Faafoi Kris: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 08 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12555. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of this bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill.Do not believe the crocodile tears from Anne Tolley. Do not believe the crocodile tears from Anne Tolley because the Government is absolutely and utterly telling—no I should not say that. It is not being accurate when it says that this bill does not expand the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). Part 2 deals with the oversight of the GCSB. In Part 1 there is a massive expansion of the powers that have been given to the GCSB but there is not a consequential lifting of the standards of oversight in Part 2. So things have got worse and I think we saw a considerable amount of public concern on the streets—all around the country actually—a couple of weekends ago when New Zealanders got out there and made their opinions quite clear.I did want to look at clause 32 within Part 2 and this amends section 12 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996. Ironically section 12 of that Act is titled “Consultation” because there has been very little consultation on the part of this Government around this bill. For the benefit of those people who might be watching and listening—and that is not said in jest as I think there will be quite a lot of people who are very interested in the progress of this bill or lack of it I should say—it says in the bill that “The Inspector-General may—(a) consult any of the persons specified in subsection (3) about any matter relating to the functions of the Inspector-General under section 11;” blah-blah-blah.Those people who can be consulted are: “(a) the Controller and Auditor-General: (b) an Ombudsman: (c) the Privacy Commissioner: (d) a Human Rights Commissioner: (e) the Independent Police Conduct Authority.” I want to spend a bit of time concentrating on paragraphs (c) and (d)—the Privacy Commissioner and a Human Rights Commissioner who can be consulted with regard to the functions of the inspector-general. The Human Rights Commission took a very bold step in putting forward a report off its own bat to the Prime Minister about this bill. It was told not only that its funding would possibly be at risk because of its independent commentary but that its report was put in too late. But it was not actually a submission to the Intelligence and Security Committee; it was actually a report that it put up by itself to the Prime Minister because of the concerns that it had around this bill.As I say the Human Rights Commission is one of the agencies that can be consulted under the clause 32 amendment in the bill. Let us just hear what the Human Rights Commission had to say about this bill because it had some very grave concerns. It stated that “a full and independent inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence services be undertaken as soon as possible.” It went on to say that “we cannot be certain … without an inquiry of this nature … that the correct balance is being struck between protecting national security and the personal security of New Zealanders and protecting the other human rights of people in New Zealand and what diversions from the correct path may have been taken or could be taken without adequate safeguards and oversight in place.” So we have from the Human Rights Commission an office that in Part 2 the inspector-general can consult with grave concerns about this bill. Maybe the consultation is coming a bit too late from this Government. Maybe it should have consulted with the Human Rights Commission before it put this bill to this Parliament.Also within the amended section 12 under subsection (3)(c) the inspector-general can consult with the Privacy Commissioner over any functions of the inspector-general. Let us just hear what the Privacy Commissioner had to say about this bill which is being put forward for this Committee at the moment. The Privacy Commissioner who again I say the inspector-general can consult with under Part 2 of this bill said that it is “because of the complex dynamic environment that I believe the topic needs to be considered further and in more detail.”—further and in more detail—“In particular it is not yet clear what type and level of oversight is most appropriate.” So here we have an agency the Privacy Commissioner that under Part 2 which deals with oversight is concerned about the level of oversight in this bill. I go on. The Privacy Commissioner added: “The effects on individuals are potentially very significant and it is important to get the legislation right.”They are comments from the Privacy Commissioner and before that the Human Rights Commission. Those two offices share very very similar views about this bill to what parties on this side of the House hold. We heard from Anne Tolley on Tuesday when Part 1 of this bill was being debated that we were playing politics with this bill. The Labour Party was playing politics with this bill and we should just get on board and make sure this bill gets passed. Well I put to you that the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commissioner have major concerns with this bill so much so that they said that there should be an independent investigation a full review before we go any further with this bill. Yet this Government trusts the Privacy Commissioner and the human rights commissioner to be consulted if the inspector-general wants any advice around oversight. I put to you that that just does not make sense.This Government says that it is OK for the inspector-general of our intelligence agencies to go to the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commissioner to consult those two offices when those two offices have very major concerns about this legislation. The Privacy Commissioner actually went on to say much more than that and I think members on this side of the Chamber will certainly support it. The Privacy Commissioner recommended that “a body such as the Law Commission should be asked to investigate the most appropriate shape of legislation to govern the intelligence agencies in New Zealand.”Hon Anne Tolley: Talk about Part 2.KRIS FAAFOI: Well I am because the Privacy Commissioner is put in clause 32 as one of the very people that the inspector-general of the intelligence agencies can consult. As I would like to point out to that Minister of Police you trust those two offices to be worthy of the inspector-general to consult when the inspector-general has concerns around oversight yet those two agencies have concerns about the oversight in this bill. That should be concerning to most New Zealanders who have more than apassing interest in this bill because those two agencies—the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commissioner—have major concerns around this bill.I also want to point to something—it is not lighter—that Grant Robertson certainly referred to in his speech and that is new section 15E in clause 33A which is about the clerical and secretarial services to the members of the advisory board and who supplies those services. It says in new section 15E that “The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is responsible for providing to the advisory panel the clerical and secretarial services necessary for the advisory panel to perform its function effectively and efficiently.” We have seen just how effective the Prime Minister is in running the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—no disrespect to those very good people who work up in those offices. But we have seen in the last week just how much of a farce it can be when John Key does not have a handle on his own department. We had a situation where he said one thing but the fact was something else and that department held on to—Hon Anne Tolley: What has this got to do with Part 2?KRIS FAAFOI: Well it has got everything to do with new section 15E if you want to have a look at the bill Minister. That department held on to that information for nearly a month—nearly a month. So I do not have confidence in the Prime Minister to run that department well enough if that department is going to have the ability to look after the secretarial services of that advisory panel.I just want to go back to my very first point and that is that there is not enough consequential oversight or increase in oversight because of the huge increase in powers that we are giving to the GCSB. We have also got a situation where the Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission have major concerns with this bill.