Robertson Grant: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12351. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):I just want to pick up where David Shearer left off about the fact that what the Government would purport that this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill does is in fact restore the confidence in the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) that has been lost. The reality is that under the watch of John Key public confidence in the GCSB has dropped to an all-time low. The reality is that this bill and in particular Part 1 of this bill will do nothing to restore the confidence of New Zealanders in the GCSB. In large part that is because the Prime Minister has said and claimed right throughout this debate that this bill does not extend the powers of the GCSB. That is a completely laughable claim. Almost every submitter who came before the Intelligence and Security Committee the statutory committee—every submitter bar one who came in front of that committee—said: “This extends the powers of the GCSB and there is no case being made for it.” Not only is the Prime Minister just plain wrong and misleading New Zealanders by trying to say that this is just a clarification of the legislation that is what the explanatory note of this bill says; it says this is a clarification. It is not. It is an extension of the powers of the GCSB without justification from this Government.When we look at the case that the Government has made for this we see that it knew about problems with spying—arguably illegal spying—last year. Was there an urgent piece of legislation put into the Parliament saying that New Zealanders’ lives were in danger and we needed to ensure that the powers of the GCSB were extended? No. The Government tried to cover that up initially through the Prime Minister. When eventually it was forced out into the open we went through the process that we went through to get this bill up now and then the Prime Minister had a sudden rush of urgency. That is when John Key suddenly decided that the whole thing was incredibly urgent because it was time for him to stick a band-aid over the wound to this Government that is the GCSB.When Chris Finlayson stood up earlier on he was running through his list of 12 commandments and when he came to new section 9 in clause 7 about the appointment of the Director of the GCSB he said: “Here we will finally codify the situation we have where the State Services Commissioner is the person who advises the Prime Minister onthe appointment of the Director of the GCSB.” Well if only that had been the case. If only that was what John Key had done when he appointed Ian Fletcher except he did not. He got on the phone to his mate and told him to ring the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—who I notice Mr Finlayson is not mentioned in new section 9 in clause 7 of the bill. There is nowhere in there that says that the appointment of the Director of the GCSB will happen after the Prime Minister calls his mate and tells him to ring someone who is on the appointment panel to get some advice. That is what John Key did this time around. It is all very well for Chris Finlayson and John Key to say: “We’ve got this process now around the appointment of the Director of the GCSB that’s so much more transparent.” but the reality is that what is put in new section 9 here today is actually the very thing that John Key rorted—the very process that John Key rorted when he made that phone call to Ian Fletcher when he got his mate appointed.Why is that important? Why is it important that we have some confidence that the Director of the GCSB is appointed in a transparent way? It is because more often than not it is just the Director of the GCSB and the Prime Minister who are making the decisions who are in the room having the conversations about New Zealanders’ rights. Today tonight in this piece of legislation the power of the GCSB is extended explicitly to spying on New Zealanders.Hon Anne Tolley: Which bit?GRANT ROBERTSON: “Which bit?” says Anne Tolley “Which bit?”. Read the bill—read the bill—because that is what is there. Explicitly this bill does that. It starts Mrs Tolley right at the start with a change to the functions of the bureau. It starts right at the start to expand the powers. New Zealanders—most New Zealanders—accept the fact that we need security intelligence agencies. We need agencies that are able to ensure that New Zealanders’ national security is protected. But what New Zealanders want reassurance about is that those powers will not be abused and misused and that there is proper oversight in place. They want to know that as we move into a new era of technology where New Zealanders make great use of that technology their every communication will not be spied upon. They want to know that their privacy will be protected in this new age. What we see in this legislation is in fact that the definition of things called “information infrastructures” are broadened out—there they are they are broadened out—so that that definition covers everything.There is something in there that is effectively location data. Almost every person in this Chamber and watching this on television will have some kind of smartphone or access to some kind of smartphone that has location data on it. From today the ability is there for the Government to be able to use that data. Right around the world—and this is one of the things that this bill completely fails to take into account—people’s attitudes around the privacy of their electronic information are changing and evolving. People are beginning to understand more and more about the reach of the State into what can happen with their electronic data. At that very time that is when the National Government decides it is time to expand the powers of the GCSB so that it can roam freely about electronic information provided by New Zealanders.Hon Anne Tolley: Rubbish! Which bit—GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not rubbish Mrs Tolley and it is time that the National Government actually listened to what New Zealanders are saying—actually listened to what New Zealanders are saying—about the privacy of their communications. What New Zealanders want is to have security intelligence agencies that have the powers to do the job that is needed to ensure that New Zealanders’ safety is protected. But they want to make sure that that is balanced with proper oversight and with protection of New Zealanders’ privacy. What this bill does is get that balancewrong. The Law Society came to the committee and said that the balance is wrong. The Human Rights Commission came to the committee and said that the balance is wrong. The Privacy Commissioner wrote to the committee and said that the balance is wrong. New Zealanders from all walks of life are looking at a Government that no longer cares about their privacy and that no longer cares about getting that balance between security and privacy right. That is the major problem that this side of the Committee has with this legislation.When we look at the clauses in Part 1—in particular the changes around the functions of the GCSB—we can see in clause 6 section 8C a significant change in the way that the work of this agency is done and why it is now cooperating with other agencies to facilitate their functions. What is clear is that it can do that for anything—it can do that for anything.Tim Macindoe: This is a load of rubbish and you know it. Absolute claptrap.GRANT ROBERTSON: Very defensive Mr Macindoe. He will not get a call. He will not get a call. Sit down—sit down. Tim Macindoe will not get a call because the National Party does not want to front up to New Zealanders on this legislation. Section 8C in this bill expands what agencies can work with the GCSB. The question for Mr Finlayson and National members is what happens with that data. What happens with that information? Will New Zealanders’ information be retained in New Zealand or will it be available for other countries to look at? That is the question that New Zealanders are asking. [Interruption ] Well Mr Finlayson does not appear to know the answer Mr Mallard because he will not get up and be honest with New Zealanders about the expansion of these powers and what they mean.If we look at the other parts of the functions of the bureau what this bill does is say to the GCSB that it now has a wide mandate. Its mandate now goes beyond foreign intelligence functions; it goes into cyber-security. And it goes into cyber-security without the proper checks and balances that New Zealanders would expect. If you would allow me just to briefly mention something in Part 2 because it is relevant to Part 1 you go all the way through this bill with all the expansion of powers and then you get up to section 15A which is inserted by clause 14 of the bill. And just to make sure that we all know what is going to happen with this bill it says that it applies notwithstanding “anything in any other Act.”—notwithstanding “anything in any other Act.” That is any Act—it could be the Crimes Act; it could be anything. That is how loosely this has been defined.On this side of the Committee we oppose this legislation. David Shearer has proposed an excellent Supplementary Order Paper 305 which would actually see a review of all of our security intelligence agencies so that we could get legislation that New Zealanders can have confidence in so we can restore some confidence to security intelligence in this country. Under John Key’s leadership it has reached an all-time low. It will stoop even lower if this legislation passes today. I urge all parties including Mr Dunne—