Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak as deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to support the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill. In this contribution I want to take an in-depth look at the new warranting regime and some of the protections in the legislation. To start with why do we need a new regime? As the Minister has set out section 14 of the current Government Communications Security Bureau Act does not provide the protection a number of people assume it does. The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) is already able to target New Zealanders for cyber-assurance and assistance functions. However in many cases section 14 actually prevents the GCSB from doing the security job we need it to do. Let us take a hypothetical situation under the current legislation. Let us say the Government has fragments of information about New Zealanders fighting overseas let us say in an area controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and they clearly need to be identified. The two main agencies involved would be the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) and the GCSB. Let us look at the NZSIS first. In the current situation the NZSIS may well be unable to get a warrant because it can currently target only individuals and yet there are only fragments of information about who these people are and not enough to specifically identify an individual. Let us look at what the GCSB can do. The GCSB specifically cannot target New Zealanders because section 14 of its Act bars it from targeting New Zealanders for intelligence-gathering purposes. But it can assist the NZSIS and here is the problem because assisting the NZSIS would require a warrant and yet as we have already noted this is not possible because we cannot identify an individual and so the GCSB also cannot assist. This then leaves our two main intelligence agencies unable to address the security risk described in this example. This situation is clearly unsatisfactory and is one of the reasons the report of the independent review of intelligence and security recommended that section 14 be repealed. The quid pro quo is that the GCSB and NZSIS will now be covered by the same enhanced warranting regime. This legislation brings the NZSIS and GCSB under the same warranting structure and introduces a concept called the triple lock" as a better safeguard for New Zealanders than section 14. The triple lock means that a warrant must be approved jointly by the Attorney-General and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants with oversight provided by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Any NZSIS or GCSB warrant targeting a New Zealander will be subject to this core protection the triple lock. This is in addition to the very high bar for all warrants that they must be proportionate and necessary. Furthermore unless they are an agent of a foreign power a New Zealander can only ever be targeted for national security reasons. As the Minister pointed out this is an important restriction on the current NZSIS legislation which allows New Zealanders to be targeted for wider economic well-being and international relations grounds. In the new regime national security is the overriding consideration. Let us look at the types of warrants. What does the new warranting system look like? First there are tier 1 warrants; these are required for intelligence collection activities targeting New Zealanders and would otherwise be unlawful. These must always be approved by the Attorney-General and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants and they are subject to review by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—this is the triple lock that I have already mentioned. Under the current system the Minister responsible for the relevant agency signs the warrants and then the Commissioner of Security Warrants countersigns. Under the new system the Attorney-General will replace the Minister responsible and this reflects the non-political and careful way in which these warrants will be issued. The commissioner will retain his function. Then there are tier 2 warrants; these are required for intelligence collection activities targeting non - New Zealanders which would otherwise be unlawful. The system here is the same as for tier 1 warrants with the Attorney-General authorising the warrant. The Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants is not involved with tier 2 warrants as their function is as a protection for New Zealanders. The bill also allows for joint warrants in appropriate circumstances. This is to aid the two agencies to work together where required. The legislation does not propose amalgamating the agencies as that would significantly increase their powers. It is in all our interests however for them to have the ability to work together when they need to subject to all the protections set out in the bill. The bill also allows for purpose-based warrants where it is not possible to identify a specific target. These will only ever be available where the objectives of the warrant cannot be accomplished through a targeted warrant. It is a very high bar to meet but it fills an important gap. To return to my earlier hypothetical where the GCSB could not identify New Zealanders fighting overseas in an area controlled by ISIL how would that situation be resolved under this new legislation? Under the new framework GCSB and/or NZSIS could attain a tier 1 warrant for the purpose of New Zealanders fighting overseas with groups like ISIL. Every tier 1 warrant is issued by the Attorney-General and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. A "Type 1 warrant" can be issued only for national security purposes which would be satisfied in these cases and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security would have the ability to review the warrant. That outcome is a vast improvement on the current situation which is the result of legislation that has probably been amended too often and has failed to keep up with the times. In conclusion this legislation is a good piece of work. I commend the Attorney-General and officials for bringing it to the House to this point and I look forward to working on it with my colleagues across the House on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I commend it to the House. Thank you."