Shirley Ken: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4512] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand supports this bill. We believe that it is essentially a good bill and that it is necessary but we raise the question: is it sufficient? We suspect that possibly it is not. We recognise that it is tidying up a situation whereby as the previous speaker has just mentioned the Government Communications Security Bureau was established in 1977 without statutory authority. I believe that it is necessary to have that statutory authority. The bill introduces appropriate checks and balances and I think that those checks and balances are about right. I know that most parties in the House other than the Greens support the bill. I take it that the Greens’ concerns are that they believe that civil liberties are at risk presumably but I am sure that we will hear from Mr Locke on that. 
The point has also been made that the Prime Minister is quite wrong. The Prime Minister Helen Clark told us just a few months ago that we are very fortunate in New Zealand because we live in an extraordinarily benign environment strategically. That illusion has been well and truly shattered and hopefully she now recognises the folly of those words and regrets having ever said them. They will haunt her for some time to come. New Zealand does not have the luxury of living in an extraordinarily benign environment as Helen Clark claimed and the events of the past 24 months have certainly brought that home to us. 
We live in a changing world. We are in a time of global transition. The whole of last century was characterised by a philosophical debate between fascism communism and liberal democracy underpinned by market economies. It is very interesting that out of the ashes of the First World War came communism and fascism and that the Second World War was all about defeating fascism which had sprung up in Italy Germany Japan and Spain. The communists and those who believed in liberal market economies with representative democracies joined together to defeat fascism in the Second World War. 
The month that the Second World War finished we went into a very long ideological war between communism and representative democracy and open market economies. That war lasted until 1990. It was only with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the accepted failure of socialism that the predominance of open market economies and representative democracy became the prevailing world order. What we have now in our difficult transition from nation States to interdependent market States is an incredible new philosophical battle with those who object to international free trade and open market economies. 
We see it in parts of the Middle East. Osama bin Laden is a total rejection of the values that we hold dear to. Regrettably some of the loony left do not believe in free trade either. In a strange way they are actually more aligned to international terrorists like Osama bin Laden whose bottom line is to bring down the interdependent market economies that underpin the capitalist system that is now the predominant world order. 
The regret is that New Zealand is now out of the loop. We have put ourselves out of the loop. It seems that our Prime Minister and senior Ministers get their information from CNN news these days. This bill is all about putting us in the loop. But because of our strategic positioning it is only the mechanism; it will not of itself put us in the loop for international information. 
We have done it to ourselves. This Labour Government with its abandoning of our traditional allies and some of their other policy positions has clearly alienated New Zealand from what is obviously—to me and I think most others in this country—our strategic best well-being 
Like others I was offended by the statement of this Government delivered to the United Nations today. It was a further insult to our traditional allies. Not only was it unnecessary it was unnecessarily provocative. It is driven by ideology. In particular the quote that I find offensive is this quote from our United Nations statement today: “Our common objective must be to end hostilities as quickly as possible so that the risks to the Iraqi people are minimised and so that their humanitarian needs can be met.” At question time today I asked our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade—he has an option with that statement—is he saying that the coalition of the willing should down tools now and withdraw because he says it should be ended as quickly as possible and leave the Saddam Hussein and his Arab socialist Baath party regime in power? Is that what he is saying or is he saying he supports finishing the job and supports a regime change? 
He would not answer that question. It was a clear choice. That is an example of how we are increasingly alienating ourselves on vital intelligence and communication information that underpins our security. At the end of the day the prime role of the State is security of the realm and protection of its people from illegal force whether internal or external. That is why we need legislation like this in a Government communications and security provision. 
I note that there has been a call from numerous quarters in recent months for a rethink of how we organise our strategy. The Hunn report tabled yesterday raises and flags the issue of a need to better integrate and rethink our security and defence provisions. I notice that Terence O’Brien who has represented this country at the United Nations and has led the strategic studies group is saying that the Government needs to upgrade its thinking and think anew in this dangerous transitional time that we face globally. 
That brings me to the point: why did this Government leave this bill—having introduced it in urgency—for 2 years languishing on the Order Paper? It introduced it under urgency saying that this bill is critical we have to pass it and then left it languishing on the Order Paper. There has to be a political reason for that. It is only in the new Parliament where Labour has the United Future people who will support it that Labour is prepared to bring it back to Parliament. 
Was it perhaps that the Greens were blocking the passage of this bill? Let me have a guess that the Greens were actually blocking it. Labour knew that it had the support of ACT National and New Zealand First but oh no it was not prepared to bring it back to the Parliament. It was significant enough to introduce under urgency and then to leave languishing for 2 years on the Order Paper! 
To that extent I raise the question is it out of date already? A lot has happened in that 2 years. When we have the Hunn report and Terence O’Brien and others saying that we need to upgrade our thinking on strategic and defence issues I suspect that the provisions in this bill are inadequate. It is necessary but not sufficient. In conclusion I say that ACT is happy to support this bill but we do raise the question: is it adequate is it sufficient?