Martin Tracey: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Thank you for the call. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk about Part 1 of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. Section 7 in clause 6 reads: “The objective of the Bureau in performing its functions is to contribute to—(a) the national security of New Zealand;”. New Zealand First has never argued that there is not a need for an agency such as this—in as my colleague pointed out a world that is not threat-free—to protect New Zealanders. The conversation from New Zealand First has always been about the oversight so that the bureau itself does not suffer from what is called “invisible man theory”. The invisible man theory is that if you think you can get away with something because nobody will see you then it is highly likely that you will try it—I beg your pardon Mr Chairperson; it is highly likely that another human being may try it.I am pleased that Mrs Tolley raised two or three points in her speech. The first one is around the playing of politics. Mr Banks also raised this conversation with regard to New Zealand First particularly in his second reading speech where he said that Mr Key rang and rang and rang New Zealand First but the phone was always engaged. That is palpably false. New Zealand First members reached out to the National Government and said: “We understand that this is about our country’s security and we want to participate constructively in this conversation.” but our calls were never returned.National members chose not to actually come across and try to work with the full Parliament for the benefit of this nation. So let us make that 100 percent clear and put on the record that the politicking is not from this side of the Chamber.The other thing Ms Tolley talked about was that the New Zealand public was confused. Apart from that being incredibly arrogant and insulting to most of the New Zealand public if the New Zealand public is ill-informed—which Mr Key has been on record saying—then it is ill-informed because of the manner in which this bill has been pushed through this Parliament. There has not been enough time given to the New Zealand public to truly understand this legislation.Let us just say that the Attorney-General is 100 percent correct in everything he says. Let us just assume that—I know it is unlikely but let us assume it. There should have been the opportunity and the time for the Attorney-General to explain himself clearly to the New Zealand public. Let me just read section 8(3) in clause 6: “The performance of the Bureau’s functions and the relative importance and priority of the functions if any are to be determined from time to time by the Director subject to the control of the Minister.” There is a lack of trust currently in the country around the oversight of the Minister with responsibility for this agency and there needs to be a truly deep conversation with the public of New Zealand to regain that trust.The Electoral Commission was in my office recently where we had a conversation about how we can encourage New Zealanders to continue to participate in democracy to continue to come out and vote as numbers drop lower and lower. When things like this are pushed through this Parliament so that the people of New Zealand cannot be confident that the Minister with oversight the Prime Minister truly has a grasp or is truly working in their best interest then we start to see a fall-off in democracy.That is why New Zealand First has placed Supplementary Order Paper 323 on the record in an attempt to gain some of that trust back for the New Zealand people. That Supplementary Order Paper would establish an independent body to which warrants when issued must be shown after a certain period of time and by which warrants must be reviewed to check that the reason they were given is truly what is being enacted. And I would also add that we must not forget that this conversation began because a New Zealand resident was spied upon.