Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4389] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think it is right to have this debate as it is a very important one. The comments that Tony Ryall made were in the spirit of the seriousness of this issue so it is good to be able to address some of them. 
I want to speak to clause 12 “Annual report” which I think is a weak provision. The way I read it in terms of the reporting on interceptions that the Government Communications Security Bureau does it appears weaker than what is actually the practice in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service which not only reports on but reports the number of interceptions. Under the Security Intelligence Service legislation the organisation has to report the number of interceptions and the duration of those interceptions. Even that is not really sufficient accountability but it is much more than is set out under the reporting procedures in clause 12. 
I think that is one of the problems when one is dealing with electronic interception. Even though the targets of that interception might be legitimate intelligence services can do the wrong thing and by the very nature of electronic interceptions the targets of those interceptions do not even know it is happening. So it is important to have a proper reporting procedure because that is an element of the accountability. If there are a lot of interceptions and if they are going on for a long time then hopefully the Parliament and the people will put pressure on the Government and ask what is going on what the threat is and what all the interceptions are about. Of course with secret organisations one is not asking for every last detail but one does want some accountability. 
The other problem with clause 12 is seen in subclause (4)(a) and (b) which states that the reporting should not prejudice relations with other agencies. Of course there is a reason for that. If one is getting intelligence from overseas one does not necessarily want to disclose it all but I am a bit worried that subclause (4)(a) and (b) will allow information to be kept confidential purely on the basis that it is being provided by an overseas agency—the CIA or MI5 or whatever. In a sense that means that these agencies are dictating what is secret and what is not because they say: “Well we’re not going to give you any more information unless you keep all this secret.” 
One of the problems with that is that one cannot necessarily trust those agencies. We have seen Colin Powell get up at the United Nations recently and say: “On the basis of this intelligence information we have there are links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.” which proved to be completely false. There was all the other contrary information such as: “There are all these intercepts we have with Saddam Hussein’s generals that show they are going around hiding weapons of mass destruction.” The inspectors have pooh-poohed all of that in terms of mobile laboratories and the sorts of things that Powell came out with. One of the problems is that he could say: “This is secret intelligence information.” and nobody could countermand what he was saying although in this case the CIA people were so outraged they selectively leaked to the press saying that Powell was talking a lot of rubbish. 
One of the problems is that when countries have agendas—as the United States under the Bush administration have at the moment—they often use secret information through their intelligence organisations to justify what they are doing not only in an unaccountable way but in a lying way. That was the case with Colin Powell at the United Nations. So we have to be cautious about putting provisions in here that would allow overseas organisations to dictate what we should or should not disclose. 
The other material under Part 2 involves the whole question—and I think my colleague has already spoken about it—of whether what the Government Communications Security Bureau correctly interprets to be New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being is completely subject to a partisan interpretation. 
If one is from Monsanto one might say that what we are doing in this country with GE products is completely in the interests of New Zealand. Any politician in New Zealand who supports Monsanto and GE would say: “Oh that’s completely in our interests.”; whereas people on the other side of the political fence would say that it is not and that companies like Monsanto are undermining our economic well-being.