Peters Winston: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9669. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I think the background to this legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is well known by most New Zealanders. It is a shameful background of neglect of cover-up and of failure to answer parliamentary questions or a failure to front up to the media and tell people what happened and what went wrong.We are charged as a political party with writing a law that hopefully the mass majority of members of Parliament can support in the interests of the national security and safety of New Zealanders in our role as participants in seeking to obtain a safer world internationally. The outcome New Zealand First seeks therefore is to create an effective watchdog that does not bite the people it seeks to protect. New Zealand First seeks specific safeguards in the legislation to ensure that the Government Communications Security Bureau does not operate outside the law. We have set these out: first “Each surveillance to be authorised by warrant by the responsible Minister”; second “The warrant to comply with specified criteria to identify the potential security risk”; third “The method of surveillance and the time frame of the operation”; and perhaps as important every warrant from the time of its issue is to be made available to a group in which the country can have total trust and confidence so that it can review within 3 weeks that warrant—that is a review by an independent authority selected from the judiciary the Defence Force and the police.We have written to the Prime Minister setting out the circumstances in which we as a party would seek to pass a law not for political reasons but for reasons that I believe and we believe are the responsibility of any member of Parliament. New Zealand First’s position on matters of security is clear and unambiguous.The first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and protection of its people. We therefore must live in the real world. We cannot put our heads in the sand in a world of extremists and terrorists and for one the party that I belong to New Zealand First and my caucus colleagues are not going to be standing by so that one day there is mayhem and murder and extremist actions in this country and people point a finger at us and say: “But what did you seek to do about it?”.In short we understand the real world and parts of the real world are a very evil place. To ignore the threats posed by such groups would be irresponsible. Recent events graphically illustrate that terrorism can be home-grown and it also does not respect international borders. New Zealanders as we know enjoy civil liberties that are not universally shared. These are precious and men and women have in the past fought and died for them. As a nation we have always jealously guarded our freedoms and view with suspicion any moves by the State to impose any sort of “Big Brother is watching” scenario. The outcome New Zealand First seeks therefore is to create an effective watchdog that does not offend or bite the people it seeks to protect.We have specific areas of the legislation we believe need addressing. For example new section 8A in clause 6 of this bill refers to “any other entity authorised by the Minister”. That is far too wide and should be limited to those entities with accountable authority and specified in the legislation. New section 8A(c)(ii) refers to “any person or office holder”. That is far too wide is far too open to abuse and is not susceptible to transparency and accountability. New section 8B(1)(c)(ii) refers to “any person or office holder”. Again this is too wide. New section 8B(2) in clause 6 refers to “any public authority … and any other entity”. These are phrases that are far too wide and they would have appeared surely to the drafters as obviously not capable of being supported by responsible members of Parliament. New section 8C(1)(d) in clause 6 refers to “any department”. This should include a schedule of departments. The subsection is not clear. New section 25(3)(d) in clause 24 refers to “any other person that the Director thinks fit”. Where on earth would they have got such a catch-all carry-all include-all phrase if they seriously wanted members of Parliament to support this?Although New Zealand First agrees with the necessity to gather information and to share it with appropriate authorities we believe there needs to be far clearer definition about this and also serious general oversight. We have suggested an independent committee to oversee the Government Communications Security Bureau’s information-gathering activities. Where New Zealand citizens or residents are involved we want this committee to be informed when a warrant is authorised and the same committee must be given the power to review the situation within a period of 3 weeks. That is proper oversight. This provides a measure of safeguard to avoid unfounded fishing trips on New Zealanders.The Government Communications Security Bureau is an important agency. I can tell from the correspondence and communications that a number of people are suspicious of this. Let me ask them what they would have done in circumstances in which terrorism could have been discovered before it happened. When were they going to take responsibility or whom did they trust to take responsibility for that? We are not asking people to sign up to spying on our fellow citizens. But there are some people in our society as in a lot of societies—take the serious drug-trafficking in this country and on the borders of this country which is surely a case in point—who simply cannot be trusted. Their whole record shouts that and we know it.The bureau must operate professionally to meet the challenges faced by New Zealand and our allies. New Zealand First has said—and we have written to the Prime Minister today—that we will assist the Government to meet these goals so long as our concerns are addressed in this legislation because we will not support the idea of rubber-stamping the bill as it stands.I have heard some of the previous speakers from the Government side. Frankly with respect I do not think they know what they are talking about. I have been a Minister who twice in my career signed out on countless authorities or warrants because I had to but I was seriously concerned at the time about the safeguards where there may have been some impact on New Zealanders.Hon Trevor Mallard: He was no rubber stamp.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No I did not rubber-stamp them. That is a fact.Hon Trevor Mallard: Read them unlike Bill English.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I most certainly read them. But here is the point: we had a Prime Minister who according to the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau at the time Mr Ferguson paid no attention at all to this most serious of all obligations. We consider that the Government should seek as wide a degree of cross-party support for this bill as possible. In short this legislation surely has to be supported by enough of Parliament to ensure that it survives the next election the one after that and the one after that if it is going to have any serious meaning in terms of the security of this country. That being the case and because we have written to the Prime Minister and the Government has preferred under urgency to press this bill deficient as it is at this point in time we oppose this legislation.