Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19356] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 As the Hon Phil Goff Leader of the Opposition has already said Labour supports the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill at second reading. I reinforce what Mr Goff has already said in relation to the process. We all know in this House that this is contentious legislation because there are people who are always suspicious—and rightly so to be honest—in their desire to protect civil liberties against unnecessary intrusions of the power of the State. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill sits right in that space. A wise Government that wanted to assuage concerns rather than make them worse would try to do as much as possible transparently and in the public arena rather than give credence to those who suggest that what is being done is unnecessarily secretive and underhand and confers wider powers than are necessary. 
If the media had had the opportunity to consider the submissions that were made by the various 23 submitters on this legislation the media would have been well able to make up their mind as to which of these submissions were wise and which might have been fantastic submissions as to the ulterior motive of the Government. However because the Government chose to use its power on the Intelligence and Security Committee to outvote the Greens and Labour and hold these hearings in secret the media did not get the opportunity to hear from the range of submitters. Neither did the submitters have the ability to hear the full range of the explanations that might be given or the contrary positions that might be put by other submitters. I think it is a great shame that the Government instead of minimising the concerns of our citizens as to whether this is an appropriate use of powers has in some ways amplified those concerns or given fuel to those who have a conspiratorial view as to what the Government is trying to achieve here. That is to be lamented. 
For me one of the most important aspects of the control of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service lies in the role of the Commissioner of Security Warrants who is by tradition if not by statute a retired High Court judge. I think it is always a retired High Court judge; someone can correct me in a later contribution. Mr Goff says that that is correct. We in New Zealand are fortunate: we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We have an independent judiciary we can be proud of. Our High Court judges our Court of Appeal judges our Supreme Court judges and our lower court judges are free of corruption. The people we appoint as High Court judges in New Zealand are the crème de la crème of our legal fraternity. Our legal fraternity is imbued with generation upon generation of good values. Those values might not be expressed in a written constitution as they have in the United States of America—although I note they have written constitutions in places like Zimbabwe and Libya as well and they are no guarantee of good conduct—but a better guarantee of good conduct is the traditions we have in New Zealand. They are embodied in our High Court judges. So the fact that we have a retired High Court judge as the person who as the Commissioner of Security Warrants conducts oversight of what is done through the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service under the warranted powers conferred by our existing legislation and now as amended by this bill should give New Zealanders comfort that we do have some proper oversight of the Security Intelligence Service. 
The very fact that these services are somewhat secretive is necessary as a consequence of the role they perform. If they were advertising what they were doing according to the Governments not just of New Zealand but really of every Western democracy it would be impossible for them to properly go about their tasks. So we cannot have public scrutiny of their conduct in the normal way and we have effectively to trust the delegation of that security to someone we trust. In New Zealand we choose to trust a retired High Court judge for that. This bill improves that not just by updating the list of technologies that can be used in pursuance of the surveillance powers the Security Intelligence Service has in New Zealand. As Phil Goff has said these amount to an extension of existing powers to new technologies rather than to a broad sweep of new powers. 
One of the amendments that is recommended to this House by the committee—with the support of everyone but I think brought forward by Labour and Green members—is the insertion into the principal Act of some principles that underpin the performance of the Security Intelligence Service. These are the principles that the retired High Court judge who is the Commissioner of Security Warrants will have regard to when he or she conducts oversight of the Security Intelligence Service. I will read out those principles which are found in new section 4AAA inserted by clause 5A: “(1) In performing its functions under this Act the Security Intelligence Service—(a) contributes to keeping New Zealand society secure independent and free and democratic: (b) contributes to the participation of New Zealand in the maintenance of international security: (c) acts—(i) in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights standards recognised by New Zealand law except to the extent that they are in relation to national security modified by an enactment: (ii) in the discharge of its operational functions independently and impartially: (iii) with integrity and professionalism: (iv) in a manner that facilitates effective democratic oversight.” So for the first time those principles are found in the legislation. I am not quite sure I properly understand the wording of new subsection (2) of new section 4AAA but we might in the Committee stage have an explanation from the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service who will then be in the chair about the effect of this new subsection (2). I am not quite sure we have the exact wording of that right but the Minister then in the chair can no doubt advise us of that. 
I take considerable heart from the fact that the Law Commission has agreed that this is wise legislation and an appropriate balance of the different interests to be balanced that the suggestion of the Human Rights Commission that human rights be protected in the legislation has been brought forward and adopted by the committee that the Privacy Commissioner was involved in the development of the bill as opposed to being a submitter to the bill and that we in this Parliament have had advice that this bill infringes neither the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act nor the Human Rights Act. As a consequence I am confident that this bill achieves the right balance between the interests of the State in being able to properly go about the security intelligence operations that sadly are necessary in any country or that might be necessary in some situations in any country and the rights of our citizens to be free from inappropriate levels of scrutiny and intrusions into their civil liberties—their right to go about their lives without the intrusion of the State. 
I have read parts of the departmental report including the reasons why it is necessary to update the legislation to have regard to new technologies some of which lie within the warranted powers of other arms of the State like the police but at present have not been updated for the Security Intelligence Service because as previous speakers have said the legislation is so old it predates some of those newer electronic technologies. I also note that helpful submissions were made by the Council of Trade Unions and Hazel Armstrong. Hazel Armstrong is someone who is known to many people around this place as making wise contributions on quite a few areas of law so I am sure the committee benefited from her advice. There was a total of 23 submitters seven of whom I think were heard with oral submissions and the outcome of that process is better legislation. But we would have greater public confidence in the process had it been more open.