Thursday, 18 August 2016

THURSDAY, 18 AUGUST 2016

THURSDAY, 18 AUGUST 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Kenya—Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on Delegated Legislation

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am sure that members would wish to welcome members of the Kenyan Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, led by the Hon William Cheptumo, who are present in the gallery.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): As notified to the Business Committee, when the House resumes on Tuesday, 23 August I intend to move that the sitting of the House be extended from 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 August 2016 for the consideration of the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill, the Committee stage of the Judicature Modernisation Bill, and the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill, and that the House adjourn at 11.30 a.m. for the State luncheon honouring the service of the Rt Hon Lieutenant General Sir Jerry Mateparae as the Governor-General of New Zealand. The Government will also complete the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation Bill and will look to progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday, 24 August will be a members’ day.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Can I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government would be willing to incorporate Nuk Korako’s member’s bill into the Statutes Amendment Bill that will be debated next week?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): That is a very interesting suggestion. Of course, to do that now would require leave of the House, so perhaps he needs to talk to one of his coalition partners.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Can I ask whether the Government would be willing to support an amendment to that bill, which would not require leave but would simply require a majority vote in the House?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The member knows well that you cannot put an amendment to the amendments that are in the bill. It would have to be there in the first place.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the Leader of the House could point to the authority he relies upon when stating that an amendment to a statutes amendment bill cannot be put in the Committee stage.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I will do this very slowly, all right? A statutes amendment bill amends statutes. Those amendments are in the Statutes Amendment Bill now, and they have been through the process of other parties all agreeing to them. We have now got a proposal from that member over there that what would be an amendment to a bill not currently in the Statutes Amendment Bill should itself be amended—utterly ridiculous. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will now proceed with the balance of proceedings.

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Answers, Amending Only by Personal Explanation

Mr SPEAKER: Yesterday Chris Hipkins raised in the House the issue of Ministers clarifying earlier answers to questions on subsequent days. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has also written to me about this matter. Having considered it very carefully overnight, I think they are both absolutely right. An incorrect answer to a question cannot be corrected or modified by way of clarification. I remind members of Speaker’s ruling 200/3 “A personal explanation can be used about an answer a Minister has given. That is always the way in which a misleading reply is cleared up.”, Speaker’s ruling 200/4 “The normal course of action as soon as one becomes aware of an error in an oral answer is to take the earliest opportunity to explain.”, and, finally, Speaker’s ruling 200/5 makes it clear that “A correction to an answer can only be taken by personal explanation …”. In future, an attempt to correct an answer by way of clarification on a subsequent day will not be acceptable, and I want to thank the members who have raised this issue with me.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I have an interjection like that again on what is an important matter I will, unfortunately, be asking that member to leave.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No one would notice. Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the first comment from Mr Brownlee, but I suspect it was not helpful to the order of the House. Can the Minister move immediately to his point of order.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I understand that on 17 August—that is, Tuesday—probably later in the day, the Rt Hon Winston Peters did as you advised him he should in the House and lodged a breach of privilege in relation to this particular matter, such was his insistence that he was right and everyone else was wrong. Once that letter of privilege was received by you, it should have triggered Speaker’s ruling 220/6, which states that “[Once] the matter of privilege is before the Speaker, then it is inappropriate for it to be raised in the House in any way whatsoever until the Speaker has made the relevant decision on the matter.” So the first question I have is: why did the Clerk then allow the question that was repeated on Wednesday, and, secondly, why was the privilege letter not received by the Prime Minister’s office until after question time on Wednesday?

Mr SPEAKER: I will deal with the second point first. I cannot explain why the letter was not received by the Prime Minister’s office until after question time. That would be a matter for a discussion with the member who has lodged such a letter with me. The letter was received by me just prior to question time on the 17th—I think, from memory, at 12.47. I certainly did not have a chance to look at that letter prior to question time.

In reference to Speaker’s ruling 220/6, I think the other one that is also relevant is Speaker’s ruling 220/5. On the face of it—on the face of the reading of those two Speakers’ rulings—I think Mr Brownlee makes a very reasonable interpretation of those two rulings, but I have spent considerable time looking back as to the reason and the background for those two Speakers’ rulings. Speaker’s ruling 220/5 was a ruling that was made by Speaker Wall in 1986. On that occasion a member had lodged a breach of privilege with the Speaker, and then subsequently that member took the opportunity to attempt to debate it during his debate contribution in the House. Speaker Wall ruled that the mentioning of the breach of privilege was unacceptable, and told the member to desist.

The second Speaker’s ruling, Speaker’s ruling 220/6, is a ruling made in 2011 by Speaker Smith. On that occasion a breach of privilege had been raised by a Labour member of Parliament. Contemporaneously, a colleague of that Labour member of Parliament sought to also place a members’ notice of motion on the Order Paper. The Office of the Clerk refused to accept that notice of motion. Consequently, Speaker Smith was asked to intervene, and did so. Effectively, his ruling, Speaker’s ruling 220/6, ruled that a breach of privilege takes precedence over a members’ notice of motion.

I do conclude by saying that any subsequent airing of such matters that have been raised by a breach of privilege in the House through question time is unlikely to strengthen the final determination I make in finding that there has been a breach of privilege.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I thank you for your first, detailed ruling. On that second issue that has just been raised, I wanted to test with you the issue of members continuing to question a Minister on an issue that they have raised a privilege complaint with you about. The issue could well be that they feel the House has been misled, for example, and they have raised a breach of privilege complaint with you. They could continue to question the Minister on that topic without referring to the fact that they have made a breach of privilege complaint. The complaint would still be valid based on the facts at the time the complaint was made, even if Ministers then give other answers that subsequently contradict it. I just want to be sure that the lodging of a breach of privilege complaint would not then prevent a member continuing to question a Minister on the same topic.

Mr SPEAKER: That is exactly what I am saying. I am saying that those two Speakers’ rulings, once you look at them, would indicate that former Speakers have made a decision that a matter cannot be debated simply because a breach of privilege has been lodged. When I studied the background of them they were not an attempt to stop the matter being raised in further questions. Frankly, a member could lodge a breach of privilege and maybe not inform his own caucus colleagues or other members of an Opposition. How would anybody know that a breach of privilege has been lodged? So questions can continue to be asked, but I do remind members of my final comment. If they continue to ask questions, I think in some cases it tends to weaken the case for a breach of privilege ruling finally being made.

Points of Order

Oral Questions—Obligation to Answer

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: On a different matter?

CHRIS HIPKINS: It is a very different matter. I was not aware that you were going to be ruling on the other matter, but I want to raise with you an issue regarding a Minister’s obligation to answer questions—the public interest test obligation that exists within Speakers’ rulings for Ministers in answering questions. The relevant Speaker’s ruling—I had it here a minute ago, but I have been flicking around looking at the other Speakers’ rulings that you have been referring to—

Hon Member: You’ve lost it.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —and I have lost it, but actually I have found it again, sorry. Speaker’s ruling 193/3, a ruling by Speaker Wilson, lists down some of the matters that could be considered in a Minister refusing to answer a question in the public interest. It is things such as “privacy, commercial sensitivity, or national security”, which sets a reasonably high bar for a Minister refusing to answer a question in the public interest.

The question that I want you to give some consideration to, Mr Speaker, and possibly come back to the House with a further answer to, because it does actually cut to the heart of ministerial accountability, is whether the Government’s communications calendar is a sufficient test of the public interest in refusing to answer.

The illustration I will give you is the questions my colleague Jacinda Ardern asked of the Minister for Social Development yesterday about the creation of a Ministry for Vulnerable Children. The Minister said that no such decisions had been made, and that she was jumping the gun to raise the matter. The Minister then announced that very thing today. That can only have happened if the decisions had earlier been taken, unless there was an emergency Cabinet meeting last night to do so. Therefore, the only justification for her not answering the question yesterday could have been the public interest test. I would put it to you that if Ministers can put forward inconvenience around their communications calendar as a public interest test, then they could avoid answering almost any question in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his contribution, again. I listened carefully to the question and the answer that was given. It clearly was not an inaccurate answer. The Minister chose to answer it in the way she did, and I am aware of an announcement that has been made within 24 hours of that. I think the Minister’s answer will be judged accordingly. I will give further consideration, and may come back to the member.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I do not want to prolong things today, obviously. The Government has got good work to do, and the Opposition clearly wants answers to some questions, by the sound of it. But if you are going to give that consideration, I would appreciate the opportunity to give our view on that particular issue. I think there are a number of things that could be added to that consideration by yourself, and not limited to the annoyance of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: I would be delighted to hear the view of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. He is welcome to come and see me any time he likes.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economic Outlook—Fitch Ratings Report and Employment Outlook

1. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last week Fitch Ratings affirmed New Zealand’s AA rating, which indicates “very strong capacity” for [honouring] our financial commitments” and confirmed the outlook as stable. Fitch pointed to improved growth prospects, sound public finances, and highlighted New Zealand’s strong macroeconomic policy framework. The report is international recognition for New Zealand as a safe and stable place to do business.

Alastair Scott: What else does Fitch Ratings say about the New Zealand economic outlook?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Fitch has lifted its forecasts for economic growth in New Zealand to around 2.7 percent over the next 2 years—a bit lower than recent Reserve Bank forecasts—but they all show moderate growth of 2 to 3 percent over the next 3 to 4 years, which compares favourably with most economies and shows prospects for more jobs and higher incomes. Fitch says that the positive outlook for the New Zealand economy is supported by the lift in services exports—that is mainly tourism—construction activity, and stronger than expected net migration flows, which have offset weaker global demand and the fall in dairy production.

Alastair Scott: What risks are there to this economic outlook?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All credit rating agencies refer, as Fitch does, to New Zealand’s external finances. In that respect, New Zealand is making slow but persistent progress. The current account deficit is currently at 3 percent, when agencies just a year or two ago were forecasting it would be 5 or 6 percent of GDP. Our net external debt is now down from 83 percent of GDP when the Government took office, to 56 percent of GDP. Fitch also points to house prices as a source of risk—something the Government is addressing, along with our local councils, through its comprehensive housing plan.

Alastair Scott: What recent reports has he seen broadly supporting employment growth, as reported in yesterday’s labour market statistics report prepared by Statistics New Zealand, which is of course statutorily independent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yesterday’s labour market statistics report, using a new method laid out in detail some months ago by the Government Statistician, showed that 105,000 jobs were added to the New Zealand economy in the last year. This has been greeted with some scepticism. Statistics New Zealand pointed to evidence broadly supporting employment growth. Today, the ANZ Job Ads lifted 1.4 percent in July, and they are now running 9.8 percent higher than a year ago. Job ads in the Auckland region are 12 percent up, year on year. Consistent with the reporting of low unemployment in Auckland, ANZ also reports strong regional growth in job advertising in Otago, Manawatū, Waikato, and Hawke’s Bay.

Capital and Coast District Health Board—Funding

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What is the total amount of efficiencies that Capital and Coast District Health Board have made in 2015/16?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Acting Minister of Health): The theoretical savings for the 2016 year are estimated at around $40 million, or 3 to 4 percent. Of course, district health boards (DHBs) are always required to make efficiency savings, and it was no different under the previous Government. The context for this, of course, is that 8 years ago the deficit was $66 million within that district health board and it is now around $12 million. The important thing to note, though, is that the Capital and Coast District Health Board (CCDHB) at the same time has lifted its services across the board, including an increase in surgeries of over 50 percent, and hip and knee surgeries are up 76 percent.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table information from an Official Information Act request, which I received from the Capital and Coast District Health Board, dated 12 February 2016, which points out it is not a theoretical $40 million saving plan; it is $40 million.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Annette King: Is it acceptable, in order to meet $40 million in efficiencies, that he requires of Capital and Coast District Health Board that funding be cut from primary healthcare in the region, which the largest primary health organisation (PHO) has said is unmanageable?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I cannot confirm the figure that the member just stated, but what I can say is that the funding for the district health board has gone up $198 million over 8 years. That is 34 percent—well ahead of inflation.

Hon Annette King: How can mental health services be “right at the top” of his priority list when funding for primary mental health services provided by GPs and NGOs in Capital and Coast District Health Board are to be cut to make the savings that he is demanding?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I again query the figures that that member presents, because the figures that I have to hand show an increase in mental health expenditure in that district health board area by $17 million, or 21 percent, in the last 7 years.

Hon Annette King: How can his concern about mental health services be taken seriously when the following cuts have been made in funding: $118,500 from Compass Health, a PHO; $260,000 from Te Awakairangi Health Network, a PHO; and $150,000 from Newtown and Porirua services—both very low cost access services—and when cuts have been made to community health services in the region?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well, again, I would dispute the relevance of that, given that we have increased mental health services, not just in the last year but across the board—

Hon Annette King: They’re cuts.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: They are not cuts. They are in proportion to the total funding that the district health board makes, and that has gone up $200 million in the last 8 years.

Hon Annette King: Will he rule out, in the House today, that there is absolutely no impact on mental health services in Capital and Coast Health District Health Board?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I refer to my previous answer, which states that mental health expenditure has gone up year on year, ahead of inflation, in the last 8 years.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked whether he would rule that there would be any cuts. I do not care what funding has gone in; will there be any cuts?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the member cannot demand a yes or no answer. I accept that she can be dissatisfied with that particular answer, and I will allow the member one additional supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did happen to have a fifth one here that I did not think I would ever get the chance to do.

Mr SPEAKER: We will move on, then.

Hon Annette King: Why would the chief executive of Lower Hutt district health board say publicly that he has had to cut funding for mental health services this financial year?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I cannot speak for the Lower Hutt district health board—in fact, there is no Lower Hutt district health board. There is Hutt Valley District Health Board, where the funding has actually gone up $415 million over the last 8 years, and that member knows that spending has gone up.

Kris Faafoi: Does he think it is acceptable that, to make his savings, the Capital and Coast District Health Board is considering closing the overnight GP service at Kenepuru Hospital, which could see some families in Kāpiti and Porirua travel 50 kilometres—much further than they do now—to see a GP in the small hours of the morning?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: What I can say about this district health board is that there are over 176 more doctors who are on the front line, and there are more than 387 more nurses on the front line, and that is better than anything that the Labour Government did in its 9 years.

Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat the question. The Minister may not have heard it.

Kris Faafoi: Does he think it is acceptable that, to make his savings, Capital and Coast District Health Board is considering closing the overnight GP service at Kenepuru Hospital, which could see some families in Kāpiti and Porirua travel 50 kilometres—much further than they do now—to see a GP in the small hours of the morning; or is that an example of the CCDHB lifting services?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said to that member, the spending has gone up on GPs and nurses in terms of primary healthcare. We know there are more front-line doctors and we know there are more nurses.

Immigration—Returning New Zealanders and Party Policies

3. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Tracey Martin: How does he stand by his statement that “the bulk of the 71,000 net migration number is made up of New Zealanders returning …” when the quarterly labour market statistics show that eight out of 10 working-age migrant arrivals are not returning New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We would have to look in detail at the numbers the member is quoting, but I think you will find that the net flow of New Zealanders has changed significantly, from minus 39,000—that is, 4 years ago 39,000 New Zealanders net left New Zealand, and in the last year it was about plus 2,000. That is a reversal of over 40,000 Kiwis deciding to stay home or come home.

Tracey Martin: Does he stand by his statement made as Prime Minister to The Migrant Times: “If migrants want to see continuation of an open, diverse, accepting country, I think our Government is the only political party which voices that message. That is why it is important that when we have elections, migrants come out and vote for us.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and I think there is some clear evidence for that from the member’s party, which has traditionally always advocated an opposition to migration into New Zealand and against immigrants, and the Labour Party, which runs political campaigns based on people’s Chinese-sounding names. We have not done either of those things, and that is why migrant communities are increasingly friendly and interested in our policy. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am not going to continue to ask for less interjection from a couple of people I have got my eye on, on the far right-hand side.

Tracey Martin: Can he confirm that part of his Government’s strategic plan for election 2017 is to import its voters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, but New Zealand First should try it. It might get its vote up a bit.

Tertiary Education—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Enrolments

4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What reports has he received on the growth in the number of tertiary students enrolling in engineering and ICT degrees?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Recently I received a report called What are they doing? The field of study of domestic students/learners 2008-2015, which analyses the fields of study of domestic students in the tertiary system over the last 8 years. It shows that last year, students enrolled in engineering and related technologies at Bachelor’s level or higher reached an all-time high of over 11,500—an increase of more than 3,500 or 44 percent from 2008. The number of students enrolled in information technology at Bachelor’s level or higher last year also grew by 33 percent since 2008 to reach just under 11,500. It is very good to see so many students engaged in areas where they are likely to head into a solid, well-paying career where demand is high and likely to continue to grow.

STUART SMITH: How is the Government encouraging more students to study STEM subjects, including engineering and ICT?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Ensuring industries have the skills that they need is a key priority of the tertiary education strategy, and this has included a strong focus on boosting the number of students studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. Initiatives under way include: rebalancing tuition subsidies to more accurately reflect the cost of provision, which has encouraged universities to invest in growing places in some of these more expensive areas and also providing better and more accurate careers information is encouraging young people to choose these subjects; introducing the new ICT graduate schools, which will boost the number of ICT graduates; and introducing the ‘Make the World’ Engineering to Employment campaign to encourage more young people into a career in engineering.

Stuart Smith: Why is it important to grow the number of students studying STEM subjects such as engineering and ICT?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Graduates in STEM subjects like engineering and ICT are crucial for building a growing and high-tech 21st century economy. In particular, New Zealand’s ICT sector is thriving, with the most recent ICT sector report showing that our services in the software industry are growing rapidly with the number of employed in the sector up around 3,000 a year and exports from the sector having grown from less than half a billion dollars in 2008 to nearly a billion dollars in 2014, which is a compound annual growth rate of 14 percent. The sector needs skilled staff to maintain this growth, and this growth in enrolments we are seeing at our universities will help meet this need.

Homelessness—Auckland

5. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she think there is sufficient accommodation for the homeless in Auckland given that there are now people advertising for “driveway and shower” rentals?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: There is certainly a need for more accommodation in Auckland of all types—that is, affordable family accommodation, social housing, and emergency accommodation. That is why it is so positive that the Auckland Council has signed off a unitary plan that will allow for twice as many houses to be built. In respect of emergency accommodation, the Government announced $41 million in the Budget to pay for more emergency housing places and new, non-recoverable special needs grants to pay for emergency accommodation. This is the first time any Government has directly funded emergency housing, and there is intensive work that has been going on for 18 months with social agencies to improve the availability and sustainability of emergency housing.

Phil Twyford: Is this the brighter future that John Key promised, when a 25-year-old construction worker on the minimum wage cannot find affordable rental housing, and is advertising to sleep in his car in someone’s garden while paying rent to use the kitchen and bathroom facilities? After 8 years in Government, is he really going to blame that on Auckland Council?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The construction worker has shown up to the biggest construction boom, the biggest house building programme, that New Zealand has ever seen, and, at the age of 25, he might be one of the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation’s 10,000 apprentices. Yes, he may find it a bit tough finding accommodation in Auckland, but he will stick with it because the opportunity for him is enormous.

Phil Twyford: Is it ambitious for New Zealand that property speculators got tax breaks of $650 million last year, while more than 42,000 people are homeless on his watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a large number of people investing in new houses in Auckland. That is why Auckland is building more houses than ever, and will for the next few years. Of course, what the member did not point out is that the Government abolishing depreciation in the 2010 tax package meant that it was an increase in revenue of about a billion dollars that came from that measure.

Phil Twyford: When an independent study by Otago University found that more than 4,000 people are living in cars, on the street, or in improvised dwellings, does she think her funding of 800 places is anywhere near enough emergency housing to deal with the problem?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member knows, if the Government put a billion dollars into emergency housing it cannot create houses just by writing out a cheque. The houses are being built rapidly now, and, actually, it is the responsibility of the council to ensure enough houses are built. That is what the Auckland Unitary Plan was all about, and it is unfortunate for that member that the council’s decision on the unitary plan showed he had been misleading the public that somehow the Government decided how many houses are being built. Actually, it is the council, and we support the decisions they have made, because they are now enabling the biggest construction boom Auckland and the country have ever seen.

Phil Twyford: Will he confirm that the independent hearings panel estimates that a shortfall of dwellings in Auckland of 42,000 has accumulated since his Government has been in office, and that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials project that the shortfall in building will not be eliminated until 2030?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm the first number, and, just for the member’s benefit, officials’ projections about what would happen in Christchurch proved to be wrong—very wrong. They had a very negative view about what was possible, and how long it would take. Due to the enormous efforts of my colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee and thousands of construction workers in Christchurch, Christchurch house prices are now flat to falling, because of an extraordinary effort to build houses. I suspect that things will unfold more rapidly in Auckland than MBIE officials believe is the case.

Phil Twyford: That’s right—everybody else is wrong.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, just you.

KiwiSaver Fund Providers—Investment in Cluster Munitions

6. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: How many default KiwiSaver fund providers currently invest in companies that manufacture cluster bombs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Ministers are not directly responsible for the investment decisions of these independent fund providers, but I have seen media reports about five default KiwiSaver fund providers who may have investments in the areas described by the member. I am unable to verify that figure because Ministers are not directly responsible for these investment decisions.

Julie Anne Genter: Why are Ministers not directly responsible, given that it is the Government-directed savings of half a million New Zealanders that may be going into companies that produce illegal weapons of war?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It is because New Zealanders with KiwiSaver accounts have a choice about which scheme to join, and can find out what that scheme invests in.

Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept that it is far simpler and easier for his Government to verify whether funds are legally and ethically compliant, rather than leaving it to half a million New Zealanders who may not have that information available and it is not that easy to get from the KiwiSaver fund providers?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In so far as there are specific legal requirements, our expectations are that KiwiSaver providers will obey the law; but in so far as there are moral judgments required, then we believe individual investors are best placed to make those judgments. The KiwiSaver (Periodic Disclosure) Regulations require providers to disclose the investments that they have made, and the system has worked effectively in this case so that those investments have been outlined in public, and providers will have to make a decision about how they respond.

Julie Anne Genter: So is he saying that his Government thinks it is up for debate whether or not it is ethical for companies to produce weapons like landmines that kill 15,000 to 20,000 people every year—most of them children, women, and the elderly—and severely maim many more?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I am not saying that; I am saying that in so far as there are specific legal requirements, we expect KiwiSaver providers to obey the law. But where there are moral judgments to be made, we believe that individual investors are best placed to make those moral judgments.

Julie Anne Genter: What advice has he received or requested on the legality of New Zealand companies investing directly or indirectly in companies that produce cluster bombs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: If there is a legal requirement, then it is up to the appropriate enforcement agencies to enforce the law.

Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat the question. It may not have been understood.

Julie Anne Genter: Sure. Thank you, Mr Speaker. What advice has he received or requested on the legality of New Zealand companies investing directly or indirectly in companies that produce cluster bombs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I have asked for advice on that, and there is some indication that the law relating to the Cluster Munitions Prohibition Act may apply—but that is up to the appropriate enforcement authority to decide whether or not there has been a breach of the law.

Julie Anne Genter: When did he receive the advice and who is the relevant enforcement authority?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions—the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: This morning.

Julie Anne Genter: Will he, at the very least, commit to bringing default KiwiSaver providers’ investments in line with the Superannuation Fund’s exclusion list in ensuring that they are legally and ethically invested?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In so far as there are moral judgments required, it is our belief that there are two choices: you can have the Government deciding those moral questions by banning particular things, or you can trust the New Zealand investors to make those moral judgments based on quality advice. The scheme that we have in place insists and expects that KiwiSaver providers disclose the investments that they make. Those are publicly available. They can be searched and analysed—as they have been—and made public. The KiwiSaver providers will need to make a judgment about how comfortable they are with their offerings, and individual KiwiSaver investors can make a decision.

Grant Robertson: As the Minister responsible for appointing default KiwiSaver providers under section 132 of the KiwiSaver Act, why has he not taken more action to assess whether the Cluster Munitions Prohibition Act 2009 makes it a criminal offence to invest in cluster munitions, with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $500,000?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because if there has been any breach of the law, it is up to the appropriate enforcement authorities to investigate.

Trade, China—Free-trade Agreement and Export Restrictions on Wine and Honey

7. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Trade: What advice has he received on the current status of New Zealand’s trade relationship with China?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): I regularly receive advice on our trade relationships with a range of countries, including China, which shows that New Zealand exports to China have quadrupled since the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement entered into force. It has been an incredible success story. But although China is an important market for New Zealand, I would note that less than 20 percent of our goods exports go to China. The Government continues to actively work on a diverse trade agenda, which includes the recently signed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; the ASEAN Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership negotiation, which is currently under way; the Trade in Services Agreement; the Environmental Goods Agreement; an agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council; an agreement with India; and PACER-Plus. We are also on track to begin negotiations with the EU, a market that is worth $20.6 billion in two-way trade in goods and services.

Richard Prosser: Can he give New Zealand exporters an assurance that the latest example of China moving the goalposts and requiring a new registration system, in spite of our free-trade agreement, will not disadvantage our honey and wine producers, as happened to exporters of infant milk formula 2 years ago?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, I do not think there is reason for concern here. China has signalled these plans, which will apply to imports from all countries, for some time. We have navigated such requirements for other export sectors in the past. I have every confidence that the New Zealand and Chinese officials will work constructively again to do so for wine and honey, and work alongside New Zealand industry.

Richard Prosser: Is he concerned that the upcoming and overdue European Union audit of New Zealand’s honey exports might be influenced by New Zealand failing China’s latest audit, or is he satisfied that our failing of the Chinese honey audit is merely another example of bullying trade tactics on the part of the Chinese?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No, I have great confidence in the New Zealand honey industry. It is actually a stand-out industry. It increases exports and delivers important jobs to many of our regions. So far as audits are concerned, that is an issue for the Ministry for Primary Industries, but the New Zealand Government takes its obligations extremely seriously in this area.

Richard Prosser: Given China’s stated concerns regarding fake and counterfeited wine and honey being sold in China, will he be raising the subject of China taking responsibility for Chinese counterfeiting with his Chinese counterpart; if not, why not?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Our trading relationship with China is worth around $20 billion. It is clear that issues will come up from time to time in such a significant relationship. We have a very strong and constructive relationship with the Chinese Government. I sought assurances from it on a number of occasions, as far as that trading relationship is concerned, and received them. Where there are industry-specific concerns, we have pathways to continue to seek those assurances.

Primary Sector—Rural Veterinary Bonding Scheme

8. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on Government support encouraging veterinary graduates to work in rural practices?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The voluntary bonding scheme for veterinarians was launched in 2009 to encourage new vet graduates to work in hard-to-staff rural practices. The scheme provides a taxable payment of $11,000 each year for 3 to 5 years for 30 eligible vet graduates a year. A recent report shows the Government has invested a total of $11.4 million in the scheme to date. This has seen a total of 226 graduates move to work in the regions over the last 7 years.

David Bennett: What impact has the scheme had on our primary industries, such as those in the Waikato?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. Around $22 billion of our exports are derived from animals per year. Vets, therefore, play a crucial role in the success of our primary industries and the wider New Zealand economy by maintaining and improving animal health and well-being. A total of 52 graduates have been staffed in practices in the Waikato region since this scheme began. A recent meeting with industry organisations confirmed strong appreciation and ongoing support for the scheme in our regions.

Corrections, Department—Child Sex Offender Management

9. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Corrections: Is she satisfied with her department’s system of contracting providers and approving residences for offenders with a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending against children, who the High Court has found are a high risk of further sexual offending?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes, I have full confidence in the Department of Corrections to undertake its duties under the law.

Su’a William Sio: What process and criteria were used by her department to determine that it was OK for a child sex offender to be placed near a school like Jean Batten School in Māngere, despite her department being aware that the offender had raped a 13-year-old girl and is at high risk of reoffending?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, given that section 7(3) of the Corrections Act means that I am not able to “give directions about the exercise of powers and functions in relation to a particular person.”, it does make it a bit difficult to deal with that particular question, but I am happy to help the member by advising the House of the criteria that the department looks at when it approves residences for placements, and I hope that that will help him with his answer. The public’s safety is obviously the primary priority for the Department of Corrections. It considers proximity to schools and preschools. It notes that, as a guide, a child sex offender should not live within 1 kilometre of such facilities, but in cities, 500 metres may be more realistic. It looks at proximity to playgrounds, parks, reserves, public swimming pools, churches, thoroughfares or residences with young families, other places frequented by children, shared driveways or facilities; proximity to victims; proximity to counselling and support services and availability of transport to these; any evidence of children under 16 residing at the address; and suitability of other occupants and neighbours and whether they have children and are aware of the offending. Community Corrections also checks with the other involved professionals, such as mental health teams, Child, Youth and Family, and police, to determine whether they approve of the proposed address.

Su’a William Sio: Is it correct that under an extended supervision order there can be intensive monitoring for only 12 months, and that this monitoring cannot be renewed; if so, is she satisfied that electronic bracelets alone will protect young women or children from these sexual predators, who are at high risk of reoffending?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions. The Hon Judith Collins can answer one.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I understand that the member may be misinformed on that. I understand that there is a particular person who has been on intensive monitoring for 10 years and has still got intensive monitoring now, so quite clearly people do, in fact, have monitoring that is extended.

Mahesh Bindra: If this Government claims to protect New Zealanders from disgusting sexual predators, how on earth does a sexual offender end up on a bracelet and not locked up, as they should be?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would have thought it was obvious—they have finished their sentence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is a property just over 500 metres from a school, with 31 children living in the immediate vicinity, a suitable place to house Robert John McCorkindale, who has three sets of convictions dating back to 1987 for sexual offences on girls as young as 4—including abduction with the intent to have sexual intercourse—and whom the High Court found in April this year is at high risk of further serious sexual offending?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It would be outside of the Corrections Act and of the law for me to comment about a particular matter and whether or not the placement was suitable. I would, however, note that the Department of Corrections always reviews these sorts of placements, particularly where there is concern expressed by the public.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with the corrections regional director that the 1-kilometre or 500-metre distance from schools special condition should be measured by a circuitous route around roads, when this paedophile can jump the back fence at his place of detention and be in the local school’s new-entrants’ playground in less than 3 minutes?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am concerned that the member obviously has not heard that I am not able to make comment about particular placements, given the Corrections Act, but I am, however, happy to say to him, and the concern that he has—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a very serious matter. I do not want interjection.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The person he has named, I understand, has already spent 10 years in the community under intensive supervision, and I am assured that in that time he has not reoffended. I think it would also be helpful to the member if he knew that intensive supervision—or intensive monitoring, rather, in this case—means that someone is with him 24 hours, 7 days a week, as well as GPS monitoring, and that, as I have just said, he has been in the community for 10 years without offending.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister agree with advice given by corrections to the neighbouring parents of 5- and 6-year-old girls, who for years have had a paddling pool on their deck—now overlooked on by this paedophile—that they should modify their parenting and have their girls play on the other side of their house?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If that report is accurate, then that would seem to be an inappropriate comment.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the corrections’ system of approving residences robust when this paedophile has a shower in a room with clear windows overlooking the street, and what does she say to the parents of passing preschool girls, who will be the stimulation for his masturbation?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there; the Hon Judith Collins can choose to answer either one.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have a great deal of sympathy for members of the public and parents, who know that, unfortunately, there are, in fact, many sex offenders living in our communities. In this particular case, we know where he is. He is under 24-hour, 7-day-a-week individual monitoring—he has someone with him all that time—and I am sure that this matter, as I have been advised by the Department of Corrections, is being reviewed, as are all of its placements when there are any concerns raised by members of the public.

Community Leadership—Community Leadership Fund - Hapori Whakatipu

10. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made regarding community leadership organisations?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Last week I announced the results of the inaugural funding round for the Community Leadership Fund - Hapori Whakatipu. I am pleased to report to the House that the $500,000 fund has been fully committed in its first year, with six diverse applicants to receive grants. The successful applicants are Ara Taiohi Incorporated, Hui E! Community Aotearoa, Ākina Foundation, the Inspiring Communities trust, the Volunteer Army Foundation, and Volunteering New Zealand.

Maureen Pugh: What contribution will the fund make to social enterprises in New Zealand?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The Ākina Foundation has been granted $85,000 to continue its work as the lead organisation for the social enterprise sector. The Ākina Foundation will be able to enhance its support for emerging social enterprises throughout New Zealand, enabling people with good ideas across the country to be supported in their efforts to bring about social or environmental goals through the successful running of a self-sustaining business. The first round of the community leadership fund has shown us that there is an exciting range of ways in which organisations are working to build the leadership and capability of a huge range of different groups and enterprises throughout New Zealand.

Māori Health—Safe Sleep Programme

11. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister of Health: Ka kī taurangi a ia, ka noho te rautaki Māori whāia e kōkirihia ana e āna āpiha, tae atu ki te whakamahinga o te wahakura harakeke, hai mahi tuatahi i roto i te Hōtaka Safe Sleep o te motu?

[Will he guarantee that a targeted Māori strategy, including the use of flax wahakura, is prioritised in the national safe sleep programme that his officials are working on?]

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Acting Minister of Health): I can confirm that the safe sleep programme is being developed by the Ministry of Health and will include strategies for Māori in the use of safe sleeping devices such as wahakura.

Marama Davidson: Kei te mōhio tātau, neke atu i te 60 ōrau o ngā pēpi i mate i te Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI) hē Māori nā reira, he aha te rahi o te pūtea taunaki mā ngā rautaki Māori whāia pērā i te wahakura harakeke?

[We know that more than 60 percent of Māori babies die as a result of Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI); how much funding will he commit for targeted Māori strategies like flax wahakura?]

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Details of how this will be run and the exact funding streams are still to be worked out, but what is important is that we need to ensure that there are strong and clear guidelines in place for services to assess vulnerability across the board and to ensure that any family offered a safe sleep space is also supported to use it consistently and safely.

Marama Davidson: Ka kī taurangi a ia ki te tuku pūtea, rauemi hoki mā ngā rautaki Māori nā te tokomaha o te iwi Māori, te tokomaha rānei o ngā pēpi Māori i mate i te SUDI?

[Will he commit funding and resources as well to Māori strategies because of the vast number of Māori people, or the vast number of Māori babies, dying as a consequence of SUDI?]

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have already answered, the ministry is working alongside experts such as Professor Mitchell to devise a national safe sleep programme where these wahakura will be assessed as to whether they are appropriate. I am advised that the ministry is also working alongside other Māori, in particular Whakawhetū, a Māori organisation connected to the University of Auckland, which will provide advice.

Marama Davidson: Menā ka haumarutia ngā pēpi piripoho, ka taurangihia e Te Minita me noho ngā wahakura hei kōwhiringa mā ia whānau o ngā pēpi piripoho puta noa i Aotearoa nei?

[If newborn babies are given the best possible start in life, will the Minister guarantee that wahakura will remain an option for each family of newborn babies throughout New Zealand?]

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said, the programme is being worked through with experts and with the sector. It will be developed and include strategies for Māori, given the high risk for young Māori infants, as well as the use of such devices as wahakura.

Broadcasting, Minister—Statements About Captioning of Summer Olympics 2016

12. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Did she or her office contact the Minister of Broadcasting or her office to correct their joint press release of 9 August 2016, regarding captioning of televised coverage of the Olympics, as requested by the National Foundation for the Deaf; if not, why not?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): Last week’s joint press release was about recognising and celebrating the fact that captioning on parliamentary television will mean that more New Zealanders can access democracy. Minister Adams and I reviewed the press release and agreed that it was factually correct. We reject that there is any suggestion that the Government is taking credit for the foundation’s work. I am very happy to acknowledge that the National Foundation for the Deaf has underwritten captioning for the Rio Olympics for $200,000.

Poto Williams: How much funding did her Government give to fund captioning at the Olympics?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The Olympics funding is going to be done by the National Foundation for the Deaf. Attitude Pictures is doing captioning for the Paralympics.

Poto Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The best way forward is if the member could just repeat that question.

Poto Williams: How much funding did her Government give to fund captioning at the Olympics?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: As I have already said, it will be covered by private organisations, but New Zealand On Air funds captioning services of up to $2.8 million a year. That is 265 hours each week, and 35 hours of audio description. One hundred percent of prime time content on Television New Zealand channels is now captioned, and the addition of captioning of Prime Television in November 2015 shows that more captioning is available for all New Zealanders.

Poto Williams: Can she confirm that the National Foundation for the Deaf paid $200,000 to provide captioning for the Olympics?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes. I appreciate what it has done, and I salute it.

Poto Williams: Did the National Foundation for the Deaf ask her to correct her claim about Government funding of captioning at the Olympics?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes, but I stand by my original statement that the press release is factually correct. We reject the suggestion that the Government is taking credit for the foundation’s work. We are always pleased to support more captioning options.

Poto Williams: Will she now apologise to the National Foundation for the Deaf, after being caught taking credit for its funding?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I stand by my original statement that the press release is factually correct. It is unfortunate that the quote by Minister Adams has been misinterpreted. We are very supportive of all efforts to enhance captioning accessibility. That is why we put the press release out last week to congratulate the Office of the Clerk on increasing captioning.

Urgent Questions

Drinking-water Supplies—Contamination, Havelock North

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Will he now declare a drinking-water emergency, under the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2007, in light of reports that E. coli has been discovered in a water tanker from a Hastings water supply, parked at a school in Havelock North?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Acting Minister of Health): No. I am advised that the local council is taking action, and that the water supplies for Hastings and Flaxmere are now being chlorinated. The daily tests for those supplies have been clear. I can also advise that the Minister Jonathan Coleman has confirmed there will be a Government-initiated independent inquiry into the Havelock North water contamination issue. This will be a wide-ranging inquiry to ensure that all New Zealanders can feel confident about the quality of drinking-water supplies.

Hon Annette King: So what would it take for the Minister of Health to declare a drinking-water emergency, given that over 3,200 people have now been affected by gastric illness and that the Mayor Lawrence Yule is saying that this latest result “is a significant development we cannot explain.”?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I continue to be disgusted by the attitude of that member, who is playing politics with this issue—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I need to deal with a point of order.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was a straight question. The Minister started his answer by being disgusted by the fact that I have raised this issue in this House when he did not.

Mr SPEAKER: We will now allow the Minister to complete his answer.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I am still disgusted, because this member plays politics when what is at issue here is the health and safety of those people in Havelock North and Hawke’s Bay. I visited Hawke’s Bay yesterday, and what the local people told me was that they wanted their health services provided and they wanted accountability. That is what this Government is offering through this inquiry and the support that we are giving the local district council.

Bills

New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service) on behalf of the Minister for National Security and Intelligence: I move, That the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. This afternoon I want to take the House through the key points of the legislation. Obviously, I am not going to have time to cover everything, but colleagues who follow me will outline key parts of the bill. The bill is the legislative response to the report of the first independent review of intelligence and security undertaken by Dame Patsy Reddy and Sir Michael Cullen. The report was an exemplary piece of work, and I want to thank those two distinguished citizens for producing it.

As recommended by the reviewers, the bill will replace four current Acts: the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969, the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996, and the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996. If the bill passes, all legislation relating to the agencies and their oversight will, for the first time, be set out clearly and in one place.

The core principles underpinning the agencies’ performances of their functions are set out in clause 3. The agencies must act “in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights obligations recognised by New Zealand law;” and, in the performance of their operational functions, independently and impartially, “with integrity and professionalism; and in a manner that facilitates effective democratic oversight;”.

I acknowledge the statements of the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, who say this bill is going to be an improvement on the current legislative arrangements. I agree with that, and will now explain why.

The first topic I want to cover is the issue of what is called the “triple lock” and its relationship to warrants. For a start, we are introducing a concept of the triple lock for any activity concerning New Zealanders. That means a warrant must be approved jointly by the Attorney-General and Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, with oversight provided by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Any New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (SIS) or Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB) warrant targeting a New Zealander will be subject to this core protection. This is in addition to the high bar for all warrants—that they must be proportionate and necessary. Under the new regime, New Zealanders will only be targeted on national security grounds, unless the person is an agent of a foreign power—for example, if a New Zealander was working for a foreign Government. This is a very important change from the current New Zealand SIS legislation, which allows New Zealanders to be targeted for wider economic well-being and international-relations grounds. Two of the three grounds for targeting people disappear.

This brings me to section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003. The GCSB and the SIS will now be covered by the same warranting regime. It follows that section 14 of the current Government Communications Security Bureau Act will be repealed, as recommended by the reviewers. This section provides that the GCSB cannot intercept the private communications of a New Zealander for the purposes of intelligence collection, but, as the reviewers found, this section does not serve the blanket purpose some people have thought it does. The GCSB has always been able to target New Zealanders for its cyber-assurance and its assistance functions. Replacing section 14 with the new triple-lock protection for New Zealanders is a more coherent and robust safeguard for New Zealanders.

We have maintained the separation of the agencies in the warranting regime. The recommendations of the reviewers would have, in effect, merged the powers of the agencies. The Government’s view was that this would have resulted in a significant expansion of powers, particularly for the GCSB. In addition, given the distinct nature of the agencies, the Government considers it appropriate that they have different powers under a warrant. Under the proposed regime, the agencies will essentially have a common set of warrantable activities, such as a search, but different powers to put these activities into practice. For example, pursuant to a warrant, the SIS could enter a building or car to carry out a search. The GCSB does not have the power to do this, but could access an information infrastructure to carry out a search. As recommended, the agencies will also be able to apply for a joint warrant in appropriate circumstances.

The bill picks up the reviewers’ recommendations that the new legislation should contain a new tiered warranting system, and others of my colleagues will cover that proposal and the legislative response in some detail. One change I want to mention is that a warrant will be able to target a class of person, a thing, a place, a communication, or information, and this is necessary for the agencies to deal with situations of uncertainty. For example, it may be necessary to target a class of person or information infrastructures engaged in an illegal fishing operation because there may be an uncertain number of people on the fishing boat. The bill also allows for purpose-based warrants where it is not possible to identify a specific target. These will only ever be available where the objectives of the warrant cannot be accomplished through a targeted warrant.

The most important task for the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will be to receive submissions, and have a robust debate about the definition of national security—and some members have already referred to that following the bill’s introduction. The legislation adheres to the reviewers’ recommendation, but it is going to require some further thought. The Parliamentary Counsel Office and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) have both advised there could be some issues with the workability of what is now in the legislation, and I look forward to the committee’s views on this topic, but I want to signal now that I think the reviewers’ proposal is unworkable, and the officials’ alternative version—which is available on the DPMC website—could be a good starting point for the committee. The Government has adopted the reviewers’ proposal for the bill’s introduction solely so that the committee can consider the matter, rather than Ministers making a decision before introduction.

The new legislation includes explicit powers to access certain databases, recommended by the reviewers, such as immigration information. It also contains a framework and increased oversight for accessing information from other Government departments. I acknowledge the Labour Party’s concerns about direct access to births, deaths, and marriages information; the select committee can have a good look at that issue.

One important decision we have made that was not covered in the review is to repeal the current Privacy Act exemption that the agencies have and bring the agencies within the Privacy Act 1993, with carve-outs as appropriate. That is a significant step. There has been some discussion, since introduction, on the composition of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), and I acknowledge what Mr Little has been saying. The Government has taken a reasonably conservative approach in this legislation because the committee is functioning well at present, and the select committee is best placed to consider questions relating to the ISC after it has heard submissions.

There are a number of other issues that will arise and we are certainly open to discussing them. I will leave it to others who follow me in the debate to cover some of the areas that I have not had time to speak about in my speech. I want to finish by reiterating the remarks of the Prime Minister, and also ones that I have made to date, about the importance of achieving a bipartisan or multi-partisan approach to this very important national security legislation. I thank members for their contribution to date. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I acknowledge the Minister, the Attorney-General, who has just spoken. In particular, I want to acknowledge the efforts that he has gone to personally to discuss the matters raised in the Cullen-Reddy report and, as the legislation has been prepared, a couple of discussions that he has had with me and colleagues of mine from the Labour Party as he genuinely strives to achieve that bipartisan or multipartisan result on this piece of legislation. I acknowledge that. I do have some comments to make about the role of the Attorney-General in relation to some of the provisions in this bill, and I do want to say from the outset that the comments I make are absolutely no reflection on the Attorney-General, who has conducted himself, since he has acquired the responsibilities for these agencies, with considerable distinction.

In a liberal democracy such as ours, where we cherish freedom, including the freedom to dissent, and where we also cherish the rule of law, the question is always about where the balance lies between arrangements that maximise our freedom, which must, hopefully, be just about everything, but also the powers that are sufficient to ensure our security. That is where the debate on matters like this always lies: what it is that is going to mean that those who wish to express and exercise their freedom of speech and go about their lawful business can do so without interruption and without intrusion, but on the other hand accept that in the environment in which we live we do need to ensure that the interests of citizens, collectively and individually, and the interests of the State also need to be protected.

As the Minister said, this bill comes out of the Cullen-Reddy review—the first independent review of our security and intelligence legislation. The fundamental achievement of this legislation is that it combines multiple existing pieces of legislation into one single piece of legislation, which has the benefit of ensuring that the powers that are defined for the agencies are at least drafted in a consistent way. That is a positive development if we can achieve it. The development of the legislation to date—as so often happens when dealing with an issue or a requirement that develops over many years’ time, multiple pieces of legislation often conceived in different circumstances but all heading towards the same objective are drafted in different ways, and it is right that every now and again we step back to ensure that what is happening, or what is provided for in our legislation, is achieving what was originally intended, but without encroaching on citizens’ rights.

I do not argue, and have not heard any argument to suggest that we do not need agencies dedicated to the protection of New Zealand citizens, to the protection of the country’s economic interests, and to the preservation of a functioning democratic State. Those interests must be at the forefront. But the reality is that we do not live in a benign environment. We do have threats to our physical security, and they come from within and they come externally. We do have threats to our economic interests as well, and perhaps the single biggest class of threat we now experience is cyber-security, where not just public agencies but private companies and private agencies can come under threat from abroad because of the technology that now exists. If we are going to undertake the task of preserving and protecting our interests as a nation State, the citizens in it, and the economic interests within it, then it will be necessary to have agencies that have intrusive powers. But, as I began by saying, we must always ensure that that is in proper and appropriate balance.

The bill is a good start, and for that reason Labour will be supporting this bill at this reading, and we look forward to a good discussion and a good examination by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The bill is a good start, but there remain issues, and I am going to go through just a handful of them that we have at this point. The issues that I am about to adumbrate are not implied criticism of the warrant provisions and the safeguards, and the Minister talked about the triple lock—he did sound a bit like a window salesman, to be honest, when he said it. But this is not a criticism of those provisions. I think it is a helpful development and, in fact, the provisions as drafted are a greater safeguard than what exists at the moment, and we should be pleased about that.

It is also clear, given the setting that we are debating this in, that the beefed-up office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security that we now enjoy has proven itself to be a good check and balance on the agencies and the exercise of their powers. We should be very proud of the work that that office has done recently. The reports that have been presented, I think, have been robust and thoroughgoing, and I think they ought to give citizens an assurance that there is at least a good check and balance in that regard. But, of course, we should not just rely on safeguards happening after the event. If there is an erroneous exercise of a power, and an undue or unlawful interference or intrusion on privacy, then we should not just rely on a process that happens afterwards. We need to ensure that what happens before provides safeguards as well.

There are a handful of issues that I want to just cover off. The first is the definition of “national security”, and the Minister has indicated that the Government’s position is to throw that open to the select committee to have a good examination and debate about it, which is certainly a useful approach. I actually thought that the Cullen-Reddy review got that about right—that there needs to be a level of specificity, but we do need to understand exactly what national security means, and what it is that we are protecting. That is absolutely fundamental in this bill, because the motivating objective to the powers being exercised is, in most cases, the protection of national security, so we do have to get that right.

But there are some obvious questions. What is a threat to the safety of New Zealanders? Why is it proposed that the Cullen-Reddy recommendations about tests of imminence and serious harm be removed from the definition as it appears in this bill? What is a threat to a New Zealand Government operation? Protests in the high streets of New Zealand may amount to a threat to the operations of at least a Government department, but that should not be a basis on which people are prevented from expressing their dissent, from expressing their opposition, or from showing protest. So the definition is vital. We do need to get it right, because it is so important to this piece of legislation.

The next point I want to make is in relation to warrants, and the Minister has talked about the three tiers, effectively. Bearing in mind that these warrants are to allow activity that would “otherwise be an unlawful activity” for an authorised purpose, this is where the rubber hits the road. It is possible for warrants to be issued subject to conditions—clauses 60 and 61 cover that off—but it does not indicate what those conditions might be. What sorts of restrictions could the Attorney-General and the judicial commissioner, either individually or together, where specific powers are being exercised—what conditions can they put on the warrants sought for? So we need to get clarity on that. I am particularly concerned about clause 69 and the urgent warrants, where a warrant can be applied for orally and, indeed, in very urgent circumstances by the Attorney-General alone—that can last between 24 and 48 hours. This is where, I think, citizens are entitled to not only be concerned but to ensure that the select committee gives very close and detailed examination to those powers.

I want at this point to raise one of the issues about the role of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is the Minister responsible for our Crown Law Office and is responsible for all of our Crown prosecutions and is often actively involved in prosecutions involving matters of public policy. So is it right that the Attorney-General should be the one exercising, in whole or in part, the power to issue a warrant that can lead to the gathering of information or evidence, which could lead to a prosecution that may then be under the oversight of the Crown Law Office? It looks to me, on the face of it, that there is a conflict there that is not justified in our form of Government, and I think that needs to be examined closely. It is interesting that the Chief Justice did not want serving judges to act as judicial commissioners for the very reason that she was concerned that those same judges would be rubbing shoulders with judges who will be hearing cases, potentially, involving evidence gathered on that basis. So I think we need some consistency there.

The next point I want to make is about access to data, and it is interesting that this bill reflects some modifications on the recommendations made by the Cullen-Reddy review, but I still do not see a justification for broad access to, for example, data about passports when the agencies—when they are seeking that information to clarify the citizenship status, or otherwise, of a named person—know that person and can apply for a warrant accordingly. I note, just in that regard, clauses 103 and 104 relate to access to databases, and that it is to be done through inter-ministerial agreement and the detail will be in those agreements, and we need some indication about what might appear there.

Finally, I just want to make the point about the Intelligence and Security Committee, because that is the political oversight, and I express now the views I have expressed publicly, about the Prime Minister or any Minister with ministerial responsibility for the agencies acting as chair of that committee. In other jurisdictions other arrangements are found, and I think that is fertile ground for the select committee to examine and for members of the public to express their views about. We know that agencies like the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, like the Government Communications Security Bureau, and, indeed, the National Assessments Bureau are vital to protect citizens’ interests and a functioning democracy and that there are always going to be tensions.

I welcome this bill, I welcome the debate that we will get to have about it, and I thank, again, the Minister for the constructive approach he has taken so far in prosecuting this legislation.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): It is my pleasure to take a call in this first reading on the intelligence and security legislation, and I particularly want to begin by endorsing the comments made by the Attorney-General in his opening remarks. I too want to acknowledge—and put it on the record—and thank Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy for what I think was an excellent piece of work and a very well-considered, well-balanced piece of work. I think the fact that we are beginning this debate in this House with a broad level of political support really does reflect the quality of that report, and I do think it is important for legislation as important as this that we seek to achieve consensus wherever possible and that New Zealand feels that it has a good chance to test through these issues.

These issues are important. I know there are some in New Zealand who would like to believe that we can live in a world where legislation like this is not necessary, but, actually, the vast majority of New Zealanders understand and accept that this is a very real part of keeping our people and our country safe. But equally importantly, and, perhaps, even more importantly, because of that we have to have legislation that is very clear—there is no room for ambiguity or uncertainty as to how provisions apply. There needs to be absolute certainty around the scope of the powers, the authority that they convey, and the oversight of them, and this legislation, in my mind, undoubtedly puts us on a better footing than we have previously been on, as we have already had acknowledged by the Privacy Commissioner, as just one commentator.

The part I want to focus on in my contribution is not the issue of surveillance, which is the one that, obviously, takes up a lot of the public interest, but actually on the critically important function of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) around cyber-security. I think that in all of the talk around these agencies, this role really does get overlooked, and I think it is important that we reflect on it. As a Minister who has a very active role in policy around cyber-security, I think it is appropriate that I talk to it. Just by way of context, it is worth putting on the record for the House the incredible size and complexity of the cyber-security issue and the incredible damage resulting from the cybercrime industry. Whether we are talking about State-sponsored cyber-security attacks, whether we are talking about “hacktivism”, whether we are talking about what has actually become a vast army of entire criminal enterprises that provide entry to almost any computer system and that provide made-to-order stealing of information or the duplication of identities, this is a sector that I think most New Zealanders do not quite appreciate the size of.

Can I tell this House that cybercrime globally is now bigger than the global drugs trade. That is how big this is. We are talking about $600 billion a year in cybercrime, and it is growing increasingly quickly. Just by way of context in New Zealand, most members of the House, I am sure, will be aware of the issue of ransomware, which is particularly pernicious. It is when cyberactors get in, lock up your information, and then will not decrypt it without a payment. Just in this year alone, between the months of January to March—so just a very small period of time—we went from seeing ransomware being about 33 percent of all of the malware affecting New Zealand to being 93 percent. So the explosion in that area alone is huge. Just one of our telecommunications service providers told me that on average it is blocking 51 dedicated denial-of-service attacks every day—every day. And one of those attacks, in particular, was 20 percent of the capacity of its entire network. So we are not talking about small, isolated attacks.

I also have to tell this House how incredibly sophisticated these actors are. You may think “Oh, well I’m all right; I’ve got a password.” I was talking with a cyber-security firm here in Wellington just this morning, actually. We were talking to some of its penetration-testers, who specialise in providing services for businesses to understand where their vulnerabilities are. They were telling me that in all of the years they have been operating, across almost every type of business you can imagine—very large, very sophisticated businesses in New Zealand—there is not a single business whose network they have not been able to get full access to when they have gone in and penetration-tested it. So if we think this is just people around the edges who have forgotten to password their systems, we are absolutely wrong. This is incredibly sophisticated, and it needs a very, very high calibre of dedicated, unbelievably clever people doing it.

Most of that expertise resides within the GCSB. One of its great successes in recent times has been the development of Project Cortex, which involves a very clever shield, effectively, around our most important networks and our critical institutions of national importance, whether they be core infrastructure, core financial, or core Government. That has been very, very effective, in the time it has been running, in protecting those organisations against very—as I say—high calibre, sophisticated events.

The GCSB is also incredibly important in this space because cyber, of course, is global. We cannot just sit in New Zealand and assume it is all within our own borders. The GCSB’s ability to work effectively with our international partners is fundamentally important to our ability to protect New Zealand from cybercrime. This is not imaginary, it is not some sci-fi movie; it is happening every day. It is accelerating at rates you would not believe, and we have got to be in front of it. We cannot say: “Well, we’re at the bottom of the world; they’re not going to target us.” They can, they do, and it is the GCSB that is really very much at the forefront of understanding and responding to those very sophisticated attacks. This bill is an important part of maintaining the GCSB’s ability to carry out those cyberfunctions. It is not the only thing we are doing, of course. We have a wide-ranging cyber-security strategy, which I released with the Prime Minister recently, that goes through a number of initiatives, including standing up New Zealand’s first Computer Emergency Response Team, which the GCSB will be a part of.

But just as it is important in the roles of national security and surveillance, protection against terrorism, and all of the things the public more commonly associates with our intelligence agencies, we have to have clear, transparent rules of operation for the GCSB in relation to cyber-security. I want to just touch on a couple of the aspects of the bill that are relevant in this regard. The existing scope of the GCSB’s information assurance and cyber-security function is now going to be incorporated within the broader umbrella function of protective security, as the independent reviewers proposed. This also, of course, covers some of the SIS’s functions, such as security clearance vetting. In clause 15 of the bill we still, though, set out the detail of that information assurance and cyber-security function, and preserve the existing scope. Consistent with the clear decision of the Government as outlined by the Attorney-General, that we must maintain clear delineation between the agencies, the bill makes it very clear that only the GCSB is mandated to provide that cyber-security service as part of the protective security function.

The bill goes on to explicitly recognise that the GCSB can provide these cyber-security and assurance functions with the consent of affected entities, as it does with Project Cortex. But it also makes clear, and I think this is important to get on record, that any information that the GCSB obtains in the course of carrying out its protective security functions—and its cyber-security functions, in particular—if it needs to use that information for any other purpose it would have to go back and get a warrant.

This is not another way of getting information. Cyber-security information is collected and used for cyber-security purposes only. It cannot be used for other functions, and, if needed, would have to be sought under a warrant in the normal way, along the lines the Attorney-General set out. The GCSB is limited to the powers available to it in any warrant, where that is required. It makes it clear in the bill that the GCSB retains its existing powers to access information infrastructure as required, and, overall, I think we can be confident that the bill ensures that the GCSB will be able to continue to provide those very effective, very necessary information assurance and cyberservices.

As I said, when you are looking at an area like cyber-security, we cannot be left behind, we cannot for one moment have a regime that does not permit our agencies to continue to develop, work collaboratively internationally, and respond and keep pace with this pernicious, growing, highly talented, highly lucrative area of crime. I am confident that the bill will absolutely enhance and protect the ability of our agencies to keep New Zealand safe from cyber-security. I too look forward to the debate at select committee. I think the bill is in very good shape, as I say, thanks to the excellent work of the reviewers, initially, and then the collaborative work that has been led by the Attorney-General to get it to this point. I look forward to its report back.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): As the leader of the Labour Party, Andrew Little, mentioned, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee, where it will, as the Attorney-General has just said, go through some fairly significant examination in terms of its suitability and its balance.

I too would like to acknowledge the very different approaches that have been taken, both to this bill and to the foreign fighters legislation in 2014, in terms of a collaborative approach. A bipartisan and collaborative approach on this sort of issue is absolutely essential—first of all, so that the legislation is going to survive various parliaments into the future, and needs to be futureproofed, and secondly, because it looks after and protects some of the most fundamental privileges that we have as New Zealanders and as citizens of this country. Essentially, it protects our freedom to live peacefully, to live in security, and to lead prosperous lives, alongside the freedom of our ability to have privacy, and, to a degree—certainly to a larger degree—the ability to operate within that privacy.

I mention the collaborative approach that has been taken now because I think, unfortunately, 2 or 3 years ago when we first had the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation that came up, you will remember the farcical fiasco around Kim Dotcom at the time, and the way that the Government pushed that piece of legislation through, with the acquiescence, or arm-twisting, of Peter Dunne in order to get it through. I think we did an enormous amount of damage to the way that New Zealanders perceive our intelligence agencies, and the confidence that they had in our ability to conduct those sorts of activities. The means and the process by which it is going through now have a very big bearing on the acceptance that the public will have in terms of the outcome of this bill.

It was our argument back then, in 2012-13, that we needed a comprehensive review. We looked across at Australia, which had already had two comprehensive reviews by that stage, and we still had four fragmented pieces of legislation. Much of it had come out of the Cold War, completely unfit for purpose, and not doing what it should have and was meant to have done.

The Cullen and Reddy review was a very welcome step. They put out, I think, a very good and a very balanced report, and it has stood us in good stead now in terms of taking that report and moving it into the legislation and the new bill. But, as with legislation and with bills, it puts a greater onus on getting it absolutely right, absolutely accurate and robust—perhaps even more so than a review, which can be at least slightly ambiguous or perhaps a little more loose than a piece of legislation.

What we have now is a bill that, from my first reading and look at it anyway, looks good enough, certainly, to support, but it certainly throws up a number of areas that we are going to have to take a better look at. That will mean a number of expert submissions from the Privacy Commissioner, the Law Commission, etc., who had spoken to us and came to us on the foreign fighters legislation, to really look at what we have before us, because we have some pretty thorny issues. Andrew Little mentioned the definition of national security. This is, in a sense, the essence of the bill—what is national security; what is this bill trying to achieve? If we do not get that right, we could lean more towards leniency in terms of what the agencies are able to do, or constrict them unfairly in terms of being able to provide the sorts of protections that we want.

The second issue, which has been mentioned and was predictable, I suppose, was the issue of the GCSB having the ability to spy on New Zealanders. There are a number of issues and problems around the GCSB’s current role and the way that it operates. For example, if we had a New Zealander who was taken hostage in another country, and we heard a New Zealand telephone being used and emanating from that country, and we wanted to know what was being said on that telephone because it might pertain to the plight of that hostage, the GCSB would not be able to listen to that telephone conversation because it is the telephone of a New Zealander.

Likewise, if a New Zealander was overseas and became a foreign fighter, and if we thought that that person might be using their telephone, again we would not be able to listen into that particular call to give us information on that person, or, as in the previous example, on the hostage, because the GCSB is unable to access those records because they happen to be a New Zealander’s. That is patently a ridiculous situation to be in. What the review has come up with, and what is reflected across the bill, is the fact that, yes, the GCSB can look at, for example, the phone records of New Zealanders, but it has to be done in an exceptional way, at what we now call a third-tier level of clearance, which means the Attorney-General, the Commissioner of Security Warrants, an obligatory examination of that warrant by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and looking at the mechanism of that.

It is not a large number, but what we want you to do here is give our intelligence agencies, in a sense, the broadest ability to operate, but with the tightest degree of scrutiny. This is so that they have the range of powers that they need, but they can use them only under very specific and exceptional circumstances where our national security, or somebody’s personal security, is dependent on it. I think that is the balance that this bill has to try to achieve when it goes through, into the select committee.

Andrew Little mentioned, as well, the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. This is a particular issue that I have talked about several times in the past. If you look at the various degrees of oversight, there is the operational oversight that happens within the agencies and there are the operational protocols that are in the agencies, which have been very much tightened over the last few years. There is the judicial oversight, which includes the Commissioner of Security Warrants and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, which is, in a sense, the second level; and there is the third level, which is the political oversight, which is contained in the Intelligence and Security Committee. It currently has five members, and is chaired by the Prime Minister.

In other jurisdictions, that similar committee is not structured in that way, but has senior members—former members perhaps of Government, former Ministers, members of the Opposition, perhaps—on that committee. It is not chaired by the Prime Minister, who has the casting vote, and, therefore, in a sense, has a conflict of interest because the agencies themselves report, ultimately, to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister then has the power of oversight. We do not have the health Minister, for example, sitting on the Health Committee looking at and passing judgment on what his health ministry happens to have done. So getting that balance right in the Intelligence and Security Committee will mean that we will want to look at overseas examples—the Australians, the British, and the Canadians in particular—to see how that works out.

Likewise, a fourth issue that perhaps I will raise as well is the access to databases. There should not be a general access to databases by agencies. It should be done on the basis of what they need to know for a specific purpose, and that it protects the privacy of New Zealanders. When it comes down to it, that is where we need to find the balance in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, before we refer this bill back to the House here. I am confident that this committee can do it. I think we have built, in a sense, the degree of collaboration and bipartisanship in the past. We will be looking at this bill very intently, we will scrutinise it very, very thoroughly, as an Opposition should, but at the end of the day I hope that this will end up being a piece of legislation that will stand New Zealand in good stead.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Firstly, could I please acknowledge the Attorney-General. I think it is important to do that because he sets the tone, in terms of how the debate will unfold and how the work on the select committee will unfold. I know that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee worked on the first piece of legislation, the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, and the Attorney-General set the tone right from the beginning—that it is very important as a Parliament, that we work cross-party, and that we work towards a consensus, because it is a matter of national security. When we look around the world and see how rapidly the terror threat is changing and growing, it is really important that we, as a country, remain serious, that we remain focused, and that we work together to make sure that we have got the best possible legislation in place to protect us, as a nation. The committee has built up some real experience in the national security area over the last couple of years, and I know that members are looking forward to considering this important piece of legislation.

Why do we need it? As the Minister has pointed out, the current legislation has passed its use-by date. National security is one of the core functions of a Government, and we need our decision makers to be well informed in order to effectively advance our national security and well-being. That is why we have the New Zealand SIS and Government Communications Security Bureau. In order for them to do their work, they need top-quality legislation. They do not have it at the moment. For example, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act was passed nearly 50 years ago. It has been amended, but amendments cannot override the fact that it is now totally out of date. An Act passed in the same year as the first moon landing is not an Act that can operate effectively in the internet age.

The Minister mentioned that one of the primary tasks that the committee is going to have to undertake is the examination of how to approach the term “national security”. It has already been mentioned by both the Leader of the Opposition and also my colleague David Shearer. I want to spend the rest of this speech on that topic because of how central it will be to the work of the committee, and because the term is a difficult concept to define because it needs to be able to respond to different threats that may evolve or emerge over time. If we listened to the Hon Amy Adams’ speech—especially in relation to cyber-security—we got a clear picture of how quickly these threats can change and evolve.

The legislation includes a definition of “national security” proposed by the reviewers. It is restricted to protecting, as opposed to advancing, New Zealand’s interests—including its economic and international security. The specific definition proposed by the reviewers, and adopted in the legislation, is as follows: “the protection against—(a) threats, or potential threats, to New Zealand’s status as a free and democratic society from unlawful acts or foreign interference: (b) imminent threats to the life and safety of New Zealanders overseas: (c) threats, or potential threats, that may cause serious harm to the safety or quality of life of the New Zealand population: (d) unlawful acts, or acts of foreign interference, that may cause serious damage to New Zealand’s economic security or international relations: (e) threats, or potential threats, to the integrity of information or infrastructure of critical importance to New Zealand: (f) threats, or potential threats, that may cause serious harm to the safety of a population of another country as a result of unlawful acts by a New Zealander that are ideologically, religiously, or politically motivated: (g) threats, or potential threats, to international security.”

The reviewers’ proposed definition would provide greater clarity to the agencies and to the general public about the types of activities that the agencies are empowered to act in relation to, but it includes a number of different thresholds, such as serious harm, critical importance, and serious damage, which could be confusing. I note the Minister’s comments that he has received advice from the Parliamentary Counsel Office and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) that the approach could be unworkable. Other problems with the definition are a lack of clarity around the scope of the definition, meaning that it would not be clear what types of activities would be covered and what would not; the number of thresholds and tests in the reviewers’ definition would be difficult to apply in practice, and would give rise to uncertainty, in particular circumstances, about whether something fell within the definition; and concerns that an attempt to define “national security” would interact with other legislation and conceptions of national security across Government.

The Minister mentioned the alternative approach drafted by officials, available now on the DPMC website, which he stated would provide the committee with a better starting point. That approach would not define “national security” in and of itself, but would instead operate as an initial threshold with a list of the types of activities and threats in respect of which the agencies can target New Zealanders. It would take a two-step approach. First, the proposed activity would have to be necessary to contribute to the protection of national security. “National security” would not be formally defined, and would, therefore, be adaptive and responsive to a dynamic security environment. It would be determined by the Attorney-General and a judicial commissioner on a case by case basis. Second, the proposed activity would have to be necessary for the collection of intelligence relating to one or more of the following activities in New Zealand or overseas: terrorism or violent extremism; espionage or other foreign intelligence activity; sabotage, proliferation of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons; various activities that may be relevant to serious crime and involve threats to or interference with information or information infrastructure of importance to the Government of New Zealand; threats to international security; threats to New Zealand Government operations in New Zealand or abroad; threats to New Zealand sovereignty, including its territorial or border integrity and system of government; threats to the lives or safety of New Zealanders.

This type of approach would provide greater clarity and transparency, as it sets out clearly the situations when the agencies can target New Zealanders, rather than taking the complex approach recommended by the reviewers. It would leave it to the Attorney-General and the judicial commissioner to determine whether a proposed warrant is necessary to protect New Zealand’s national security. This is a better fit with the reality that national security is not a static concept and that it is appropriate for the Attorney-General and a commissioner to determine the limb of the test through the warranting process, with New Zealanders protected by the triple-lock protection that the Attorney-General referred to in his speech. I have taken the House through this matter in detail because it is important to the legislation and the work the committee will have to do on it. I hope we will receive some good submissions that we can take into account, which was very prominent in the first process on the first piece of legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to consider the legislation. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party opposes the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill. We respect the intention of the Government, and especially the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and also the reviewers, whose report underpinned the legislation. We acknowledge, though not without critical scrutiny, the changing global context in which the report and the legislation are conceived. The issue is this: what mix of constitutional principles is optimal for our nation at any one time? In that respect my party takes a different position from the Government. The stated purpose of the bill is “to protect New Zealand as a free, open, and democratic society”. It is to achieve that by “establishing intelligence and security agencies that … contribute to … [our] national security … international relations … [and] economic well-being … [with] adequate … functions, powers, and duties”. Those functions are to be performed “in accordance with [domestic] law and all human rights obligations … subject to institutional oversight and appropriate safeguards”. The bill fundamentally restructures New Zealand’s legislation pertaining to intelligence and security. Throughout its history, New Zealand has had separate legislation covering these issues, and for good reason.

It has had four pieces of legislation, in fact: the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act of 1969, the Intelligence and Security Committee Act of 1996, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act of 1996, and the Government Communications Security Bureau Act of 2003. The bill sweeps all of this separate legislation into the one single Act. It is not going too far to say that, given the basic nature of the values and principles involved, this is primary legislation with constitutional implications. This sweeping restructure, we are told, is for two reasons—first, a heightened threat level: the past half century has seen a growing sophistication of security threat; second, efficiency: there is a consequent increased need for the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau to work together and pool their resources and pool their expertise, and they are hampered in this respect by having separate legislation.

So on that basis, the bill proceeds to fundamentally amend primary legislation by virtually blending two agencies under a single authorisation framework and providing for joint warrants. We shall probably have occasion in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to explore the intricacies of the 150 pages of the bill. If it goes into the committee, we shall be interested to learn what New Zealanders think of it. Meanwhile, this first reading is the occasion to reflect on the fundamental principles behind the bill that argue for or against its passage. Let me offer a few comments.

The bill is the direct child of the Cullen-Reddy review, the first independent review of intelligence and security in the country’s history, which was called for in the 2013 amendment. The report is a substantive and thoughtful document, a considerable portion of which we disagree with. The report is headed “Intelligence and Security in a Free Society”, thereby advancing the presumption that intrusive powers and civic freedoms are compatible. It opens by advancing what it calls two extreme views of the place of intelligence and security in society. One extreme is that State and individual security overrides other considerations. The other is that freedom and liberty are so precious that any secret activity by State agencies inevitably threatens those human rights. Most people’s views, the report says, lie between these two extremes, as do those of the reviewers. Voila! The review has just attained unction, having mortgaged the centre ground by assertion.

The review recommends, and the bill states, that its fundamental purpose is the protection of New Zealand as “a free, open, and democratic society”. This becomes what is called the guiding principle by which the activities of the agencies must be judged. Yet in paragraph 12 the review asserts that “The Agencies’ activities are, by their nature, intrusive.” Intelligence-gathering on a citizen that is in any way and to whatever extent intrusive, by definition, encroaches into the human rights of that citizen. How can we gather covert intelligence about a citizen without intruding into that citizen’s right to personal privacy? We may claim justification, but we cannot claim we are protecting a free society and, in the next breath, acknowledge that the action is intrusive. It is too cute. To the extent that the intrusion exists, that is the extent of encroachment on freedom. That is not an extreme view; it is a palpable truth.

In chapter 1, the review says that “We have approached this question from the perspective that security and privacy are complementary rather than competing rights.” In support of this, it cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3, pertaining to life, liberty, and security of the person. It does not cite the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which reaffirms that indigenous peoples in the exercise of their rights should be free from discrimination of any kind—something that our State security apparatus has not displayed a huge amount of respect for in the past. The review asserts that “Most rights are not absolute.”, and it cites the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which provides that “Rights may be subject … to such reasonable limits … [that] can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” It does not cite the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which identifies certain non-derogable rights.

Setting aside for the moment whether intelligence gathering breaches those rights, it is not proven in the review, or the bill, why the expansion of intrusive powers is justified. It is simply asserted that times have changed and the threat has increased, yet the official level of threat assessment for New Zealand remains “low”, revised up from “extremely low” in October 2014. A “low” threat level is defined as possible but unlikely. Neither the review nor the bill explores this in detail, yet the bill rests its justification for centralised, expanded, and intrusive State powers on this basis. That is, at the least, contestable. The New Zealand assessment differs from those in the US, UK, France, Belgium, and Australia. The vulnerability of a country to global terrorism is broadly correlated with the extent of its military engagement with terrorist groups. The Green Party has maintained that terrorism should be regarded and managed as a criminal issue, both domestically and internationally, not treated as a threat to international peace and security. The only exception to this might be Islamic State, which possesses territory, claims universal jurisdiction, and declares war against UN member States. That is debatable. But most terrorism around the world is domestic in nature and focus and should not be hyped as an integral part of a global security threat.

The review recommends that the Attorney-General be the responsible Minister to approve tier one and tier two authorisations for intrusive powers. As the principal officer of the Crown, the Attorney-General is the appropriate member of the executive branch to take into account human rights implications and ensure that the rule of law is upheld. This raises the issue of the relationship between terrorism and the use of force by the State, including a foreign State; and between warrants for intelligence gathering based on suspicion of terrorist activity on the one hand, and for criminal liability based on suspicion of breaches of the law of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity on the other hand. It is one thing to authorise a warrant to intrude into the private behaviour of a New Zealand resident; it is another to issue a warrant for the arrest of a visiting foreign leader for the excessive use of force, as occurred in 2006 in this country when the then Attorney-General saw fit to quash a magistrate’s arrest warrant against a foreign leader within 24 hours of its authorisation. The rule of law works both ways if a free, open, and democratic society is to retain its integrity.

The problem with this bill is that it authorises the centralisation and extension of intrusive State power into the private lives of individuals, after a spate of inquiries have shown the loose regard for law that those relevant agencies have maintained. There are many nuances to this all-important bill, and no doubt we shall explore them in a select committee. Suffice it to record here in this first reading that the Green Party sees no sufficient case, as laid out in the independent review, to justify the centralisation and expansion of intrusive State powers incorporated in the bill. We shall, therefore, be voting against it.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This bill has been a long time coming since the Government was first elected in 2008. Despite serious threats, nothing much happened until 2013, and then a rather ham-fisted attempt was made with some stopgap legislation. We had by then seen a situation in which agencies had acted illegally and in which nobody really seemed to know what the law was, and it was something of a shambles, presided over by a Prime Minister who was clearly not on top of his job. In fact, the best thing that came out of the 2013 legislation was the commitment for a comprehensive review, and the Cullen-Reddy review has been the result of that.

I want to take this opportunity immediately to compliment Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy for an excellent and very comprehensive review, which forms the basis for this legislation. It is a comprehensive review, and most of its recommendations are to be implemented.

New Zealand First takes the need for a robust regime to protect national security, across a broad range of threats, very seriously. I was very interested to hear the comments made by Amy Adams in her description of the magnitude of cyber-threats, which are being mounted against this country on a daily basis. New Zealand First seeks better arrangements than we currently have to ensure the protection we need in a very troubled world, but not at the price of the freedoms and privacy that Kiwis are entitled to expect. We will support the bill to the select committee to pursue these dual objectives.

The Cullen-Reddy review’s recommendations that the Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB) and the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), and their oversight bodies, be covered by a single, comprehensive piece of legislation are the basis of the bill. It emphasises the need to remove the barriers to effective cooperation between those two agencies and the need to improve transparency and oversight arrangements to give the public greater confidence that the agencies are acting lawfully and appropriately. We support that approach.

New Zealand First’s objectives have always been firstly to protect Kiwis’ civil liberties, freedoms, and privacy, but also protection from threats to our safety and to our essential national security interests. Therefore, we fully recognise the need for effective intelligence and we accept the need to conduct surveillance and collect intelligence about New Zealand citizens and residents where necessary, provided that there is a robust process for authorisations, provided that the law is clear and effective, and provided that there are comprehensive review and oversight provisions to give the public confidence that the security agencies are independently supervised and accountable.

I was interested in Kennedy Graham’s speech. I would like to remind him that the rights of every individual are subject to the rights of others, and those rights include the right of security. The rights of individuals are not absolute; they are subject to the rights of others. That is what I think the flaw in his argument is.

New Zealand First has a number of issues that it wants to pursue with this bill. One of the concerns is the membership of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. There is still a pretence that there is a Leader of the Opposition, and that is archaic in an MMP parliament. There is, in fact, no such office. That has to be changed. That is in the bill. All of that has to be changed, as far as we are concerned. This does not mean that as of right all political parties should be represented, but it does mean that representation needs to be more than just the old Labour-National axis. The rationale is that the people on the committee must be experienced and trustworthy, and our main concern is that the committee must not be dominated by the Government.

Looking at the main elements in the bill, there will be a single authorisation regime, which seems to me to be robust as set out. Warrants will authorise the agencies “to carry out an otherwise unlawful activity where it contributes to [specified] objectives”. I think that is very important. Tier 1 warrants are required to collect intelligence about New Zealand citizens or residents, and approval for them is required from both the Attorney-General and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. Those two approvals, along with the oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, are what is being referred to as the “triple-lock system”, as mentioned by the Attorney-General in his speech. The activity authorised must contribute to New Zealand’s national security, and that term, “national security”, is therefore very important.

As we have heard other speakers say, there are two alternatives available—the one in the bill and that promoted by the officials. I prefer at this stage the officials’ version over the one in the bill, because it seems to me to be more focused and specific, listing relevant activities. They were set out well by Mark Mitchell in his speech. I think that seems to me to be the better way to proceed. However, in the end the select committee will need to consider and decide on that.

The additional criteria for a warrant, in clause 57, include a necessity test as well as a proportionate-to-purpose test, and require that the purpose of the warrant could not be better achieved by other means. There is also a requirement for reasonable use of the warrant and for the information collected to be used lawfully. That is pretty comprehensive, I believe.

Tier 2 warrants can be issued to collect intelligence about people who are neither citizens nor residents. These are approved by the Attorney-General only, but otherwise the provisions are similar to the tier 1 warrants. That all seems to be quite a good way to deal with the situation as far as New Zealand First is concerned.

There is also a need for urgent oral warrants, and they are covered in clauses 69 to 71. That power is subject to the requirement for the Attorney-General to immediately advise the Chief Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, who can cancel it until a formal application is made. I would like to say about Andrew Little’s comments on that that I do not agree with him that it is inappropriate for the Attorney-General to be able to be the person who authorises those warrants. I think that is quite appropriate. What I would say is that I agreed with Andrew Little when he questioned the length of time that those warrants can endure for. We need to have a look at that in the select committee, as well.

Privacy issues are of the highest importance. I am very pleased to see that the bill increases the number of information privacy principles applying to the GCSB and the SIS. That will give individuals an avenue for making complaints where none has previously existed.

Of the greatest importance, the bill improves oversight arrangements. The removal of the current restriction on the inspector-general inquiring into operationally sensitive matters is good to see, and clarifying that the inspector-general may review warrants on substantive as well as procedural grounds is a matter that New Zealand First has insisted upon during the consultation process. New Zealand First is pleased to see the inspector-general’s appointment will be by the House of Representatives. That will show that person’s independence in that role. The inspector-general’s functions, in clause 121, provide a pretty comprehensive set of review powers that I think will give New Zealanders great confidence that he will be effective in that role. He also has the ability to conduct unscheduled audits of procedures and compliance, and I am glad to see that. There is also a complaints procedure of an independent nature to the inspector-general, and that is good.

Reporting is to the Minister responsible, the Prime Minister, the director-general of the appropriate agency, and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. That also is good to see.

Finally, it is good to see that the bill also offers some protection to whistleblowers and will bring the agencies within the ambit of the normal State sector arrangements. However, the restriction to inform only the inspector-general is something that we will need to consider at the select committee. Whether that is satisfactory or whether there should be a wider ability for people to blow the whistle to other people is something that we need to look at more closely.

Finally, New Zealand First does welcome this bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. His time has expired.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): It has been good to listen to the debate on this bill so far. I think, from my calculation, that there will probably be about 15 members of Parliament who will be voting against this bill. That, I think, indicates to the House that there is broad cross-party support for this piece of legislation to go through to the select committee after a first reading, and I think that is a testament both to the information that was provided to the Government by the Dame Patsy Reddy and Sir Michael Cullen review and to the work that the Attorney-General and Prime Minister have put into this legislation to ensure that there are improvements to the mechanisms in place around intelligence and security in this country—to ensure the agencies can do their jobs but also that there are appropriate protection mechanisms in place.

I would like to focus, during my contribution to this debate, on the information-sharing aspects of this legislation and the privacy protections that it puts in place. I think privacy protections are a fundamental issue of interest for New Zealanders. This bill provides some good news for New Zealanders and it is something that I believe New Zealanders will be happy with. A good starting point on this topic is the comment of the Privacy Commissioner, John Edwards. He pointed out recently, on Twitter, that this bill is a significant improvement in privacy terms. That is quite high praise, I think, coming from the Privacy Commissioner. I think it is a tribute also to the work that has gone into ensuring that New Zealanders’ privacy is protected in the greatest possible way in this legislation, which, after all, deals with the two agencies with the most intrusive powers in the New Zealand Government.

The bill also allows information sharing through three broad categories, which I will outline here. Firstly, it gives the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) direct access to certain Government databases. This follows the recommendation of the reviewers that the agencies should access these databases directly. One of the agencies is the New Zealand Customs Service. Its database has information about border-crossing crafts, goods, and people. This is to detect, for example, persons of interest such as suspected terrorists or foreign intelligence officers. It also provides access to the Immigration New Zealand database. This is to help track the movement of persons of interest. The Department of Internal Affairs database, Births, Deaths and Marriages, and the relationships and citizenship registers will also have access to them. This is to help cross-check information to confirm identities or associations between people of interest or to confirm their nationality.

As the Minister mentioned earlier in this debate, the Labour Party has raised issues about this final database, and we will have a good look at that in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The committee has a track record, I believe, of working quite well with Opposition parties on issues like this, and will continue to do that under Mark Mitchell’s chairmanship. But it is useful to look at the key protections that are already in the legislation.

The access to information must only take place in accordance with an agreement between the relevant Ministers. That agreement must be consulted on with the Privacy Commissioner and the Inspector-General, and the Ministers must take account of any comments they make. The agreements must be published, and the agreements have to be reviewed every 3 years. There are other protections, saying that the access must be necessary and that there are adequate safeguards to protect New Zealanders. The agencies are also going to be made subject to the Privacy Act, which will be providing further protection for New Zealanders.

The second category of access of information sharing allows the agencies to seek access to restricted information, such as driver’s licence photographs, tax information, and national student identification numbers, on a case by case basis, with significant protections that reflect the sensitivity of this sort of information and the right of every New Zealander to know it will only ever be accessed in the most extraordinary of circumstances. The most significant protection is that permission must be sought from the Attorney-General and the Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants to access any such information on a case by case basis. They will need to be satisfied that the request is proportionate and necessary and in line with the requirements of the legislation.

Finally, the bill clarifies the existing position that the agencies can request other information from other public and private entities as required. This is set out in clause 99 of the bill. I have set out some of the key protections around access to information, but there is really no greater overall protection than what the bill does with the Privacy Act 1993. The bill will repeal the general exception provided to the GCSB and NZSIS in the Privacy Act 1993.

I want to acknowledge that this is a significant step. It was not something that was recommended by the review, nor was it recommended by the Law Commission when it reviewed the Privacy Act. This change in the legislation goes well beyond the privacy protections that the reviewers envisaged would be put in place. But this was something that has been advocated for by the Privacy Commissioner. It is also something that the Government has taken very seriously. For the first time the agencies will be brought under the full umbrella of the Privacy Act, with some specialised exceptions in light of their functions.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will have a good look at that area. I look forward to hearing the views of the Privacy Commissioner and other individuals interested in the issues of privacy when they make submissions. The Privacy Commissioner himself has already made some good comments in a piece that he put on The Spinoff website, which is available for all to read.

Chris Bishop: What a great website.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Thank you, Mr Bishop. I want to quickly cover the topic of immunity. The Labour Party has said it is not comfortable with undercover agents getting immunity from prosecution. There are three things that I think should be said in response to that, from our reading of the bill and Cabinet papers. The main point is that a person must always be acting in good faith, in a reasonable manner, and the act must be necessary. If this is not the case, there is no immunity. If there is any real fear that someone can act dishonestly or with bad faith and still have the immunity apply, that is not the case.

The immunities that have been drafted are actually quite targeted also, in that they relate specifically to the legal protections that employees need to carry out their jobs. Most of the immunities reflect the existing ones for the police and other public servants. The select committee will be looking at these areas very carefully. I know that privacy questions are areas that many New Zealanders are concerned about. They want to ensure that the Parliament takes them seriously and puts in place appropriate mechanisms to protect New Zealanders. I think this legislation goes a long way towards protecting New Zealanders’ rights to privacy whilst also allowing the GCSB and the NZSIS to do their job on behalf of New Zealanders, in the public interest.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Metiria Turei—5 minutes.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I do want to just acknowledge the Minister’s efforts to talk with us about this bill and what was happening, and also his commitment to a full select committee process for this legislation. It is critical that New Zealanders have access to the select committee to work through the provisions of this bill, given it is their rights that could potentially be infringed by these provisions. We need to have a very robust discussion about the provisions of this legislation, about security in New Zealand, and about the rights of New Zealanders to be free from an unjust incursion into their rights.

I want to address two issues that have been touched on, particularly in the media, and they are around oversight of the agencies and the extent to which this bill does or does not deal with that. First is the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think it was very unfortunate, and quite improper, actually, for the Prime Minister to say that the Greens or others who might disagree with him should not be represented on the parliamentary committee that provides oversight of the intelligence and security agencies. This Parliament is representative of a broad range of views; the select committees in this Parliament are also representative, proportionally, of those views. This committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee, should also have representatives from a broad range of views so that when these agencies, these spying agencies, come to that committee, there is a genuine investigation into their work, into the justification of their work, to make sure that the hard questions are asked. If the only people on this committee are those who agree with the agencies and their powers, and no one who will question them, then New Zealanders can rightly say that this process is undemocratic and constitutionally foul, because it does not do the job it is supposed to do, which is to oversee the very critical role that these agencies play in protecting New Zealanders, but also the retention and the protection of New Zealanders’ human rights. We want to see that committee expanded. There are ways to do that very practically that do not require a political intervention. One of the suggestions is that a party that meets the definition of a parliamentary party under the Standing Orders has automatic representation. That keeps the committee to a manageable number of people but also makes sure there is a broader representation of views, which is critical in a representative democracy, which we are elected here to uphold.

The second part of the oversight process is, of course, the inspector-general. There are some good provisions in this legislation in relation to her current office. I would just say that in the reports over the last 2 years, the inspector-general, when she has looked at the processes that the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) and the Government Communications and Security Bureau have used as they go about their business, has provided almost consistent criticism of the failings of those two agencies. The most recent one that I am aware of is on the vetting process, for example, that the SIS does, where the inspector-general has said that that information—private information, confidential information—is not being held securely, that there is far too much access from far too many people, and that that information is being improperly used for counter-intelligence. We want to make sure that when these agencies gather information about New Zealanders’ private details—where people live, what they do, who they know, where they go—that information is being properly used by these spy agencies, and she has said that there are process issues with the SIS.

We also know that the SIS has been told by her that they have not been meeting their legal obligations and that they have unsound compliance procedures. No doubt they will be working on these issues, but if these agencies and the Government, which oversees them, want these agencies to have increased power to gather information about New Zealanders and what we all do, they need to prove that they are responsible enough to manage that information—and they have not proven it yet. The inspector-general has shown serious concerns with the process that these agencies use, and, at least until she is confident that these agencies will hold that information properly and have good processes in place, they certainly should not be given expanded powers to spy on New Zealanders and keep our information. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Stuart Nash—5 minutes.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): First of all, I want to reiterate Andrew Little’s and David Shearer’s comments about how Minister Finlayson is doing a fantastic job with this. I mean, my experience of Chris Finlayson—and I have dealt with him on issues in Napier—is that he is very consultative and collaborative, partly because he understands the necessity of getting this absolutely right.

Metiria Turei is right when she says that we have got to ensure that the rights of Kiwis are not infringed, but the bit she did not put in, which is why I think Labour is supporting this, is that we also need to protect the right of New Zealanders to live in a safe society—to live in a community with the expectations and the beliefs and the quality of life that we have come to expect in 21st century New Zealand. I think we are being naive to believe that just because we live at the end of the world, surrounded by this massive big moat called the Pacific Ocean, we are immune to any sort of terrorist attacks.

One of the things that I am very, very conscious of is that I actually do not sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee. Unless you do, it is very difficult to know the threats to our country that are brought before that select committee. In fact, very few MPs do know, but the fact that these MPs are the ones who are supporting this bill—the fact that these MPs actually understand the threats that our country could be under—means that we need this sort of legislation, which actually should have been done a long time ago. In fact, my colleague David Shearer has been calling for this review for a long time, and it was not until responsibility was handed over to Mr Finlayson that a review by Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy was undertaken. I think everyone in this House acknowledges—well, the vast majority of members in this House—that it was an exceptionally thorough and highly respected review that covered all the topics that it was asked to do, and this legislation is what has come out of it.

But let us be clear about this: this is a very important piece of legislation with far-reaching consequences, and we know that New Zealanders will be watching closely. That is why we want to see as many submissions, from all the experts as well as good, hard-working Kiwis—but all the experts—presented in front of the select committee. It is very important that New Zealanders have confidence that when this legislation is passed, it is done in a very robust, democratic, and constitutional manner, which it will be.

My colleague David Shearer and my colleague David Parker are the two Labour MPs on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. These are two of our most senior members of Parliament, both with international experience. David Shearer, of course, has international experience in this exact area of international terrorism, in working in a lot of the world’s trouble spots. David Parker has experience in areas of constitutional law. I do not think that Labour could have put up two more experienced and competent MPs in this area to actually drive this forward.

Chris Bishop: What about you?

STUART NASH: It is not my area of expertise at all, Mr Bishop. I know it is your area of expertise, because you are an expert on everything, but in this case I have absolute confidence that Mr Shearer and Mr Parker will be holding the Government to account to ensure that the legislation we pass will not only protect the rights of New Zealanders—the Greens can be absolutely certain of that—but will also protect the safety of our communities. Let us be honest, that is incredibly important in this day and age.

What I am told is that this is not a piece of legislation that good, hard-working New Zealanders need to be worried about. I know there is that glib line “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to be worried about.”, and I do not buy into that. But what I am told is that there has to be absolute probable cause for the spy agency to spy on New Zealanders. The legislation goes through a number of checks and balances, so this is not going to be a willy-nilly “We don’t like the cut of this bloke’s jib, let’s send the agency in.” There will be probable cause, there will be a number of checks and balances, and I think New Zealanders can be absolutely certain that this agency is going to act with the level of integrity that we will expect.

Just to sum up, Labour is absolutely supporting this piece of legislation to select committee. We are very keen to hear what the experts have to say, and we are very sure that the legislation that will return to the House after the select committee will meet all members’ expectations. I congratulate the Minister on his level of consultation and I look forward to seeing this come back to the House after select committee. Thank you very much.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak as deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to support the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill. In this contribution, I want to take an in-depth look at the new warranting regime and some of the protections in the legislation. To start with, why do we need a new regime? As the Minister has set out, section 14 of the current Government Communications Security Bureau Act does not provide the protection a number of people assume it does. The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) is already able to target New Zealanders for cyber-assurance and assistance functions. However, in many cases section 14 actually prevents the GCSB from doing the security job we need it to do.

Let us take a hypothetical situation under the current legislation. Let us say the Government has fragments of information about New Zealanders fighting overseas, let us say in an area controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and they clearly need to be identified. The two main agencies involved would be the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) and the GCSB. Let us look at the NZSIS first. In the current situation, the NZSIS may well be unable to get a warrant because it can currently target only individuals, and yet there are only fragments of information about who these people are and not enough to specifically identify an individual.

Let us look at what the GCSB can do. The GCSB specifically cannot target New Zealanders, because section 14 of its Act bars it from targeting New Zealanders for intelligence-gathering purposes. But it can assist the NZSIS, and here is the problem, because assisting the NZSIS would require a warrant and yet, as we have already noted, this is not possible because we cannot identify an individual, and so the GCSB also cannot assist. This then leaves our two main intelligence agencies unable to address the security risk described in this example. This situation is clearly unsatisfactory, and is one of the reasons the report of the independent review of intelligence and security recommended that section 14 be repealed.

The quid pro quo is that the GCSB and NZSIS will now be covered by the same enhanced warranting regime. This legislation brings the NZSIS and GCSB under the same warranting structure, and introduces a concept called the “triple lock” as a better safeguard for New Zealanders than section 14. The triple lock means that a warrant must be approved jointly by the Attorney-General and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, with oversight provided by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Any NZSIS or GCSB warrant targeting a New Zealander will be subject to this core protection, the triple lock. This is in addition to the very high bar for all warrants that they must be proportionate and necessary. Furthermore, unless they are an agent of a foreign power, a New Zealander can only ever be targeted for national security reasons. As the Minister pointed out, this is an important restriction on the current NZSIS legislation, which allows New Zealanders to be targeted for wider economic well-being and international relations grounds. In the new regime, national security is the overriding consideration.

Let us look at the types of warrants. What does the new warranting system look like? First, there are tier 1 warrants; these are required for intelligence collection activities targeting New Zealanders, and would otherwise be unlawful. These must always be approved by the Attorney-General and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, and they are subject to review by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—this is the triple lock that I have already mentioned. Under the current system, the Minister responsible for the relevant agency signs the warrants and then the Commissioner of Security Warrants countersigns. Under the new system, the Attorney-General will replace the Minister responsible, and this reflects the non-political and careful way in which these warrants will be issued. The commissioner will retain his function.

Then there are tier 2 warrants; these are required for intelligence collection activities targeting non - New Zealanders, which would otherwise be unlawful. The system here is the same as for tier 1 warrants, with the Attorney-General authorising the warrant. The Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants is not involved with tier 2 warrants, as their function is as a protection for New Zealanders.

The bill also allows for joint warrants in appropriate circumstances. This is to aid the two agencies to work together where required. The legislation does not propose amalgamating the agencies, as that would significantly increase their powers. It is in all our interests, however, for them to have the ability to work together when they need to, subject to all the protections set out in the bill. The bill also allows for purpose-based warrants where it is not possible to identify a specific target. These will only ever be available where the objectives of the warrant cannot be accomplished through a targeted warrant. It is a very high bar to meet, but it fills an important gap.

To return to my earlier hypothetical where the GCSB could not identify New Zealanders fighting overseas in an area controlled by ISIL, how would that situation be resolved under this new legislation? Under the new framework, GCSB and/or NZSIS could attain a tier 1 warrant for the purpose of New Zealanders fighting overseas with groups like ISIL. Every tier 1 warrant is issued by the Attorney-General and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. A “Type 1 warrant” can be issued only for national security purposes, which would be satisfied in these cases, and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security would have the ability to review the warrant. That outcome is a vast improvement on the current situation, which is the result of legislation that has probably been amended too often and has failed to keep up with the times.

In conclusion, this legislation is a good piece of work. I commend the Attorney-General and officials for bringing it to the House to this point, and I look forward to working on it with my colleagues across the House on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill, the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill. I have to say, in my many years here in Parliament this is the first opportunity that I have had to debate such a bill, and so I do welcome this opportunity.

Like many others here today—in fact, most speakers—I would like to acknowledge the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the way that he has conducted the whole process of this bill—the input into it and the inquiry. I think it shows an Attorney-General who is willing and open to wanting to work with members of this House. That has not always been the case, and so, like others, I want to put that on the record.

Andrew Little, when he was speaking, said that this bill is a good start and that Labour will be supporting it to the select committee, and it is a good start. I will raise some of our concerns later on, but I am a strong believer, and have been for most of my parliamentary career, in allowing the public to have a say on legislation that comes to this Parliament. That is why, even at times when there are bills that you think are not the best bills in the world, allowing the public to make a submission and have a say on it is, I think, part of a democratic process, which is why I believe that this bill should go to a select committee to enable there to be a public say on it. I am glad that Shane Reti is going to be the chair of this committee because I have a lot of faith in him as a person who will conduct this committee in an open and transparent way; my experience with Dr Reti is in the Health Committee, and that is his style.

The security of New Zealanders is the responsibility of any Government, whether it is food security or biosecurity or national security. A Government or a Parliament that does not do its utmost to protect the security of its citizens is failing them. I have to say, having been a Minister of Police, I often felt that acutely when issues arose where the police had to intervene. At the same time here in New Zealand, we have two main laws that specifically promote and protect human rights: the Human Rights Act of 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is in that latter Act that the range of civil and political rights are set out, which arise from the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It includes freedom of expression, freedom of religious belief, freedom of movement, and the right to be free from discrimination. When we are looking at a bill like this we are looking at how we balance the right for national security with that of human rights, and all legislation that comes here is examined to see whether it is consistent with the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. A Government is required to provide justification for limits placed on these rights. I am one of those who always goes and reads the regulatory impact statement that is provided to this House—often with great disappointment, when large amounts of it are redacted.

That is not the case in this particular one, but I do want to just point out—and this is something I hope that we can improve in the future—that this was tabled today. Many of us in the House have not had the opportunity to download references in this regulatory impact statement. So, for example, there is a regulatory impact statement provided to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We are then told to go and download it, and we are given a website. That is not always possible when it comes to the House at the last moment, and you are trying to read it and prepare. We then have one that is advice given to the Attorney-General from the Ministry of Justice. We are also told “it is generally expected to be on the Ministry of Justice’s website.” I have not had the time to go and see whether it is. But these sorts of things ought to be provided and available for members to be able to read very readily with the bill.

The last one I want to raise is consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner was consulted, but the report from the department does not tell us what he said. So I believe that these things ought to be part of a regulatory impact statement and part of a department disclosure statement, which makes it much easier for open debate here in this Parliament.

The bill we have today must, as I said, balance national security and human rights, and if you get it wrong, New Zealanders will punish politicians. There is no doubt that legislation controlling the work and the scope of the New Zealand security and intelligence agencies needed to be updated. Heavens above! This world is moving so fast. It is moving so fast in terms of terrorism and global threats that we cannot believe that just because of where we live we do not face a threat here in New Zealand. It may be a domestic threat, but there could well be a threat here in New Zealand, and New Zealanders would expect us to be ready for that. To hear the Minister of Justice’s comments on cyber-threats to New Zealand—it is something you would not have dreamt about a decade ago. This is what is happening in our world today. It is totally different from the old days of 007 and picking up your spying from bits of paper. What we see happening today is totally different from that.

I welcome the action that was taken by the Government in setting up an independent review of intelligence and security in New Zealand. My colleague David Shearer was very keen on such a review. The Government could have had a review that was not independent, but it was an independent one and it was carried out by two highly respected New Zealanders, Dame Patsy Reddy and Sir Michael Cullen. I think their review and report were very considered. They were very careful, and they were very collegial in ensuring that we knew what was in that report. With my knowledge of Sir Michael Cullen, who has a great grasp of legislation and of human rights, and who was a parliamentarian in this place for many years, I personally had a lot of faith that he would do a very good job. I do not know Dame Patsy as well, but from the report, it seems they worked incredibly well together.

What this bill does do is replace four existing Acts that currently apply to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the NZSIS and their oversight bodies, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Intelligence and Security Committee. It puts them into one piece of legislation. That, to me, makes common sense, because one of the problems you have in trying to find legislation, if you have to hunt through a whole lot of other pieces of legalisation, is putting it together. This, I think, is something that Sir Michael would have been very keen to promote, because he has understanding of how laws are interpreted and how easy to find they need to be.

The second thing that this bill does is it continues existing protections around political neutrality, lawful advocacy, protest, and dissent, and it requires the director-general of an intelligence and security agency to regularly consult with the Leader of the Opposition. I have to say that I disagree with my colleague from New Zealand First—there is a Leader of the Opposition in this House, and there has been for as long as I can remember. I am pretty certain that if New Zealand First was the biggest party in Opposition today, there would be a Leader of the Opposition. So it exists as part of our House today.

What I also think is an important part of the requirements of this bill is far more transparency from the GCSB and the SIS on their functions, and it is acknowledged for the first time in this legislation. What I have noticed in very recent years is that the openness and the transparency that we have had from those agencies I have not seen before. I think that is very welcomed, because they have had a cloak of secrecy over them that made people very suspicious of their activities. I am in a privileged position of being able to meet with the leaders of both the GCSB and the SIS, and their openness and transparency, I think, is very good indeed.

The third issue I wanted to mention is the fact that the GCSB and the SIS—[Interruption] I thought I had 5 minutes, Mr Assistant Speaker. I have only just got warmed up.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, you’ve just had 10 minutes.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh, well—extension of time! Can I just conclude by saying we do not believe, however, that the bill gets the balance right, and that is why, at the select committee, we do want to look at the definition of national security. I believe that the Government will be very willing to listen to what we have got to say, and make the appropriate amendments. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Rt Hon Winston Peters—Delivery of Letter

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just rise to correct, under the provisions of the Standing Orders, a statement that I made in a point of order earlier today. I have become aware, literally in the last few minutes, that a letter that I said had not been received by the ninth floor, from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, had, in fact, been delivered to the ninth floor but not dealt with through a process that would have put it in front of us. That is not making any excuse for what some could take as a suggestion that process had not been followed properly by the Rt Hon Winston Peters when, in fact, it had. I apologise to the House for that.

Bills

New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): It falls to me to close off this debate on behalf of the Government. I want to acknowledge the excellent speeches that have been given in the debate before. I think, in some ways, it has been Parliament at its best. I want to acknowledge the Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, for his contribution to the debate, and also the remarks of my good colleague Mark Mitchell, the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—very apposite remarks. I also want to acknowledge the very generous-spirited speech by Annette King that we have just heard in the House as well—remarks, I think, that the Government and the committee considering this bill will be reflecting on.

It was the first Chief Justice of the United States—one of the founding fathers of the United States—John Jay, who said that among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. Throughout history, free and democratic societies have grappled with the appropriate balance between national security and civil liberties. It is with that in mind that I want to briefly reflect on some of the contributions we have heard in the debate so far today.

Kennedy Graham from the Greens gave an interesting speech, which purported to be a case against sending this bill to a select committee and a first reading. It was an interesting speech. It did not really make the case for not voting for the bill. Mr Graham said that this was a bill of a constitutional nature and deserved the most serious respect and scrutiny, and I agree, and the Government agrees, and that is why it will go to a committee. It is why the Government has introduced this bill after a thorough and conscientious independent review of the intelligence agencies, carried out by Dame Patsy Reddy and Michael Cullen. I do find it interesting, because in 2013 the Greens called for a full and independent review, which has been carried out, and this legislation is the response to it.

Mr Graham talked about the two extremes that one could see in the debate around civil liberties and national security. The one extreme of an overly burdensome State that allowed no liberty, that was solely focused on its own survival and its protection and the security of its citizens, and the other extreme, which was a no-holds-barred, untrammelled situation in which the Government had no intrusion into the lives of people in order to protect them—a scenario in which there was no national security apparatus. Mr Kennedy Graham asserted that the independent report I have just mentioned talked about mortgaging the centre ground by assertion, in trying to draw a distinction between those two extremes.

I put it to the House that of course liberty and security must conflict in some ways—of course that is true to a certain extent. But we have section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and every constitution allows the balancing of rights and the intrusion upon particular rights in a free and democratic society, where that can be demonstrably justified. I say that the intrusion into civil liberties for the protection of the collective is one of those circumstances. I will come to the exact balance in a moment.

The other point I want to make to the House very strongly is that, although there is a trade-off in some degrees between liberty and security, it must also be true, I think, that liberty and security are complementary. It is very hard to have a freedom-loving people and it is very hard to have the rights that are in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or in constitutions around the world, without security to exercise those liberties. It is very hard to live in a society and assemble freely, to exercise free speech, or to gather with one another in a public sphere—or even in a private sphere—when you live in a society that lives under the threat of terrorism, or where there is no national security apparatus that can protect you carrying out those lawful activities in a free society; where you are living in fear of the risk of attacks, even in an electronic sense, and even when carrying out things on the internet, when there are threats on the internet that would deprive you of the ability to carry out those things that are lawful. So liberty and security, I think, must be regarded as complementary. That is why the middle ground that Kennedy Graham said does not exist, I think does exist.

Of course, the real question is finding where that middle ground is, and finding the appropriate balance. That is why the Government has conducted this independent review; that is why we have the bill before us. It has been asserted that no case was made through that independent review for this legislation. That is not true. If one goes and reads that very comprehensive report—and speakers from all sides, actually, have paid tribute to the very diligent and thorough nature of the report—one will find a case made for the important provisions in this bill. The Government’s objective has been to produce effective, clear, and easy-to-understand legislation that both keeps New Zealanders safe and is accountable to them.

I have to say, I am a bit disappointed in the Hon Peter Dunne, who has come out in opposition to this legislation. I think he seemed to ignore the supportive comments of the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. Some of the things he has claimed about the legislation in recent days are not correct. He said, for example, that there is no definition of national security. Well, there is a definition of national security in the legislation. There will no doubt be a debate about that—the Government has well signalled that—but to say there is not a definition is not correct, and so it is a little bit disappointing.

Our intelligence agencies identify and help protect New Zealand against threats to our security, and they collect intelligence to advance our international interests and enhance our well-being. As my good colleague Mark Mitchell said in his contribution to the debate, we are relatively insulated from some of the challenges faced by some countries, but we are by no means immune. The Hon Amy Adams put on the record for the House the risks and dangers that exist in cyber-crime and electronic security, for example, and that they are the quid pro quo of having an open and free internet where free speech and commerce can flourish.

I do want to briefly mention the triple-lock system that is implemented by this legislation. The bill actually proposes a world-leading system of oversight where warrants directed at New Zealanders will be authorised by the Attorney-General and an independent judicial commissioner. The implementation of the warrant is then subject to review by the Attorney-General. This has been described as the triple lock, which will ensure that the agencies’ powers will be authorised only when necessary and proportionate, and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will ensure the agencies comply with the warrant when it is executed.

As my colleague Mark Mitchell has pointed out, and as I have just mentioned, the bill defines national security in a way that defines the circumstances when the agencies may direct their powers towards New Zealanders. The Government has included in the bill the definition provided by the independent reviewers. I think it is well understood now that there is going to be a debate about this, and perhaps there are some shortcomings to the definition—the scope is potentially unclear and unnecessarily complex—but we are going to have a debate about that, and that is absolutely appropriate because it is very important that we get it right.

This is the most significant reform of our intelligence agencies in our country’s history. I think it is appropriate that we have broad parliamentary cross-party support for sending this bill to a select committee. This is a good piece of legislation. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will now carefully examine it, and I look forward to seeing it return to the House in the near future.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 106

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 15

Green Party 14; United Future 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Bills

Māori Purposes Bill

Second Reading

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa e noho nei i tēnei wā, te wā e whakanuia ana te tekau tau o te noho o Kīngi Tūheitia i tōna taumata, e whakanuia ana ki runga o Tūrangawaewae i tēnei wā. Ka mihi ki a ia, ā, ki Te Kāhui Ariki, ki Te Kīngitanga e whakanuia ana i a rātou. Ka mutu, ko te āhuatanga ō tō tātou mate, waiho rātou kia tangihia, ā, anei tātou i tēnei rā, huri noa, kia ora tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and salutations to us all seated here at this moment in time, at the time that the 10th year of King Tuheitia’s reign is being celebrated at Tūrangawaewae. I congratulate him, the royal entourage, and the King movement in the celebration. Furthermore, and in terms of the circumstances relating to our deaths, allow them to be mourned over, so here we are today; my appreciation to us all throughout. ]

I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill be now read a second time. The Māori Purposes Bill amends the Maori Purposes Act 1991, the legislation governing the Wī Pere Trust. This bill responds to requests for empowerment from the trustees of that trust. They wanted flexibility to balance their goals for cultural, social, and economic development, and preservation. This bill provides more autonomy for the trust and accountabilities to beneficiaries. This bill comes from them and what they want and what their beneficiaries want.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge Wī Pere, as I did in the first reading of this particular bill. He was acknowledged by Sir Apirana Ngata as a man of great mana who made significant gains for Māori land owners in the Tai Rāwhiti and East Coast region. I also want to mihi to the trustees, the custodians of Wī Pere’s legacy, and to the beneficiaries, some of whom are in the gallery, I hope, today. [Interruption] They are here today and have been following with great interest the movement of this bill.

The second reading follows a consultation process run by the trustees of the trust, with the beneficiaries, and the consideration of the bill by the select committee. I want to thank very much the Māori Affairs Committee, chaired by Nuk Korako. You heard and were responsive to the submitters. You also permitted consultation with the trust on changes to its initial constitution, and they are very comfortable with those, I believe. I very much appreciate your work. The bill as reported back strengthens the original intent of the bill. The technical changes provide clarity and simplicity. I think it has landed at the right place.

Let me provide a little bit of an overview of the bill, and also some information on some of the concerns raised in the first reading, and an outline of the key changes to the bill made in response to some of the submissions. In respect of autonomy and accountability, in this bill Ministers will no longer be responsible for any aspect of the trust’s administration. For example, where previously the Minister for Māori Development has appointed trustees, beneficiaries will now elect their representatives. This is as it should be—the owners and trustees making decisions about the land for themselves.

This bill also replaces the trustees with an incorporated trust board. That board will hold and manage trust property within the accountabilities set out in this bill. For example, the trust board must promote the purpose of the trust so that trust property is used to the benefit of the beneficiaries. The trust board must also comply with the legal obligations, including the Trustee Act 1956, and its constitution. The constitution is a new way for the trust’s internal management rules to be set out; legislation will no longer be needed to do so. The bill has minimum requirements for the constitution, and the trust’s initial constitution is attached to the bill.

As reported back by the Māori Affairs Committee, the constitution now allows beneficiaries to propose changes to the constitution, if they represent at least 10 percent of beneficial interests. The constitution now requires a minimum of five trust board members, so that a quorum requires at least three members. Additionally, the constitution must now be reviewed within 5 years.

In terms of succession—an issue raised during the discussions—the bill clarifies the trust’s succession arrangements, set out in the legislation. Lineal descendants of Wī Pere may succeed to beneficial interests in the trust. Spouses, children, and remoter issue who are not lineal descendants can succeed only to a life interest. As reported back from the Māori Affairs Committee, the Māori Land Court is given clear jurisdiction to determine whether a person is a lineal descendant. The bill relocates the management of the register of beneficiaries from the Māori Land Court to the trust board. It will now maintain the register and notify the Māori Land Court of any changes.

There was a comment about general land in the discussions in the first reading. We need to know that since the 1930s legislation governing the trust has deemed the trust’s general land to be Māori freehold land. The bill changes this. It allows general land that was deemed to be Māori freehold land to revert to general land status. Approximately 29 percent of the trust’s total landholdings will revert. For certainty, this land is listed in the bill. This does not include the trust’s corpus lands set aside as papakāinga, and māra kai. The trust will also be able to acquire new general title land, which will remain as general land.

These changes align this bill with other legislation that supports tino rangatiratanga. Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is an example. That bill explicitly recognises and provides for mana and tino rangatiratanga over the land. There is another example in Treaty settlements. Settling groups choose whether they receive land as Māori freehold title or in another form, and many groups do choose general land. The arrangements for general land will have no effect at all on land that has always been Māori freehold land, being approximately 71 percent of the trust’s total landholdings. The protections for this Māori freehold land are reinforced within the bill, and it remains under the protection of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. In terms of jurisdiction, the High Court will have jurisdiction for governance and administration matters, and over general land. The Māori Land Court will continue to have jurisdiction for the trust’s Māori freehold land.

Finally, I want to address two issues. They are technical issues by nature. Firstly, the bill includes cross-references to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which focuses on national matters rather than on one particular trust, has now had its first reading. After this bill has been enacted, cross-references to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will be updated by way of consequential amendments. Secondly, the Māori Purposes Bill also addresses a wholly separate matter: the correction of a wording error in the Maori Trust Boards (Transitional Provisions) Order 2012. The wrongly described Tauranga Māori Trust Board will be correctly identified as the Tauranga Moana Māori Trust Board.

In closing, this bill provides for mana motuhake. It supports the trust board to be more flexible in its choices, whether it preserves or develops assets, or whether it uses land for cultural or commercial purposes. Those choices will be made within an environment of accountability. I am very confident that this bill does what other legislation in relation to the Wī Pere Trust has aimed to do: to support the legacy of Wī Pere so trust property can be used to the benefit of the beneficiaries. Finally, can I thank, briefly, those officials who have worked on this bill. It has been much appreciated, particularly in light of the feedback from the Māori Affairs Committee and submitters. I commend this bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā rā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā rā koutou e Te Whare.

[Thank you indeed, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you collectively in the House.] It gives me pleasure to speak on the Māori Purposes Bill, a bill that Minister Flavell has so eloquently described in terms of the way it is going to help assist the Wī Pere Trust to fulfil its obligations to its beneficiaries. Just a bit of background around Wīremu Pere, or Wī Pere, as he was known—a man born on 7 March 1837, 3 years before the Treaty of Waitangi. He went on to become a leader of his people and a member of Parliament, elected for the first time in, I think, the ninth Parliament, in 1884. He lost his seat in the subsequent election and the next election to Turi Carroll , but when Turi Carroll stood down to contest the general seat of Gisborne, Wī Pere won his seat again in, I think, the 12th Parliament, and carried on for four terms. When he passed away, Sir Apirana Ngata said there was no man who had done more for his people, and that is a huge accolade. In 1899 he established the Wī Pere Trust to protect his land and interests for the benefit of his descendants.

The trust, 117 years later, is still going strong, and the changes in this bill will help the trustees and the incorporated trust board to continue the great work that he started all those years ago. The Māori caucus of the Labour Party was honoured to be hosted by the members of the Wī Pere Trust about 5 or 6 weeks ago. We were able to see and visit the landholdings. They took us around two blocks where they are farming sheep and cattle on, I must say, some fairly rugged East Coast country. We came across shepherds mustering huge flocks of sheep on horseback, and you have to take your hat off to the conditions that those guys work under. Obviously, they enjoy their job and the freedom of the outdoors. We also visited the persimmon orchards and the kiwifruit orchards. We saw the vineyards that they have an interest in.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Persimmon? Wow.

KELVIN DAVIS: Citrus—did I say citrus orchards? The Wī Pere Trust also has interests in marae. Some of the benefits that are distributed to its beneficiaries: for each year there is a $30 payment, there are education benefits, and there is an age grant. Everyone over 60 years of age who is a beneficiary gets a $200 grant, everybody who is over 80 years of age gets a $300 grant, there are tangi grants to assist with the substantial costs of tangis, and these are all part of the legacy that Wī Pere left for his descendants. I believe that the Wī Pere Trust stands as an example to other whānau and other hapū and other iwi right throughout the country as a way to administer lands for the benefit of the people. So I have to stand and applaud the trust and, of course, applaud the ancestor Wī Pere, who began it all.

The bill was not without its critics, and I will just go through a couple of the issues raised in submissions. There were concerns that the trust’s consultation with beneficiaries on amendments was inadequate or rushed, there were submissions that the amendments in the bill do not align with the purpose of the trust, there were submissions that the board will become more corporate in administering the trust, there were concerns about potential loss of land if the trust is used for investment purposes, and there were a few other issues raised, as well.

There is one issue, and it is in terms of the—there is a bit of friction between the use of the High Court and the Māori Land Court, and I will just refer to this one submission, where the submitter said: “I am concerned about the limited jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court and the powers conferred on the High Court in the bill to be the preferred court that interprets and applies the law for the Wī Pere Trust.” This is first seen in new Part 2, section 5(2) and 5(3) inserted by clause 9 of the bill, where it states: “The High Court has jurisdiction to determine any dispute relating to the administration and governance of the [Wī Pere Trust].” and “… the Māori Land Court has no jurisdiction to determine any dispute relating to the administration and governance of the trust”. The submitter goes on to say: “In my opinion, the Māori Land Court should be the preferred judiciary to determine any dispute relating to the administration and governance of the trust. I say this on the basis of two key points: firstly, the Māori Land Court has expertise in Māori customary law, whereas the High Court does not, and, secondly, the costs associated with lodging a dispute before the High Court is cost-prohibitive, which will severely limit and disadvantage the ability of shareholders to access justice.”

So, just to explain, the High Court is the court that costs more money. The cons of using the High Court is that it costs more money for people to put their foot through the door; the pros of using the High Court is that a decision is made a lot more quickly. For a trust like the Wī Pere Trust, it is a business. It wants decisions made quickly around its business. It wants them to be made as speedily as possible. Of course, the Māori Land Court is a lot easier, financially, for people to get their foot in the door—I think it is about $50 plus GST to get in the door of the Māori Land Court. However, decisions are made a lot more slowly, so there is a friction there between a business doing business quickly, getting decisions made quickly, whether the decisions go in favour of the trust or against—it does not really matter. I guess what they want is decisions made so that they can carry on with business in whatever decision is made, however it goes. For whānau, though, who may not be all that well-resourced, this does mean that their access to courts may well be jeopardised.

That is the real friction in terms of using the High Court or the Māori Land Court. To that extent, during the Committee stage the Labour Party intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper under the name of Meka Whaitiri that would remove sections 5(2) and 5(3), inserted by clause 9, so that the Māori Land Court has jurisdiction to determine disputes related to administration and governance. The High Court still has jurisdiction over general land acquired by the trust, but we do not believe it should have jurisdiction over the corpus land. It would ensure easier access to the court for whānau, but dispute resolution processes are the preferred avenue, of course. In the dispute resolution process it is always best to resolve any disputes at the lowest possible level, instead of having to get to the situation where you need to go to court. There is a disputes process, which is set out very clearly in new schedule 1.

To briefly go through it in the time I have, the first step is to notify the board in writing of a dispute, then there needs to be face-to-face dialogue to try to resolve the dispute at that level. If that does not work, go to mediation. If that does not work, there is a process through the annual general meeting, or to hold the special general meeting. Then, and only then, if those do not work, the court would be the next option. We believe that whānau that would have fewer resources actually need to have access to the Māori Land Court, despite the fact that it would take longer to get a decision. We do not believe that this is going to impact hugely on the overall running of the Wī Pere Trust.

As I said, it is an organisation that has done extremely well. It has 460 or so beneficiaries with assets in land of some $66 million. It has done very, very well over the 117 years the trust has been going. I believe that, as I have said already, it is an example to all of Māoridom for the way to run the affairs of whānau, hapū, and iwi so that everybody can be successful. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the passing of a rangatira from Kāi Tahu, a rangatira from Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa. He was the first cousin of a late member of this House, the Hon Ben Rīwai Couch. I want to acknowledge the passing of Dudley John Couch, who was a really big leader, particularly within Rāpaki, the small village on Banks Peninsula. No reira, e Uncle e haere atu rā, e haere atu rā ki te pā o te whakawairua e takoto mai, takoto mai, takoto mai, e moe mai. Nō reira, uncle, e haere atu rā, e haere atu rā ki te pā o te whakawairua, e takoto mai, takoto mai, takoto mai, e moe mai!

[Therefore, uncle, depart. Go forth to the gathering place of the spirits; lie there, lie there, lie there, rest!]

I would like to speak in the second reading of the Māori Purposes Bill, just to cover the Māori Affairs Committee process and, particularly, around the submissions. The Māori Affairs Committee considered this bill very, very carefully. We received 225 submissions in total, including a number of form submissions, and we heard 20 submitters—we went to Gisborne to do that. As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I want to focus on the submissions and the resulting changes we have recommended be made to this bill.

The bill as originally drafted would have limited the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court over the affairs of the Wī Pere Trust. In most cases, we think this change is justified and we recommend that the High Court continue to have jurisdiction over disputes relating to the administration and the governance of the trust. There was a concern, though, from some submitters that this would make the process prohibitively expensive. However, we were comfortable that only very serious matters unable to be resolved through the trust’s constitutional dispute resolution procedures would end up before the High Court. We were comfortable with that.

We did think, though, that a change was warranted in the settlement of lineal disputes, particularly around whakapapa. The Māori Land Court has particular expertise in these types of issues—and we all know that—so we recommended moving the responsibility of lineal descent disputes back to the Māori Land Court.

There were also some concerns raised with us about the difficulty beneficiaries had in influencing board decisions and the lack of accountability the board had to the beneficiaries. So to combat this concern we have recommended that the trust board’s constitution be reviewed within 5 years of the new Act coming into force. We also recommend changes that would allow beneficiaries to propose changes to the constitution of the new board through special resolution. Around the composition of the board, we have also recommended an amendment to ensure that the trust board comprises at least five members, but no more than seven. This will ensure that the minimum quorum is three, removing the possibility that a situation could arise where the quorum was only two.

We have also recommended a minor change to clause 6.2 of new schedule 1, which would add the word “materially” to clarify the effect of the clause that requires disclosure of board members’ interests in business before the trust board. We have also recommended another clarification, which ensures that decisions at board meetings “must be”, rather than “may be”, decided by simple majority of the members present. We have also made recommendations that will ensure that there are no adverse and unintended tax consequences of establishing the new incorporated trust board or of the resulting transfer of trusts, assets, and liabilities. This is one point that we have seen in a number of instances about that transition period when there is a change in the constitution of the trust. This is one of the reasons why we have made this recommendation.

I want to thank the Wī Pere Trust board members and those beneficiaries who contributed to the select committee process. The trust, as we know, is a longstanding and very successful Māori enterprise. The good thing about this trust is that it actually is a trust that is all about regional development in that area. Even though this bill is small and has a direct effect only on a small number of people, it is right that we should be debating these changes, which will make the trust board more accountable, allow it to adopt its own rules for its management, and remove the current ministerial involvement from the governance of the trust. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, otirā, e pīrangi ana ahau ki te tautoko te mihi kua mihia e Te Minita ki a Kīngi Tuheitia me ōna tau tekau i runga i tōna tūranga. Nō reira, ko te tūmanako kia uhia mai e Te Runga Rawa ōna manaakitanga ki runga ki a ia, ā, tihei mauri ora! Kei te mihi hoki au ki a rātou mā kua tae mai, ngā uri o Wī Pere i tēnei rā, nō reira, tēnei te mihi ake ki a rātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and at the same time I want to endorse the acknowledgments accorded by the Minister to King Tuheitia and his 10 years in his role. My hope, therefore, is that the Almighty Above places His protection upon him; behold, the sneeze of life! I also acknowledge the offspring of Wī Pere who have arrived here today, I commend them. ]

It is a privilege to speak to the Māori Purposes Bill. I had the pleasure of sitting in on the hearing of evidence from submitters in Gisborne, and I want to thank the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tutehounuku Korako, and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the work that they have done on this bill. We have heard a number of speakers so far, all supporting the bill, and I stand to support this bill.

In listening to the submitters in Gisborne, one in particular struck me. She had brought to the select committee, as part of her submission, a portrait of Wī Pere. It was a very moving submission from her, and I want to acknowledge all of those who made submissions. I think it is quite clear from the report of the Māori Affairs Committee that those issues were heard, and not only heard but acted upon. We see within this second reading of the Māori Purposes Bill the changes that have been made to this bill.

I want to, first of all, look at and acknowledge the change made in new section 12, inserted by clause 9, clarifying the function of the trust board. I think that adding a new provision in there to actually explicitly say what the function is is the sort of thing that acknowledges what the submitters were saying about the way that the new trust would operate—so do, as other members have noted, the changes introducing the explicit acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court and the High Court as they refer to the new trust in this bill. I think that the Māori Affairs Committee has got that absolutely right. I think, again, it addresses some of those submissions from beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust who had some concerns around their ability to access the courts and the prohibitive nature of having to go to the High Court.

I want to also talk about the changes to the governance. As my colleague Kelvin Davis pointed out, I was one of the ones who had the opportunity to visit some of the operations of the Wī Pere Trust, and it is very impressive, not only in the type of business and operations but also in the way that it has achieved, to date, great success in its farming operations in particular. That is done under the current governance arrangements. I look forward to the next decades coming, under a new governance arrangement, and look forward to further successes from having a changed governance arrangement.

I would go so far as to say that the current arrangements are paternalistic in nature, and this bill addresses that. It removes the Crown—the Government—involvement in the governance arrangements, and I think that is a good thing. After 117 years there is no doubt that the Wī Pere Trust is able to govern its operations all by itself, and after 117 years it does not need any input, really, from the Crown. So I want to acknowledge that.

I also want to acknowledge that this bill, in my opinion, enhances the rights of the beneficiaries. It gives a lot more clarity around how they are able to participate in the ongoing management and governance of this organisation. In the first reading I spoke about concerns around papakāinga land. They were certainly discussed at the select committee and by the submitters. I am absolutely confident that concerns around the potential of having papakāinga lands within the trust sold will not happen. I absolutely acknowledge the current trustees for giving their feedback through that submission process.

There are changes to what was once general-titled land. As the Minister pointed out, the previous legislation, in 1991, changed what was then general-titled land into Māori freehold land. This bill reverses that. I think giving the trust the opportunity to purchase other lands for the purpose of investment and then also trading that for other investments is OK as long as what is referred to as the corpus lands are not touched, and that is guaranteed within this bill.

I again acknowledge the trustees for the work that they have done. I do not want to take up any more of the House’s time. I think that this is a very good bill. It sets out to do what it says it sets out to do, and I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tātou.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a brief call on the Wī Pere Trust—on the Māori Purposes Bill—today. Before I do that I just want to acknowledge the Māori King Tuheitia’s koroneihana celebrations in Waikato over the next few days. I just want to wish them well for their celebrations.

I want to talk a little bit about an author, Witi Ihimaera. Witi Ihimaera is a whanaunga of the Wī Pere whānau. His nanny was a descendant of Wī Pere. Witi Ihimaera wrote a book called Māori Boy. When we went to the submissions in Gisborne, the way that those people spoke about their lands and the way that he had written about his life, growing up on those lands, and the power of his nanny, and how, back then, they developed their governance and they developed the trust lands and the way that they managed their lands—it all came to light for me as I sat and I listened, and as I read through the bill and the submissions that came forward. So when we heard today about the fear—I think the member Kelvin Davis talked about it—of their trust adding in a level of trust board and the fear that they were turning into more of a corporate body, that did not surprise me. There was a fear of the unknown, and I think the way that the bill has actually set itself out—with the implementation of the section on the trust board and the functions of the trust board and how that will operate and also how the first trust board members will come from the actual trust itself, trying to keep that continuity going through that transition period—should bring some comfort to the whānau of Wī Pere.

When I hear about grants to whānau from that trust I am reminded of the payments to the kaumātua for the Atihau-Whanganui Trust in Wanganui. They too enjoy some of the fruits of that land incorporation, just as the Wī Pere Trust whānau enjoy their annual cheque or payment that they get as lineal descendants of Wī Pere. I too look at the way that Māori land is actually managed in this country over time. It does not surprise me that our Labour colleagues were impressed with the way that those lands on the coast have been managed. It has taken a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get them there, as new innovations come about and our Māori whānau pick those up and incorporate them into their farming industry.

I stand proud to be part and parcel of that, as a heritage in my whānau as well. I can see that the way forward for this trust is going to be a very prosperous one. Yes, there are going to be a lot of ups and downs. Yes, you do not know what your whānau are going to say when you go to submissions. We have it every single time, as a select committee, when we go and discuss bills like this. They all come in, and it is an opportunity for everybody to have their say.

There is not really much more that I can add. Everybody who has spoken before me—and no doubt those who will speak after me—will continue to outline what is included in this bill and will also give their views on how the submissions went. For me, what I heard, what I saw, and what I have read really came to light for me after I had finished reading that book Māori Boy, written by Witi Ihimaera. I literally could see everything start to unfold. I will conclude my contribution here. I have no hesitation in commending the bill to the House. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai, ā, tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema Pāremata o tēnei Whare, kia ora! Anō hoki he mihi mahana, mihi aroha ki a Ngāti Kuhungunu, Rongowhakaata, Te Aitanga-ā-Māhaki hoki. Ā, ki a koe te tupuna, a Wī Pere me tōna whakapapa me ngā uri, ā, kia ora koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to all of us, members of Parliament of this House, greetings! Once again I bid you a warm and affectionate welcome Ngāti Kahungunu, Rongowhakaata, and Aitanga-a-Māhaki, and to you the ancestor Wī Pere and his genealogy, his descendants, my acknowledgments to you all.]

It is my honour to stand for the Green Party and speak in support of the Māori Purposes Bill, in respect of changes to the Māori Purposes (Wi Pere Trust) Act 1991. We are very clear—the Green Party is very clear—and have long stood for the position that Māori must be empowered and trusted to make governance decisions over their land, their people, and so forth. That absolutely is upholding Te Tiriti relationship and mana motuhake, tino rangatiratanga, which is what our tūpuna always envisaged for our people. What we are debating here in the House is that the Māori Purposes Bill will remove the Crown, so that is the mana motuhake part—the removing of the Crown from the administration of the Wī Pere Trust, and we fully support that move.

As we have heard, and I will repeat again, the trust was created in 1899 to be able to care for, and be the kaitiaki—a collective kaitiaki—of the estate of the prominent East Coast leader and politician, Wīremu Pere. This is a sizable trust, as many of my colleagues have put forward to this House today—I think we are talking about 460 beneficiaries, and net assets of around $66 million, which has probably grown since last year, but that was the recorded number.

The purpose of this bill—we need to be very clear about that. What the Wī Pere Trust wants to do is to make their whenua more usable, make their land more usable, which requires for the trust to be more commercially flexible. They want to be more accountable to beneficiaries. They want to improve the governance arrangements and remove the unnecessary Crown involvement. On the face of it we absolutely support and uphold those kaupapa and that vision for their trust. Essentially, this bill is to corporatise the trust and to corporatise its workings in terms of the way that it runs its business.

So the positive is that we will see a more modern trust organisation, unshackled from the Crown—that is a good thing—that is able to move Māori organisations forward. What I do want to spend a little bit of time on—I take it very seriously, being on the Māori Affairs Committee and hearing submitters, and also in the tradition of the Green Party—is about ensuring that the concerns are given space and are given an airing, which is part of a healthy democratic system.

I was very honoured to be at the Gisborne submissions. The submitters were very, very clear that the whakapapa and blood connections needed to be retained at all costs. We have heard that in a good move—the work of the Māori Affairs Committee—the Māori Land Court will retain being able to determine that, as a more knowledgable organisation when it comes to tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori.

Absolutely there were concerns that there could be the possibility of a minority of owners being able to override the majority. That concern is not for nothing, because the mandate was something that was raised—the mandate given to making these changes. So although there was a 91 percent vote of support, yes—but, as with Te Tiriti settlements, only 30 percent of eligible voters actually voted. I certainly have always questioned what sort of a mandate that is. This is actually not always a criticism of the trust either, because we do need to acknowledge the real difficulties and the challenges of engagement, the real difficulties and challenges of trying to sort of fit Māori organisations into an imposed, essentially, Pākehā and Crown system. That is always met with challenge and it is nearly every time met with a low level of engagement. However, it was a concern that was noted and one I feel obliged to raise.

It is not so much corporatisation in and of itself that is opposed by Māori. That concern is also not for nothing, and it is raised across many Māori settlements and process changes because of the very real threats, which we have seen over hundreds of years and many generations, of what can happen when we shift power—when power imbalances arise. My colleague Catherine Delahunty will spend a bit more time on that issue when she gets to her speech, absolutely.

I want to pick up on one of the submitters, who said: “We do not fully understand the benefits.” Although I think there is strong confidence from this House that the benefits will be forthcoming, that still does not take away from the fact that beneficiaries have a right to be incredibly convinced about those very benefits. I acknowledge my colleague Joanne Hayes in recognising the fear of the unknown, but I still think it is incumbent that every single effort is made to ensure that beneficiaries are comfortable and can fully understand the benefits.

The protective mechanisms of the Māori Land Court have been discussed, as well as the costs. We sort of had to weigh up, a little bit, the difference between cheaper access and longer times taken to try to resolve issues, disputes, and so forth. I hope the changes made through ongoing discussions, as well as in the Māori Affairs Committee, can ensure that there is not going to be a huge problem of access for whānau.

One more concern that I raised in particular was around conflicts of interest for trustees and board members. We see that the select committee has tried to ensure that that part of the legislation will keep things transparent and above board for all of the beneficiaries. Also, the rollover of the trustees—the fact that, in going from the board to the corporation—[Bell rung]. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Is that 1 minute to go?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Two.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. They did question a straight rollover, as opposed to a vote for trustees, but I understand that that is a standard practice.

I will just spend the last few seconds talking about the aspirations that whānau also had. I am hearing in the House that the trust does indeed have whānau-centred and whakapapa-centred aspirations and projects happening. I look forward to hearing that every single beneficiary feels that they are at least going to look forward to the benefits—that the power will be spread fairly and justly across whānau and beneficiaries. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the select committee to make the changes that try to ensure that very just application of power and benefits. Lastly, I want to emphasise my absolute wish that the Wī Pere Trust continues in the nature of the tupuna Wīremu Pere, and kia kaha to the work that it does. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā anō tātou o Te Whare nei. He tū wāhi poto tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e tō mātou tangata mai Te Wai Pounamu, tana mihi ki tetahi o ngā rangatira i roto o Ngāi Tahu, i hinga atu i te rā nei, nā reira, kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e koe ki a ia.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us of this House once again. This is a brief call to endorse the tributes accorded by our man from the South Island to one of the leaders from within Ngāi Tahu who passed away today, and so I support the tributes that you from the South Island made to him.]

Listening to the debate so far has been very interesting. For New Zealand First, we still have some disquiet about some of the issues, particularly those that were expressed by the submitters who presented their submissions in Gisborne when the Māori Affairs Committee was there to listen to them.

First of all, I just want to acknowledge just how well the Wī Pere Trust has operated since its inception in 1899. I can recall my comments during the first reading of this bill that if it ain’t broke, why fix it, given the number of assets that it had and that up until this point in time there has not been any major issue—well, it certainly has not been made public. If there has, then perhaps that is all the more reason why this bill should not go any further, but we have not heard any adverse comment about how it has been operating and how it has been able to increase its asset base.

One of the things for us in New Zealand First is that we are seriously looking at this issue of the quorum. Although the trust board may be made up of up to seven members, I would suggest that that may not necessarily be the reality. Although it is there and available for them, I would suggest that, possibly, in order to carry out the corporate work that corporates of this size normally do, the fewer number of trustees you have the better. So I would think that it would probably take the option of limiting the size of its board to just five. But for New Zealand First, with the trust having an asset base of $66 million and with the possibility of limiting the board to just three trustees, we think that that needs to be looked at. Perhaps the wording in the bill should be more specific and say that it has to be seven trustees as opposed to no more than seven trustees. That is one of the points that New Zealand First is still looking at.

The other point is this issue regarding the Māori Land Court. Although we support the notion that it should be left to the Māori Land Court to look at the lineal succession of shareholders, we are also conscious of the fact that in a few days’, weeks’, or perhaps months’ time, we will be talking about Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which, as part of its intention, actually removes that responsibility from the Māori Land Court and moves it back to what is regarded as a non-judicial entity known as the Māori Land Service. Listening to the discussion today, I note that speakers are supporting the notion of leaving that responsibility to the Māori Land Court, and yet, in a few months’ time, we will be back in this House asking that it be removed from the Māori Land Court and passed on to the new Māori Land Service. For New Zealand First, we have some issues regarding that.

During the process of hearing submissions, we heard from submitters their disquiet about some of the decisions that had been made by the trustees at the time without their knowledge. I am talking about contributions that were made to certain groups. We are not questioning the right of the trustees to do that, but, quite clearly, there were beneficiaries who expressed a very strong disquiet about their trust making contributions to certain groups. I think that that is just an example of when the beneficiaries are either not interested or not able to keep up with what the trustees are doing. I think that as the intention of this bill is to allow the trust to move into a more corporate area, then I would suggest to this House that a number of the beneficiaries, unaware of the machinations of corporatisation, will be lost in terms of the decisions that will be made going into the future. We are still of the view that the trust has been able to grow its asset base to the level that it has now under the system that has existed for most of the time of the trust. We would suggest that we are not convinced at this stage that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.