our Minister of Arts Culture and Heritage and also the Labour Party members for their work in this area. 
This is a bill where we did have consultation and where we brought the community in. We actually changed the bill to give the community more avenues for further consultation and effectiveness in the implementation of this bill. It is good work of this Parliament it is for a good cause and it was done to get this project completed by the time of a very important day in our history. It is time that this Parliament supported this bill and even the most principled approach should be one of support. Thank you. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First as the veterans affairs spokesperson for New Zealand First for the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. We have spoken on this on a number of occasions in the last few days and it is very pleasing to see this come for its third reading. I have had the privilege over the years when travelling around the world to visit many very special places of commemoration to do with our loved ones who have lost their lives on behalf of New Zealand on behalf of the Commonwealth fighting for our country. I can recall a few years ago being in Flanders in Belgium and going to the Tyne Cot Cemetery where so many New Zealanders are buried and where the silver fern is on so many white headstones. It is a special place where the quietness the solitude and the peace are really something and it is quite an amazing experience to be there. And when you compare that to many other such memorial parks around the work in great capitals and in great cities around the world you see that similarly their memorials and their cenotaphs are given a high level of respect and are in an appropriate position as they are in cities such as Washington DC London Sydney Canberra and many other great cities of the world where their memorial parts are very much of significance. Just recently we were in Melbourne and were most impressed with the cenotaph in Melbourne and the wonderful large tomb there that you go into in Melbourne. The peace and serenity of the whole place was magnificent. 
So here in Wellington our capital city it is somewhat unfortunate that our National War Memorial our national Cenotaph the National War Memorial Carillon and the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior have a major State highway State Highway 1 marching right across the face of them with busy traffic noise which is not conducive to what should be a very respected place for our nation. So this National War Memorial Park is to be completed by 2015 for the 100th commemoration of the Gallipoli situation of World War I and it is most fitting that this is completed and that we have a National War Memorial Park with an area of green an area of planted gardens of trees and of just peacefulness so that those national memorials and the national Cenotaph do have a much better backdrop than the current roading situation. 
It is very pleasing that the Australian Government is recognising the significance as well alongside us as our Anzac friend and providing $5 million towards it to include an Australian memorial within the park to mark that significance between Australia and New Zealand and of how many Australian and New Zealand soldiers lost their lives at Gallipoli and in many other theatres of war. 
It is unfortunate that the Green Party is not supporting this because of the process. It is understandable that the process has been pressure-cooked and steamrolled somewhat to get this done but we cannot miss the deadline we cannot miss 2015 for the Gallipoli commemorations and we cannot risk there being any hold-ups on it. So in situations like this there are certain circumstances where really there should be full cross-party support to ensure that we get this completed. 
Moving a major road—trenching it and undergrounding it—is no simple task and there will be a major component in it that has to be done. They do not want to have any hiccups with it because it would be a great shame if they did not meet the deadline and therefore the whole essence of getting it done by the 100th anniversary would be lost. So in that respect New Zealand First does support this. We will give it all our support and we will ensure that we lend whatever support we can to the Government and to all the other parties—to the Wellington City Council to the RSA and Veterans Affairs—to ensure that this can be expedited in the fastest manner possible so that we will all be very proud as New Zealanders in 2015 to have a very fitting park of national standard. 
 But at the same time as I mentioned in the House yesterday we cannot just be reliant on marking the 100th year of Gallipoli of marking the recognition of those who have fallen on behalf of this country and of marking a significant part of our history of New Zealand without also recognising that we still have issues around veterans’ affairs here today and tomorrow. There are still veterans in this country who are suffering as a result of going off to many of those theatres of war—going off to Korea going off to Malaya going off to Viet Nam and going off to other more recent theatres of war. They have issues around their health around their family health and around various things that occurred to them during their time of service. So although this project is putting $12 million towards the park and then of course a more significant $70 million - odd to underground State Highway 1 that is a sizable chunk of money and I would like to think that at the same time while we are giving strong multiparty support to getting this project done there would be increased multiparty support and certainly significant support from Government circles to recognise the affairs of veterans who are alive and with us today and who need a lot more support than they are currently being afforded. 
In that respect as I mentioned also yesterday the War Pensions Act review that was carried out 2 years ago by the Law Commission made 170 recommendations for a review of various conditions for our veterans. New Zealand First would like to see much more progress much faster progress on that review being enacted. We are continuing to ask the Government to move on that. Many of these veterans are becoming very elderly very sick and their wives and families are suffering as well. Their wives and families and those around them are being affected as a result. We do have a duty of care in this Parliament and in this country to ensure that our veterans are also being well taken care of. So let us sort out the bricks and mortar of the park sort out the bricks and mortar of the Cenotaph the National War Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior but let us not forget the living flesh that is here today the veterans who also similarly need that financial support and need that moral support from this Parliament to also take care of them. In closing New Zealand First supports this bill and we welcome this third reading being completed today. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I think the place of memory is incredibly important. I was struck over the weekend as I was joining the Scouts of Glendowie and St Heliers celebrating their 100-year anniversary that they drew my attention towards a little water fountain that sits in St Heliers as a memorial to one of their first Scoutmasters Guyon Brookfield who served and died. Awareness of that memorial was being reignited if you like in the young people of today and they are being made aware of it and they were able to connect with that. It reminded me that that is just a small-scale version of what we are talking about here today: a National War Memorial to all our war dead throughout a variety of wars and the importance of allowing their memory to live on in our hearts and minds. I think it is very important that we come together as one House to support this bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill and I encourage our colleagues in the Green Party to support this bill. Principles are important but principles do not exist in a vacuum. So once again I encourage the House to join in one voice to remember those who have served this country so finely. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The arguments for and against and around this piece of legislation the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill have been well rehearsed in the House over the last few days and weeks. We know the situation. The situation is that despite the fact that the building of the war memorial park is a commemoration of the centenary of the landings at Gallipoli we find ourselves in a position where we do need to rush through legislation and legislate for a rushed process by which the park can be built. We know that that has come about because a vision and a plan that was started in 2004 and was in place by 2008 was brought to a halt by the current Government. We know that what is necessary is to assist the Government to get out of that difficult position it has put itself in and to make progress towards ensuring that our veterans are appropriately honoured by having the park constructed and indeed the full National War Memorial completed in time for those centennial commemorations on 25 April 2015. 
We also know that the Greens have put themselves in an interesting position of saying that they support the park and they support the concept but are opposing the legislation. They would say that is a principled position. What sorts of principles would support not getting this park in place in time? They have not answered the question that I asked yesterday I think it was or the day before about what they would do if it was up to them if their vote was going to carry this legislation. I think that is perhaps a broader philosophical question that the Greens need to answer for themselves. 
But as hard as I have been on the Greens about their position on this legislation I also just want to take up David Bennett’s rather glossy synopsis of what this legislation is about. He said that this is an example of ideal consultation. It is not. Let us not try to make this legislation into something that it is not. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: We don’t want to put lipstick on the pig. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Not on David Bennett’s pig no. But what we need to acknowledge is that this is getting the Government out of a situation that it created for itself that it did not need to create. As much as Labour supports the legislation in order to ensure that the war memorial is completed on time let us not gloss over the fact that the Government got itself into this position when it absolutely did not need to. 
I want to take up a different issue related to this war memorial that has been brought to my attention over the last 2 days. That is the fact that there is a small minority of people out there who believe that a war memorial itself is an abomination that it somehow glorifies war and that we are somehow celebrating conflict and death through the construction of a war memorial. Nothing could be further from the truth. I challenge those people who have offered that opinion to me to attend any of the commemorations of the different conflicts that New Zealanders have been involved in over the last century. There are a number of them now. Along with other members of the House I have attended several this year. I want those people who hold that opinion to know that they are sombre occasions where the sacrifice and the service of the people who went and served our nation many of whom did not come home and many of whom did come home but were utterly changed by the experience are acknowledged. It is in no way a glorification of conflict. I think of the experience of watching elderly men and women weeping in memory of their fallen comrades. 
Just this week I heard the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Nathan Guy mention that many of us shared some time with the veterans of Bomber Command at the war memorial this week. One of the speakers there recounted the experience of waking up some mornings to find that their room-mate’s bed had not been slept in and that meant only one thing. That meant that their room-mate had not come home that night and that they were lost. That is an experience that was some 70 years ago now and yet that gentleman was moved to tears. I have heard a number of veterans recount tales that are similar to that. That in no way tries to suggest that we glorify conflict. That shows the true humanity of conflict and reminds us as a nation why it is important to avoid conflict at all costs and to seek a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the conflicts that nations might have. These days it is often not nations warring against each other; it is often non-State participants in conflict that we have to work with and deal with and try to find solutions to the things that divide us. 
So I think having a war memorial is an important component of that memory because if we forget those conflicts if we forget what it is like to send people to war and not have them come home again then we are in danger of putting ourselves in that situation once again without being fully cognisant of what it is that we are doing. That is something I know that all New Zealanders are acutely aware of at the moment given the fact that we have suffered the pain of losing our armed forces personnel especially over the last 2 years in Afghanistan. So I think it is important that we complete the National War Memorial that we do it in an appropriate way that we do it in a way that honours our fallen and those who returned and that we create a space that recognises all the sacrifices of war including I have to say the sacrifices made by those who were conscientious objectors. Absolutely they were people who had the right to object to war. Certainly we can debate the merits of the different conflicts that we have sent people to over the years. But ultimately the people who go and serve their job is not to debate the rights and wrongs of conflict; their job is to go and serve the will of their nation and serve the will of the Government of the day. I think an important aspect of this park is that there will be a space to acknowledge the conscientious objectors and that it will be a quiet and peaceful place to reflect on the nature of sacrifice. Certainly at the moment the war memorial is not a quiet and peaceful place when you are outside it with all the traffic flowing past. 
There is one more thing that I think is important to acknowledge at this point and Andrew Williams touched on this as well. There is one further way in which we need to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of our veterans and that is to modernise the War Pensions Act 1954. It was on Tuesday 1 June 2010 more than 2 years ago that the Law Commission presented its report to Parliament. It is a very fulsome report—it has 170 recommendations in it—and it is understandable that the Government has taken some time to deal with that report but 2 years is too long. The right way to honour our veterans is to ensure that we have modern contemporary and appropriate legislation that ensures our veterans are being taken care of appropriately because their service is greater and the likelihood that they are injured or ill as a result of their service is much greater than it is for the general population. It is unfortunate and very very sad that we have not been able to do more and that this Government has not been able to do more to honour our veterans. 
So in closing we celebrate the fact that the war memorial will be completed in time to commemorate the centenary of the Gallipoli landings and we look forward to much faster action from the Government in terms of doing something real and tangible for our veterans by revamping the War Pensions Act. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In just over 2 years and some months 25 April 2015 will be the day that our nation commemorates the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing at Anzac Cove. Both my grandfathers served there. Both fortunately came home although one was wounded and—can you believe it—was patched up and then sent to Passchendaele before coming home. At Gallipoli 103000 New Zealanders served 50000 were wounded and 18500 made the ultimate sacrifice. At the time we had a country with a population of just over 1 million people. That was a sacrifice almost intolerable to bear. 
So nearly 100 years on it is with great pride and I guess expectation that I support the passage of this legislation the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill through the House. I want to commend the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the diligent chairmanship of David Bennett who has guided this legislation through the select committee process. I am looking forward along with all other New Zealanders to seeing this new memorial park built in time for the commemorations on 25 April 2015 and I commend this bill to the House with pride and expectation. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Do the Greens want a call there? A split call—right? 
Hon Member 
: No. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: OK thank you. You can have the full 10 minutes. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Well I do not think I need the 10 minutes. Thank you for that opportunity. I raced down to the House because I was really keen to take a call on the third reading of the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. I have seen this along with other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee through the process and very hasty it was too. But it was a very constructive process I have to say. It is one of those rare moments in the House when you feel good about something that we actually are voting on. It has not happened very often recently. So I am really pleased that Labour is supporting this bill and that we are going to have as a result of it a wonderful National War Memorial Park which will be built in time for the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli in 2015. 
I have heard other members talking about their experiences of visiting Gallipoli. Well I have not done that; I hope one day that I get over that way. But what I have done and I mentioned it in my second reading speech is I have visited Flanders and I have visited the sites of many of the famous battles in World War I—of Passchendaele Ypres and Messines. When we were in Messines quite recently we were told that the remains of a First World War soldier had been found—someone from the Battle of Messines. It had just happened accidentally. Contractors had been digging a ditch and they came across the remains of a soldier. That was incredible—95 years after that battle they are still finding the remains of people who fought. It has now been confirmed since I was there that it was a New Zealand First World War soldier who fought in the battle who has been discovered. The remains were found alongside two New Zealand infantry soldier badges in Messines as I have said where New Zealand troops were involved in intense fighting in World War I. 
It is really poignant to think that 95 years later we are still finding the remains of soldiers who fought in those dreadful battles of World War I. I could not help thinking now I see that it has been confirmed that he was around 25 years old how unbelievable it must have been for the mother being the mother of a son myself to say goodbye to her young son and to never hear from him again—never to hear from him again. Of course that family is no longer there and they cannot confirm the identity. The only good news about that is that he will be reburied. He will be buried alongside his comrades from the First World War in an appropriate Commonwealth war grave. So I think that when we get to the celebration and commemoration in 2015 I will be thinking about that 25-year-old. You know I feel close to him because I was there when they found his remains and his body. As I said the other day hundreds and hundreds of people lost their lives—New Zealand boys young boys—in that battle. This New Zealand soldier will be buried with a concrete plaque that will say “Known only to God”. That is just unbelievably sad is it not? And there are many like that—from the First World War in particular. 
So commemorating Gallipoli Messines Ypres Verdun and all of the battles that our troops were involved in in the First World War is incredibly important because there are family histories and there are family connections whether or not you agree with war—and I certainly do not. I think it is a reminder for us all to pay respects to the memory of people who went to war believing that they were going to make a difference and that it was about democracy and fighting injustice. I certainly will look forward to the memorial park celebration in April 2015. This is a wonderful park which we have agreed among ourselves in this Parliament apart from the concerns of the Greens should be built. It is a place where we can contemplate the lives of people like the 25-year-old in Messines—the lives lost—but also think about peace and talk about peace. I came away from Messines and those places feeling more strongly than ever that that was an awful war and it should never happen again. 
If nothing else this National War Memorial Park will be about our determination as a nation to fight and make sure that there is never again a war of that magnitude. It was a futile war where our sons were sent away lost to their mothers not named and buried in foreign graves. In many ways this memorial park will pay tribute to those who have given their lives but who have also become a part of our history a part of our blood and a part of who we are as a nation. So I am really pleased to be able to support this bill in the third reading. I think as I said it is good. It is one of the good days in Parliament when you can celebrate or agree on something that is worthwhile and something that we all believe in. This is something that we all believe we need to do for the memory of those who have gone before. Thanks. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 It is a privilege to take this last call on this very important bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. As a former serviceman whose father Lew Sabin and my uncle Lew Gibb were also former servicemen this bill holds a special place with me. Can I just acknowledge all current and all former servicemen in particular and those who have given their lives so that we have the freedoms that we enjoy today. Can I make clear the reverence that I hold certainly this party holds and indeed all New Zealanders hold for those men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice. 
 Anzac Day truly does epitomise the very special place in the hearts of New Zealanders that these veterans and servicemen and current servicemen occupy. This bill really is about providing the mechanics to ensure that in 2015 on Anzac Day we have an appropriate place to pay homage to those people who have laid their lives down for us and those who have served in wars and come home and carry those scars with them for ever. 
This bill is about ensuring that we have a place to celebrate for them. The politics that have been played out today are not what is important here. Those people are special to us. This place will be special to us. They have made sacrifices lest anyone in this House or this nation forget. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill be now read a third time.  
Ayes 104 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Third Readings 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move  
That the Commerce (International Co-operation and Fees) Amendment Bill the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill the Fair Trading (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill and the Telecommunications (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The legislation plays an important role in supporting the Government’s objective of a single economic market with Australia. It builds on other single economic market initiatives progressed by the Government over the past 12 months such as the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act. The aim of this legislation is to facilitate enhanced cooperation between the Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and other overseas competition and consumer regulators. The legislation aims to achieve this by enabling the Commerce Commission to use its statutory powers and information acquired through use of its statutory powers to assist the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and overseas regulators in other countries. This in turn should enhance the commission’s ability to obtain assistance from overseas regulators for its own investigations. 
I would like to quickly outline some of the key features of the regime in the legislation. Firstly the proposed amendments operate on the principle of reciprocity. This should ensure that cooperation arrangements under the legislation result in benefits to New Zealand. Secondly the legislation provides flexibility in the type of cooperation arrangements to be used. By allowing both Government to Government and regulator to regulator types of agreements it allows us to tailor our approach to cooperation agreements with different countries as is appropriate. Thirdly and very important although the regime enhances the commission’s ability to assist overseas competition and consumer regulators it recognises that in doing so there need to be appropriate public interest safeguards. 
The legislation provides such safeguards at two levels. Firstly it does so through requiring specific matters to be taken into account at a ministerial level. Such matters are broad and include having regard to the legal framework in the overseas country and the potential consequences to New Zealand businesses and consumers of a cooperation arrangement. Secondly and separately once a cooperation arrangement is in place the legislation requires specific matters to be considered by the commission on a case by case basis. Providing safeguards at both levels is important in ensuring that appropriate consideration is given to public interest matters at different stages. It should also promote confidence in the integrity and implementation of cooperation arrangements under the legislation. 
Overall the legislation further implements the Government’s commitment to making further progress towards a single economic market with Australia. In doing so the legislation equips the commission with modern-day tools to combat anti-competitive behaviour and enforce consumer laws in the international context of business today. 
I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the legislation including the members of the Commerce Committee the Parliamentary Counsel Office officials and the members of the public and industry representatives who participated in the various submission and policy processes. I want also to acknowledge other parties in the House for their support of this legislation. 
I commend these bills to the House and move that they be read a third time. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 After that third reading contribution on the Commerce (International Co-operation and Fees) Amendment Bill the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill the Fair Trading (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill and the Telecommunications (International Co-operation) Amendment Bill from the member Simon Bridges the whole House has realised just how important this legislation is to the Government’s agenda. We have heard from the member and he has spoken about how important this is in terms of the mutual relationships with Australia and how important it is for business. It is so important that it was introduced on 9 September 2008 by me when I was the Minister of Commerce. That is how long it has been on the Order Paper. 
Admittedly that was just prior to a general election so we were not expecting really to see it dealt with within the first 100 days. Of course the Government had its own agenda for the first 100 days. Everyone knows that giving anyone 100 days to do something is a political statement and that every party is judged as it takes office on its first 100 days. So we were not expecting this legislation to get its first reading within the Government’s first 100 days. We understand that. We expect that. So when did it get its first reading? Did it get its first reading just after the 100 days was up? No? Well maybe the second 100 days? Did it get it within the second 100 days? Or maybe the third 100 days or the fourth 100 days or the fifth 100 days? That would be getting up there. But no this legislation got its first reading on 25 May 2010—2010. So it was actually quite a long way after the Government was elected to office. Yet we have heard how important this legislation is. 
Maybe it got held up at the Commerce Committee. You know it had its first reading back in May 2010 and I mean we are dealing with it in 2012. So maybe it was held up by that select committee which was by that stage chaired by me. I was the chair of the Commerce Committee when this legislation was referred to it. I was the Minister who introduced the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and I subsequently become the chair of the select committee that received the bill on 25 May 2010. Maybe I was a bit slack and maybe we did not deal with the bill as quickly as we should have. When did submissions on that bill close? Submissions on that bill closed on 30 June 2010. So we gave a reasonable time for people to make submissions on it and we reported back the bill—this is probably what has been the hold-up—on 22 November 2010. So actually we held that bill for less than the 6 months—well no about the 6 months—that we would normally expect to have a bill for and we reported it back within that 6-month period. So actually we did our job. 
 So when did it get its second reading? Well it must have been in 2011. Surely it got its second reading in 2011. Maybe there have been other things that have been holding it up. But actually no I went back and checked that. The second reading was on 3 May 2012—2012. The Committee stage was closely after that on 29 May and then concluded on 31 July. And here we are now on 27 September 2012. For legislation that is so important to the Government—as we have heard from the Minister speaking on behalf of the Minister who inherited it from the last Minister who inherited it from the Minister before who was me—it actually has had quite a circular route to this point. But I do want to say that we do support this legislation and I do want to say that we improved the quality of the legislation within the context of the select committee hearings as well. 
It is not often that Parliament addresses legislation that has a degree of retrospectivity included within it that is not subject to a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet as is the case in this particular instance. But actually the select committee amended the definition of “compulsorily acquired” to make it absolutely crystal clear that it was retrospective in this regard. We were worried that the definition as introduced could lead to existing information being excluded by the presumption against retrospectivity and we did not want that to happen. We wanted to make it clear that all compulsorily acquired information would be subject to this because the guidance was there in the agreements that it had to be subject to ministerial approval either Government to Government or regulator to regulator. 
We had a long discussion about Government to Government and regulator to regulator approval as well because of course we have issues for example with utilising our relationship with Australia where different states have different regulators and in some instances an overarching one. So I think that it is important to have the ministerial approval and to have the flexibility while maintaining appropriate safeguards and that is what we did as a select committee. 
We did note that there was some concern and the Minister actually referred to this in his comments. He said that there was a concern expressed that New Zealand would be sharing information with a country or a regulator without “reciprocity”—I was actually looking forward to using that word myself in this debate and he got there first—or the fact that the information may not be treated as secure or may not be secure once it leaves New Zealand. Again I think that it was pretty clear in the advice that we received from officials and the advice that we actually accepted that New Zealand simply would not enter into an arrangement that did not provide the level of protection that is required when one is dealing with this type of information. 
The last issue that I just wanted to touch on briefly—and I do not think that the whip would terribly mind if I just touched on this matter briefly; I am just checking—was the question of international trade interests being protected. There will be issues that arise from time to time that will be subject to consideration by such a request for compulsorily acquired information where in fact it may not be in New Zealand’s trade interests to have that information made available. In those cases the Commerce Commission would consult the Minister of Trade after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and then rely on a statement by the Minister of Trade as to whether providing the information or assistance would significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interests. Then basically before providing such information the commission would have to be satisfied that the information would not significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interests. I think that that protection is a pretty strong protection and one that certainly was well received I think when we reported the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill to the House. 
I will mention one other point because I did not get the nod from the whip that I was looking for and he is still not nodding. I just wanted to touch briefly on the question of whether the statutory powers of compulsion that the commission has can be used only in relation to enforcement and adjudication within New Zealand and there also being legal constraints on the provision to overseas regulators of confidential compulsorily acquired information that is already held by the commission. I think that this does limit the willingness of overseas regulators to provide assistance to the commission as cross-jurisdictional assistance tends to be based on that concept of mutual assistance or reciprocity as I have already mentioned. 
I think that possibly I have got the nod now so I think that on that basis I would like to say that I really did enjoy chairing the Commerce Committee when legislation like this was supported across the House. I am certainly welcoming after—well since it started its journey on 9 September 2008 it has actually just had its fourth anniversary. So it is very pleasing to see it finally receive its third reading and the support of all the House. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak in support of the bills we are looking at that were formerly parts of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill which is touching on all of these five bills of international cooperation. I do thank the previous speaker the Hon Lianne Dalziel for the history lesson—what a great grasp of figures and dates. One of the things that we— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Too much time on her hands. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: I think so too much time. In fact if we had not detoured through memory lane we might have got through this a lot faster which is what she was hoping. 
It is important to understand in this modern age of global trade that things are happening very very rapidly and especially as we see New Zealand and Australia lay out their ultra-fast broadband. This creates even greater opportunities for businesses on both sides of the Tasman to cooperate and work together in a single economic market which we know is very important for us and is also very important for our Australian brothers and sisters or cousins or whatever you may refer to them as over the Tasman. 
 This legislation is going to allow that better trans-Tasman work. It is going to allow enforcement of competition and consumer laws. This is incredibly important because we know that an even playing field is what competition thrives on and when we have good honest competition we know that the consumer is the person who will benefit most of all because competition means efficiency in product development and efficiency in marketing and sales because everybody is competing for the consumer’s interest. In the final analysis when there is that competition the consumer is getting the best deal that is possible: high-quality services at the best deal possible. This legislation is going a long way to support that and it is very good to see it progress here to its third reading. 
International cooperation between regulators is becoming very much part of the global market place. We know that as a nation we are big big traders internationally. I think somewhere between 85 percent and 90 percent of what we manufacture gets sent overseas. We know that this legislation matters a lot for us in terms of our ability to interact on that global stage so it is important for its progress to go through the House in this final reading. Our ambition is that a New Zealand company can do business as easily in Australia as it can at home and vice versa. We know that as ultra-fast broadband rolls out in Australia and in New Zealand there will be that fantastic opportunity for people to trade interact discuss make business plans and cooperate as if they were in the same room. We are yet to see the advantage and the benefit of that in our businesses and I think it is going to be outstanding. I think it is going to see great advancement for businesses in New Zealand. 
So the easier we can make it for companies to operate in both countries by removing unnecessary barriers the greater the opportunities will be for business to make big productivity gains and take up the new opportunities that will underpin long-term business growth. We know that New Zealand is in far better shape than many nations around the world. We know that Australia has done very well during a time when many other countries have struggled. So it is good that we can have this arrangement particularly with Australia and other regulators as well of course so that we can continue to build on the strengths that we have as a nation. I am very pleased to support this. I think that this is going to be very positive and progressive for businesses and also for the regulators of both Australia and New Zealand. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I was rather hoping that the last member Jonathan Young would take his full call and we would come back for a fresh start in a couple of weeks from now but this is how it is. It is my first time on this Commerce (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and the legislation arising from it. I have not been involved with this legislation at all. Therefore it is always instructive when you have to prepare yourself to take a call at the final stage—when one has to take a call at the final stage—and I have enjoyed doing that. 
The purpose of the legislation has been well read by the Minister from the— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I’m helping you—I’m getting you to the bell. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well I am happy to go to the bell and I shall come back after the bell. It might be better for me to simply respond and wait for the bell so that I can have a fresh start the next time I come or I can actually talk about the timing factors that Lianne Dalziel has already spoken about. Of course what she has not spoken about is how quickly the Australians did this. They had the memorandum of understanding in 2006-07. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.