O'Rourke Denis: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: 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:12593. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First does support the motion. We think that there are good grounds for a reconsideration of Part 1 of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. I agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee that there has in fact been a very long debate. But in fact there has been a very great amount to debate on this bill and I for one did not get a full opportunity certainly to discuss all of the matters that I would have wished to debate even during the debate that we have had. It did take quite a long period to get through it as far as it has gone. But there remain a lot of issues that are un-debated so I do not accept the argument to begin with that the fact that there has already been along debate necessarily means that all the issues that members wish to debate have in fact been debated. That is a very important consideration for us.But there are some good reasons as I have said for reconsidering Part 1. The most important one of these is uncertainty. We have heard the Prime Minister today answer some very good questions I felt about Part 1 of the bill and that resulted only I believe in even more confusion and even more uncertainty than before those questions were asked and answered. Having regard to what the Prime Minister said and then rereading the clauses that were referred to both by those who have been asking the questions—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you are a stickler for parliamentary procedure particularly good behaviour from members. It is very good behaviour for members to stick to the Standing Orders and the member speaking is straying well wide of Standing Order 173(5): “It may not extend to the principles objects or provisions of the bill [itself]” which the member is now doing. It is simply confined to the subject matter of the motion—in other words the question of should we or should we not open up Parliament. It is deliberately restrictive—there is no question about that—because when these Standing Orders were written as you are probably well aware there was a desire to terminate some of these interminable debates that Parliament had seen before on these sorts of motions.DENIS O’ROURKE: Speaking to the point of order I made it very clear during what I was saying that the reason why we should be considering this motion is the uncertainty around Part 1 specifically relating to the answers and questions in the House today. It has got nothing to do with the substance of those things. It has got to do with whether there is a need for further debate because of the uncertainty that has been generated by what has been said by the Prime Minister today and also at other times. It has got to do with that not the substance of the sections themselves.Hon Trevor Mallard: You probably do not need a lot of assistance here because the width of this debate I think was pretty well established during the contribution of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. He—as I am sure you are aware—substantially broadened away from what would otherwise have been considered appropriate. As you are aware once a debate has been broadened then members are allowed to respond as long as they do not get further outside and as long as they stay within the then broadened debate. As I moved the debate I worked quite hard to stay narrow. That was undone in the contribution of Gerry Brownlee.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just remind members that this debate is a very narrow one and it is on the reasons why we need to go back. I want to refer members back to Speakers’ ruling 81/1 which states: “(1) This is a procedural motion … and it is a narrow debate. The only matter under debate is whether the committee should have the power to examine and adopt this Supplementary Order Paper. (2) Members cannot debate the content of the amendments; they are tabled for members to look at.” Just to remind members I say that it is a very narrow debate and it has to be on the reasons why we need to go back.DENIS O’ROURKE: That is exactly what I was saying. The reason for us having to go back is that what we have already debated has been called into question in terms of whether what the Prime Minister claims the bill says and what it does say are the same thing. That is the uncertainty that I refer to because the Prime Minister has said in the House today that the bill says certain things especially with regard to section 15B inserted by clause 14 and section 8A inserted by clause 6 concerning the purposes of the bill. That has introduced a high level of uncertainty I believe and any of the public watching this debate would not have had any confidence that the National Government actually does know what this bill says and yet it has accused the Opposition of notunderstanding the bill and I think the reverse is the case. That level of uncertainty means that this motion is what we should be passing today so that we can deal with exactly those issues.A second issue is this: there has been concern expressed in the public even by those who purport to support this bill about the process for the passing of this legislation if indeed it does pass. That would be allayed significantly if the Committee of the whole House were permitted to look again at Part 1 which is the substance of this motion and is the substance of the bill as a whole. I believe that the people of New Zealand want to hear this Parliament look again at Part 1 so that we can make good law that is certain and that the people of New Zealand at least understand whether they support it or not.Finally what harm would it do for the Committee of the whole House to take another hour or two to look at a piece of legislation that has gained significant notoriety out there in the public arena? We need to look at that.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No it hasn’t.DENIS O’ROURKE: The opposition says no. Rather the National opposition says no but everybody in this country does feel—Hon Anne Tolley: You’re the Opposition.DENIS O’ROURKE: I said “the National opposition” the National opposition to us—Hon Anne Tolley: No no. We’re the Government the National Government.DENIS O’ROURKE: The Minister is wasting time. The issue is that people in this country want to hear this debate held again because they do not understand this and we should look at it again for those reasons.