Browning Steffan: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 08 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12559. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I would like to start my talk on Part 3 of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill around trust as well and to start with the Prime Minister’s selection of his mate as the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). I just need to keep reflecting on that as we go through. We also reflect on the 80-plus people who were illegally spied on. Have we got trust? We reflect on the Waihopai “Five Eyes” institution in my neighbourhood which we know has been spying in a very broad way and doing bulk information surveillance. Then we have got the Henry inquiry. So we need to really think about trust as we look at Part 3 because the inspector-general—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! We are on Part 2.STEFFAN BROWNING: Part 2 sorry yes—Part 2. In relation to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and whatever capacity is given to the inspector-general through Supplementary Order Papers because there was a limited capacity to start with what capacity is there for depth of oversight? How much can they actually drill down into those issues of trust that I have just raised? Clause 32(3) sets out the persons whom the inspector-general can consult with: “(a) the Controller and Auditor-General: (b) an Ombudsman: (c) the Privacy Commissioner: (d) a Human Rights Commissioner: (e) the Independent Police Conduct Authority.” These persons in a way should more likely be a mandatory part of a trustworthy oversight body not persons who may be consulted with. If we go on to the advisory panel—and remember that is an advisory panel—who does the make-up of that? It is done by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister at the moment really is not the subject of a high level of trust by the community.We have heard the discussions about the number of people who have protested and the level of concern expressed by the Law Society by Dame Anne Salmond and it goes on—the Privacy Commissioner and others. They were concerned about the way this bill has been brought to Parliament. The trouble with the fact that there are so many Supplementary Order Papers—not the ones from the Opposition that are trying to balance up the ones from the Government—meant that those people could not actually comment as well as they could or ideally would in terms of the function of the advisory panel and the make-up of oversight.There have as well been a number of very recent publications in the media from various interested people with some expertise in this area. One was from Dr Damien Rogers a former senior adviser to the GCSB. He also warned about this sort of make-up who the reporting should be to and whatever and suggested that maybe it should not be the Prime Minister; it should be the Minister of Defence. The Green Party has considered at times and wondered whether maybe the police would be a better body. But that sort of oversight or that consideration by the community has not really had its opportunity.Another publication that came out a couple of days ago was from the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who was meeting with a group of South American foreign Ministers who voiced their concern to the United Nations chief about reported large-scale surveillance programmes. Mr Ban himself noted that the UN human rights mechanisms have pointed to important rights and privacy issues at stake in connection with surveillance. Will our oversight group the inspector-general and his cohorts—or her cohorts—be able to give the level and depth of oversight that those same people were concerned about? I for one have serious doubts.Austin Forbes QC convenor of the New Zealand Law Society was also concerned about how oversight would go and also about the lack of opportunity to drill down—