Goff Phil: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goff Phil: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19354] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Labour will support the second reading of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill but in a moment I will come to the concerns that both Labour and the Green Party had about the way this bill was introduced and then considered by the Intelligence and Security Committee. 
What we know about security intelligence is that it is inherently controversial. It involves intrusion into the privacy of individuals and therefore involves the question of human rights. Those issues however need to be weighed against issues of national security and in today’s world that means obviously international terrorism and the need to safeguard against it. It also means breaches of cyber-security. That is becoming a bigger thing in the world and it threatens the commercial interests of New Zealand. It is real it is happening and we need a Security Intelligence Service and relevant legislation in order to protect ourselves against it. National security involves issues such as drugs arms and people-trafficking. It involves nuclear proliferation and a range of threats to our national security and the well-being of our personnel—police and defence forces—deployed overseas. Security intelligence is a critical part of the protection against those threats. 
This bill in essence takes an original Act that is now 42 years old updates it and explicitly authorises modern technological methods of surveillance. The original Act came in an era when nobody had heard of electronic communications such as cellphones laptop computers the internet and social networks. The bill explicitly provides for the SIS to undertake the tracking of subjects by electronic means; it confirms that facilities such as cellphone numbers and internet protocol addresses can be the subject of warrant applications; it allows under warrant access to computer systems; it provides protection from liability to those persons exercising SIS entry powers when they are seeking to obtain or facilitate entry; and it provides for the delegation of responsibilities where that is necessary to improve efficiency and to enable the SIS to react more quickly during operations. In Labour’s view each of those changes is justifiable in that they make explicit or update mechanisms used by the SIS. It really updates rather than extends those existing powers. 
But naturally this was an area that was going to be very controversial publicly. That is why first of all I believe that it was both unnecessary and stupid of the Government to introduce this legislation under urgency. That simply created suspicion that this was a Government that had something to hide. On top of that we then had a situation where it was deemed necessary that submissions made to the committee be held behind closed doors. Both I and Russel Norman from the Green Party opposed the hearing of submissions in secrecy. There was no reason for it. The public should be able to have their voices heard on any piece of legislation in an arena where the media and the public are there to observe and to follow what is happening. Nothing that I heard through the entire process of submissions needed to be heard in secret. The hearings could have been held in public. That sort of transparency and openness would have encouraged the public to look on this legislation as necessary and as something that the Government was being quite upfront about. Instead the way in which it was handled led people to suspect the worst of what the Government was trying to do. I regret that the Government made those decisions in the way that it did. 
Although the process was marred in that way in another sense having heard the submissions and particularly with the proposals put forward by Labour and the Green Party I think we made some worthwhile changes to this bill that improve the nature of it. I acknowledge in particular three sets of submissions. One was made by the Human Rights Commission. I thought it was a very appropriate submission that led us to include in the bill a section that sets out the rights that should be observed by the SIS. Likewise I acknowledge the thoughtful contributions made by Hazel Armstrong and also by the Council of Trade Unions. Although at least two of those bodies opposed the legislation they put forward their ideas in a very constructive and thoughtful manner that I thought was very helpful to the bill we have ended up with. We have put a clause in the bill that includes reference to human rights democratic oversight and the impartiality and the professionalism expected of the Security Intelligence Service. It is the first time we have those principles enshrined in the legislation and I believe that they strengthen it. 
A further safeguard was added to help prevent people from becoming subject to surveillance because of mistaken identity. That was a real risk. The provision we added to the bill will help prevent that. Another requirement was added to the effect that non-relevant records obtained by electronic tracking must be destroyed as soon as practicable after the expiry of the intelligence warrant. The final safeguard that I think was necessary given the move to delegate power from the Director of Security to people who are named subsequent to the warrant being issued is that there will be periodic reporting of those delegations to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I think that is important in terms of the inspector-general and the functions that he carries out in that regard. 
In support of the bill I note that the Ministry of Justice evaluated it and found that in terms of the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it was consistent with the rights and the protections enshrined in that legislation. Likewise the bill received consideration from the Law Commission by its deputy president Dr Warren Young a person who is I think widely respected across the House. Dr Young noted: “While there are some impacts on privacy this is clearly justified by the associated benefits. In particular updating the warrant framework is a recognition of technological changes in the storage of and communication of information and is essential in order to enable the NZSIS to continue to effectively undertake its statutory functions.” Last but not least the Office of the Privacy Commissioner did not oppose the bill and noted that the warrant proposals represent an extension “in application” of existing powers rather than an extension “in principle” of existing powers. 
I think this legislation is appropriate to the needs of New Zealand at this time. It is essentially a modernisation of the legislation. It respects the balance that needs to be found between privacy and respect for human rights and the necessity for national intelligence to protect New Zealand against international threats. On that basis Labour supports the second reading of this bill.