O'Rourke Denis: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12702. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment BillInspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment BillDENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):The Government is all over the place with this legislation arising from the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. Initially it was interested in collaboration on it and we in New Zealand First would have been willing to play a constructive part but then the Government bought Peter Dunne’s vote. Suddenly then there was no need for collaboration any more. Then the Government said that the public did not care and then it saw that the public in fact did care and therefore all of a sudden Government members show up in force here today to defend the indefensible. With that one vote of Peter Dunne the Government will still rush through this defective and ill-considered piece of legislation.There is an inherent conflict between the freedom of speech and privacy of information on the one hand and national security on the other. The public are concerned about a creeping loss of those freedoms of speech and the protection of the privacy of information. In fact as we have seen from recent reliable I think polls 75 percent of the New Zealand population is concerned about those things to some degree. In the age of electronic communication this highlights the conflict between personal rights and the national interest. Greater care is required to ensure the protection of those freedoms while at the same time giving sufficient powers—but no more—to enable national security needs to be met. This needs to cover especially external and internal terrorist activity internet terrorism major illegal drug importation operations money-laundering and other serious crimes.But New Zealand First’s thrust in these matters has been for greater control in three areas. The first is the grounds for authorisation and what must be in a warrant or authorisation. I see that the new and amended section 15D(1)(e) inserted by clause 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill now refers only to “the purpose of the warrant or authorisation:”. But we think that is too low a standard. It needs to require justification not just some airy-fairy concept of purposes in terms of the functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) as set out in new sections 8A and 8B inserted by clause 6.We think the need for justification is at the core of the issue because that is where the balance between the national interest and the public’s right to freedom of expression and privacy of information lies. This section needs expansion as to what that justification would need to be. We in New Zealand First would like to have had the opportunity to discuss that very issue with the Government but that opportunity was removed from us. What we have therefore is something of a blank cheque in this section as to what the purpose is rather than what the justification would be.There is a case for some information sharing also. That is our second issue as to who the information can be shared with. We think the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill is still too wide concerning ministerial discretion on where the information may go. I refer to new section 8B(1)(c) which says that the function of the bureau is “to provide any intelligence gathered and any analysis of the intelligence to—(i) the Minister; and (ii) any person or office holder (whether in NewZealand or overseas) authorised by the Minister to receive the intelligence.” So the Minister may send information to anyone he likes whether in New Zealand or overseas. We said at the beginning that this was too wide but nothing has been done about that issue. There is as I have said a case for some information sharing but this legislation to me needs to be much more restrictive on the who and why concerning overseas recipients whether they contribute funding to the bureau or not. New Zealand First would have wished to discuss that issue with the Government too.Thirdly a much more robust regime of oversight on the issuing of warrants and authorisations is needed. This is the biggest issue for New Zealand First. New Zealand First sought much better engagement on the content and was prepared to help. We thought clause 33A of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill had potential. It inserts new sections 15A to 15F which provide for an advisory panel and advice to the inspector-general. The panel could also report direct to the Prime Minister. New section 15C states the panel is the inspector-general plus two others appointed by the Prime Minister one of whom must be a lawyer.But this does not fully meet our requirements. The problem with it is the lack of independence of the panel because of appointments by the Prime Minister alone. It is far too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister acting alone. The appointments need to be made by Parliament and the panel also needs teeth—that is the power to recommend rather than just advise on the cancellation of warrants or authorisations. We would have liked to have pursued this also direct with the Government in a collaborative process to produce legislation with much wider parliamentary support. But once Peter Dunne sold his vote so cheaply the rug was pulled out from under New Zealand First’s feet and it was left out in the cold. It was left trying to make amendments through the process that we have just been through.Consequently New Zealand First’s proposed Supplementary Order Paper 323 now defeated by the Government and Peter Dunne was what it required before it could have considered supporting the new legislation. That Supplementary Order Paper provided for a review panel to ensure that warrants and authorisations are clearly justified. It would have inserted a new section 15G into the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill. It required a review of every warrant or authorisation within 15 working days and the panel could have recommended cancellation the addition of new conditions or the amendment of existing conditions. The panel would have been of three people—former and therefore independent members of the judiciary police and the military. That Supplementary Order Paper would have achieved the balance that I have spoken of—national security versus freedom of speech and protection of privacy. That is what is so clearly lacking in these bills and what fully justifies the deep concerns felt by so many members of the public today.If the changes sought by New Zealand First had been agreed to Labour’s commission of inquiry would have been simply unnecessary. If the legislation had not been so rushed if the process had been much more collaborative if New Zealand First’s requirements or something like them had been adopted and if more time and effort had been put into the development of properly balanced and carefully drafted pieces of legislation which is not the case then cross-party support may have been possible. Peter Dunne saw to it that it was not possible. He sold out cheaply and the Government was eager to buy.In doing so the Government has caused considerable public disquiet over the GCSB. None of the parties in this Parliament want that. We all want the GCSB and the Government’s agencies to have full public support. We want the proper balance to be achieved. That is not what the Government has done. It has followed a bad process. It has got technically bad pieces of legislation and it has lost the support of the public.How could you better define a failure in terms of legislation? It is being put through on the strength of one vote and one vote only.Finally the Prime Minister gave a public assurance that his Government would see that there was no spying on New Zealanders without their consent. That of course was untrue. He should now say that he was wrong about that. The Government has clearly resolved to tough it out and with Peter Dunne’s vote obviously it can. But I predict that the damage done will be remembered all the way to the next election and this Government deserves nothing less.