Little AndrewANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to support the bill at its third reading and to acknowledge the work of the Minister Christopher Finlayson who has just spoken for doing the spadework and also the effort that he has put in in dealing with other parties listening to their concerns openly and genuinely and seeking to resolve the outstanding matters that each of the parties had brought to him. Like him I want to acknowledge the foundation work that was done by Dame Patsy Reddy and Sir Michael Cullen two eminent New Zealanders as he described them for doing an excellent report that laid the basis for the legislation. I think it was of great assistance to all MPs who have been working on the legislation and indeed to those who worked on it during the select committee process.I also agree with the Minister—the Attorney-General as well—that we are fortunate that at least here in this Parliament there are matters upon which we can unite as members of this Parliament. It is important that national security is one of those. The Minister speaks of course as one who would never even think of passing off acerbic remarks about parliamentary colleagues.Grant Robertson: It's never happened!ANDREW LITTLE: I cannot recall a time in which that might have happened but it is right. Like him I observed the debate in the Committee of the whole House last week and saw the quality of the debate. I have to say too that for a Minister sitting in the chair unlike so many other occasions when Ministers contribute very little during that process he was an active participant in it. He actively engaged in the debate put up reasonable sound and often robust defences but otherwise engaged with the debate that members were genuinely bringing on this very important piece of legislation.As I said before I think it is important that on matters of national security—and therefore the legislation covering those agencies that we charge with the responsibility of maintaining national security—there is as best as possible at least a unanimity of purpose and agreement about what the powers should be and that they are going to be resourced appropriately and effectively. I am happy to see this legislation in the form that it has now come back from the Committee of the whole House. I think it achieves the objective that was set by him as Minister but he has sought agreement from other parties to align with.We knew from the outset—from the Cullen-Reddy report and from the early draft of the legislation—that there were going to be more intrusive powers especially for the GCSB to cover off what had been seen as an omission from past legislation. But equally it was evident from the first draft of the bill—and I think the Minister had been very receptive in seeing these beefed up—and that is the safeguards that are provided citizens at least of New Zealand with regard to the exercise of those powers. Whether it is in relation to the new form of intelligence warrants and the way they are issued or whether it is access to personal information held by Government departments or indeed any agencies private or public it is clear to see that there are now safeguards in this legislation that were not present in previous legislation.There were a small number of issues that I thought and Labour thought were outstanding as the first draft of the legislation came to the House. The first was a definition of national security. It is interesting to see that the bill in the form that it is now back in the House does not define national security but it does refer to it. In that context particularly clause 55A makes it clear what the bill its powers and the agencies are targeting when it comes to matters of national security. It is targeting issues of terrorism forms of extremism and threats to our economic security as well. I think that the way the bill is drafted it leaves scope for interpretation but equally the context in which those words appear make it clear exactly what the purpose of the exercise of any powers under the bill is meant to be for. I think that will be an appropriate way for the agencies to conduct themselves and for those who are issuing warrants to be clear about the purpose of the work that they are doing.A second issue that was of concern was the powers of access by the agencies to other information held by Government departments in particular but actually now under the bill as it stands they are the holders of information about individuals who might be the target of investigations by the agencies. I think every New Zealander—every citizen—is entitled to be concerned about where the information that they provide agencies goes how it is used and who has access to it. I think the bill strikes a very fair balance in terms of allowing the security and intelligence agencies to request information—equally for Government departments to disclose information at their own initiative—provided there is a reasonable ground to believe that doing so is in the interests of national security and the objectives that each of the security agencies has.The other issue that I had in relation to the bill when it first entered Parliament was the oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think one of the developments in the 2014 legislation was the quality of oversight given to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Certainly the incumbent inspector-general Cheryl Gwyn has proven herself to be genuinely independent of the executive and of Government and has exercised her powers in a robust way and in a way that is not necessarily flattering to Government but that is informative to the people of New Zealand and that is what we expect from that office.That is a vital piece of that oversight that we have of these agencies and of our intelligence and security architecture. It is encouraging to see also that the role of that office is respected and is added to in this bill so that there is a very close level of communication required between our security agencies and the inspector-general's office. That is a good thing—that is to be encouraged and I welcome it.For the Intelligence and Security Committee itself it is the political oversight of the agencies and it plays a vital role. No one has suggested that in the nature of our Parliament and our adaptation of the Westminster system the Government of the day should not have the majority on that committee—and I certainly accept that. But it is important in an MMP environment and in a Parliament that has multiple parties and multiple voices that at least on the Opposition side parties of some significance and substance that are represented in Parliament should be represented on that committee. There is greater scope and greater potential for that to happen under the bill as it appears in the House right now so I welcome that. I personally thought that the committee should be bigger so that there was greater scope for better proportionality of representation of Opposition parties—Hon David Parker: As was the select committee.ANDREW LITTLE: —and indeed the select committee supported that too but that has not found its way into the bill following the Committee of the whole House process. Nevertheless the provision for the size of the committee and the appointment of the members to it at least allows a better chance now of better representation than was there before. So to that extent it is an improvement. I think the Minister is right. It is an issue now that we can schedule for further consideration in the next 5-year review of the legislation and the agency. I just want to conclude again—echoing the comments of the Minister—by thanking not only the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but all MPs who participated in the debate and the scrutiny of the bill during the Committee of the whole House process. I think it was one of the better discussions that the Committee of the whole House has had over a piece of legislation and I think the House can be satisfied that it has discharged its responsibilities to all citizens of New Zealand when faced with legislation that gives the State broad and sweeping powers but also to ensure there are good checks and balances. The House did that the legislation reflects that and it has our support.