Parker David: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12710. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment BillInspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment BillHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):And a 1-minute bell?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes a 1-minute bell.Hon DAVID PARKER: I want to respond to some of the statements made by earlier speakers on the part of the National Party. It is now a matter of record that John Key said onCampbell Livethat no New Zealander’s email content would be looked at. He has since admitted that that is not correct in respect of the cyber-security function of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). Then he has come to this Parliament today in the third reading debate on the GCSB legislation and now said despite him having it wrong onCampbell Live  in an interview that the media said was par excellence: “Trust me. I know what I’m doing. I am not going to put the protection in the law but I am not going to give a first-round warrant in respect of section 8A cyber-security warrants that allows the GCSB to look at the content of emails.” But he will do it on second-round warrants. He will do it on second-round warrants.In any event there is no protection in this legislation against the content of emails being looked at by the GCSB in respect of new section 8A investigations into cyber-security. I would have thought that that in itself would be enough for the National Party and its support parties to be saying: “Whoa looks like the Prime Minister got that wrong. We shouldn’t be voting for this.” But no they continue to vote for it.The next issue is that the Hon Chris Finlayson—in response to a contribution I made in respect of new section 8B which is inserted by clause 6 and which is the intelligence-gathering function not the cyber-security function aspect of this bill—rightly pointed out in his response at the Committee stage that new section 14 inserted by clause 12 says there is some restriction on the bureau’s function in new section 8B in respect of intercepting private communications.What he did not address was the Law Society’s concern that the definition of private communications is narrower than the definition of communications. So when Tony Ryall in this debate said that concerns around metadata were irrelevant he was bypassing the concern raised by the Law Society that the definition of “private communication” is narrower than the definition of “information infrastructure” which includes any communication. There is a difference between those two definitions and there is an argument that is being put by some that metadata is not the sort of communication that is a private communication. One of the amendments that the Greens put forward was to try to clarify the fact that that metadata was in effect private communication by removing that ambiguity that the Law Society says exists.We have today seen in the Privileges Committee how that metadata can contain very private elements. We know that within a 2-week period the metadata that was disclosed probably wrongly by the Parliamentary Service to the Henry inquiry showed that there were 86—[Interruption ] Well it might actually have been accessible under the Official Information Act but it was wrong for the Parliamentary Service to hand it across. But that showed 86 emails between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne in a period of less than 2 weeks. It is very unusual—very unusual—to have 86 emails like that and there have been various innuendoes that have been put around as to what that signified. I am not perpetuating those innuendoes by this contribution; I am making the point that the privacy considerations of a quantity of emails are in that metadata.Secondly that metadata disclosed by the Parliamentary Service in the Dunne instance included reference to a meeting which was in the subject line of the email rather than in the body of the email and it thought that that was metadata. Arguably if the Law Society is right that might be the sort of communication that is not a private communication as opposed to the body of an email and that is not clarified by this legislation.The oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee—the Hon Phil Goff has already spoken about that. I will make one additional point. There is an express prohibition on that committee. The functions of that committee do not include inquiring into any matter that is operationally sensitive including any matter that relates to intelligence collection and production methods. So that is no great solace either. This legislation ought not be supported.