Dunne Peter: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4383] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to make some comments about clause 8 with particular reference to those of the member who has just sat down. He said that the functions set out for the bureau in clause 8 were too broad and that New Zealand should have the agency as part of the police force— 
Rod Donald 
: Clause 7. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: OK clauses 7 and 8. He said that the agency should be part of the police force designed to gather intelligence that was relevant to the interest of New Zealanders. I am paraphrasing a little bit but that was the gist of what he said. 
Rod Donald 
: Security in defence only. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Security in defence only. Then he talked a bit about terrorism and the international situation. The point he misses is that in today’s environment those old definitions of what were security and defence matters are far more blurred than ever before. The whole march of international terrorism shows us that we cannot put things into the neat little boxes that once used to be the case. Consequently if a Government is looking at an effective way to measure the potential impact on its own country of the sorts of activities it regards as unacceptable it needs to have more breadth and strength in the way it approaches it. 
When we talk about the objective of the bureau being to provide intelligence on matters relating to security and defence inevitably a Government has to look at things like international and economic well-being because so much of the struggle today is about those matters. It is not simply a case of a full frontal attack on a country in a military sense. That certainly happens and we have a graphic example of that at present. However we also see economic warfare and the application of other forms of warfare and pressure that are equally detrimental to a nation’s well-being. That is why a country needs to have objectives for its Government Communications Security Bureau that reflect the fact that the very nature of the international terrorist campaign the international struggle—call it what one likes—and intelligence-gathering have changed. It is not simply a case of putting a little box around it and saying “This is a defence or security issue.” It has a much wider set of implications. 
From examples that have been quoted from time to time we know about the use of economic and industrial sabotage to strike at the heart of a nation’s well-being. We know that biosecurity sabotage has been threatened in this country before. I think it would be folly not to have the capacity through our intelligence services to monitor activities that might well be leading to the enhancement of those activities within New Zealand. That would be the case if we stuck to the very narrow definition the member who preceded me seemed to be applying. The powers and functions set out in clause 8 make it clear that this legislation is very much about protecting New Zealand’s broad interests. As I said before in relation to Part 1 it is arguable sometimes how much of a threat and a risk we are suffering from but the reality is that we need those sorts of organisations in place providing those sorts of functions to ensure that we have a measure of protection. 
I know that some members will say that the references to international and economic well-being are really code for being able to monitor and potentially suppress domestic dissent. I do not accept that reality. The bill sets out sufficient protections and mechanisms to ensure that that will not be the case. However what it does do—and this is the very point surely—is recognise that in today’s environment those sorts of issues are part and parcel of the threat we face. Terrorists do not see things neatly in terms of defence or security relationships only. Terrorists view issues from the totality of the damage they can do to a particular State or society in advancing their own objectives. They will not sit there and say that that affects just the defence or security interests of New Zealand. They will use whatever methods available to them to advance their cause. I think that everyone in this House recognises that—even the member who preceded me. 
The point therefore is that in arming ourselves to the extent that it is possible to arm ourselves to protect our nation against those sorts of incursions powers need to be crafted in this legislation of the nature of those set out in clauses 7 and 8. This is about protecting New Zealand’s interests. It is not about some sort of vast spying network that either contributes to international security or spies on New Zealanders.