Finlayson Christopher: 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 VolumeFinlayson Christopher: 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:12704. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment BillInspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment BillHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):That was a very disappointing contribution from that member of New Zealand First Denis O’Rourke because there is no substitute for substance rather than rhetoric. Take for example the issue of review of the legislation. The proposal in the legislation provides for a mandatory review of among other things all the relevant pieces of legislation not once as suggested by the Labour Party but in 2015 and thereafter on a regular basis. The review provisions provide a very sensible way of making sure that this legislation is kept under constant surveillance and scrutiny.At the end of the day for all the hyperbole the waffle and the incoherent and the disturbed contributions this debate really boils down to one central question: do new sections 8 to 8D inserted by clause 6 in the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill represent an expansion of the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)? Only one person on the other side of the House has canvassed this matter with any rigour and that is Mr Parker. Although I disagree with him on some of his conclusions at least he spoke to the legislation something that other speakers on the Labour side were incapable of doing. That is why I respect him as a parliamentarian because these are important issues. But the answer to the central question to the critical question is no. Labour’s 2003 legislation contains an imprecise and an inconsistent statement of the functions of the GCSB.It is important to deal with the facts. The 2003 legislation is the aberration not this bill. It does not matter who is speaking about the bill—whether it is the Law Society the high and mighty like Dame Anne Salmond or the Green Party—if people do not start by acknowledging the fact that the 2003 legislation was fundamentally inadequate then perhaps it is easy to see how they reach the conclusions they do. But those conclusions are wrong. The 2003 legislation should never have been passed in the form that it was.Let us look at the present section 8 in the 2003 legislation. It gives the GCSB three functions: foreign intelligence information assurance and cyber-security and cooperation and assistance to other entities. Section 14 codifies the basic premise underpinning theGCSB’s operations which is that it is not to conduct foreign intelligence activities against New Zealanders. However the way the basic premise was incorporated into the 2003 Act meant that it applied not only to foreign intelligence functions but also to its other two functions. Helen Clark never intended to limit theGCSB’s ability to assist the SIS or the police as it has always done. We know this because she has gone on record in recent weeks saying that she signed warrants for non - foreign intelligence matters. That is how she had been advised and that is what she understood to be the role of the GCSB but under her own legislation she was wrong.This defect in the legislation has resulted in a growing number of difficulties and it is restricting the bureau’s ability to carry out its other two functions. This amendment bill does nothing more than address that issue and increase the safeguards that sit over the GCSB—I emphasise “increase the safeguards”. The unsatisfactory section 8 is replaced with a simplified and clearer version contained in what will be new sections 8 to 8D. At the same time we have been able to provide for significant limitations andrestrictions on the powers of the GCSB which were all lacking—all lacking—from the 2003 Act.So what does new section 8 contain? Well we have heard some pretty wild claims about it. New section 8 does not change the three functions of the GCSB—they remain information assurance and cyber-security foreign intelligence and cooperation and assistance to other entities—but as I said greater restrictions surround all three functions. This is tight legislation. It provides numerous safeguards—safeguards that were not present in the 2003 Act.I want to address some of the claims we have heard about the new section 8A. That section confirms theGCSB’s existing ability to assist with information assurance and cyber-security. To claim that it gives the GCSB the power to spy freely on New Zealanders is wrong. It is wrong especially when one considers the wording of the provision. That would be so far out of the scope of new section 8A that it is simply scaremongering to suggest otherwise.I have to say that the Law Society’s contribution to the debate has been disappointing. Its initial submission asserted that the bill represented an expansion of powers—it hurts me to say so—but omitted to describe how the legislation actually did so in light of the problems with the existing Act. The society’s representative then claimed that the bill provided greater powers to assist other agencies but even thebloggers understood that was not true. So then Dr Harrison decided to claim that new section 8A represents an expansion of powers. It is not true that we have not allowed for enough time to craft good legislation but maybe we have not allowed enough time for the rate at which Dr Harrison can get to grips with this legislation.There have been a number of contributions from outside this place but I want to single out three. The first is that of the former head of the GCSB Sir Bruce Ferguson. Let us not forget that despite his recent attempts to reinvent himself as a political commentator many of the problems we are dealing with today in this legislation occurred on his watch. Secondly there is Sir Geoffrey Palmer who allowed the GCSB to operate with no legislation at all when he was Prime Minister. Sir Geoffrey has claimed that this legislation is rushed. Well it is not. It received a full time in the Intelligence and Security Committee. It received very full debate in this House.Hon Phil Goff: It did not. It reduced the time and they couldn’t even hear from the GCSB.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As the Prime Minister said yesterday if we want to talk about rushing something I say to the sad Mr Goff let us have a look at the debate on the State-Owned Enterprises Bill in 1986 when he was a junior Minister when Sir Geoffrey forced the House into urgency to deal with the second reading the Committee stage and the third reading in 1 day. These days he has managed to recast himself as the guardian angel of constitutional propriety. He is not. He is deeply partisan deeply political.But the worst contribution—the worst contribution—has come from Dame Anne Salmond. Let us consider some of her shrill and unprofessional comments: that one cannot attend Anzac Day commemorations if people support this bill comparisons with McCarthyism and comparisons with Nazi Germany. Those comments are disgraceful. On this last point I say this: I stood in the guardhouse at Auschwitz-Birkenau in January I walked under the “Arbeitmachtfrei” sign and I signed the book of remembrance on behalf of New Zealand. I know people who suffered at Auschwitz. For someone who considers herself a professional historian to trivialise that period of history in order to engage in political point-scoring reveals a lot about the nature of the woman. It was a disgraceful attack and she ought to consider just what exactly she was hoping to achieve by using it.The 2003 legislation is the problem. This legislation is the fix. Perhaps it is no surprise that the Labour Party refuses to acknowledge its mistake in passing the 2003 legislation. Admitting error is not its style but it is time that we addressed what exactly is going on here—the corrective action that is being taken the promise of not just one review but ongoing review the promise of great additional safeguards. This legislation clarifies the powers of the GCSB. It does not expand those powers. I commend the legislation to the House.