Faafoi Kris: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: 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:12619. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Thank you very much Mr Chair for the chance to speak to the title and commencement clauses of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. Just as my colleague Andrew Little finished off in his speech by giving an alternative title to this piece of legislation I would also like to offer up an alternative. I would like to scrub everything other than the word “Security” and have the words “Peter Dunne Retirement Plan Security Bill” because the only reason that this piece of very important legislation is going to pass through the House is Peter Dunne. He is someone who went to speak to the media and said “I will never ever fathom voting for a piece of legislation where New Zealanders are spied on by the GCSB.” and no more than a week later changes his mind. I hope that the good people of Ōhariu take a look at the performance of Mr Dunne in this respect because he was someone who entered that “willing buyer willing seller” scenario and has bought himself a situation where I think we can ably call this bill the “Peter Dunne Retirement Plan Security Bill”.This bill has been rushed and has been pushed and has been bulldozed through this House and will pass with a wafer-thin majority of one vote: 61 to 60. I do not think that most New Zealanders are very impressed at the way this Government has gone about trying to get this legislation through the House this very important legislation with such a wafer-thin majority given the major concerns that people have about it. We certainly saw that in the protests 2 or 3 weeks ago and in the public meeting that washeld in Auckland last night with a turnout of somewhere between 1500 and 2000 people.I want to talk about an amendment in the name of our deputy leader of the Labour Party Grant Robertson which is looking to amend clause 2 the commencement clause within this bill. For the benefit of those listening and watching at home—and I think seriously there will be a sizeable audience of people watching this debate—Hon Maurice Williamson: Don’t kid yourself.KRIS FAAFOI: —not for any contribution from Government members who are so proud of this piece of legislation that the best that we get from across the Chamber is a closure motion. They are so proud of this bill that all we get from that side of the Chamber is a closure motion—that is the sum of the contribution.Hon Maurice Williamson: The last three viewers turned off when this member started speaking.KRIS FAAFOI: Get up and take a call then Minister. Get up and take a call and just show us how proud you are of this legislation. You are quite happy to interject. I would quite happily see you get up and take a call. But I doubt that you will get up and speak to it because none of the others have gotten up and had the—Darien Fenton: Gumption.KRIS FAAFOI: —gumption to get up and take a call. Getting back to before I was interrupted by the member who will no doubt not take a call and who will stay silent in theHansard  Grant Robertson’s amendment does look for this legislation to come into force 12 months after the date of Royal assent and only after a full independent inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence agency has been completed. This is something that Labour has found fundamental during this debate around this bill. Some people at home may say that this is just political and that the Labour Party wants to see an independent inquiry just for political reasons.But let us just have a look at who else wants an independent inquiry: the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission said in a report that it put forward off its own back: “a full and independent inquiry”—Hon Trevor Mallard: Is David Rutherford a National Party member?KRIS FAAFOI: I do not know the answer to that question Mr Mallard. The Human Rights Commission said: “a full and independent inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence services [needs to] be undertaken as soon as possible.” I also want to give some context to those comments because when David Rutherford made those comments off his own back he got attacked by the Prime Minister. The Human Rights Commission office got attacked by the Prime Minister not just because of what it said but the Prime Minister said that it should watch out for what it says because its funding may be at stake—it should watch out for what it says because its funding may be at stake.But the Human Rights Commission went on. It said: “What we cannot be certain of without an inquiry of this nature is that the correct balance is being struck between protecting national security and the personal security of New Zealanders and protecting the other human rights of people in New Zealand and what diversions from the correct path may have been taken or could be taken without adequate safeguards and oversight in place.” The Human Rights Commission has serious reservations—