Prebble Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4396] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to reply to the points made by Mr Rod Donald and Mr Ron Mark. Clause 14 is not as either of them has described it. I say to Mr Donald that he has been in Parliament long enough to know that the title of a clause is not part of the law. He has to read the clause and the clause is quite clear. It states that the Government Communications Security Bureau cannot intercept communications of a person who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident. I would have thought that the Greens would be in favour of that instead of suggesting otherwise. I most certainly did support it because the purpose of the Government Communications Security Bureau is to guard us from foreign threats. We have the Security Intelligence Service to guard us from local threats and that is a split that is made worldwide. 
Mr Ron Mark if I understand him correctly wants to know why we do not authorise the Government to spy on all permanent residents. I can tell Mr Mark that there is a very good reason for that which is that people who have permanent residence have already gone through a process and they been approved as such. Mr Mark should understand what he is suggesting. The biggest group of permanent residents in this country are people from the UK. We have over 350000 permanent residents from the United Kingdom and if I understand the New Zealand First Party correctly it is suggesting that that group of people is somehow some sort of security threat to this nation. Well I would like to see New Zealand First put that speech around the country and suggest that that is what a New Zealand First Government would suggest. We have permanent residents from the UK who have been living in this country for 30 to 40 years and if we are suddenly going to suggest that because of events in the Middle East we now have to include them among those subject to security warrants from the Government Communications Security Bureau then I really think those members need to get a grip. 
But I do say that it is legitimate for Mr Ron Mark to raise these questions and they ought to be answered by the Government. This is a serious bill. It is a bill that has been called for for a long time and it needs to be debated. I suggest that the reason the Government is not prepared to debate it has been actually touched on by the Greens. This is a bill that puts in legislative form the fact that there is a longstanding intelligence agreement between the United States the UK Canada Australia and New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] And in my case I am in favour it. Sorry; what was the member saying? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Long may it continue. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Thank you. It is not often that we agree. The member said: “Long may it continue.” and I see absolutely no reason that we should not say that. But I do find it very interesting that here we are this week putting in legislative form statutory recognition of the fact that our security lies with our traditional allies yet we are following a foreign policy where the Prime Minister is saying—for I think domestic political purposes—that our security does not lie with the United States. 
The Committee ought to realise that some of the intelligence we are providing may be of assistance to the UK Australia and America in Baghdad today. That may very well be the case. That does not worry me and I am quite prepared to be upfront about it. But I suspect that it worries the members opposite because they are not prepared to discuss what they are doing. I also suspect that some Government back-benchers do not actually realise that some of the things Mr Locke is saying—although he might put it in a somewhat exaggerated form—are in fact correct. I am not concerned about it but some of the things he is saying most certainly are correct. I think that those Government back-benchers who think they are following an anti-American line because that is what they want do not actually realise that our Prime Minister runs at least three different foreign policies at exactly the same time. There is the one she gives us on television then of course there is this one. I find it very interesting that she is the Minister in charge of this bill yet she has not said a word about it. Why is that? She does not want to explain it.