Donald Rod: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4378] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will not take my full time but I was part way through a discussion on the definitions when I lost the call. The point I was making was that the definition of “foreign organisation” when linked with the objective of the bureau—which we will come on to in the next part—enables the Government Communications Security Bureau effectively to spy on any foreign company operating in New Zealand. Although I sometimes doubt the benefit of some of those foreign companies to our country I think when one links the definition of “foreign organisation” with the objectives statement it really does raise a question about whether it is acceptable for a State agency to be spying on foreign businesses operating in this country. I do not think it puts us in a very good light. 
It reminds me of issues that were raised several years ago about the Government Communications Security Bureau and in particular its parent the National Security Agency in the United States when suggestions were made that in some countries the Americans used their eavesdropping capability to give advantages to American companies. In Indonesia for example the Americans used eavesdropping to give an American company an advantage over a Japanese company tendering for Indonesian Government business in the telecommunications sector. That is the sort of thing that we really ought to be safeguarding against in this legislation and the Government does not do that. 
When one turns to the next page in the bill one can see that “foreign organisation” also includes any international organisation. One that immediately springs to mind is the Greenpeace organisation. I think there is an extraordinary irony in this bill that it legitimises the Government Communications Security Bureau’s spying on Greenpeace which is the very organisation that has been the— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It puts out false propaganda. It frequently breaks the law. 
ROD DONALD 
: That is the sort of thing that some Governments do. In fact Greenpeace suffered at the hands of French terrorists when the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 was bombed and there were very real questions about the role of New Zealand security agencies at that time. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Name one. 
ROD DONALD 
: Well despite the existence of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Tangimoana signals intelligence station somehow security agencies did not seem to know that the  
Ouvea 
 was coming to New Zealand and what it was going to be getting up to. And the Security Intelligence Service did not seem to do a very good job tracking the terrorists when they were in this country. So I think it is extraordinary that this legislation will enable the Government Communications Security Bureau to spy on the likes of Greenpeace when Greenpeace is the one organisation that has suffered at the hands of a terrorist Government which sank the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 in Auckland Harbour. 
I believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee has not done a good job. It is a statutory committee not a select committee and those members who doubt my word should have a look at what David McGee has written on that particular subject. There is a very real distinction between a statutory committee—fortunately it is Parliament’s only one—and a select committee. If this bill had gone to a select committee and if all parties had been on that select committee I believe that some important changes would have been made to those definitions to tighten them up. 
I seek the Committee’s support for our amendment to clause 4 which is to add the words “but not the New Zealand diplomatic mission of any country” because in our view that phrase gives effect to the Vienna convention of which New Zealand is a signatory and keeps good relations between our country and those missions based here. It avoids the problem the current definition has which is the one that has clearly upset the South African consul for example who said that he would take much more than just a very grim view of anybody violating their privacy by hacking into their computers tapping into their telephones and bugging their homes and offices. 
Richard Worth 
: Which consul? Was that Mr Fortuin? 
ROD DONALD 
: Indeed it was Mr Fortuin—a former employee of this Government I hasten to add. Mr Fortuin was expressing very real concern about the role that the Government Communications Security Bureau would have as a result of this legislation.