Parker David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9686. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): We in this House are the guardians of civil liberties for the people whom we represent. There is no one other than us who stands between inappropriate legislation and inappropriate legislation being passed and applying to the citizens of this country. Nowhere is it more important to look at the civil liberties of people than when it comes to legislation that gives to the State powers of intrusion into people’s lives. When we do that we are allowing the State more rights than we normally give to people to intrude into other people’s lives and we have got to be very careful that we guard those rights jealously. One of the most important protections that we have in any democracy is delay—not undue delay but appropriate time periods that allow the fourth estate the media and interest groups that might be getting their heads around the implications of policy changes—Jacqui Dean: Say it like you mean it.Hon DAVID PARKER: Actually Jacqui Dean I say it like I mean it. I would actually like you to take a call and say it like you understand it. That is the sort of inane interjection that we get from National members—not debating the substance of an important issue but saying: “Say it like you mean it.” I would say to Jacqui Dean that I actually do mean this—I do mean this. I am quite happy to be one of the people who stake my reputation on appropriately protecting the civil liberties of our citizens from inappropriate State intrusion. I do mean that Jacqui. I do not have to shout it to mean it but I am willing to take a call and state what I believe.Time is important. The time for processes ought not to be unduly truncated in any democracy. It is especially important when you live in a jurisdiction that has only one House of Parliament. It has no Upper House to negotiate once legislation is passed by this House. There is no effective constitutional check on intrusions into civil liberties in New Zealand except through this House of Parliament. I have not seen a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet on this bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. I do not know whether anyone else has had an opportunity to read the vet. I do not even know whether there is one. We have not heard any discussion of it today—Grant Robertson: It was only tabled today.Hon DAVID PARKER: The bill was tabled only today. We have not had the opportunity on this side of the House to get our heads around the full implications of this bill. If we—with all of the resources that are open to us and our ability to devote full-time attention to this—have not been able to what hope is there that members of civil society have properly been able to consider the implications of this legislation? That is why we allow ample time for submissions to be made so that people can think through the implications of legislation that impact upon civil liberties rather than rushing it through.Parliament views that so seriously that it recently introduced a change to the Standing Orders so that we can have this very debate. Until a few years ago we would not be having this debate as to the inappropriate truncation of select committee procedures. It was through a change to the Standing Orders which was agreed across all sides of Parliament that we changed the Standing Orders through the introduction of this Standing Order 286 which is why we are debating this motion. It provides that where truncation of the select committee process is shortened by an inordinate degree we should debate whether that is proper. That is to enable us to highlight to the publichow inappropriate it is that in a unicameral system with only one—one—House of Representatives with no Upper House acting as a check on our conduct it is appropriate that we properly protect our citizens from inappropriate intrusions by the State through proper scrutiny of proposals.Now we are going to have this rushed process. The Hon Phil Goff has already said how difficult that is given the make-up of this committee the Intelligence and Security Committee. This committee according to what the Hon Phil Goff says—and I did not know this actually Phil—can never have substitutes. The committee can never have substitutes. Remember we have the Prime Minister sitting on it hearing submissions and the Leader of the Opposition and representatives from other parties all of whom are very senior very busy with lots of other obligations and the idea that they can do justice to this within that time frame is wrong.But the idea that they will have the submissions before them is also wrong given the truncated process. A lot of the organisations that are submitting on legislation like this are effectively volunteers in that process. They are not doing it because they are being paid to do it; they have been doing it because they think there is a public interest in submitting or that they have got some knowledge that Parliament could benefit from hearing. They cannot drop their ordinary lives. Sometimes they are accountable to committee structures that meet only once a month. How do they get this information out to their members form a view and then submit to the committee within the time period that Parliament because of what the National Government is doing today is imposing upon them? They cannot.This is another reason why the normal rule is that you have a longer period of consideration by the committee which then enables the committee to give a fair notice through public notices to all and sundry through the country. It enables people to get up campaigns though the media in the fourth estate and all of the little committees that might be interested in this in civil society whether they are members of councils for civil liberties or whether they are Rural Women or whatever. There will be lots of people who are interested in these issues but they do not have time because of a truncated select committee process to be given sufficient time to submit to the committee to give a considered view of what the implications of this legislation are.In the Labour Party we accept that the Government Communications Security Bureau needs powers. We also accept that it is appropriate for the State to have powers of intrusion in respect of New Zealanders. We are not sure what the arguments are for and against—the issue as to whether the Government Communications Security Bureau should be given powers in respect of the surveillance of New Zealand citizens that could not already be done through the likes of the police. These arguments are very very important. They need to be explored at the committee. Why is it that we cannot just rely upon the police to use their warranted powers rather than giving the Government Communications Security Bureau the powers to spy upon New Zealanders? There are no doubt arguments on both sides of that debate. We want to hear them—we want to hear them properly.The fact that this has been a live issue for the Prime Minister since the middle of last year is already a matter of public record. We know that the Government Communications Security Bureau warned the Prime Minister that there were doubts about the legality of some of the bureau’s conduct arising out of the Dotcom fiasco—which it has to be called—in the middle of last year. So since the middle of last year the Prime Minister has known that there is an issue or that there may be an issue at large. Here we are just about a year later and what does the Government do? Having mucked around for all of that time having obfuscated and having all these faded memories as to what was said where and when we now are told that we have got no time for a normalselect committee process to consider whether the civil liberties of New Zealanders are inappropriately infringed by this legislation. The Government now says—having delayed all that time the best part of a year—it has now got to truncate the only part of the process that the public can be involved in.How cynical is that? How inappropriate is that? How unprincipled is that? You look at how long we took for the search and surveillance legislation. A good process was run around that. It actually took over a year. It is important to get these things right. There are civil liberties at stake. There are high principles that go back for ever. You know you do not have to think too far back to think when we have had Governments in New Zealand that have gone a wee bit towards the totalitarian fringes. It happened in New Zealand under Mr Muldoon—it did. The courts pushed back against that. You have got to think of this legislation long into the future when you may have a Government that is not as benign as the Governments we have now or have recently had. These principles are important. These principles are meant to be protected by the Standing Orders. This motion should not be agreed to.