King Annette: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Annette: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16015] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill in its first reading. I have to say that the Opposition is very disappointed that the Government has decided to include this bill in the urgency motion. We were led to understand right up to question time today that this bill would not be part of the urgency motion and that it would be taken first for its first reading then urgency would be taken. I think it was important that it was outside the urgency motion because the optics of it are not good. I do not believe that the public will like the optics of putting this bill in an urgency motion very much at all. It is a very very serious bill about human rights and a serious bill that deserves to be taken in the ordinary time of this House. There was no need to include it in the urgency motion which means that something must be done urgently at this moment. 
I have to say that this shows me that the Government is in a shambles over its legislative programme. It has no idea what it wants to do. Gerry Brownlee told this House about 2 weeks ago that we would not be having any more urgency and now we are having urgency on this very important bill and on many many others. I have to say that the Labour Opposition will be here for as long as it takes to debate every one of them. But to tell Parliament and the people of New Zealand that one is finished with urgency and one’s programme is up to date and to then decide that one is to have some urgency shows that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. We will debate this bill and other bills including the very many that have been put down in the urgency motion. 
The Government has indicated that this bill is needed ahead of the Rugby World Cup and it is one that amends the principal Act the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act to implement the Government’s policy decision to update the interception warrant framework. This bill takes account of technological changes developments in human rights case law and the modern requirements of intelligence acquisitions. We believe that a number of issues need to be considered with this bill. First of all we need to weigh matters of national security with issues of human rights. Secondly a citizen’s rights to privacy and to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure are fundamental rights and we must always take great care when defining State powers that impact upon these rights. Thirdly the task of balancing the State’s surveillance powers with the protection of fundamental human rights is a complex one. The Labour Opposition welcomes the input of the Privacy Commissioner the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to the development of the policy and of course we also look forward to hearing submissions at the select committee. 
We also note the comments made in the regulatory impact statement by Dr Warren Young of the Law Commission. In my experience the Law Commission has been an organisation that has provided extremely good advice to Governments over many years and so particularly has Dr Warren Young. He independently reviewed the regulatory impact analysis prepared by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and also the associated supporting material. Dr Young said that he was satisfied that “the information and analysis met all of the quality assurance criteria. He noted that the updating and clarifying issues arising from the current legislation were clearly identified; the policy options addressing these issues were adequately canvassed; and the need for the preferred policy option was demonstrated.” 
Dr Young noted: “While there are some impacts on privacy this is clearly justified by the associated benefits. In particular updating the warrant framework is a recognition of technological changes in the storage of and communication of information and is essential in order to enable the NZSIS to continue to effectively undertake its statutory functions.” I think those words are reassuring to those who might be doubting the changes that are being made in this legislation. We will be supporting this bill. 
The principal Act was first enacted in 1969. Now it is 41 years old. When we think about that time span an awful lot has changed. Man went to the moon and landed on the moon in May of that very year. The first supersonic jet with passengers flew in 1976. No one had heard of Twitter Facebook social networks and so on and certainly most people were still using the telephone that was connected to wires. Over the past 40 years communication and data storage technology has changed significantly. 
Areas of interest and activity for the Security Intelligence Service now include things as simple as email—things that we take for granted that we have on our BlackBerries every day. This legislation now takes account of those changes with regard to our email Internet accounts mobile phones and social networking facilities such as Facebook and Twitter. 
In the past 20 years there have also been developments in New Zealand’s human rights law. Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees the right of everyone to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure and modern case law increasingly expects that security services will rely on specific rather than generalised legislative provisions to undertake their work. The bill amends the warrant framework that takes account of the contemporary legal and technological environment. 
The issues raised in the bill are important because they involve the balancing of personal privacy and property rights with matters of national security. The principal Act allows the Director of Security to apply for warrants to intercept or seize documents communications or things that cannot otherwise be lawfully obtained. There are also currently powers that enable these tasks to be performed in fields such as powers of entry and search. The principal Act contains a range of safeguards in terms of both procedure and oversight. For example the current warrant framework requires evidence that an interception is necessary to detect activities that might upset security. Other requirements are that the value of the information must justify its seizure the information is not likely to be obtained by other means and the information is not privileged. 
This bill addresses a number of very important issues that have not been looked at for over 41 years. When we look at such things as tracking devices we find that organisations like the New Zealand Police and the Customs Service have already had the law updated in their areas of work but the tracking warrant regime for the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has not been reviewed. So there are many parts of this bill that bring the organisation into the modern era to take account of the technology that we now have available to us. 
There is also one important point to make which is that we are calling on the Government and the Prime Minister to allow submissions to the proposed changes on the SIS legislation to be held in open session. First this bill is being brought in under urgency; secondly it is of interest to the public; and thirdly it can be held in open session because a select committee has the ability to hold submissions in private when it wants to. If the select committee deems that a submission ought to be heard in private then it can do that. The rule and principle set down by the then Prime Minister Jenny Shipley is that unless there are extraordinary circumstances that require a closed hearing for any particular submission then they ought to be heard in public. We urge the Prime Minister John Key to hear as many of those submissions in public as possible. There is no reason to be secretive or inflexible on this matter. I think it is important for the confidence of New Zealanders in this legislation that as much information as possible is made available to them and that as many people as possible can hear what is said on this bill.