Goff Phil: Intelligence and Security Committee — MembershipText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership[Sitting date: 18 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1721. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to focus my comments in this debate on the need for structural change in the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than narrowly on the personality and membership composition of it because I think the former is the most important.But I do want to say this first: the decision that was made by Andrew Little to nominate David Shearer for this committee was not based on a negative reflection on the Greens or on New Zealand First or on anybody else; it was based on a positive assessment of the skills and the experience that David Shearer brings to this job. I know better than most—but I think the members to whom I am referring now also recognise—that over a 20-year period David has experience that has not previously been seen in this House in terms of the places where he worked the way that he needed to conduct himself and the understanding that he developed in places like Kosovo Somalia Rwanda Iraq and Afghanistan. These are areas where he developed an understanding of the level of international threat and the nature of that threat which will be invaluable on this committee.But I want to talk about the structure of the committee because I think that is the point that is most important. New Zealanders want two things when it comes to security intelligence services. First of all they want the certainty that they are safe and secure and that they live in a society where the State can meet its fundamental obligations to its people which are the right to life and the right to live free from fear of violence against them.But they also want something else. They want the certainty that when you give extraordinary powers to an agency like the SIS or the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and those extraordinary powers are exercised in secrecy that they can have the confidence that there will be proper scrutiny and accountability over the exercise of those powers that there will not be an abuse of those powers and not only that the agencies themselves do not behave improperly and irresponsibly in regard to invasion of privacy but that the political masters of that agency also behave properly.I had some personal experience where both the agencies and the political masters behaved improperly. That is not my prejudice against them—that was the finding of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security where she said that the person who was in charge of the SIS behaved in a way that was unbalanced and lacked responsibility and was prejudiced.That is an appalling indictment on an official whom I worked with over a 15-year period. But it happened and it is a recent example of why we need to make sure that these people are accountable. I concede immediately to the SIS that Rebecca Kitteridge came into my room and apologised for the appalling behaviour of her predecessor. I am still waiting for the apology from the person who allowed his political office to politicise the SIS through Whale Oil Beef Hooked but I will not be lying awake at night waiting for that apology because to apologise for something you have got to be man enough to do so.I want to come to the structure of the Intelligence and Security Committee because I do not believe that it is structured to do the job that we expect of it. This is a body that should be a safeguard against abuse of either political power or power by the agencies. But how can it possibly be a watchdog and a safeguard and all of the other things that Amy Adams said were important about it when it is chaired by the very Minister whose work it is overseeing? It is an absolute conflict of interest.Mr Key or whoever is the Minister at the time is the Minister who directs the SIS and the GCSB. The role of the committee should be to exercise oversight as to whether the Minister is doing his job properly and it is quite unacceptable and also unprecedented among other Western democracies to have the Minister who should be being scrutinised chairing the committee. I sat on that committee so I know something about it.The power of the chair is to call the committee together. It scarcely ever meets scarcely ever meets and it is entirely at the discretion of the Minister unless there is a statutory requirement as in the financial review—and that is the only time actually the committee met. Not only does he call the committee together he sets the agenda; so the Minister is scarcely going to set an agenda that puts him under greater pressure.There is no other Western democracy that operates like that. Our mates across the Tasman the Australians do not do it. The Brits do not do it. The Americans do not do it. They have independent scrutiny over the actions of the security agencies and that is what we should do as well.So my first point is in setting the terms of reference for the review of the security agencies—something that we have called for and I think all of the parties have called for—there should be an input from every party in this House. I mean it is really important that we can develop a consensus around an issue like security agencies. That is the best protection against abuse of power. So I call on the Ministers and the Prime Minister to allow all parties to have an input into those terms of reference. But specifically I call on the Prime Minister to ensure that in those terms of reference a full review and a restructuring of the Intelligence and Security Committee takes place because it is not doing the job that it should be doing and it needs to change. It needs to change quite radically.I want to say one other thing however. I am pleased that the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security as an independent watchdog has been borne out and I am pleased to give credit to Cheryl Gwyn as a person who has been able to act independently and neutrally. And I say it is really important that we have those safeguards to ensure that the SIS and the GCSB act independently and neutrally because while I think they are both better organisations today they have a history of not acting neutrally and impartially.You have only to look at the track records of whom they have spied upon over the years to see that they have been members—including members of this House or past members of this House—who are absolutely committed to democratic and peaceful ways of going about things but who were subject to scrutiny. The groups that are subject to scrutiny are groups that tend to be left of centre rather than right of centre.I am one who believes that the intelligence agencies need to be absolutely politically neutral. That is what my real grievance was against the Prime Minister’s politicising of it in terms of the leaking of material to Cameron Slater. The second thing I want to say—it will be the last thing I want to say I guess with the bell ringing—is that when the new legislation comes in I want to commend to Amy Adams and Chris Finlayson and John Key the role of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee as the appropriate select committee to look at this. If we are examining the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee it is better that another committee outside of that committee looks at it.The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee worked cooperatively and responsibly on the legislation we looked at last year. I had different views from Kennedy Graham and from Fletcher Tabuteau but we worked cooperatively we contained our differences and we came out with some really good changes that strengthened that legislation. And Labour and National worked quite responsibly across the select committee.So my call to the Prime Minister is: when the legislation is drafted send that legislation to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. It has the other advantage which almost goes without saying of there being broad membership on that committee. It has got all of the Opposition parties on it. What we need as much as anything is the confidence of all sides of this House and all Kiwis that the powers that quite properly we give to intelligence agencies are properly safeguarded are subject to proper scrutiny and what better way to do that than to seek a genuine consensus about it by putting it before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I commend that idea genuinely to the National Party. That is the best way this House as a whole will have confidence in the output of that legislation and the review that inspires it.