Robertson Grant: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9677. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I rise to oppose the motion that has been moved by the Minister of Justice. The 2-month period that is being suggested here is woefully inadequate to give members of the public the opportunity that they need to have a say on such significant legislation as the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. The Minister has just told the House that the lack of ability for the Government Communications Security Bureau to continue to assist other agencies is hamstringing it from important activities. Well if timeliness is the issue here we know that in at least July last year the Prime Minister knew that there were issues with unlawful spying and then in September according to statements the Prime Minister has made the kinds ofactivities that are being talked about here were ceased. So if there is an urgency that requires only a 2-month period why was legislation not introduced in September last year? In order to justify such a truncated select committee process the Government needs to answer the question of how it is that when it has been aware of this since at least September—actually July last year in the case of the Prime Minister—it did not act at that point.It has introduced legislation to the House today that has not been adequately scrutinised by anybody. It put that legislation in front of the House and asked for an exception to grant it only a 2-month select committee process. The gravity of the issues involved here in terms of personal privacy in terms of human rights and in terms of our national security is such that it is simply impossible that a 2-month committee process would be able to take that on board. I imagine many many New Zealanders will want to make a submission to this bill and to have only a 2-month period guarantees that the voice of a lot of New Zealanders will not be heard in the committee process.I want to speak too about the nature of this particular committee the Intelligence and Security Committee and its relationship to this truncated select committee process. This Intelligence and Security Committee is unique in our Parliament. It is constituted in a different way from all other select committees to the point that members cannot be substituted on this committee. So in such a truncated period will members of the committee actually all be available to hear submissions? I am not certain that they will and there is no capacity to have a member substituted on. Can the Government guarantee in this House today that the Prime Minister will be present throughout the submission process? Can it guarantee that to the House? If it cannot then New Zealanders are being denied their right to participate in discussion on this legislation in front of a full committee. Certainly in terms of the Labour Party’s representative on that committee David Shearer in this 2-month period—it is a very very busy period. We have just had the Prime Minister announce today that the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election will be held on 29 June. The National Party is not participating in that by-election but this is a period of time that is extremely busy. It is a committee that operates in quite a different way from other committees in the House and I do not think sending a piece of legislation to that committee for only 2 months is satisfactory.We know that there will now have to be submissions called for. That will be a very narrow window for people to put submissions in and then a very very narrow window for those submissions to be heard. There are issues that are raised in this legislation that may well be of a confidential nature. People who want to make submissions to the committee may well have issues that they need to raise that will be of a confidential nature. What processes are going to be set up to allow that to happen to allow people to have an adequate say?We heard in the earlier debate both sides of this argument talk about the significance of what was being done here that there were significant changes to the way in which the Government Communications Security Bureau would be acting and yet the Government has put up a motion that says it needs only 2 months to do this. That is not consistent with what we know about when the Government was informed about unlawful spying. The urgency with which this is being put through simply does not match the process of events that took place last year—and I will rehearse those again because they are relevant to the question of how long this committee should have to assess this bill. If it is true that the Government Communications Security Bureau itself became aware in May last year of unlawful spying—Hon Trevor Mallard: February.GRANT ROBERTSON: February initially that is right—February initially and then the bureau swept it under the carpet. Then in May it returned to the matter whenthe Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security raised concerns. Then in July Ian Fletcher decided it was time to let the Prime Minister know about the unlawful spying and nothing happened at that point. Nothing happened along the way there to say: “This is a hugely urgent matter—we better get a bill in front of Parliament and rush it through.” That did not happen. Then between July and September it appeared the Prime Minister was happy enough to see the Government Communications Security Bureau continue to operate under the existing law. He did not seem concerned about the information that he had been told about unlawful spying. But in September the game was up because finally the bureau and the Prime Minister had to come clean about what had happened in the Kim Dotcom case.At that point if a bill had been introduced to this House and the Government had said we have to get this through quickly because we have got to make sure that the Government Communications Security Bureau can continue to do the work it has been doing on behalf of other agencies that would have made some logical sense. But that did not happen. Nothing happened until today when a bill was introduced to Parliament. The Minister stood up and moved a motion that said there needs to be only 2 months’ worth of consideration by a committee that is restricted in the way that it operates. I simply do not believe that that is adequate for this piece of legislation.I believe that the people of New Zealand when we are dealing with issues of such sensitivity and when we are dealing with an agency with intrusive and significant powers and that operates in an opaque manner deserve a proper process for this piece of legislation. I have not heard anything advanced today by the Government most especially in the recent contribution by the Minister that actually indicates why this urgency is required because if it had been required we would have seen legislation in September last year. The fact is that it is being referred to a committee that operates as David Shearer has already said to the House today in a way that I think is woefully inadequate in terms of parliamentary oversight and that committee is then being given only 2 months to do its work.I believe strongly that this legislation deserves full scrutiny by this Parliament and New Zealanders deserve an opportunity to make submissions and know that if they request to be heard by this committee they will be heard. With a 2-month window it is simply not credible that all the New Zealanders who will want to be heard on this bill will be able to be heard on this bill. That is possible only with a full select committee process. The Labour Party is on record as saying that we need a full inquiry into the intelligence agencies. The severity of the change in this bill actually indicates that that inquiry is needed more than ever but in the absence of the Government agreeing to that inquiry this select committee process for this bill is the only opportunity that New Zealanders have to actually have their say.I think that the Government needs to think again about how it is treating these issues. These issues are about the balance in our society between the fundamental freedoms that New Zealanders expect—the fact that they can go about their business without the intrusion of the State—against our national security. Those are weighty matters. I accept the need in our society for these kinds of agencies but without New Zealanders having confidence that the checks and balances are in place we run the risk of totally undermining the confidence that New Zealanders have in our security and intelligence agency which is at an all-time low now I would suggest. Nothing that the Government is doing today will increase that confidence; it will simply decrease it. The idea that the Government is ramming through under urgency this first reading and the idea that it is putting in place a truncated select committee process simply fuels the view of many New Zealanders that this Government is trying to sweep under the carpet the problems the debacle of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the role of thePrime Minister in it. Democracy is not being served today by a truncated select committee process through a committee that does not operate properly. I urge the Government to reconsider this motion and I oppose it.