Shearer David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12349. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition):The last point in that 12-long list from the previous speaker Chris Finlayson is I think particularly relevant in light of what happened today in the protection of private communications and private property. We had the Prime Minister just 2 weeks ago telling us that he had nothing to do with the handing over of a journalist’s private communications and here we have him today knowing that the chief executive officer of his own department whom he seems not to talk to at all has actually been in the possession of emails of a journalist and Peter Dunne for a very long time. Going through that episode just emphasises what this bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is all about. It is about the balance between security and privacy and if there was one incident of that in the past few weeks it was that on 31 July—last week—the Prime Minister said something and something else was the case when they dumped all those emails on Friday. That really is the reason why we are not supporting this bill.This bill has been rushed through. It has not been informed well enough. It has not stood the test of what we would expect in order to change the legislation in the way that it actually has been. We for example asked for the SIS the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Defence to appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee. None of those agencies was permitted to appear before the committee because the chair who has the casting vote said he did not want them to. Why? Because he wanted to rush this legislation through without us being able to get much better information. And that is the reason that the balance between privacy and security is completely the wrong way round.The Prime Minister says that as part of this bill we have all the checks and balances there. But let me tell you this: the Prime Minister as we found out earlier this year appoints the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the SIS. That person happens to be his friend and meets with him one on one without anybody else around. One on one they meet together. The Prime Minister also sits on the oversight committee the Intelligence and Security Committee. He chairs that committee he has the casting vote he sets the agenda and if anybody wants to put any other item on that agenda—as Russel Norman and I well know—of course it is voted down. It is immediately voted down. The Prime Minister also appoints the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who looks into these affairs and he appoints the Commissioner of Security Warrants who issues the warrants to spy on New Zealanders.I do not want to impugn the integrity of those people who have been appointed to those positions but what we have is a system that is not about checks and balances; it is about one man holding that authority. And if there is any demonstration of how that authority can be abused it has been in the last few weeks when that Prime Minister blamed a contractor for handing over emails and phone records. Today what we are finding is that it was not about a contractor; it was actually about the Prime Minister’s own office asking for those emails and those phone records. Not only that but those emails and phone records came in and were held by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for over 3 or 4 weeks without the Prime Minister being told. Well we are told that by the Prime Minister. There are only three options really: firstly that the Prime Minister is not telling the truth about being informed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; secondly that he is woefully ignorant of what is going on in terms of what is actually happening and that person is not handing over the information he needs which means that it is an incompetent department that he is running; or thirdly that he has actually explicitly told people: “Don’t tell me. I don’t want to know.” because it is a whole lot better not to know. He did this with the John Banks report by saying: “I don’t want to read that police report because then I’ll have to know and then I’ll have to do something about John Banks.” [Bell rung ] Mr Chair—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am just going to make a comment if the member would like to resume his seat. I understand that this is a matter about which there is some contention but the standard in Committee is that we are debating Part 1. I will give the member another call but we ought to be debating Part 1. This is not a general debate.DAVID SHEARER: Thank you Mr Chair. I am getting to Part 1. It took a little longer to get through the context to get to Part 1. Part 1 is about the appointment of the head of the GCSB. What we are saying is that we are submitting Supplementary Order Paper 305 a Supplementary Order Paper that calls for an independent wide-ranging inquiry within 1 month of this law passing—if indeed it unfortunately does pass. What that would mean is that an inquiry would be set up. The terms of reference would be agreed right across Parliament. The inquiry would have at least three persons on it—persons of standing people who are able to command respect in their fields. Our Supplementary Order Paper would also introduce a sunset clause into this bill so that the bill would expire within 12 months so that an inquiry would be able to go through. It would be able to have the appropriate amount of consultation we would be able to draft and push through a new law based on that inquiry and the current legislation would simply sink into the sunset as “sunset clause” suggests. That enables us to have the law round the right way rather than the wrong way.What we are trying to do now is to charge ahead and fix a bill that is being rushed through in response to a political problem not a bill that comes from the good evidence and good recommendations that would come from an inquiry. That has been our position from day one. It has been our position from the end of last year. Unfortunately we are not likely to get this law stopped because Peter Dunne who is here in the Chamber listening to this has given Mr Key—what is the expression—he has sold his vote and Mr Key was a willing buyer of his vote. As Mr Key said to me: “We need only one vote to get across the line.” This is what he means by consensus: “Yes you can come in with us if you like but actually I’ve got the votes so you don’t need to.” That is consensus. Is it picking up the phone? No. Is it office to office communication? No. Was there any form of communication between us initiated by Mr Key because he wants this bill to have more cross-party support? No absolutely not. He has got that vote all he wants is that vote and it is just about getting Mr Dunne the willing seller of his vote across the floor.It is deeply ironic that Mr Dunne right now is deeply immersed in the current goings-on and the shenanigans of this Prime Minister who is misleading Parliament and misleading the public—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come back to the bill.DAVID SHEARER: —about his role in this bill. Mr Dunne is still supporting this legislation. He is supporting Part 1 including the appointment of the head of the GCSB by the Prime Minister despite what has happened and despite the fact that his personal emails have been accessed. Who knows whether they have been looked at because the GCSB the subject of the bill we are debating here today certainly has the powers to open attachments. I have no doubt about that. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet might not be able to open an attachment but I can be very sure that the GCSB has those sets of skills that enable us to do that.Supplementary Order Paper 305 does what we believe is the right thing to do. It starts by providing for a proper inquiry into our intelligence agencies—not just the GCSB but right across the board. It brings to the fore something that we have not had an independent inquiry on since 1976. That was the last time we had any independent inquiry into our intelligence agencies. Many many people are saying to me that this is exactly what we need to do. From there we move to the legislative change that is necessary to set up a structure that would have the confidence of New Zealanders because right now this bill certainly—