Robertson Grant: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12607. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):I rise to speak on the title and commencement clauses and in particular in the first of my contributions to these two clauses I want to speak to my typescript amendment to the commencement clause. For colleagues who have not had the opportunity to see it yet the amendment that I am proposing to clause 2 reads: “This Act comes into force on the day that is 12 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent and only after a full independent inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence agencies has been completed and recommendations from the inquiry have been considered by Parliament.”The reason I am proposing to move that amendment in the Committee is that the haste and the rush that the National Government has been in to push this legislation through means that New Zealanders who are rightly concerned about the law balancing security and privacy have not had the opportunity to have those issues fully explored. It is unreasonable and unacceptable of this Government to trample over the rights of New Zealanders in order to see created a law that covers the intelligence agencies that act on their behalf go through in this haste. New Zealanders want to see a law that reflects our values and New Zealanders value privacy. They also value security. And it is quiteclear from the views of New Zealanders right across this country that they do not believe that the law as it has currently been drafted by the National Government creates that balance.What it does is grossly expand the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) tinker about with the oversight mechanisms and create a situation where New Zealanders continue to lose trust and confidence in their intelligence agencies. So that is why my amendment to clause 2 would say let us take the 12 months to have the full and independent inquiry that so many people want before we allow this bill to come into force.It is not just the Labour Party it is not just the Green Party and it is not just New Zealand First or Mana or the parties in this Parliament that are asking for this review; in fact the Privacy Commissioner the Human Rights Commission eminent theorists like Sir Geoffrey Palmer and the Law Society are all asking that there be a review because people are uncertain about the effects of this bill. They are uncertain about whether or not there is a balance in this bill to protect both privacy and security.This is relevant in terms of the commencement clause because we all know that the world has changed since the 2003 legislation went through. There are different kinds of threats to New Zealand’s security. That is absolutely true. But equally people all over the world are making much greater use of technology to communicate. People all over the world do their daily business keep up with their families and do all of the things that we do to communicate with one another in cyberspace. Therefore on both sides of the coin we need to see a balance of security the protection of New Zealanders and the protection of New Zealanders’ privacy.We have not through the process that this Government has undertaken given sufficient time to consider how the world has changed. We have not given sufficient time to create a law for our intelligence agencies that reflects New Zealanders’ values that reflects our commitment to democracy that reflects our commitment to transparency and that says we will have intelligence agencies that New Zealanders can be proud of not some model from overseas and not some model that panders to the interests of other people. That is why we must delay the commencement of this bill. We must delay it until there has been a full independent inquiry and the recommendations of that inquiry have come back to Parliament.In the end National can pass this law by one single vote. Well what does that do to New Zealanders’ confidence in security and intelligence? What it says is that National will politicise these agencies. It is prepared to do a “willing buyer willing seller” deal with Peter Dunne to push through something as significant as the powers of our intelligence agencies. This bill cannot commence until we go beyond the partisan politics of John Key and Peter Dunne until we get to the point that we can actually say that New Zealanders have a reason to be confident about this legislation. They cannot be confident that a bill that passes with a vote of 61 to 60 and commences 1 month after the Royal assent will give New Zealanders the ability to restore their confidence in this law.The proposed commencement date in my amendment is not only 12 months after the bill receives the Royal assent but also after we have the inquiry and that inquiry’s recommendations have come back to Parliament. It is important to know that the language of my amendment is that the intelligence agencies are subject to that inquiry. The intelligence agencies are not just the GCSB; they are also the SIS. It is very important that the SIS is included before this legislation commences. The Government actually had a review of the SIS under way and recommendations to change the law were ready to go and they got pulled. The Prime Minister has never satisfactorily explained to this House why suddenly the SIS was off the table and we wereconsidering only the GCSB. So my amendment to clause 2 is not just about whether or not we can get the GCSB into a shape that New Zealanders can have confidence in but actually that we understand all of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies and how they interact together. That is why I have moved an amendment to the commencement clause in order to delay that commencement date for 12 months and only after that inquiry is completed. I believe that that represents the will of New Zealanders that they understand the need for these agencies but they want them to operate in a way that is transparent that is accountable and that reflects the values of New Zealanders. Those kinds of principles have been sorely missing from the way that John Key and National have gone about this change and the way that Peter Dunne has presented himself as a “willing buyer willing seller”.My other comments that I want to make in the last couple of minutes of this call are around the title of this bill. The innocuous-sounding “Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill” sounds technical. It sounds like a title you would give to a bill that would breeze through this House and New Zealanders would barely notice. It is an inaccurate title because fundamentally the title of this bill should mention the expansion of powers of the GCSB because that is what lies at the heart of this and John Key has consistently misled New Zealanders about that. This bill includes whole new powers and functions for the GCSB. The bill expands the functions that already exist around assisting other agencies. It includes New Zealanders in what was once a foreign intelligence agency. It puts New Zealanders right in there. It puts the content of their communications right in there. So the title of this bill should make reference to the expansion of the GCSB’s powers. That would be an honest title for this bill.The other title that members of the Committee might like to consider is the “Damage to Democracy Bill” because the process that John Key has gone about of finding a “willing buyer willing seller” with Peter Dunne and of pushing this legislation through the Intelligence and Security Committee without even hearing from the GCSB or the SIS or the police or the Defence Force damages our democracy. The dismissive way that John Key treats anyone who is a critic of this bill damages democracy. He threatens the Human Rights Commission’s funding. He says the Law Society does not know what it is talking about. He said today that if there was a terrorist threat David Shearer would run for the hills. Well David Shearer rightly said that he is the one who knows about terrorist threats. When he faced one in Iraq he ran in to help the people. He did not run for the hills. It is John Key who is doing the running. It is John Key who is running from his press conference because he does not want to answer the questions. It is John Key who is avoiding the questions in this Chamber.This bill should be titled the “Damage to Democracy Bill” because John Key has done huge damage to the way New Zealanders view our intelligence and security agencies—right from the Kim Dotcom affair to appointing his mate Ian Fletcher to run the GCSB to running this bill through the House so quickly that New Zealanders do not understand or know what this bill really does. But they know they are worried about it because they know that it is about the expansion of powers. The title of this bill is wrong. This bill is not a technical amendment to the GCSB legislation; it is a massive expansion of the powers of the GCSB without New Zealanders being given a say. This bill should not pass. The title should be changed. The commencement date should also be changed.