Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15293] 
3. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree with the International Federation of Journalists that if the Search and Surveillance Bill proceeds in its present form it will “undermine the long-held right of journalists to protect the confidentiality of sources”; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No I do not. The media’s right to protect confidential sources under the Evidence Act 2006 has been expressly carried over to this bill for examination orders production orders and all searches. Under the bill a journalist presented with an examination order or a production order may refuse to answer questions or produce documents that would reveal the identity of the journalist’s source. 
Keith Locke 
: Is it not true that before the claim of privilege is heard the journalist may be forced to produce those documents and disclose confidential sources leading the  
New Zealand Herald  
editors to say that these powers to reveal confidential sources threaten “the public airing of some of the country’s most important and uncomfortable news stories”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. I think what the member is actually referring to is a situation where the claim to the privilege may be disputed. In those circumstances it may be necessary to refer the material to a judge who can determine the validity or otherwise of the claim. That is the procedure that is set out under the Evidence Act which the Green Party did not oppose when it was debated 3 years ago. 
Keith Locke 
: What concerns does he have that the power to require documents to be produced on request under the threat of a jail term is now available to a host of Government departments—for example the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry of Fisheries etc.? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: None. 
Keith Locke 
: Will he consider deleting the examination orders in the Search and Surveillance Bill because in the opinion of the International Federation of Journalists  
New Zealand Herald  
editors etc. they contravene the right of New Zealanders to silence and may force journalists to disclose their sources? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Keith Locke 
: Does he agree with the International Federation of Journalists that the Search and Surveillance Bill will “erode the democratic role of working journalists in New Zealand” the federation not being satisfied with a subsequent judicial hearing of a right to privilege if the Government agencies have already run off with documents containing the journalists’ confidential sources? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. That is hyperbolic nonsense. 
Keith Locke 
: If it is hyperbolic nonsense why did the chair of the select committee Chester Borrows tell Radio New Zealand National that the bill may warrant further consideration and that he took seriously the criticisms of the journalists and will the Minister not take another look at the concern expressed by a range of journalists including their international federation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that the Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for what the chair of a select committee may have said. In fact he probably should not even be commenting on it. So I do not believe that it is appropriate for to me to allow that question. I apologise to the member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister can—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think the Minister can take into account comments a chair of a select committee made publicly. I think that is certainly within the rules. If the comments are done in a public way Ministers can if they wish either take them into account or— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we get into dangerous territory if we have Ministers commenting on what chairs of select committees do. They are matters for Parliament not for the executive. Once a matter is reported back to the House I am more comfortable about it being commented on but while a matter is before a select committee I am not comfortable about it at all. I do not want to deny the member his supplementary question so I invite him to reword it to see whether he can bring it within order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to review the ruling you just made. I think it is one worth another look after a bit of time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am always prepared to on request look at what I have done. Ministers have no responsibility for the chairs of select committees. But I invite Keith Locke to bring his question within the Standing Orders. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister take another look at the bill and the possibility of revising it given the concern expressed by a wide range of journalists including the International Federation of Journalists and by some political figures who have commented publicly expressing an interest in further considering the bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Keith Locke 
: Mr Speaker I take your standard that you do not like press statements being tabled but in this case the statement from the International Federation of Journalists is on an international website and might not be available. I seek leave to table the statement made by the International Federation of Journalists on 12 November headed “NZ bill Undermines Journalists’ Rights”. 
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. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will the Government secure Labour’s support for the now substantially redrafted legislation by taking up its offer to provide that support if the Government includes in the bill specific provisions to better affirm press freedom provides for better controls on Serious Fraud Office powers and makes production and examination orders available only for the most serious offences and under the supervision of judges? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister has no responsibility for the Serious Fraud Office or any aspect of its administration. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was about whether the Government would be willing to amend the legislation in the three ways indicated. The Minister has carriage of the bill so he has responsibility for all the matters that are in it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that in answering the Minister pointed out that the Minister of Justice does not have responsibility as I understand it for the Serious Fraud Office which was one of the components of the member’s question. I cannot I believe constrain the Minister beyond that; I think he did answer that part of the question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Labour Party to the Minister offering support for the legislation if it is redrafted in the ways indicated in my question. 
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.