Prebble Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4370] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the proposal and of the title of the bill. It is a sensible measure to put these proposals into legislation partly because it makes it harder for those paranoid members of the community to continue in their fantasies. I object very strongly to suggestions that this bill has not had parliamentary scrutiny. The Intelligence and Security Committee is a parliamentary committee. 
Rod Donald 
: It is not a parliamentary select committee. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It may not be an ordinary select committee but every single member of that committee is a member by statute and the committee was voted for by the Parliament. I assure the Committee that we did meet all the people whom we said we met—it is mentioned on the front page of the bill that we had 16 submissions and that we heard them in public. I can remember doing that. It is not very easy to get the Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition the Minister of Finance the then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Anderton and myself together for a meeting but we did manage to do that. 
Richard Worth 
: Not a happy company. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: We were a happy company on this particular matter. That is why this bill is appropriately named because everyone except the Greens accepts that it is a function of the State to provide security to its citizens. I say to Mr Donald that in an age of international terrorism we need to know what those who think evil thoughts about this country and our security systems and trade are doing. One way of doing that is to electronically monitor them. If that comes as a source of shock and horror to the member I tell him that it does occur and that it is a function of the State. As a Parliament we want to be sure that those powers are being exercised in a lawful way and in a way that will protect New Zealand. The member has said that this bill is incorrectly named to which I reply that it is most certainly correctly named. 
In looking at clause 7 “Objective of Bureau” I see that the security or defence of New Zealand is the No. 1 task. That is something every MP ought to be willing to support. The protection and advancement of the international relations of the Government of New Zealand is another objective as is the protection of New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being. Clause 7(1)(ab) was added by members of the committee and states that the Government is required to provide “foreign intelligence to meet international obligations and commitments of the Government of New Zealand; and (b) advice assistance and protection to departments of State and other instruments of the Executive Government of New Zealand in order to—(i) protect and enhance the security of their communications information systems and computer systems; or (ii) protect their environments from electronic or other forms of technical surveillance by foreign organisations or foreign persons.” 
I tell Mr Donald that one of the things this bill does is to stop foreign Governments from being able to tap into communications information that we have here. I make no apology for saying that the ACT party is in favour of this bill—and that includes ACT’s Solomon Islands representative. I do not know why we should make an exemption for the Solomon Islands because if the Solomon Islands Government is able to tap into what is happening with New Zealand’s communications information I will be very surprised. It would also come as something of a surprise to the Solomon Islands. However we certainly have a great interest in the Pacific and in the Solomon Islands. I suspect that this bureau will do the opposite of what the member expects because it is far more likely that we will find information that may be of great interest and importance to the Solomon Islands Government. 
That is one of the core functions of the State. It is the Government’s function to provide security and it is for that reason that the ACT party is in favour of this bill. Right now when we know there is international terrorism and when threats are being made even in this country I would have thought that even the Green Party would be very pleased that we have a Government Communications Security Bureau. I would have thought the Greens would be in favour of there being a general agreement in this House that this should be legislated. We ought to be prepared to tell the public about it. Am I pleased about and proud of this organisation and the staff who work for it? Yes I am. I think the staff are patriotic New Zealanders who are carrying out a very important job. I am pleased to support the bill.