Goff Phil: 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 VolumeGoff Phil: 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:12706. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment BillInspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment BillHon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Most New Zealanders would not have known it from that speech but that man Mr Finlayson is the Attorney-General of New Zealand whose sworn role is to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. What did we hear from the Attorney-General? We heard the entire 10 minutes taken up with a speech that denigrated many prominent and respected New Zealanders. He attacked Dame Anne Salmond. Dame Anne Salmond Mr Finlayson was voted unanimously as the New Zealander of the Year earlier this year. Dame Anne Salmond is a respected historian. He attacked Dr Rodney Harrison. You know Dr Rodney Harrison is a QC. So is the Attorney-General but the difference is that Dr Rodney Harrison earned his QC; he did not give it to himself. He did not give it to himself.Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member is misleading the House. Under no circumstances did I give that rank to myself.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: There are other prominent people in the New Zealand Law Society like Austin Forbes who have spoken out against this Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation. Sir Geoffrey Palmer is regarded as the foremost constitutional expert in this country but he apparently was wrong as well. Sir Bruce Ferguson used to run the GCSB; you might think he understood a little about it. But what we have seen that will alarm New Zealanders most in this debate is the absolute arrogance of the Government which at no stage—at no stage—has listened and at no stage has sought what traditionally a Government would seek in legislation of this nature which is to earn cross-party support.The Prime Minister—well-qualified in law as we know—criticised the New Zealand Law Society as knowing nothing about the law. He then criticised the Human Rights Commission. Mr Finlayson is it not true that the role of the Human Rights Commission is to uphold as the watchdog of human rights the rights and the freedoms of New Zealanders? Yet what did John Key do? He threatened the funding of the Human Rights Commission.Then there was the Privacy Commissioner. I knew the Privacy Commissioner for a long period of time as the Secretary of the Cabinet in New Zealand for more than a decade. Her role also Mr Finlayson is to uphold the rights and the freedoms of New Zealanders. She said that this legislation is not ready it is not appropriate and it needs a proper inquiry before it is proceeded with and that the last thing that should happen is that this legislation be rushed through.Then there was Mr David McDowell. Mr David McDowell was the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. He warned also that this legislation does not provide adequate safeguards to stop the GCSB from abusing its powers. I say to Mr Finlayson: that is a group of people with considerable expertise and experience and they are well-respected by New Zealanders. By denigrating those people all the Attorney-General has succeeded in doing is increasing the concern of New Zealanders that this legislation does not find the balance between security and the protection of rights.You know I said before that normally with this legislation the Prime Minister of a country reaches out across the House and says: “Here is an agency that has powersunique in a democratic society to intrude into the freedoms of New Zealanders and the privacy of New Zealanders. Here is an agency unique in the fact that it is not subject to openness transparency and accountability because of the nature of what it does. I would like to bring the House together to find a way of getting the balance between security and the rights of New Zealanders.” This Prime Minister came into the House and said correctly that Grant Robertson and I had met with the deputy head of staff of his office. And we did. We told her Labour’s position. Labour’s position is that we accept that there is a need for security agencies. We accept that they need to have the powers to do the job but we also believe that before you give extended powers to these security agencies there must be a full independent inquiry. Paula Oliver his deputy chief of staff said that yes that is exactly what the Australians did. That is what she said. Paula Oliver said that that is exactly what the Australians did.We are asking for nothing more than what our colleague democracy across the Tasman said was necessary before they gave their powers to their security agency. We said that we need to have proper scrutiny of how those security agencies work. Dr Coleman you will know that in the United Kingdom and in Australia Ministers are not allowed to sit on the intelligence and security committees that have oversight over security agencies. In the United States there are two committees neither of them controlled by the executive—the presidency—that exercise scrutiny over its security agencies. New Zealand is unique in the democratic world where it has a Prime Minister that is in charge of the committee meant to exercise scrutiny over the GCSB and where the Minister who should be scrutinised is actually on the committee and chairs it. He sets the agenda. He restricts the times that that committee can meet.How many times Mr Finlayson has that committee met outside of the needs of this legislation? Rarely and briefly and chaired by a Prime Minister who shows absolute contempt and arrogance for the process by not contributing to it when he is present. I know that because I have sat on the committee Dr Coleman. I know that when a Minister is in charge of an agency and you are scrutinising that Minister that Minister should be appearing before the committee. He should not be chairing the committee.Then Mr Finlayson will say: “But we have recognised that problem and what will happen is I will chair it.” I will chair it says Mr Finlayson. I have no confidence on the basis of your speech Mr Finlayson that you would do anything other than ingratiate yourself with the Prime Minister—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member is repeatedly bringing the Speaker into the debate—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am listening. [Interruption ] Order! I am on my feet. I am the determiner of that.Hon PHIL GOFF: The fact is that this Prime Minister and this National Government have arrogantly decided that they will impose their will on this House on the basis of only their own party’s support and the support of two members of Parliament who are discredited and disgraced in this Parliament. My challenge to Mr Dunne is this: Mr Dunne said 3 weeks ago that under no circumstances would he support this legislation which gives the GCSB the power to spy on New Zealanders—under no circumstances. That man has broken his promise to New Zealand. That man was sacked by the Prime Minister because he leaked the GCSB report. The other man is John Banks who told the country that he did not know anything about the $50000 donation from Kim Dotcom which he picked up and took when he was personally flown by helicopter to Kim Dotcom’s mansion in Helensville—the Prime Minister’s electorate. That was not the truth. That was a lie.Both of those members—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member must withdraw that comment.Hon PHIL GOFF: I withdraw Mr Speaker.The fact of the matter is that this is legislation that does not provide adequate scrutiny. Mr Key said in the course of an interview onCampbell Live that the GCSB would not be allowed to look at the content of communications when conducting its cyber-security functions. That is wrong. That is wrong. And yet that man came into the House and said the Opposition did not understand the bill. You know his answer to that? Not to change the law to prevent it but to do his “King John”—that is before the Magna Carta—by saying: “But I will not allow them to do that.” If you do not want the GCSB to do that Mr Finlayson put it in the legislation.New Zealanders have no confidence in this Prime Minister. He appointed the head of the GCSB. He did not disclose the fact that it was a long-time personal friend. He said he hardly knew him when he had been having dinner with him. How can we have confidence in that Prime Minister to actually do the right thing when his scrutiny of the GCSB is not open and transparent? If you have safeguards against the abuse of power by the GCSB you put it in the legislation.