PARLIAMENTARY REPORT
However, Mr Andrew Little,
MP, (Labour) said: “This is not legislation to put the interests of children first. It is not even legislation to put the interests of separating couples first. It is about putting the government’s balance sheet first and foremost. This legislation started…as a reform process to address the quite legitimate [concerns] about the fact that more court time and more judge time was being tied up in what might otherwise be described as trivial matters. What came back was… legislation focused on the care of the children issue, which is important…but it was also about removing the responsibility of the state to ensure good and fair outcomes…[and it] beat up on the lawyers and the professional advisers who have been involved in that process.”
Mr David Clendon, MP,
(Green) was concerned about new provisions limiting legal aid for parties undergoing separation: “[The] right to legal representation is a constitutional underpinning… but also the fact that even to the extent that perhaps we might seek to take some cost out of the court, having self-litigants in the court will slow the process down. There will be significant cost, both personal and financial, when people try to represent themselves in the court, which they…typically do quite badly.” Mr Denis O’Rourke, MP, (New Zealand First) also considered that “the test for legal aid to be provided is far too tough. The legislation will exacerbate…areas where there is a power imbalance, by forcing parties into processes where one party will have the advantage of representation or advice, and another will not. It is all very well to have a simplified and cheaper system, but this will be at the expense of the equality of the parties…and it therefore risks compromising the system as a whole, reducing
NEW ZEALAND
had been granted New Zealand residency, was being sought by the United States to answer criminal charges in relation to the Megaupload website.
Opposing the Bill at its second Dr Russell Norman, MP
the success rate, and damaging the outcomes for the very people—the children—whose interests, the legislation says, are to be paramount.” He also said that the prohibition on the court appointing counsel for the child unless there were concerns for the care of the child was “far too tough” in proceedings under the Care of Children Act. “It should be the other way round—the court should appoint a lawyer unless it finds that it is unnecessary to do so.” The legislation was passed by
61 votes to 57.
Intelligence and security legislation
Legislation arising from the Government Communications and Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill passed its second and third readings in August 2013. It clarifies the legal parameters for the activities of the Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB), and updates relevant legislation to reflect changes in the security environment. The legislation arose from a government review that identified cases where the bureau had acted without the necessary legal powers. The review followed a High Court ruling in March 2013 on the activities of the bureau in connection with the 2012 police arrest of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom. Mr Dotcom, who
340 | The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue Four
reading, Labour Leader Mr David Shearer, MP, said: “we would not be here putting this legislation through if it had not been for Dotcom…we then found out there was illegal spying on many other New Zealanders.” However, Green Party Co-leader, Dr Russell Norman, MP, said that the Bill was “not just about Kim Dotcom”, describing it as “part of a broader international discourse about the surveillance state.” Moving the third readings of the divided legislation on 21 August, the Prime Minister, Mr John Key, MP, (National) acknowledged that the legislation had attracted a lot of debate. He said it was not “a revolution in the way New Zealand conducts its intelligence operations. It is not about expanding the powers of a mysterious intelligence empire. It simply makes clear what the GCSB may and may not do, … It fixes the problems with the current Act and clears up the ambiguities that Labour passed into law a decade ago. It puts in place a robust review of the intelligence agencies in 2015 and every five to seven years
for the financial reviews of the intelligence agencies. … It acknowledges the importance of human rights, independence, integrity, and professionalism.” Maori Party Co-leader Mr Te Ururoa Flavell, MP, said the legislation was “intrusive and it lacks justification for what we believe is an extraordinary extension of the GCSB’s powers,”. Mr Phil Goff, MP, (Labour) criticised the process, saying that the government had “at no stage…sought what traditionally a government would seek in legislation of this nature, which is to earn cross-party support.” Mr O’Rourke agreed: “If the legislation had not been so rushed … and if more time and effort had been put into the development of properly balanced and carefully drafted pieces of legislation…then cross- party support may have been possible.” The legislation was passed by a majority of two votes.
Rt Hon. David Carter, MP
thereafter. “It requires more transparency through open public hearings
Citizens initiated referendum on state-owned assets Under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, non-binding referenda that meet the eligibility criteria can be held on any subject. On 3 September the Speaker, Rt Hon. David Carter, MP, informed the House that a petition had been received calling for a citizens initiated referendum on the question: “Do you support the government selling up to 49 per cent of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy, and Air New Zealand?”. The promoter, Roy Reid, began the petition as a result of recent legislation arising from the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, which removes companies in which the government plans to sell a minority of shares from the ambit of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986. The petition had been received by the Clerk on 12 March 2013,
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124