Goff Phil: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12613. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I want to support the amendment in the name of Labour’s deputy leader Grant Robertson that this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill should not commence should not come into effect until after there has been a full and independent public inquiry. The reasons for that I think are obvious even to the Government members who are supporting this legislation. First what we have had is a poor process and a rushed process that has given the New Zealand public no confidence that the case has been made out for the significant expansion of the power of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). We have a public that has no confidence that the oversight mechanisms proposed in this legislation are anywhere near adequate to protect the privacy of New Zealanders living in a democracy and to stop the unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of individuals by an agency that works in secret and is being given more extensive powers.There is another reason that there needs to be a full independent public inquiry into this legislation. The tradition in this House has always been that consensus is sought because of the importance of democracy and because of the fundamental powers that can be exercised in secret by the security agencies. Consensus has never been sought by the National Government. It is a fact that John Key said to David Shearer that he was not interested in Labour’s support because he could get support from Peter Dunne. This legislation will go through on the vote of one discredited and disgraced member who was sacked—Hon Trevor Mallard: Two of them.Hon PHIL GOFF: —I will come to the second one in a moment—because he leaked the report on the GCSB. It is going through on the vote of one discredited member who said “under no circumstances” would he support giving the GCSB the power to spy on New Zealanders. That is what the strength of support for this legislation is: a man who broke his word who broke his promise that he would not support it—a man who leaked the report and was sacked by the Prime Minister for doing it.We want to talk about the second member whom Mr Mallard mentioned. He is the man who was intimately involved with Kim Dotcom but could not remember the helicopter ride could not remember the XL-sized person whom he went to visit in the biggest house in the country and most of all could not remember the $50000 that he asked for in the form of two cheques of $25000 each. I say to you that what this legislation needs is the basis of consensus of support across the House and the National Government has not even made the effort to do that—has not even made the effort to do that. There will be no confidence among the New Zealand public in a piece of legislation that is rammed through this House on the vote of two people in whom the public has no confidence who are disgraced and discredited members.I want to say another thing about why we need the full and independent inquiry. We need it because not only does there need to be a consensus of support across this House for such legislation and the extensive powers that it confers but also there needs to be a basis of trust and confidence by the New Zealand public and the New Zealand public has no trust and confidence in our security agencies. That was proven in a poll that was done by TV3 that showed that 40 percent of New Zealanders did not trust the GCSB and in a more recent but perhaps less scientific poll that showed that 89 percent of New Zealanders—50000 of them who gave their name and address in their email—said that they were against this legislation. It was 89 percent. We do not have the basis in this House or in this country for this legislation to pass. It is a disgrace that the Government is ramming it through against the wishes of New Zealanders and without proper process.The Government would not even let the GCSB give evidence and be questioned by the Intelligence and Security Committee. What sort of legislation is it that we are passing where the agency that we are giving extensive power to is not allowed by the Prime Minister to appear before the select committee? How do we know how efficient and effective that agency is when it is not allowed by the Prime Minister to be subject to scrutiny? How do we know whether those powers are justified or not?The Prime Minister in his panic talked about the Boston bombings and al-Qaeda. The Prime Minister knows as I know and every member of this House knows that those terrorist agencies and individuals can right now be placed under the scrutiny of both the SIS and the GCSB. Those sorts of scare tactics do no credit to the Prime Minister. The legislation is in place. What we do not have is legislation that also gives the GCSB which shares its intelligence with overseas agencies the power to spy on New Zealanders.You have got to think about the origins of this legislation. We are discussing this legislation because the GCSB acted illegally in the first place. It subjected Kim Dotcom to scrutiny for which it had no legal authority. Then when the Kitteridge report was produced it showed that the GCSB had put another 85 New Zealanders under surveillance for which it had no legal authority. You would think that this legislation would have responded to those two incidents by strengthening the safeguards that New Zealanders have against the abuse of power. You would think that that would happen particularly when the National Security Agency in the United States has been found to have illegally subjected tens of thousands of Americans to surveillance and when theGovernment Communications Headquarters in the United Kingdom has been found to have been spying on its friends not its enemies. You would think there would have been caution. You would think that the Government would have reached out to the Opposition and said that yes we need security agencies—and the Opposition agrees with that—but we need them to be subject to proper protections of the rights and privacy of New Zealanders. That is not in this legislation.This legislation is patently inadequate. That is not simply the view of this Labour Opposition; it is the view of the New Zealand Law Society. But what does the arrogance of the Prime Minister tell us? That the Law Society does not understand what is in the law. Some of the top Queen’s Counsel in this country have condemned this legislation but John Key—minus “QC” or any other law qualification—says that they do not know what they are talking about. Then the Human Rights Commission which was established by the Government to protect the rights of New Zealanders says that this legislation will not do it gives intrusive powers and it does not provide safeguards against abuse. What does our Prime Minister do? He threatens the funding of the agency for having the temerity to do the job that under statute it is required to do in this country.Then there is the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner a woman who was the Secretary of the Cabinet for over a decade says that this legislation is not ready is not adequate and needs to go back to the drawing board. The Government ignores that comment from a woman who understands very well what this legislation could and should but does not provide. It is abundantly clear to the country and to this Committee that this legislation is not appropriate will not survive in this form does not do the job expected of it and does not protect the essential rights of ordinary New Zealanders to be protected against the abuse of powers by agencies that act in secrecy and have no scrutiny over them.Then we have the other problem. I do not know how you deal with this problem in legislation. The Prime Minister has enormous power of oversight and control but he misuses that power. He appointed the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau by an appointment process condemned by the State Services Commissioner. He said when it was finally extracted from him: “Oh yes I do know this person but not very well.” He has known him since they were both children at school. They had dinner together which he did not ever admit and now the Prime Minister wants us to believe that we should pass a piece of legislation that will say something not because it is written into that legislation but because he will give a speech in the third reading debate and say “This is what I intend.” We do not need legislation that is what the Prime Minister claims he intends. We need clear specific and good legislation that says what this House means and this legislation does not do what the Prime Minister says that it does. There is every reason why this legislation should be reconsidered.