Little Andrew: Intelligence and Security Committee — MembershipText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership[Sitting date: 18 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1709. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to support the motion and to echo at the very least the principles that the Acting Attorney-General has just adumbrated and that is about the importance of the security and intelligence oversight that Parliament provides as part of Government. As the Acting Attorney-General outlined the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee is to conduct financial reviews of the security agencies and to deal with petitions and bills almost as if it were a select committee. What is interesting about this committee is that its default setting is one of confidentiality—one of secrecy. It requires a unanimous decision of that committee to act in an open way.The committee acts in a climate today of the need for greater confidence not only about our security agencies but about the quality of the oversight that is provided and of a growing demand in the 21st century for open government including when it comes to the conduct of our security agencies and the powers that they wield. Those powers are extraordinary and they need effective oversight. Most New Zealanders will agree that we are caught between this tension or balance between the need for security for our people—people are entitled to move throughout their neighbourhood and their country with a sense of physical security—and for threats whether from within or without to be properly monitored and matched by the correct powers in order to provide that security. But with the technology now available New Zealanders are equally concerned about the ease with which their privacy can be intruded upon. We must get that tension right.I have nominated David Shearer for three principal reasons. I have nominated him because he has an extraordinary background in dealing with security and security risks and in some of the greatest trouble spots in the world. He headed the UN mission in Iraq running a budget of $2 billion and 500 staff. He was the UN’s humanitarian coordinator in Lebanon. He was head of the UN’s humanitarian office in Jerusalem. He was an adviser to the Afghanistan Government. He coordinated relief to 460000 Kosovo refugees in Albania. The list goes on. In that fieldwork David Shearer worked alongside security personnel and security agencies. He knows what it means in the field. In this part of the 21st century as we head into the rest of this century we know that the risks to the world are defined by what is happening in the parts of the world where he has greatest experience. He understands the risks. He understands the social cultural and ethnic drivers to the risks that are posed to us today. He has that background.The second reason is his experience here in Parliament with the committee when he was Leader of the Opposition and more recently a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee when it dealt with the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill at the end of last year. It was David Shearer’s advocacy on that committee along with Phil Goff’s that led to much tighter restrictions on the exercise of intrusive powers by our security agencies much greater protection for those who are targets of our security agencies and also better recourse to appeal of those powers. So he knows this stuff and he is experienced in it.It was David Shearer who led the call for a review of our security agencies. It was David Shearer who led the campaign to tighten up and improve the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation at a time when the Government had the numbers. The skill of parliamentary advocacy when the numbers are against you is measured by the achievements that have been made. I look at the legislation at the end of last year and I see the improvements that were made because of the knowledge skills understanding and experience of someone like David Shearer.There is a third reason why I have nominated David Shearer and that is the issues that the committee will shortly face in terms of the reviews that the Acting Attorney-General just outlined. The truth is this: we need change in our security oversight architecture. This committee—which will be required to commence its review of the security agencies by 30 June this year which with the Attorney-General will consult on the terms of reference and to which the reviewers appointed by the Attorney-General will report—has its own issues. There are conflicts in its present structure. This is a committee chaired by the Prime Minister to provide oversight for agencies for which he is the responsible Minister. No other Government department or agency has that arrangement in terms of its parliamentary oversight. Its default setting or a default arrangement for its meeting is secrecy. But we are in an age of openness now and an expectation by citizens is that they know what is being done in their name by the Government and that they have a chance to have a say as they did in open forums last year with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.This committee acts to all intents and purposes as a select committee and there is no reason why it should not extend to citizens the same rights and protections as an ordinary select committee. Greater transparency is warranted. We saw last year that an ordinary select committee—the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—was capable of dealing with a bill that was highly sensitive that dealt with the security agencies and that could be debated and dealt with effectively in that ordinary setting.The other reality is this: our nation and our world face more threats worse threats—some real; some perceived. In that climate there are growing claims by our security agencies for more intrusive powers at the same time as citizens want greater openness. We have to get that right. Labour’s position is that if we are to get that balance right that debate itself must be conducted in an open forum and an open environment. Our position is that we can do that without compromising the integrity of our security agencies or the information they deal with. These are the issues. This is the fundamental issue that will sit at the heart of the reviews this year and however long they take and what is important is that we have advocates on that committee who understand those issues understand the tensions and are prepared to go in to bat for the rights and protections of citizens in this very sensitive area. David Shearer has demonstrated in his fieldwork prior to coming to this House and in his work in this House in this area that he is up for that task. I would wager that he will be the most effective MP in the Opposition benches if not indeed in the entire Parliament who is up for that role. So I support the motion.