This bill focuses on amendments that will allow the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to operate more effectively. It has three objectives. First, the provisions will maintain the operational effectiveness of the Security Intelligence Service by updating the warrant scheme to continue to allow for the use of modern technical methods of surveillance. Secondly, the provisions will maintain protections for those acting under warrant, including those exercising entry powers. Thirdly, the provisions will also improve operational efficiency by allowing a more flexible process for persons assisting under warrant.

The principal Act currently enables the Director of Security to apply for warrants to undertake certain surveillance activities. Surveillance activities encroach on personal privacy rights. As such, surveillance of this nature is not lightly authorised. Foreign warrants require the Prime Minister’s authorisation. In cases where any New Zealander is the subject of a warrant, such warrants are required by the principal Act to be issued jointly by the Minister in charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and by the Commissioner of Security Warrants. The warrants framework provides for the interception or seizure of documents, communications, and other things that could not otherwise be lawfully obtained by the Security Intelligence Service. The warrants also provide the powers that are necessary to give effect to the authorised interception or seizure, such as entry powers and search powers. Stringent conditions must be met before any warrant is issued. The Director of Security must demonstrate both to the Minister in charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and to the commissioner, in the case of domestic warrants, that the interception or seizure is necessary, either to detect activities prejudicial to security or to gather foreign intelligence information essential to security. Additionally, the value of the information must justify the interception or seizure, and the director must attest that the information being sought is unlikely to be obtained by any other means.

Notably, the proposals in the bill are restricted to powers that are subject to authorisation under warrant. As I have explained, the threshold to be met to issue these warrants is very high. The bill should not be seen as providing the service with unique powers; it should be seen as a bill that seeks to clarify and update the application of existing powers, particularly in areas where current legislation has been overtaken by developments in technology. The current warrant framework in the principal Act has become outdated. It addresses only those activities that would otherwise have been lawful at the time that the provisions were enacted, which in 1977 was interception and seizure, and in 1999 was entry. The underlying premise of the framework is that activities that were lawful at the time that the legislation was developed did not need authorisation by warrant, regardless of the extent of intrusion.

Changes in technology have also had an impact. In particular, the frameworks are not expressly configured to support the use of electronic tracking and some computer-based techniques used to collect information. The first change covers electronic tracking devices. The current Act does not expressly provide for the Security Intelligence Service to undertake the tracking of subjects by electronic means, so the bill will clarify that the warrant framework does cover the use of electronic tracking devices. Clauses 6 and 7 amend sections 4A and 4B of the principal Act to enable the Minister and the Commissioner of Security Warrants, in the case of domestic intelligence warrants, to issue intelligence warrants that authorise electronic tracking. The existing oversights scheme will be applied to these electronic tracking activities. The process of applying for warrants to authorise electronic tracking will be the same as that for warrants covering interception or seizure. So high thresholds, including tests of necessity and value and that the information cannot be obtained by other means, will need to be satisfied before any warrant can be issued. The House should note that the needs of New Zealand law enforcement agencies have previously been catered for in this area with the development of a tracking warrants framework in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

The next change made by the bill is to update the principal Act to provide a clear framework for facilities that are to be the subject of surveillance. Facilities include identifiers such as telephone numbers and Internet protocol addresses. The objective is to provide for the specification of cyber-identities in warrant applications. The amendment will allow warrants to be granted when specific facilities can be identified, but the name or the physical location of a subject is not known. This is a very necessary update in an age where the use of unattributable mobile phones and cyber-identities is common. The matter is one that has been specifically raised as a matter for legislative amendment by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The term “facility” will be defined in the interpretations section of the principal Act. The bill also introduces a definition of “identity”, which includes an alias adopted by, or assigned to, a person. Clause 7 amends section 4B of the principal Act to enable intelligence warrants to make facilities the subject of intelligence warrants.

Clause 5 amends the principal Act to rename interception warrants as intelligence warrants. The name “interception warrants” has never been representative of the range of surveillance activities. At present those warrants cover interception and the seizure of documents or things. With the amendment, they will also cover electronic tracking. Renaming them as intelligence warrants supports transparency by better reflecting the scope of warranted surveillance activity.

The authorities provided to the Security Intelligence Service require clarification in the area of computer-based surveillance. Section 253 of the Crimes Act 1961 already provides a qualified exemption to the access without authorisation offence for the service. The current approach of providing a qualified exemption for some activities relating to computers but not for others creates uncertainty for the intelligence agencies, as well as for other agencies acting under warrant. The current exemption may be insufficient to cover modern surveillance methods that may interfere with a computer system in a temporary or minor way, and the current arrangements do not recognise the merging of technologies, particularly in terms of phones and computers. Clause 17 therefore amends section 248 of the Crimes Act, which sets out definitions relating to computer-related offences. It inserts a new definition of “authorisation”, and this amendment will clarify that a lawfully issued warrant will constitute an authorisation for the purposes of the computer-related provisions in the Crimes Act.

The bill clarifies the protections in the principal Act for persons acting in accordance with a warrant. These amendments focus on two issues. First, the principal Act does not adequately protect from liability those persons exercising Security Intelligence Service entry powers when they are seeking to obtain or facilitate entry. Minor property interference is sometimes necessary in order to obtain entry and better protect the safety of persons exercising those warrants. Clause 8 will replace section 4E of the principal Act. It will clarify that those persons exercising Security Intelligence Service powers will be protected from liability when they are seeking to obtain or facilitate entry. Second, the Act will be amended to provide consistent protection to all persons acting under Security Intelligence Service warrants from liability, regardless of the foreign or domestic status of the warrant. Currently, protection applies only to domestic warrants, so it applies only when the subject of a warrant is a New Zealand citizen or resident.

A number of other changes will be made to the substantive legislation in order to improve practice.

Because of the operational sensitivity of the matters covered by the bill, public consultation was not undertaken during the policy development stage. Instead, in order to address the public interest in the area of privacy and to ensure the proposals were calibrated against appropriate oversight arrangements, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Commissioner of Security Warrants, and the inspector-general were consulted on the development of the bill. To enable members of the public to contribute, it will be recommended to the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee that public submissions on the bill should be invited and arrangements made to hear submitters who wish to appear before the committee. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Mr Horomia is not one of them, either. The passage of this bill concludes a long journey for Ngāti Apa. The claim started in December 1991 with the lodging of Wai 265 with the Waitangi Tribunal. That claim, as well as Wai 655, will be settled with the passage of this legislation. I very much want to acknowledge the many kuia and kaumātua who are no longer with us, who provided leadership and inspiration during this long journey towards settlement. It is a fact, and I have seen it time and time again, that those whose names were on the claim forms to the Waitangi Tribunal are no longer with us, but their children, and sometimes even their grandchildren, carry the burden of the claim through to settlement. When we settle in those circumstances, it is deeply moving and humbling. I too endorse the comments of Mrs Turia in paying tribute to the visionary leadership of the negotiating team, who have conducted a superb set of negotiations throughout the various stages of the process.

The previous speaker referred to the Crown apology. It is an essential component of the exercise we have been undertaking for so many years, because, as a part of this settlement, the Crown apologises to Ngāti Apa for past dealings that breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Those breaches included a failure to ensure that Ngāti Apa were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs, a failure to ensure that the Native Land Court gave effect to the terms of the 1849 Rangitīkei-Turakina purchase deed, and a failure to protect Ngāti Apa’s traditional tribal structures. The Crown can never fully compensate Ngāti Apa for their losses and dispossession, but through the settlement in this bill, we can provide the means for them to move forward to achieve their future, which I am sure will be great. So I hope the Crown apology and settlement will lay the ground for rebuilding a lasting relationship of trust and mutual cooperation between the Crown and Ngāti Apa.

I acknowledge the role of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa in the settlement of these claims and the hard work of the negotiation team. I commend the work of the Office of Treaty Settlements in negotiating this settlement on behalf of the Crown, and in particular I acknowledge the work of Ross Philipson as chief negotiator. It is my hope and my intention to deliver the Crown apology on a Ngāti Apa marae early next year for all Ngāti Apa people to hear their historical grievances acknowledged and addressed, and that is always such an important part of what we are doing. Just a couple of weeks ago I dealt with another Ngāti Apa at Ōmaka Marae, Kath Hēmi’s Ngāti Apa, and when I read out the apology silence fell, everyone was very intently listening. It is an extremely important part of the exercise we are undertaking.

So the Ngāti Apa settlement is one of the many settlements this Government is progressing, towards our aspirational goal of justly and durably settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014. I wish Ngāti Apa well in their future endeavours. I look forward to meeting with them, as I said, on one of their marae early in the new year to read out the apology formally. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) : Last year the Government established the Cultural Philanthropy Taskforce to investigate new opportunities to encourage private investment in the arts in New Zealand over the next 5 to 10 years. The task force reported back on 2 December. The Government will now analyse and consider its recommendations, before making decisions.

Nicky Wagner: How does private philanthropy fit into the Government’s vision of the arts?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: To quote the task force itself, the Government has done its bit directly through grants and indirectly through establishing a favourable tax environment for charitable giving that requires very little refinement. Government support can only ever be one part of an overall strategy for the sector. The task force investigated best practice in philanthropy around the world. It consulted within New Zealand with organisations and individuals—

Hon David Cunliffe: There goes the holiday!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Could “Mr Caygill” shut up when I am speaking. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am trying to deal with an important matter, and throughout the answer he has just been bellowing like an oaf.

Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order. I guess interjections can get responses, so members who interject do take risks. But I ask the member to please finish his answer without being unnecessarily reactive.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, the interjections were directed at me. The task force—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The first transgression that the Minister made was to be aggressively gratuitous, and you pulled him up on that. When my colleague Mr Mallard interjected on you, he withdrew from the Chamber. But once you had given your ruling, the Minister, unable to let the issue go, had to have another little chip as he began his answer, in direct challenge to your ruling. When other members have challenged your ruling today, Mr Speaker, they have not remained with us.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness, I have to say that I think the degree of challenge to the Chair was somewhat greater earlier on. When members interject, Ministers are perfectly at liberty to pick up on their interjections, but I ask the Minister to please just finish his answer without further comment.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The task force consulted within New Zealand with a number of organisations, it consulted around the world, and it drew on the extensive expertise of task force members like Dayle Mace and Dame Jenny Gibbs.

Rahui Katene: Is the Minister aware of the statement made by Tu Williams and David Robinson that in the broader society Māori today are virtually invisible in philanthropy, in part because the philanthropic sector has failed to market itself as being relevant to them; and what will the Government do to correct this gap?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I am not, but I can understand where that particular person is coming from. That is the very reason why we have this report and why I am keen to get it out there so that people can, in a very positive way, contribute to philanthropy.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : An application is made to the High Court, and the Minister is not responsible for notifying anyone about the application. The notification procedure is set out in clause 102.

Hon Rodney Hide: Is it the Government’s intention that the Minister will hear, before granting an application, from the local residents; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I believe that the member is muddling up the procedure. The Minister will not hear any application. As I said, applications are made to the High Court. A person wanting to enter into an agreement with the Crown gives notice of an intention to seek an agreement under clause 93(2).

Hon Rodney Hide: Before the Minister responsible grants the application, is it the Government’s intention that that Minister hear from other people; or how will they get their views put across to the Crown?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Once again, the member is muddling up the procedure. The Minister does not grant any application. An agreement is entered into with the Minister on behalf of the Crown, and the agreement will be subject to very intensive scrutiny by Cabinet committees and then Cabinet. Then there is a notification procedure for agreements, which is set out in clause 95 of the bill.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : No, and I certainly hope that they will not have any impact. As the member knows, the iwi of the Muriwhenua have been seeking settlements for some time. Huge issues need to be dealt with. An agreement in principle was signed at Āhipara on 15 January, and great progress has been made towards a deed of settlement with those iwi. I certainly hope that the unfortunate events of recent days will not get in the way of just and durable settlements for those people up there.

Hon Shane Jones: Is there a precedent for local government and the Crown collaborating to effect the return of reserve lands to tangata whenua, and is he willing to explore such an option as it pertains to the Taipā reserve lands?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are precedents for that kind of innovation. There is no reason why people cannot approach the Crown on those issues, but there are ways of doing things and ways of not doing things. Illegal occupation of that land is not an appropriate way of dealing with matters.

Hon Shane Jones: What does the Minister say to the far north community that has watched the abandonment of the local sailing club regatta and the cancellation of annual fishing competitions because of fear associated with this land occupation, connected with obviously troubled Treaty negotiations?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: In answer to the last point I say that the negotiations are not troubled; very good progress has been made. I say to those people that they have every right to be upset and disappointed. The selfish actions of a few have harmed the legitimate activities of the entire community, and those groups have every right to feel frustrated and disappointed.

Hon Shane Jones: When he told the Taipā protesters, who are nephews to Hone Harawira, to go to hell, what directions did he have in mind and whom did he think they might meet there?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, Trevor Mallard is not dead yet.

Hon Shane Jones: Based on that answer, are we now to consider this Minister to be the “Black Prince” amongst Māori Treaty negotiations?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I certainly hope not. The phrase is a figurative phrase. It expressed my frustration that after all the good work that had been done by the negotiators of Ngāi Takoto, Ngāti Kurī, Te Rarawa, and Te Aupōuri, we have had what Harold Macmillan would have called a little local difficulty, which is getting in the way of deeds of settlement being signed so that just and durable settlements can finally be entered into—a hope of the late Mat Rata from over 20 years ago.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I did not make those comments as Attorney-General. They do not relate to my Attorney-General portfolio. They were made by me as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in the context of an issue related to Treaty settlements. As to the second part of the question, I cannot see the connection between the bill and the protest. Just because a piece of land is in sight of the water, that does not make it a part of the foreshore. The occupation of the land in question was an occupation of dry land. The bill relates to the area below mean high-water springs—that is, the wet part of the beach, not dry, privately owned land.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have seen the Government shift questions around to the appropriate Minister. We submitted that question to the House. It was accepted for the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has refused to answer it, saying that he never made those statements as Attorney-General, and therefore he has not answered the question. The question was accepted as legitimate, so it must have been authenticated. Indeed, if the Attorney-General did not want to answer the question as Attorney-General, he could have sent it to himself as Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I have heard the member at reasonable length on the issue. The Minister was purely pointing out that he made those statements as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He did not deny making the statements. But the substance of his answer was that the issue of the occupation this question seems to relate to is not a matter to do with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—they are not occupying the foreshore or seabed. I think the Minister’s answer was perfectly reasonable. The member asked whether he can assure New Zealanders that such protests are not a foretaste; the Attorney-General argued that this protest does not relate to that legislation, in his view, because it is not foreshore and seabed that they are occupying. That is what I heard him say. I cannot judge the quality of the Minister’s answer; I believe that he made a perfectly reasonable attempt to answer that question. I think it is unreasonable to expect me, as Speaker, to adjudicate on the quality of the answer.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question asked whether he stood by his statements. The Attorney-General never addressed that. He said that he made those statements as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, so he has not addressed that question. I accept your point that you cannot force him to answer it, but we lodged that question, it was authenticated—

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is, forgive me, being a bit pernickety over it. The Minister has not denied making those statements; he was just helpful to the House in pointing out that he made them in his capacity as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I did not see any resiling from them whatsoever. I presume he still stands by them as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He was merely pointing out that he did not make them as the Attorney-General. It is perfectly reasonable to explain to the House the basis of the statements. He went on to answer the second part of the question in what I believe was a perfectly reasonable answer. I am afraid that I have judged that and there is nothing further I can do about that. The member has a further supplementary question.

Hon Rodney Hide: Will he assure all Kiwi mums and dads and their children that for as long as he is Attorney-General they will continue to enjoy their traditional access to New Zealand’s beaches and coast to swim, surf, picnic, and fish as they have done in years past?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, and also to make sandcastles.

Hon Rodney Hide: Will he, then, immediately resign if Māori groups, on gaining customary title, block Kiwis from their traditional use of the foreshore or seabed; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No; it will not be necessary, because that sort of thing will not happen. In all the discussions I have had with iwi and hapū groups, that has not been an issue, notwithstanding the scaremongering of groups such as the Coastal Coalition.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : The Government recently signed deeds of settlement with two Kurahaupō iwi at the top of the South Island, Ngāti Kuia and Ngāti Apa, and will be signing a deed of settlement with Rangitāne o Wairau on 4 December.

Hon Shane Jones: What about Taipā?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Taipā is not at the top of the South Island. Since the start of last year the Crown has reached over 60 significant settlement milestones, including 21 agreements in principle and 10 deeds of settlement. That represents great progress, especially compared with the previous administration’s average of 1.6 deeds of settlement a year.

Paul Quinn: What other progress has the Government recently made towards its goal of settling all historical Treaty claims?

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member, but I say to members on both sides of the House that the background noise today is unacceptable. A member was yelling endlessly across the House while the member was asking his question. I fully accept that tensions are quite high today. I have tried to let the House live a little more because of it, because I think there are times when one cannot keep the reins too tight. But I just ask for a little bit more reasonableness, please. I ask Paul Quinn to repeat his question.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We accept your ruling. If you are to extend that protection to the particular member who is asking the question, then he might return the courtesy when other members on this side of the House are asking questions. This member in particular gives a diatribe of yelling whenever our people are asking questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Members should not abuse another member when raising a point of order—for example, referring to something as a diatribe. Members should not do that. I admit that the member has interjected a little too often during question time today and he needs to be mindful of that, although I have not heard him yelling constantly, which is what was going on here. [Interruption] Order! His voice is very loud and very distinctive, and one certainly hears it, but what we have just been experiencing is someone yelling continuously. I have not blamed one side of the House more than the other; I am just asking all members to be a little more reasonable. I am not blaming one side of the House any more than the other; both sides have been particularly noisy today in respect of background noise. I take on board the member’s point, and I ask Paul Quinn to be mindful of that when he is interjecting.

Paul Quinn: What other progress has the Government recently made towards its goal of settling all historical Treaty claims?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government recently initialled a deed of settlement with Ngāti Porou. Ngāti Porou is now engaged in a ratification process and I—

Hon Shane Jones: Labour policy!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: What is Labour policy? It certainly is not to settle Treaty of Waitangi grievances. I encourage all those who are eligible to participate. I acknowledge the leadership of Ngāti Porou in reaching this milestone and the support of the Māori Party throughout the negotiations. I also acknowledge the very eloquent speech by the Hon Parekura Horomia at the ceremony when the deed was initialled.

Rahui Katene: What impact has the legal action being taken against the Crown by Wakatū Incorporation had on settling the claims of Te Tau Ihu iwi, and what can those iwi do to progress their negotiations?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It certainly delays the signing of the deeds of settlement because, in accordance with the terms of negotiation, the Crown has had to suspend negotiations with Tainui Taranaki pending resolution of the Wakatū proceeding. They too were parties to the terms of negotiation, but in the interim I hope that the iwi of Tainui Taranaki will be able to work together to resolve the intra-iwi issues that remain outstanding. My understanding is that good progress is being made in that regard.

Hilary Calvert: In the light of it taking 40 years to settle Treaty claims, does he expect it to take more or less time for customary marine title claims to be settled?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It has not taken 40 years to resolve Treaty of Waitangi claims. This process really got under way in the early 1990s, and good progress is being made. In answer to the question about customary marine title matters, I say that I believe good progress can be made to resolve those matters once legislation is passed—legislation that, properly explained to the electorate, will secure their agreement. I think we should adopt that approach rather than scaremongering and unpleasantness.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Yes, the Minister answering yesterday confirmed that the processes are different. He did not necessarily accept the member’s description of those processes. As to the second part of the member’s question, as recent experience has shown, there can be no protection against allegations of patronage or corruption by people who either have not read the bill or do not care about the truth. The real question is whether patronage or corruption by individual members is protected against—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It should probably be ACT that raises this point of order, but to accuse members in this House of—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer and he was speaking in a general sense. He did not accuse anyone in this House of not having read the bill, or whatever. If I recollect his answer correctly, he said that there was no protection against individuals who had not read the bill making allegations, etc. It is quite improper for a member then to try to twist that and aim it at an individual in this House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is very important to listen to answers—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister should just answer the question.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The real question is whether patronage or corruption by Ministers can be guarded against. The answer to that question is yes.

Hon Rodney Hide: In light of his answer, what protections are there within the proposed bill to guard against political patronage and corruption?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I refer the member to Part 4. In the case of when agreements are entered into, the responsible Minister is negotiating on behalf of the Crown. It is the Crown that enters into those agreements. There will necessarily need to be adequate Cabinet, and Cabinet committee, review of those processes. One can enter into those agreements only if the requirements of the Act in relation to customary title are satisfied. Any attempt to subvert those requirements would be met with an application for judicial review.

Hon Rodney Hide: What public scrutiny and parliamentary oversight will there be of these decisions before they are ratified?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: If the procedure is done by way of an Act—and that is one of the options set out in clause 92—there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. If the agreement is what is entered into, I refer the member to clause 95 about registration and notification of the agreement, and to the points I made earlier, which will indicate there will be an opportunity for interested parties to be involved.

I was rather disappointed in the contribution from Mr Locke, a fair-minded chap who tries to look at both sides of the issues. I was not at all surprised by the response of the Labour Party, but Mr Locke, at least, tries to look at both sides of the issues. He raised a couple of points about the interference of foreigners in New Zealand. I had hoped that he would at least try to be consistent in his outrage about all forms of foreign interference in our film industry, and I will read into the record just a couple of comments that I think need to be read in as part of the permanent record of this House. On Monday, 11 October Helen Kelly of the Council of Trade Unions attended a meeting of actors in Wellington, representing the position of Actors Equity, a body that says it is independent of Australian unions. It is worth quoting from an article on Screen Hub, written by someone attending that meeting. Asked at the meeting why New Zealand Actors Equity had not taken a full board vote before inviting international guilds and unions to bring pressure to bear on the production, Ms Kelly reportedly told the meeting: “Your Australian leaders have been acting in your best interests.” Asked why local actors were not being afforded the chance to sort out any dissatisfaction about terms and conditions via their local representatives, Ms Kelly responded that international unions have more muscle.

Today some people are claiming that the unions have said that there would not be any industrial action on The Hobbit so all this is unnecessary, and that they simply could not understand why a studio that is investing many hundreds of millions of dollars in New Zealand—in New Zealand jobs, in New Zealand’s future, and in our film industry—may have some reticence about taking the unions at their word. One needs look no further than the statement from Actors Equity on Radio New Zealand just last Friday: “We’ve been trying this with local productions for a couple of years. The difference with The Hobbit was that we did have some support from outside unions. We didn’t encourage them to bully Peter Jackson. They came on board and supported us of their own accord.”

Another myth perpetrated by the unions is that the industrial relations dispute had nothing to do with money, but was about terms and conditions of employment. On 27 September the Australian unionist Simon Whipp told the Otago Daily Times that the issue was all about the payment of fees. Last Friday Robyn Malcolm was quoted in the Dominion Post as talking about securing financial benefits for those involved in the production. Is it any wonder that investors are reluctant to take the word of the unions in this matter, and have sought that the matter be clarified?

When Simon Whipp told The Hollywood Reporter that union success with The Hobbit would pave the way for unionising other productions in New Zealand, and Helen Kelly told Newstalk ZB that her primary focus was to “unionise the film industry, what was the problem with that, and that Peter Jackson was a spoilt brat”, is it any wonder investors get nervous about the unions’ true intentions?

What is most revealing is the point made by Mr Hide and Mr Brownlee: “What do the workers think about all of this?”. One need look no further than Labour Day, which is the day set aside for workers, when thousands of people marched up and down this country against the unions—on Labour Day, of all days.

Hon Tau Henare: In their thousands.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They marched in their thousands, as Mr Henare said. Thousands of people cheered that great New Zealander Sir Richard Taylor, in Civic Square.

Earlier today a true worker in the film industry, Mark Harrison, stated he did not have any concerns about the proposed legislation. He said this is an area that has needed clarification, ever since the Bryson case. It should have been changed by the Labour Government. But was there any chance of that, given that Mr Chauvel, who is a member of the Labour Party, acted for the Council of Trade Unions as an intervener in the Supreme Court?

I think it is pretty clear that the Labour Party, once again, is shown to be more concerned about the unions than the economy. That has always been the case, whether it was the Waterside Workers Union in 1951, the Seamen’s Union in 1970—

Hon Tau Henare: And the boilermakers.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —the Boilermakers Union over the BNZ building, or Actors Equity in 2010. The unions come first; the economy comes second. All I want to say is that I very much look forward to next year’s election, in the marginal seat of Rongotai, when Annette King—the self-proclaimed “MP for Weta”—and I can discuss some of these issues.