Browning Steffan: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9681. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): This very very short time that has been mooted for reporting this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill needs to be reviewed because this is a significant piece of law. It affects all New Zealanders. It affects New Zealanders in a range of ways. It can be in their individual lives. It can be in their membership of different organisations. It can be to do with their faiths. It can be in all sorts of ways that this bill will cover them.Those people need significant time to actually get a grasp of the enormity of this bill. They need to be informed on the way that it can affect them in their lives. They need to be able to get expert advice if they so choose. They need to be able to draft submissions. They need to review those submissions and they then need to submit and they need to have access to the Intelligence and Security Committee to speak to their submissions. We are talking about potentially everyone and anyone. Having only 2 months is definitely going to block out significant numbers of people even though they may wish to submit to that committee.It was concerning to be reminded that no substitutes are able to be on that committee. Although it is in a way contrary to another call—ensuring that this very small committee may basically struggle to have full attendance if the Prime Minister or other very busy members of Parliament are away—I actually think it would be very very good if we did have substitutes. Maybe that needs to be considered because in this instance where we are considering whether we need more time we need to reflect that the Prime Minister himself is absolutely culpable in the illegal spying that has pre-empted this bill. Fast tracking over a couple of months to report by 26 July will not cut it.This is about civil liberties. New Zealanders as I say need time to engage with this bill. We need to give them the opportunity to find out about it and we have to think about who is going to do that. We have got an organisation the Government Communications Security Bureau that is covered by the bill. We have the SIS implicated in it and also a number of departments. Are they going to be letting New Zealanders know about the significance of this bill and that they need to get involved and submit on it? There are a lot of questions about that and certainly the time is not there in this process.I need to point out the types of organisations that could be affected. There is a March Against Monsanto shortly to do with genetic engineering and pesticides and things like that. Those are the sorts of people who potentially would be spied on. They may want to submit and talk about the fairness that they should be covered by in terms of legislation. There are the Ploughshares people whom I mentioned earlier and civil society generally and there are a lot of organisations involved there.There are professionals and academics who will want to be involved. I note anOtago Daily Times article about some University of Otago professors talking about the national security State brought on by this bill. I am sure that they will want to make a submission. They point out the worrying implications for individual privacy civil liberties and national security that this proposal has. And that covers everyone—that certainly covers everyone—and everyone needs a full opportunity.They added: “We do not think this critical law should be changed without more extensive public discussion about its potential costs and benefits.” So I think Professor Kevin Clements and Professor Richard Jackson from the university’s National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies raise a very very important point. That point if it is to be considered appropriately and if we are to extend it would mean that we should be giving much much much more time for this bill to be put in front of a committee—a committee that probably should not have John Key anywhere near it and certainly not voting on it.There have been at least 18 months of illegal spying. We have no inquiry. The nearest thing to an inquiry will be the submissions to the Intelligence and Security Committee. So surely the public could have at least 6 months—a third of the time that illegal spying has been going on which this bill is about. What we have got is 2 months a ninth of the time of that illegal activity which John Key knew about. This is the amount of time that the public will have to properly realise in respect of this bill whichhas been thrust on them this week that they can suddenly get into gear and get submissions in that would have enough import to potentially change the wording of this bill and come to us as members of Parliament who might be able to assist particularly those involved in that committee. They clearly have not got a chance of getting very very far.I would just point out the functions of the bureau as such in the old law which finishes in a way: “The performance of the Bureau’s functions is subject to the control of the Minister.” John Key and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. Order! This debate—if the member would sit while I am on my feet—can deal only with why the report-back period is being truncated. There is Standing Order 286(3). So if the member would just come back to that. You have been fine up to now but you cannot deviate and start talking about things of substance.STEFFAN BROWNING: Yes thank you. I have expressed a fair amount of it. I think there are those organisations that will want to come to the committee. As I mentioned earlier there are the faith organisations. They are generally involved around these civil liberties issues of privacy. Business will be concerned as well because of the levels that this bill can go to. So they will want to submit. The telecommunications companies—and we know we have got another bill that will affect them too—will want to be involved. I would expect that the departments that are included in the powers of this bill—and a number of Government departments are given access to it—would also want to be involved in how that is managed for them.Everybody will want or should want to be involved here and the 2 months aspect of it may actually make some of them say: “Well this isn’t worth it.” and that would be very very disappointing. Maybe that is part of the point of it. So I wonder—Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.STEFFAN BROWNING: What we are actually talking about is that the limited amount of time this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill has before the committee is far from adequate. We certainly need an inquiry. The various groups that I was talking about before need a lot of preparation time. I have been able to check on some of that through the dinner hour. We know that this short period of time is not going to be adequate to explore the issues that this significant piece of legislation requires.The Green Party would like to see an extension. We would like the Minister to reconsider the time frame that has been put up for this significant piece of legislation. We did point out that the illegal spying was going on for 18 months. I think that needs to be taken into account to give as long as is legally possible for all the public who will be exposed to this law an opportunity to come back on it. The Green Party would like that to be taken into account and hopefully the Minister will respond to it. Thank you.