O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I want to begin by agreeing with the Attorney-General that it was very important with this particular piece of legislation that there be broad parliamentary support for it and indeed broad public support for it. In fact you could barely think of another piece of legislation in which a cross-party process and the generation of a high level of public support was more important. In that context when New Zealand First began to first look this legislation we set ourselves four main targets. One was to ensure that the protection of civil liberties personal freedoms—in particular privacy—would happen but also that we would get a means by which threats to New Zealand's safety and security including our essential interests would be recognised.To that end we always recognised the need for effective intelligence and in limited circumstances we accepted there would be a need to conduct surveillance over New Zealand citizens and permanent residents as well as others. But all of that had to be subject to three main provisos. They were first of all that there had to be a robust process for authorisations for warrants to conduct those activities. Secondly we had to be sure that the law itself was clear was certain was understandable and would be effective. Thirdly we thought it was very important that there be a very effective and comprehensive system for review and oversight of the activities of those organisations.We are as a result of a very good process now satisfied that this legislation does achieve all those things. We know that the previous legislation was grossly inadequate—it did not achieve hardly any of those things that I have mentioned—and the only good thing that came out of the previous bit of legislation in the last term of Parliament was that an undertaking was given that there would be a comprehensive review. That culminated in the Cullen-Reddy report which I thought was extremely good. There has also been very good public consultation and a very collaborative process as others have mentioned. So this bill is a very good outcome to produce a comprehensive code to govern security and intelligence activities in New Zealand. In a very real sense therefore this is Parliament's bill and in a very real sense it is the community's bill not just a Government bill. That is very important because as a result of that we will get the public trust that all of us seek.I want to talk a little bit more about trust because I think that is going to underpin the operation of the bill in the future. When agencies such as the SIS and the GCSB are given special powers to do things that would otherwise be unlawful it is very important that they should be able to develop trust because trust is not given—not like the special powers which are given. Trust has to be earned. It is therefore now over to those organisations to demonstrate that they are worthy of that.This bill as good as it is can go only so far by providing good processes for authorisations and good systems for oversight and review. In the end there must be trust deserved by the responsible Ministers by the commissioners dealing with warrants and by the inspector-general. Most importantly of all it is very important that the GCSB and the SIS through their conduct develop public trust as well. They must show their commitment to obedience of the law and always keep in mind the purposes of this law—to protect privacy as well as to protect New Zealand from harm.The purposes of the bill are therefore very important. I was really pleased that no attempt at a close definition of the term national security" was attempted. I thought that was a pretty pointless exercise because we have got instead some very comprehensive clauses in the bill which are better to rely upon. Those clauses in particular are clauses 55A and 55B: 55A relating to New Zealand citizens or permanent residents; and 55B relating to others. Those clauses define the circumstances in which an intelligence warrant can be issued.In addition there is a closed list of harms provided which would be applicable when such warrants were being applied for. I think it is important to read those out once again because it gives people a clear understanding of what it is that we are trying to achieve. Those harms include terrorism and violent extremism—all too prevalent in the world today—espionage or other foreign intelligence agency activity and sabotage which is always possible in any country. They include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and serious crime—a major issue for New Zealand as it is in so many other countries. Those harms also include interference with information or information infrastructure—again an extremely important harm that could be done to New Zealand—threats to the operations of the Government of New Zealand and threats to the sovereignty of New Zealand including the protection of its borders and the right of this country to manage its own natural resources. There is more but those I think are the most important harms to which this country could be subject.The basis of the trust of which I spoke is an assessment of the necessity for both type 1 and type 2 warrants. It has to be demonstrated that the warrant applied for is necessary for all those purposes and against all of those harms that I have mentioned. That assessment must in the case of type 1 warrants satisfy both the responsible Minister and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants and for others just a commissioner alone.New Zealand First believes that as a result of the processes that we have had in the development of this legislation we have achieved that all-important balance of the need to protect personal privacy on the one hand and to deliver an effective and more than adequate system to protect New Zealand's security on the other hand. As I have said I think that balance in this legislation has been very effectively achieved. We in New Zealand First also believe that given those processes for authorisations and the systems for oversight we now have an excellent legal framework to achieve the objectives that I mentioned first in this speech.So now provided we get effective leadership in the SIS and GCSB in particular I think that New Zealanders ought to have full trust in the legislation and in the agencies—that we will have a system to protect their individual interests but also a system and legislation that will protect New Zealand from those harms that I mentioned earlier in my speech. Given that trust I am sure that New Zealand can—as David Parker said—boast that it will have the best security and intelligence system and the best-balanced one in the world.I in particular have a great deal of trust and confidence in it. I do not accept what the Greens have said about this. I do not think their approach has been—while sincere—very practical. I do not think their alternative approach is one that would deliver a satisfactory level of security for New Zealanders which I believe almost all New Zealanders actually want. I rest that on what I say—that in addition to the legislation we do need trust and I think this legislation will generate that trust. That trust has to be earned but I am confident that we will get it and that New Zealanders will see that that is the case. In that context New Zealand First is very happy with this bill. We were very happy with the process that has led to us getting to this stage and we will have no hesitation whatsoever in voting for it."