Finlayson ChristopherPart 6 Oversight of intelligence and security agenciesHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I am going to be very brief because I want members to have an opportunity to debate an important matter of principle that I know there are different views on in the Committee and I respect those different views. It relates to the size of the Intelligence and Security Committee. All I want to say about the membership of the committee are the following points. First the bill is going to increase the membership of the committee from five to between five and seven members. The second point is that a maximum committee of seven is aimed at enabling broader representation. I actually agree very much with Mr Robertson that in a multi-party Parliament you have to be able to have a diversity of views. If you look at the intelligence committee in the United Kingdom there is a Scottish National Party member on it a Liberal Democrat some Tories and Labour people. So a broader representation is desirable.Allowing a committee of seven will enable that broader representation but also will allow the committee to remain an effective oversight committee. It is going to be up to the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister to nominate a certain number of members and both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister are going to retain the discretion to appoint to the committee the members of the House whom they think are most appropriate. We have seen an example of that in recent times: because of his huge experience as a member of Parliament as a person who has held some of the great offices of State as a leader of a political party then with respect it made a lot of sense to nominate the Rt Hon Winston Peters to the committee.This was an issue that was recommended by the independent review. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has had an opportunity to consider the issue and I just want to emphasise that the Intelligence and Security Committee is a statutory committee—it is not a select committee—and as stated by the independent reviewers because the ISC frequently deals with highly sensitive and secret information we recognise there needs to be some restrictions on how it conducts its business and on its members that are not characteristic of normal committees".I think that in all the circumstances seven is the appropriate number. This is not going to be set in stone—and I refer honourable members to clause 193 of the bill which provides for periodic review. My view is that in this particular reform we have gone from five to seven members. There will be a mandatory review of the legislation in a couple of years' time—clause 193—very much like the review provision in the Evidence Act and there will be an opportunity for members to revisit this issue if they wish in a couple of years' time. The general principle—broader representation—is highly desirable. The general principle about a review is going to happen. So I think that we have got the right mix here. I know there are divergent views in the Committee and that is why I think it is important that we tease this issue out in debate.There are a couple of other changes to Part 6. The changes in Subpart 2 of Part 6 were recommended by the select committee in response to the submission of the Clerk and they produce a greater alignment between the bill and the House's procedures and that is fine. Then clause 126 was also amended on the recommendation of the select committee so that the inspector-general may recommend the destruction of information obtained under a Part 4 authorisation in the event that there is a finding of irregularity in relation to that authorisation or any activities conducted under it.So they are the only points I want to make on Part 6 but I am conscious there is that important debate of principle about the size of the Intelligence and Security Committee and I know that members will want to have their say."