Dunne Peter: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4509] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I would have thought that the member who has just resumed his seat would not want his speech to be interpreted the way it will be which is simply that this bill was necessary because of the Government’s current foreign policy. This bill is necessary full stop. This bill is necessary because in today’s environment regardless of the particular foreign policy that the Government of the day may follow international relations have become so much more volatile that every single State whatever its size needs to have adequate security intelligence services to gather information about what is going on and to enable that information to be processed in the best interests of that country. That is exactly what this bill seeks to do in both clauses 7 and 8 which set out the objectives and the functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau. The bureau is being set up as a Government department to make it more accountable in effect and also to ensure that its role is more tightly specified. 
As I look around the walls of this Chamber I see a succession of plaques commemorating the occasions when New Zealand has joined international conflict and New Zealand blood has been spilt in the pursuit of freedom. I do not think anyone should detract from that memory. The situation in Iraq at the moment is extraordinarily unfortunate. I doubt that in my lifetime there has been a more savage more brutal more reprehensible dictator than Saddam Hussein. I certainly want to see him removed from power as quickly as possible and I want to see those associated with him removed from power as quickly as possible. That is one of the big issues confronting the country today but it is not of itself an issue that explains why we need to pass this bill. 
If there had been no Saddam Hussein no Bali no September 11 and no Taliban or other threat I would say that we still need to have legislation of this type. The greatest protection that we can have in a very diverse and uncertain world is to ensure that our resources are best placed to enable us to have the information we need to do the job that is required. 
Often it is not just a matter of foreign policy. We see threats being made around the world all the time. There are threats of an economic nature and there are threats of a biosecurity nature. They are threats that may be small “p” political but all of those things are matters that we as a decent society require adequate intelligence upon. We also need to have a mechanism which is the other part of this bill by which those who gather that material can be properly held to account for the role they perform and that is what this bill establishes. I deplore the fact that a relatively non-contentious matter that with the exception of one segment of the House has widespread support is being turned into something that it is not. This is a measure that we ought to have passed some considerable time ago because the change in technology the improvement in communications and the sophistication in the way in which people do their business mean that the Government Communications Security Bureau and the other intelligence agencies that go alongside it—the External Assessments Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service—need to have their role constantly upskilled and updated to ensure that they are able to protect us. And that says nothing about particular situations that arise from time to time. I think it is an unfortunate association to try to say that this measure becomes more important because of certain circumstances in the world at the present time. 
This is a good bill. I do not accept the criticism of those who speak against it that somehow it means that information about people will be gathered improperly or that some of the provisions in the bill particularly the reference at clause 7(1)(a)(iii) to “New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being” can be used as a way of suppressing internal legitimate protest and dissent. The people who raised that argument are the same people who object to the line in our national anthem that this country be spared from dissension envy and hate. It is a ludicrous argument that is advanced in that respect. New Zealand is not being compromised in this regard. We are ensuring that our intelligence services are able to operate effectively and efficiently. I believe we ought to give them the support they require to do that job because they are operating on the nation’s behalf. I am happy to support this bill. I want to see it passed as quickly as possible and I want to see us move on and ensure that our intelligence services—whatever the international environment—operate efficiently in the public interest of this country.