Finlayson ChristopherNEW ZEALAND INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY BILLFirst ReadingHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service) on behalf of the Minister for National Security and Intelligence: I move That the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. This afternoon I want to take the House through the key points of the legislation. Obviously I am not going to have time to cover everything but colleagues who follow me will outline key parts of the bill. The bill is the legislative response to the report of the first independent review of intelligence and security undertaken by Dame Patsy Reddy and Sir Michael Cullen. The report was an exemplary piece of work and I want to thank those two distinguished citizens for producing it. As recommended by the reviewers the bill will replace four current Acts: the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969 the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996 and the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996. If the bill passes all legislation relating to the agencies and their oversight will for the first time be set out clearly and in one place. The core principles underpinning the agencies' performances of their functions are set out in clause 3. The agencies must act in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights obligations recognised by New Zealand law;" and in the performance of their operational functions independently and impartially "with integrity and professionalism; and in a manner that facilitates effective democratic oversight;". I acknowledge the statements of the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Human Rights Commissioner who say this bill is going to be an improvement on the current legislative arrangements. I agree with that and will now explain why. The first topic I want to cover is the issue of what is called the "triple lock" and its relationship to warrants. For a start we are introducing a concept of the triple lock for any activity concerning New Zealanders. That means a warrant must be approved jointly by the Attorney-General and Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants with oversight provided by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Any New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (SIS) or Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB) warrant targeting a New Zealander will be subject to this core protection. This is in addition to the high bar for all warrants—that they must be proportionate and necessary. Under the new regime New Zealanders will only be targeted on national security grounds unless the person is an agent of a foreign power—for example if a New Zealander was working for a foreign Government. This is a very important change from the current New Zealand SIS legislation which allows New Zealanders to be targeted for wider economic well-being and international-relations grounds. Two of the three grounds for targeting people disappear. This brings me to section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003. The GCSB and the SIS will now be covered by the same warranting regime. It follows that section 14 of the current Government Communications Security Bureau Act will be repealed as recommended by the reviewers. This section provides that the GCSB cannot intercept the private communications of a New Zealander for the purposes of intelligence collection but as the reviewers found this section does not serve the blanket purpose some people have thought it does. The GCSB has always been able to target New Zealanders for its cyber-assurance and its assistance functions. Replacing section 14 with the new triple-lock protection for New Zealanders is a more coherent and robust safeguard for New Zealanders. We have maintained the separation of the agencies in the warranting regime. The recommendations of the reviewers would have in effect merged the powers of the agencies. The Government's view was that this would have resulted in a significant expansion of powers particularly for the GCSB. In addition given the distinct nature of the agencies the Government considers it appropriate that they have different powers under a warrant. Under the proposed regime the agencies will essentially have a common set of warrantable activities such as a search but different powers to put these activities into practice. For example pursuant to a warrant the SIS could enter a building or car to carry out a search. The GCSB does not have the power to do this but could access an information infrastructure to carry out a search. As recommended the agencies will also be able to apply for a joint warrant in appropriate circumstances. The bill picks up the reviewers' recommendations that the new legislation should contain a new tiered warranting system and others of my colleagues will cover that proposal and the legislative response in some detail. One change I want to mention is that a warrant will be able to target a class of person a thing a place a communication or information and this is necessary for the agencies to deal with situations of uncertainty. For example it may be necessary to target a class of person or information infrastructures engaged in an illegal fishing operation because there may be an uncertain number of people on the fishing boat. The bill also allows for purpose-based warrants where it is not possible to identify a specific target. These will only ever be available where the objectives of the warrant cannot be accomplished through a targeted warrant. The most important task for the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee will be to receive submissions and have a robust debate about the definition of national security—and some members have already referred to that following the bill's introduction. The legislation adheres to the reviewers' recommendation but it is going to require some further thought. The Parliamentary Counsel Office and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) have both advised there could be some issues with the workability of what is now in the legislation and I look forward to the committee's views on this topic but I want to signal now that I think the reviewers' proposal is unworkable and the officials' alternative version—which is available on the DPMC website—could be a good starting point for the committee. The Government has adopted the reviewers' proposal for the bill's introduction solely so that the committee can consider the matter rather than Ministers making a decision before introduction. The new legislation includes explicit powers to access certain databases recommended by the reviewers such as immigration information. It also contains a framework and increased oversight for accessing information from other Government departments. I acknowledge the Labour Party's concerns about direct access to births deaths and marriages information; the select committee can have a good look at that issue. One important decision we have made that was not covered in the review is to repeal the current Privacy Act exemption that the agencies have and bring the agencies within the Privacy Act 1993 with carve-outs as appropriate. That is a significant step. There has been some discussion since introduction on the composition of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) and I acknowledge what Mr Little has been saying. The Government has taken a reasonably conservative approach in this legislation because the committee is functioning well at present and the select committee is best placed to consider questions relating to the ISC after it has heard submissions. There are a number of other issues that will arise and we are certainly open to discussing them. I will leave it to others who follow me in the debate to cover some of the areas that I have not had time to speak about in my speech. I want to finish by reiterating the remarks of the Prime Minister and also ones that I have made to date about the importance of achieving a bipartisan or multi-partisan approach to this very important national security legislation. I thank members for their contribution to date. With those comments I commend the bill to the House."