Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4368] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 In speaking to the title I point out that the word “Government” is appropriate because this organisation is a Government institution and this bill rectifies an error a very bad practice in Government operations and accountability to this Parliament because for 25 years this organisation has existed without a statutory foundation. So it is good that this matter is being rectified but we have to look at the rest of the title—for instance the words “Communications Security”—to see whether this organisation is justified; whether we really need it. The bill does provide one purpose that is quite positive and that is acting as an agency to make sure Government communications are secure. However in my opinion that could best be carried out by a subdivision of the New Zealand Police. The main functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau are purposes—and these are the most expensive ones—that we should not identify with. When we talk about communications security the main facility of the Government Communications Security Bureau is the Waihopai satellite communications interception station near Blenheim. That has two dishes directed towards two satellites over the equator in the Pacific which draws down all of the telephones faxes and emails that go through those two communications satellites. There is a network of such satellites around the equator. We are concerned through Waihopai with just these two over the Pacific. All those communications are drawn down into those two dishes and run through a huge bank of computers in Waihopai and in Wellington. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member please return to the title at this stage? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes I am just explaining that the term “Communications Security” does not really apply. This information is then primarily conveyed overseas first and foremost to a foreign organisation the United States National Security Agency. It is not really communication security because communications of only five nations remain secure in this system—that is the five Anglo nations: New Zealand Australia Great Britain the United States and Canada. All the other countries in the world are being spied upon through this system by what is called the Echelon system. 
We see a problem of communications security for other countries. We saw a memo from a section head of the United States National Security Agency recently. A chap called Frank Coza talked about their agency the National Security Agency “mounting a search”—those were his words—on the members of the Security Council to try to get their votes. The Waihopai station which is part of this system is not protecting communications as the title would imply; it is not protecting the security of communications for those Security Council members. 
In fact this agency may be used for purposes that we do not agree with. In question time today I raised the question of whether the communications security element of this agency is actually being turned on its head and being used against this country—because we do not support the war in Iraq. It is clear from US congressional documents that Waihopai has been used in what is called Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. If it can be used there by communications through Waihopai going off to the National Security Agency then what is to stop them using it similarly in terms of getting electronic intelligence for their activities in Iraq? The question of sovereignty is very much relevant to that.