Key John: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKey John: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12689. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment BillInspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment BillRt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for the GCSB):I moveThat the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill and the Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill be now read a third time . This is essential legislation that has attracted a lot of debate much of it alarmist. It is one of the strengths of our country that people who oppose legislation have the opportunity to do so. That is their right whether or not they understand what the legislation actually does. Some people are fundamentally opposed to the work of the intelligence agencies. Those critics opposethe agencies almost on principle. As Prime Minister I am not one of those people. That is because I have access to evidence that shows that without the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the SIS our national security would be vulnerable. There are threats our Government needs to protect New Zealanders from. Those threats are real and ever-present and we underestimate them at our peril. New Zealanders are entitled to expect that their security is something that the Government takes seriously. We do and we take it very seriously. But we cannot say that we take it seriously and then not make the tools available to allow our security services to do their job. That is the opposite of taking security seriously and that is something that I will never do.Over the past 4½ years that I have been Prime Minister I have been briefed by intelligence agencies on many issues some that have deeply concerned me. If I could disclose some of the risks and threats from which our security services protect us I think it would cut dead some of the most fanciful claims that I have heard lately from those who oppose this legislation. But to disclose that work publicly would in some cases jeopardise it and so I cannot. I can only assure New Zealanders that the GCSB is a necessary and valuable contributor to our national security just as my predecessor Helen Clark said when she said much the same thing a couple of weeks ago.Today as the House debates this legislation I think it is important that we all know why it is needed. It is not a revolution in the way New Zealand conducts its intelligence operations. It is not about expanding the powers of a mysterious intelligence empire. It simply makes clear what the GCSB may and may not do and it fixes an Act passed under the Labour Government a decade ago that is not and probably never has been fit for purpose. So it is a great shame to see Labour now running away from sorting out the problems it created. But here in the National Government I recognise the importance of national security and I am pleased that John Banks and Peter Dunne do too. I acknowledge Mr Dunne and Mr Banks for their efforts to strengthen this legislation. It is better legislation for their input.The legislation makes clear theGCSB’s three functions. These are information assurance and cyber-security foreign intelligence and assisting other agencies. The first of these functions allows the GCSB to help protect Government organisations and important private sector entities from cyber-attacks. This is a growing threat that targets our information and the intellectual property of our best and brightest. Already this year the number of logged cyber-attack incidents is larger than it was for all of last year. TheGCSB’s specialist skills can help protect departments and companies and this legislation gives it a clear mandate to do that. A lot has been said about this so I want to be clear about a few things. Firstly cyber-security is about protecting our secrets. It is not about spying. The legislation requires the GCSB to get a warrant from the independent Commissioner of Security Warrants and me before it can intercept a New Zealander’s communications. That warrant must be issued for a particular function—in this case cyber-security. The clear intention of the function is to protect not to spy.The legislation also allows for conditions to be put on warrants and I intend to do just that. I will not allow cyber-security warrants in the first instance to give the GCSB access to the content of New Zealanders’ communications. There will be times when a serious cyber-intrusion is detected against a New Zealander and the GCSB will then need to look at the content. That is why the legislation allows for that but that should be the end point not the starting point. So I intend to use a two-step process for warrants requiring the GCSB to come back and make the case for a new warrant to access content only where the content is relevant to a specific threat. I also expect the GCSB to have the consent of the New Zealander involved unless there is a very good reason not to.The second function of the GCSB is as I said collecting foreign intelligence. That by the way is the largest proportion of the agency’s work.The third function allows the GCSB to assist the police the New Zealand SIS and the Defence Force. This is something it has been doing for more than a decade including under the previous Government. At all times the GCSB believed that it was acting lawfully as did the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and successive Prime Ministers. This is because the Government Communications Security Bureau Act said that it could assist others but it also stated that it could not undertake surveillance on New Zealanders. No agency should operate with such an ambiguous legal framework. TheKitteridge review identified just 88 cases of assistance over 10 years at an average of under nine people a year so this is not and never will be about wholesale spying on New Zealanders.The truth is that the GCSB has unique capabilities and it makes no sense to duplicate those when they are so rarely used. Instead we will make it clear that the GCSB can assist only those three agencies and only when they are able to show that they have the lawful authority to undertake the surveillance themselves. Nothing in this legislation allows for wholesale spying on New Zealanders—nothing. The legislation actually tightens—it does not widen—the existing regime.I also want to be clear about another issue in the legislation and that is metadata. There have been claims that this legislation offers no protection for metadata and that it allows for the wholesale collection of metadata without a warrant. None of that is true. Metadata is treated the same in the legislation as the content of a communication. So when the GCSB wants to access metadata it is treated with the same level of seriousness and protection as if the GCSB was accessing the actual content of a communication and there are protections around that.The legislation is good legislation and it is necessary legislation. It fixes the problems with the current Act and clears up the ambiguities that Labour passed into law a decade ago. It puts in place a robust review of the intelligence agencies in 2015 and every 5 to 7 years thereafter. It requires more transparency through open public hearings for the financial reviews of the intelligence agencies. It requires the GCSB to tell New Zealanders how many times it has assisted other agencies and how many warrants and authorisations have been issued. It gives the GCSB a set of guiding principles. It acknowledges the importance of human rights independence integrity and professionalism. It puts in place a stronger oversight regime which will go some way to rebuilding confidence in the GCSB.Let me finish by saying this. I have rarely seen so much misinformation and conspiracy about a subject as has been perpetuated about this legislation. That has some citizens agitated and alarmed which I regret but my regret about this would be nothing compared with the regret if this measure was not passed and New Zealanders were harmed because of the gap that currently exists in our security arrangements. This legislation is being passed today because its provisions are needed today. They are needed right now because there are threats against us right now. Others may play politics with the security and lives of New Zealanders but I cannot and will not do so. That is why I commend this very good legislation to the House.