Hughes Gareth: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9688. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a brief call on the instruction on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. As members are well aware but maybe people watching and trying to learn about our democracy and Parliament might not be aware under Standing Order 286 when a Government Minister instructs that a bill must be reported back from a select committee in less than the traditional time it allows Parliament to debate for an unlimited amount of time this instruction.What we are seeing is this Government giving this legislation only 2 months—only 2 months—to be reported back to this House. Remember this is legislation that only recently was given to the Opposition. It is legislation that had no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. It is legislation that is being introduced in urgency and it is important that the Opposition has a say. This is in fact the only protection our country our democracy has when the Government abuses I believe the system needlessly for a bill such as this.We have not seen a bill pass with the unanimity of this House. We have seen a bill pass its first reading by the smallest of margins—61 votes to 59. We see a bill being passed under accusations by the New Zealand First Party of bully-boy tactics. We see a bill entering this House under urgency with a constrained shortened select committee period. Select committees are vitally important to our democracy. That is where the real work is done. That is where I wish more people would actually watch and tune into the work that MPs across all the party lines do because people would see MPs work collaboratively. They would see MPs not always butting heads as they do inside this Chamber. They would see legislation actually improved. You see experts the public and interested parties get a say and that is not what we are going to see with this important bill which deals with issues of security issues of spying issues of surveillance and issues of civil liberties and human rights. I think the Hon David Parker quite aptly explained why select committees are so important in our unicameral parliamentary system where there are so few constraints on executive power.We have seen no arguments I believe from the Government benches. In fact no National members—I see what about eight in the Chamber today—have stood up and been prepared to take a call to explain why this bill is going to be reduced to having only a 2-month period at a select committee instead of the traditional period. We have seen some waffly claims which I think most New Zealanders do not take particularly seriously of potential nuclear weapons information acquisition through New Zealand. We have seen some claims of cyber-attacks. The Green Party takes these allegations seriously. We take the security of our country seriously. Obviously we do not supportor in any way want to be seen to support those who use in the name of political goals violence such as obviously what is in the definition of terrorism used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the States.We take these issues seriously and that is why we do not think the Government has gone about it the right way. If the Government was concerned about an imminent or urgent threat to our country’s security it would have gone about this bill in an entirely different way. It would have convened a meeting of the parties. It would have done it in a much different way as we have seen in our country’s history over the decades and centuries. But instead what we see is politics being played.As Steffan Browning said we have got the US Attorney General and representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New Zealand and representatives of other spying partners of which New Zealand is one of five members—the little finger of the fist some people call it. Mr Browning quite rightfully I think posed the question as to whether we are seeing this bill introduced under urgency today to send a message to the US that New Zealand takes its concerns seriously—that New Zealand will do whatever it can if Washington beckons. We have seen it with Dotcom. We have seen it even with copyright legislation where the WikiLeaks cables have shown that the US Government asked New Zealand to jump and the National Government said: “How high?”. This is why it is abhorrent and I believe egregious that legislation containing such important issues with such significant ramifications for our country and for our human rights and civil liberties is getting such a constrained select committee process.What we know is that 80-plus New Zealanders have likely been unlawfully spied upon over 18 months and I think this is a crucial thing when we are putting the context of a 2-month report-back period. Over 18 months we have seen potentially unlawful spying on Mr Dotcom and on other New Zealanders potentially over a longer time. For 18 months we could have sorted out and dealt with this issue but instead the Government wants through urgency and through a constrained select committee process to rush the issue. That is not how good legislation is made. That is not how good enduring political consensus is made. Despite a multiplicity of views in this House—which is only right in a mixed-member proportional system; obviously we are not agreeing with the Labour Party on everything and we obviously do not agree with the National Party on everything—we should have a more considered deliberative time to go through and get this stuff right.We should have had an inquiry and this is why the Green Party has been calling for that. A constrained 2-month period at a committee will not cut the mustard. It is nowhere near an inquiry but this is the closest thing our country is going to get.So I urge a National member if they stand behind the decision of the Minister responsible for the GCSB to take a call and defend your arguments. Put your arguments so that the people of our fine country can hear them. But no we see members shaking their heads. We are not going to see a National member taking a call but I urge them to.I guess it is not a good day to be a National member is it? We have got the Prime Minister talking only about Aaron Gilmore—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member is outside the scope of the debate.GARETH HUGHES: Good call Mr Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge the call. I think it is bad process that we are seeing today. It is not a good day to be a National member. But look if those members are going to take decisions like this to rush bills through in urgency and if they are going make a decision to put the bill through only a 2-month report-back period stand up and defend it. Put your words in theHansard if you defend it. I challenge a National MP to put your words on the record of this House.