Donald Rod: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4376] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This part is significant. It contains the commencement purpose and interpretation clauses and of course the standard clause “This Act binds the Crown”. I want to dwell on the commencement for a minute. Commencement is of course all about the timing of this legislation and it is worth reminding the Committee that this bill was introduced under urgency on 8 May 2001. The Government was in a big hurry at that time and required a report back by 7 November 2001. The bill has of course languished on the Order Paper ever since. Now more than 16 months later we are finally holding the Committee stage of the debate. 
I refer to the purpose of the bill. It is all about legitimising a Cabinet minute because up until now the Government Communications Security Bureau has existed only because of a Cabinet minute. In fact until a few years ago the Government was very keen to deny that such an organisation even existed. The purpose clause fails to acknowledge that the organisation was established under the five-nation agreement a highly secret document that makes the Government Communications Security Bureau an outpost for American signals intelligence along with Britain Canada and Australia. So it is remiss of the Government not to make clear in this purpose clause that the purpose of this legislation is to give some legislative backing to an organisation that is part of an international agreement that neither this House nor any of the other Houses involved have ever seen. 
I move to the interpretation clause. We have a number of concerns here. One particular concern was highlighted by my colleague Keith Locke just before the dinner break and I would like to reinforce the point he made because he has put up a very serious amendment. He is seeking to ensure that the Government Communications Security Bureau does not spy on the New Zealand diplomatic missions of other Governments. Right at this time that is a particularly apposite request given the revelations that Waihopai has been used to spy on UN diplomatic missions in the lead-up to the non-decision by the Security Council to endorse an invasion of Iraq. 
New Zealand needs to know absolutely clearly that the Government Communications Security Bureau does not have authorisation to spy on those other missions not only for reasons of good international relations but also because at the moment this Government Communications Security Bill is in our view contrary to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Options Protocol of 1963 of which New Zealand is a member. That convention states clearly that the official correspondence of a consular post shall be inviolable. In our view “correspondence” clearly means all communications and this bill covers those communications. 
We would seek a very straightforward and modest amendment which we would like other parties to consider. It is simply to add to the definition of “foreign organisation” the words “but not the New Zealand diplomatic mission of any country”. Whether or not members support our stand on other issues I hope they see the good sense in supporting that particular amendment. 
I move to some of the other features of foreign organisations. One has to bear in mind that the definition includes any overseas company or subsidiary of an overseas company and it also means any individual who is neither a New Zealand citizen nor a permanent resident. So when we are talking about individuals we are talking about roughly 50000 Australians who are living in New Zealand and the 60000 overseas visitors who are here at any one time. They can be spied on by the Government Communications Security Bureau quite legitimately if this legislation passes and that is of real concern to us. 
I think about some of the company examples. When this bill was first introduced we raised the issue of the Singapore-owned Dominion Breweries’ intentions of closing down the Monteith’s brewery on the West Coast. We did not think that fitted the bill’s requirement to look after our economic well-being. Perhaps a more current example of what this legislation enables—and perhaps in this case we would support it—is that our economic well-being has been undermined by Frank Russell Co. That is the organisation that advised the Government Superannuation Fund to invest on the international sharemarket leading to losses of over $324 million in the last 14 months.