Flavell Te Ururoa: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. I am taking a brief call tonight on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill just to say that the Maori Party—as most will be aware as it is expressed constantly—is founded on a kaupapa that expresses the importance we place on values that others would probably call transparency accountability— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I would like to hear what the member is saying. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: As I was saying we place a lot of importance on the values that others might call transparency integrity accountability respect and confidentiality. We are not fundamentally opposed to the notion of checks and balances to be confident in the security systems we have in place. We think it is right that the law keeps up with the technology as Mr Hide just talked about to safeguard our citizens. But we also want to ensure that the agencies that are in place have strong oversight over the security intelligence system. Our prevailing concern is that when the Prime Minister and the director of the Security Intelligence Service consider issuing warrants their judgment must be objective and not clouded by the subject of the warrant. I say that because for example if the subject were Tame Iti I might suggest that the SIS would have more of a preconceived perception than if the subject were say Bob Jones. The key question is how we ensure objectivity. That is the problem. Although the need to have two people in the chain is a positive move I think more needs to be done. Perhaps the full Intelligence and Security Committee should make the decision. All members of the committee are already sworn to secrecy so there are no problems with issues of confidentiality. 
Finally I want to share the experience of Professor Jane Kelsey when she went to Australia and what she had to endure with Australian immigration as an example of how ordinary New Zealanders can see the power that this secretive agency the SIS has over their lives. On a recent visit to promote her new book Professor Kelsey was detained by immigration at Sydney Airport. She was subsequently informed by a senior immigration official that she was not eligible for visa-free entry to Australia on the grounds that she was not an “appropriate person” under Australia’s 1994 immigration laws. Although she was allowed to enter Australia at that point Professor Kelsey was told she would need to apply formally for a visa for any future visits and was advised to seek a waiver from the Australian High Commission. The irony in this situation was that just a month earlier Professor Kelsey had entered Australia with no bother at all. One wonders of course whether the new book she was promoting on trans-Pacific partnership negotiations had anything to do with the change in approach; or perhaps it was the fact that last year she raised concerns over the apparent surveillance by the SIS of her activities as a critic of neo-liberalism and free-trade agreements. 
The Maori Party accepts the need to amend the law relating to the SIS by updating and clarifying the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969. We also acknowledge as with other legislation before the House the importance of being able to address technological changes and to ensure consistency with other legislation—in particular to update the interception warrant system. The bill also deals with protections and administrative inefficiencies. We support the intention to use modern technology in the performance of the SIS’s functions. We recognise also the opportunity for streamlining requirements for the issuing of warrants. The Maori Party will support this bill at this stage in terms of pure efficiency and administrative improvements but I signal to the House that our final vote will be determined by what we hear as the debate continues. Kia ora tatou.