Worth Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4384] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I am certainly looking forward to hearing the contribution— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would be interested to know how the chair is deciding to take calls. You are clearly not following party size. You are not following seniority because you have called a member who has not been in the House as long as I have and who represents a smaller party. You are clearly not looking at all parties because New Zealand First wants to contribute. It is your gift and if you want to be unfair you can. I would like to know on what basis we are doing the calls. It is not one that I am aware of. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I did look to the honourable member for the next call but he did not rise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When you called Mr Dunne ahead of me I did not rise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reality is that I have called Richard Worth and I cannot take the call from him but I will take into consideration what the honourable member has said. I thank him for drawing the matter to my attention. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have made a ruling and already called someone. Under the Standing Orders I cannot take the call away. 
Ron Mark 
: I know that but my point of order is this: the Hon Richard Prebble has asked for an explanation as to why you saw fit to make the decision you did. The reason I took my point of order before you made your ruling was so that you had a chance to consider what I had to say. But you have now accorded two calls to the National Party before you have heard from any other Opposition parties on this part so it is difficult for those of us sitting here to understand your logic. You were simply asked for an explanation and all you have said is that you have since made your call so that is it. That is not particularly fair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable member. I also take into account proportionality and I will now call Richard Worth. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: After that exchange I thank you for giving me the call. I certainly look forward to the contribution that Mr Mark might make later in this debate and I should not overlook Mr Prebble. I should also not overlook the large number of members of the Government who are in the debating Chamber. I do not doubt their willingness to take calls in the course of this debate. Before I move to the substantive part Part 2 I would also like to observe that to date in this debate not one member of the Government has taken a call—not the Minister in the chair Lianne Dalziel; not all the members in this packed Chamber opposite. Why have they not done that? 
John Carter 
: Arrogance! 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Arrogance is one of the reasons offered. I think there is a natural timidity to speak out about the merit or otherwise of this legislation. The Minister sits silently scribbling with her green pen. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The honourable member is suggesting that Government members are too timid to speak. That of course is out of order. It is suggesting that they lack courage. For whatever reasons Government members are not speaking I am sure that lack of courage is not one of them. The member cannot pursue an argument of that sort. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a clear Speaker’s ruling that one cannot indicate in the House that members lack courage. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I withdraw. I would just like to say—not with reference to that point of order—that there is a difference between timidity and lack of courage. I of course apologise and withdraw and I am standing on— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will now withdraw and apologise. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
In connection with Part 2 I would like to say first that all of this part and Part 3 are in substantive terms probably the crunch parts of the bill. That is for a raft of reasons. The first issue is Part 2 which establishes as a department of State the Government Communications Security Bureau. When I was talking about Part 1 I offered an insight into the history of the events that had seen this entity operate for a number of years without the status that it is now to be given by this legislation. 
The second issue that relates to Part 2 concerns the substantive provisions that deal with the objective of the bureau. Those provisions raise the very important philosophical issue that what we are about in this debate is striking a balance. It is a balance between on the one hand an active intelligence service necessary for national security and on the other hand a reluctance—a concern perhaps—that there will be aspects of invasion of privacy or a threat in some way to the fabric of the nation. It is a balance that the Green Party struggles to find and we certainly heard from them in that regard. It was Jenny Shipley I think who on 21 March 2000 made a comment about striking that balance. She spoke about the balance between keeping matters secret that clearly deserve to be kept secret in the public and national interest and on the other hand allowing public discussion and debate on those issues that deserve wider consideration. 
The Intelligence and Security Committee was quite robust I would suggest in the way it dealt with a number of submissions in respect of Part 2. That was all to the good because in this type of legislation there is always the runaway possibility that it will be distorted by the strong views of small elements of the community about the security intelligence function. So I simply note that the committee declined to make a number of major changes that were sought. It declined for example to narrow the objectives of the Government Communications Security Bureau. It declined to expand the role of the Inspector-General. It declined to include details of operations in the bureau’s published annual report on the basis that that might prejudice security. In the context of the balance that the committee had to bring to bear to the argument those were important considerations and the committee did consider them. That is all to the good. 
In the short time remaining I would like to focus on the functions of the bureau. I do not seek to read out the functions set out in clause 8. Members have had the benefit of hearing earlier speeches on what those functions are.