Woods Megan: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 08 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12538. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):I am very pleased. I think there is still a lot of ground that needs to be covered in relation to Part 1 of this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. In particular I want to speak to new section 8CA(1) inserted by clause 6 in Part 1 which comes under the heading “Principles underpinning performance of Bureau’s functions”.There are many broad themes that many members of this Committee have traversed about the bill and I think these have been covered well. I think the reason for Labour’s opposition to this bill—that the Government has not made the case for expanding the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and it does not give New Zealanders the confidence that there is proper oversight of the GCSB to ensure that their privacy is protected—is a case that my colleagues have begun to make very well. I am sure there is much more that we need to add to this.If I can return to new section 8CA(1)(a) it states that “In performing its functions under this Act the Bureau acts—(a) 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:”. So it is this issue of human rights and particularly the submission from the Human Rights Commission that I want to spend some time speaking to in this call on Part 1 of the bill.The Human Rights Commission did take an unusual step in exercising its statutory power to issue a report directly to the Prime Minister because of the seriousness of the issue raised in the bill. John Key may have rubbished the submission and he tried to downplay its significance by saying that the Human Rights Commission did not get its submission in on time but this is more significant than a submission and it should not be brushed off like that. That is why members on this side feel that under Part 1 of this bill and particularly in relation to proposed section 8CA(1)(a) the issue raised by the Human Rights Commission deserves a full debate in this Committee and needs to be considered with a great deal of seriousness. So if we look at new section 8CA(1) this incorporates the principles underpinning the performance of the bureau’s functions so that they are the same as those in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act and include acting impartially.When the Human Rights Commission did issue its report to the Prime Minister we on this side of the Chamber think that it was a very thorough and very thoughtful submission that was put to the Prime Minister on the issue of human rights which is covered in this clause under Part 1. The Human Rights Commission informed the Prime Minister that it considered that “what is proposed in this GCSB Bill is too wide-reaching. It does not provide adequate oversight and makes inadequate provision for ensuring appropriate transparency and accountability of those who administer thelegislation. It does not provide for a legal regime containing sufficient safeguards against abuse of power and to facilitate a proportional approach.”The primary recommendation of what the Human Rights Commission had to say in this report that it issued to the Prime Minister is “that a full and independent inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence services be undertaken as soon as possible.” This primary recommendation was supported by five further recommendations.This report and these concerns were issued to the Prime Minister because one of the principles underpinning the performance of the bureau’s actions should be according to this bill the human rights of New Zealanders and these should be in accordance with all New Zealand law. When we have the serious case of the Human Rights Commission writing to the Prime Minister to say this is not so then we have concern.This is the reason for Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper 305 in this area. David Shearer has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 305 to provide that an independent inquiry into the purposes and functions of the bureau take place and will take place within 6 months of the bill’s passing and that the bill currently being passed will expire within 1 year. This goes some way to address many of the human rights concerns that have been raised by the Human Rights Commission and these are concerns that we do need to take full note of.