Parker David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12595. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):For a start can I deal with just a couple of points that have been raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. He said that because the Part 1 debate on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill was long we should not be able to recommit.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No I didn’t say that.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well I heard you say that. I might have misunderstood what you said but I thought you were saying that because there had been a long Part 1 debate it should have been raised as part of that debate and we should not go back. I think that is wrong. There was a long Part 1 debate because this is a serious matter and there are lots of hooks in it.The second point I would make is about this reference we have had that since that debate has concluded the Prime Minister can somehow fix this legislation in the third reading debate. That is a misapprehension of the relevance given to third reading debates by the courts. The courts only ever have regard to third reading debates in the event of ambiguity. They do it to cure ambiguity; they do not do it to rewrite the law. In this case it is clear that there is not ambiguity but that the Prime Minister wants to read this law in a different way to that which it naturally reads.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!Hon DAVID PARKER: “Rubbish!” says Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No I didn’t say that.Hon DAVID PARKER: You did. You said: “Rubbish!”.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No I didn’t. If it had been me I would have said “Utter rubbish!”.Hon DAVID PARKER: OK “Utter rubbish!” from the Leader of the House.The problem arises from the fact that the definitions in respect of what the Government Communications Security Bureau can look at are so broad as to include the content of emails. That is the essential problem. It is not ambiguous. That is what the law says in this bill. The Prime Minister since we had the Part 1 debate in the Committee stage has said that he is not going to interpret it that way. When he is called to grant warrants he is going to—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think I can—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well you probably can anticipate what I am going to say. The Hon David Parker is beginning to stray very very wide of the motion. You were good enough to allow him to make a contribution to outline why he thinks the Committee should put more time into a part that has been previously been decided upon but to start arguing the merits of the decision as he is now doing is not appropriate inside Standing Order 173(5).Chris Hipkins: Speaker’s ruling 21/2 stresses that it is the right of a member to raise a point of order but once a matter has been raised and has been ruled upon it is disorderly to continue to raise that matter. I have lost count how many times Mr Brownlee has raised the matter of relevance in this debate and each time the matter has been ruled upon therefore he must be getting into the area where he is becoming disorderly by continuing to interrupt members to question the relevance of it. The Chair is the judge of relevance. There can be no doubt that Mr Brownlee has a view of how the Chair should be interpreting the relevance of this debate but continuing to raise it with the Chair is disorderly.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just advise members that it is a narrow debate. I have been generous in my calling and I just caution members that we actually do need to debate this in the narrow way in which the Speakers’ rulings allow us to do so.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well the point as to process is driven from the fact that a third reading speech cannot fix legislation that is flawed. A third reading speech can be in very limited situations—Grant Robertson: That’s why we need this.Hon DAVID PARKER:That is why we need to recommit it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not.Hon DAVID PARKER: I am afraid it is Mr Brownlee. That is exactly the point. We have heard the Prime Minister say he is going to fix this in a third reading speech. A court can have regard to third reading speeches only in the case of ambiguity. We are saying it is not ambiguity; it is something that needs to be fixed in Part 1.In terms of the Leader of the House’s contribution that this was going to lead to a very long open-ended recommittal to Part 1 the motion itself says that the reconsideration of Part 1 is limited to the consideration of this one Supplementary Order Paper. It is not all Supplementary Order Papers. It is not the whole of Part 1. This motion if passed would allow the House to recommit to Committee stage “for the purposes of considering and if it thinks fit adopting the amendments in David Shearer’s name set out in Supplementary Order Paper 331”—I think it is meant to be read—“to prevent access to the content of New Zealanders’ emails unless absolutely necessary under section 8A.” So it is not an open-ended recommittal of Part 1; it is the committal of Part 1 for this very narrow consideration of this issue which since the Committee finished its consideration of Part 1 has been raised as an issue by the Prime Minister through the media.We are dealing with civil liberties. We are dealing with the power of the State to intervene in the private lives of New Zealanders. It seems to me that this is a very appropriate case—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read the bill.Hon DAVID PARKER: I have read the bill Mr Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not well.Hon DAVID PARKER: I suggest I understand it at least as well as you—at least as well as Mr Brownlee. I am going to end my contribution there because the other points have been well made but this assertion by the Prime Minister that somehow a third reading speech can fix a flaw in the legislation is wrong.