Ryall Tony: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRyall Tony: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12700. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment BillInspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment BillHon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):I am pleased to take a call in this very important debate. This legislation formerly part of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Bill is more constrained is more transparent and offers more scrutiny than the previous legislation. I want to particularly acknowledge the Prime Minister’s comments earlier in this debate. He talked about the fact that many people have been unduly alarmed because of the scaremongering associated with this legislation. There are always people in our communities who think their activities are of such interest that some Government agency is monitoring what they are doing and we saw that from a number of people before the Intelligence and Security Committee which considered this bill. But let us be quite clear here. This legislation came to Parliament because the legislation that was introduced in the 2000s was not fit for purpose. It was not sufficiently focused and it created a level of legal uncertainty that required the Government to take the action that it has. I do also want to associate myself with the comments that the Deputy Prime Minister made.Actually the issue is an indictment on the Opposition. You know that an Opposition party is ready for Government when it behaves like a Government-in-waiting a Government-in-waiting that accepts that it has not only a responsibility to secure its own election but also a responsibility to the security of the realm. It has a responsibility to take these issues seriously and responsibly and to act in the better interests of the nation and allow the politics to be run by the smaller parties which people expect will behave on the fringe as the Green Party has done. But the Labour Party as the party in Government that introduced this legislation in the 2000s the party that had Prime Ministers who acted under the authority of that legislation would have taken a far more responsible role. And I think the former Prime Minister Helen Clark was right in her subtle criticism of the Labour Party when she appeared on television and alerted the nation to the fact that these powers were needed—these powers were needed. She understood that. Actually I think senior members of the Opposition are aware of those issues and they are aware of their responsibilities but this tension playing between the parties of the left meant that those who wanted to play politics in Labour got to have the greater say in the position that that party opposite had.This Government is responding to the concerns raised in theKitteridge report and to the issues that were raised before it in the Intelligence and Security Committee and that is why we have brought this legislation forward. The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) can act under this legislation in three key areas: information assurance and cyber-security foreign intelligence and thirdly assisting other agencies. I would just like to go through each of those. In regard to information assurance and cyber-security this legislation is giving the GCSB power to render assistance to Government agencies and key private sector infrastructures in order to protect their information infrastructures. It is not about delving into the information; it is about protecting their structures. I think as the Prime Minister has said it is more of a swept-up version of NortonAntiVirus which we all have on our computers at home. It is not filtering. It is not sort of reading all of our emails. It is protecting our infrastructure protecting our communication systems frommalware and outside attack. That is the GCSB responsibility there in terms of that area.The GCSB has specialist skills in this area that can help protect departments and companies and what is more we have made it very clear in this legislation that we now have principles and descriptions of how those responsibilities should operate and that is a new addition. Cyber-security is about protecting people’s information infrastructure protecting their secrets. It has got nothing to do with spying. In fact if any action needs to be taken in respect of that overseas attack coming into a New Zealand computer system and we need to access that system in order to help protect infrastructure then any of that needs to involve warrants and that is very very important. Secondly as the Prime Minister has detailed he will have a two-step process in respect of those warrants if there is any necessary part of that and I think that that is really good.The second function of the GCSB is in respect of foreign intelligence and that is the largest part of the agency’s work. That is very much set out in the purposes of the legislation and it makes it very clear that the agency’s purpose is in respect of foreign intelligence in respect of foreigners not New Zealanders and it is very restricted and very clear in the legislation. The third function of the GCSB is to use its centre of skill in this area to assist other Government agencies. In the previous legislation it just said “other Government agencies” and that is actually very wide but as a result of the select committee process members on this side have narrowed that down to three agencies: the New Zealand Police the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the New Zealand Defence Force.We have restricted that ability to assist other agencies down to those three and here is the rub. The GCSB cannot act or support those agencies under its own volition. It needs the warrant of those other agencies to be legitimately obtained in order for it to provide support and assistance. So it can do nothing in support unless one of those three agencies is acting under their lawful powers and then the GCSB must give that information to the retention of those other agencies. That information goes to those other agencies because the GCSB is acting in support of those agencies. It is restricted by the mandate of the warrants of those other three agencies. It cannot go outside the mandate of the warrant of those three agencies. This means we do not need to have the specialist capacity in the GCSB replicated in three other agencies. In a nation the size of ours 4.5 million people we should not expect to have to go through the expense and in fact I do not know whether we would even be able to replicate the skill of the GCSB in those particular areas in those other agencies.So it is pretty clear that this legislation is about greater transparency greater restraint and greater scrutiny. It does provide for annual appearances before the Intelligence and Security Committee and for reports on the use of theGCSB’s powers in the various warrants. It now gives the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security additional people whom he can consult with. We never had that before so that is going to be very important as well.Can I also raise this issue of metadata. This legislation goes further than the members opposite think it does. It does not allow any differentiation between metadata or any other information. It is not allowed to make that separation.Hon David Parker: Then why not say that?Hon TONY RYALL: Because that is in the legislation. The legislation defines communication in such a way that says communication is what metadata is. It does not allow for metadata. Metadata cannot be separate. There is no ability for the GCSB to get metadata and not communications without a warrant because the only thing it can get iscommunication with a warrant and that includes metadata. So it needs a warrant. There is all this stuff about how it can go and get the metadata—and I can understand people’s concerns with all the stuff that has been going on in this Chamber about it—but it cannot access metadata without a warrant because it is not separated from communication.I think this is a very important piece of legislation. It tidies up the issues raised in theKitteridge report. It does provide greater transparency it does provide for greater scrutiny and it does provide greater restraint on the powers of these authorities and their granting officers than there previously was.