Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16017] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill is an important bill notwithstanding the fact that the previous speaker Craig Foss stood up and made just a 5-second speech on it. Any bill that affects the civil liberties of New Zealanders and gives powers of surveillance to an arm of the State is worthy of proper consideration by this House whether it is the police the Customs Service the Ministry of Transport or the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. 
This bill affects the powers of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. The powers of the Security Intelligence Service have not been updated for some years now. Indeed the principal Act the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act was enacted in 1969 which is 41 years ago. In the time since then technological changes have meant there have been significant changes in surveillance techniques. This Parliament has been addressing the consequences of those changes in surveillance techniques in a range of legislation recently notably the Search and Surveillance Bill which deals with police powers and the powers of non-State agencies. We have touched upon the changes in respect of private security personnel although that is an area of law that still needs a bit of a tidy-up. Now Parliament is looking at them in respect of the Security Intelligence Service. 
It is a sad fact that one thing that has happened as a consequence of change in technology is that there are methods of surveillance in New Zealand currently able to be used by arms of the State that are largely unregulated because they were not thought of when the original legislation controlling State activities was passed by this Parliament. Rather than legislation necessarily always conferring additional powers on State agencies in some ways it limits the powers of State agencies to use new technologies in a way that is currently unconstrained. Labour agrees that there is a need to tidy up those new technologies and make some other changes in respect of the Security Intelligence Service just as we agreed that some changes were necessary in respect of the police and other State agencies in the search and surveillance legislation. 
I am pleased to talk also about the principles that should underlie our consideration of issues such as these. When we give powers to the State we should always be aware that they can be abused. Therefore although it is appropriate that the arms of the State have more powers than ordinary people to conduct surveillance operations and to check on illegal activity on plans that could cause physical harm to people’s bodies or on occasion on a level of involvement in criminal activities or activities that threaten the security of our country we must always be aware that giving unconstrained powers to State agencies should be avoided because those powers can be abused. 
We see that not just in New Zealand but in other countries. It is entirely appropriate that we in this Parliament put limits around the exercise by State agencies of the powers that they need on occasions to maintain surveillance operations on other people that go further than the powers that I or anyone else in this House has. We do not have those rights as private citizens generally. There are some holes in that law at the moment but generally we do not have those powers. When we give those powers to State agencies we ought to be sure that they are appropriately constrained. 
We have different sorts of constraints in respect of the police compared with those that we give to the Security Intelligence Service which has different methods of oversight. The oversight in respect of security warrants is provided by the Commissioner of Security Warrants who is a retired High Court judge. That person is of higher standing than the person to whom one would normally apply for warrants in respect of police matters. Police can get warrants from registrars of the court and from justices of the peace but the level of disclosure to what we would describe as lower-level functionaries in the State bureaucracy is not always appropriate in matters of State security. For that reason the person who oversees the issue of warrants in respect of the Security Intelligence Service is a retired High Court judge. 
The changes proposed to the Act have been advised by the Government to the Opposition and we thank the Government for the briefing it provided to the Opposition in respect of the reasons for the changes. That briefing follows on a longstanding tradition in New Zealand and is to be applauded because those things ought to be done with cross-party support if at all possible. 
We have already made the point through the Hon Annette King in this debate that we think there should be a public process for hearing submissions. When we confer rights on State agencies we ought not to be scared to hear from people who might be critical of those decisions as they could be right. We ought to hear their submissions and take them into account before we in this Parliament decide to change the powers of the Security Intelligence Service. 
There will be times when the justification for powers such as those that are sought might include instances where those powers have been used previously. The Security Intelligence Service might think it appropriate that members of Parliament learn about them but not appropriate for those powers to be advertised through the newspapers effectively if there was public reporting. That is a delicate balance for Parliament to tread. We want to maintain as much openness as possible but at the same time we do not want to be so open that we inhibit the fair operation of the Security Intelligence Service or make it more likely that it will not be as open with the Intelligence and Security Committee as we hope it would be. 
That balance is to be struck by the committee which is in charge of its own processes. The chair and the members of that committee have an important task to consider whether some or all of the submissions should be heard in public or whether selected submissions should appropriately be heard in private or in secret. Again there are precedents for this. The Rt Hon Jenny Shipley previously said under the National-led Government in 1999 which considered Security Intelligence Service matters that these hearings should be open to the public unless there are extraordinary circumstances that require a closed hearing for any particular submission. I suggest to this House that that remain the position. Just because we have had at one level a rise of terrorism internationally since that period it does not change the underlying principle that there should be something extraordinary to justify a committee conducting its business in anything other than a public way. 
I think some countries in other parts of the world have gone wrong. Some of the additional powers that have been conferred upon State agencies in terms of surveillance powers in the United Kingdom have in my view gone too far. There is considerable backlash against those powers in those countries. Of course if there is a backlash against arms of the State it undermines public confidence in the rule of law. A governing body actually wants to carry people with it when it comes to the laws that govern search and surveillance. A governing body wants people to think that the system overall is fair so that the people cooperate with it rather than work against it. 
We do not want to make the mistake made in Great Britain where the search and surveillance powers of State agencies have gone too far. We want to maintain the civil liberties that we have in order to have freedom from inappropriate intrusion by State agencies into our lives whilst not being so naive as to deny the reality that there are occasions when we want an arm of the State the Security Intelligence Service to actually be checking whether people are doing things that could be damaging to our country’s interests. 
Labour supports this bill going to the committee but we will be keeping a weather eye on the process of that committee to make sure that all that can appropriately be done in public in respect of this legislation is done in public. Thank you.