O'Rourke Denis; Tisch LindsayDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): This bill has been a long time coming since the Government was first elected in 2008. Despite serious threats nothing much happened until 2013 and then a rather ham-fisted attempt was made with some stopgap legislation. We had by then seen a situation in which agencies had acted illegally and in which nobody really seemed to know what the law was and it was something of a shambles presided over by a Prime Minister who was clearly not on top of his job. In fact the best thing that came out of the 2013 legislation was the commitment for a comprehensive review and the Cullen-Reddy review has been the result of that.I want to take this opportunity immediately to compliment Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy for an excellent and very comprehensive review which forms the basis for this legislation. It is a comprehensive review and most of its recommendations are to be implemented.New Zealand First takes the need for a robust regime to protect national security across a broad range of threats very seriously. I was very interested to hear the comments made by Amy Adams in her description of the magnitude of cyber-threats which are being mounted against this country on a daily basis. New Zealand First seeks better arrangements than we currently have to ensure the protection we need in a very troubled world but not at the price of the freedoms and privacy that Kiwis are entitled to expect. We will support the bill to the select committee to pursue these dual objectives.The Cullen-Reddy review's recommendations that the Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB) and the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) and their oversight bodies be covered by a single comprehensive piece of legislation are the basis of the bill. It emphasises the need to remove the barriers to effective cooperation between those two agencies and the need to improve transparency and oversight arrangements to give the public greater confidence that the agencies are acting lawfully and appropriately. We support that approach.New Zealand First's objectives have always been firstly to protect Kiwis' civil liberties freedoms and privacy but also protection from threats to our safety and to our essential national security interests. Therefore we fully recognise the need for effective intelligence and we accept the need to conduct surveillance and collect intelligence about New Zealand citizens and residents where necessary provided that there is a robust process for authorisations provided that the law is clear and effective and provided that there are comprehensive review and oversight provisions to give the public confidence that the security agencies are independently supervised and accountable.I was interested in Kennedy Graham's speech. I would like to remind him that the rights of every individual are subject to the rights of others and those rights include the right of security. The rights of individuals are not absolute; they are subject to the rights of others. That is what I think the flaw in his argument is.New Zealand First has a number of issues that it wants to pursue with this bill. One of the concerns is the membership of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. There is still a pretence that there is a Leader of the Opposition and that is archaic in an MMP parliament. There is in fact no such office. That has to be changed. That is in the bill. All of that has to be changed as far as we are concerned. This does not mean that as of right all political parties should be represented but it does mean that representation needs to be more than just the old Labour-National axis. The rationale is that the people on the committee must be experienced and trustworthy and our main concern is that the committee must not be dominated by the Government.Looking at the main elements in the bill there will be a single authorisation regime which seems to me to be robust as set out. Warrants will authorise the agencies to carry out an otherwise unlawful activity where it contributes to [specified] objectives". I think that is very important. Tier 1 warrants are required to collect intelligence about New Zealand citizens or residents and approval for them is required from both the Attorney-General and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. Those two approvals along with the oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security are what is being referred to as the "triple-lock system" as mentioned by the Attorney-General in his speech. The activity authorised must contribute to New Zealand's national security and that term "national security" is therefore very important.As we have heard other speakers say there are two alternatives available—the one in the bill and that promoted by the officials. I prefer at this stage the officials' version over the one in the bill because it seems to me to be more focused and specific listing relevant activities. They were set out well by Mark Mitchell in his speech. I think that seems to me to be the better way to proceed. However in the end the select committee will need to consider and decide on that.The additional criteria for a warrant in clause 57 include a necessity test as well as a proportionate-to-purpose test and require that the purpose of the warrant could not be better achieved by other means. There is also a requirement for reasonable use of the warrant and for the information collected to be used lawfully. That is pretty comprehensive I believe.Tier 2 warrants can be issued to collect intelligence about people who are neither citizens nor residents. These are approved by the Attorney-General only but otherwise the provisions are similar to the tier 1 warrants. That all seems to be quite a good way to deal with the situation as far as New Zealand First is concerned.There is also a need for urgent oral warrants and they are covered in clauses 69 to 71. That power is subject to the requirement for the Attorney-General to immediately advise the Chief Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants who can cancel it until a formal application is made. I would like to say about Andrew Little's comments on that that I do not agree with him that it is inappropriate for the Attorney-General to be able to be the person who authorises those warrants. I think that is quite appropriate. What I would say is that I agreed with Andrew Little when he questioned the length of time that those warrants can endure for. We need to have a look at that in the select committee as well.Privacy issues are of the highest importance. I am very pleased to see that the bill increases the number of information privacy principles applying to the GCSB and the SIS. That will give individuals an avenue for making complaints where none has previously existed.Of the greatest importance the bill improves oversight arrangements. The removal of the current restriction on the inspector-general inquiring into operationally sensitive matters is good to see and clarifying that the inspector-general may review warrants on substantive as well as procedural grounds is a matter that New Zealand First has insisted upon during the consultation process. New Zealand First is pleased to see the inspector-general's appointment will be by the House of Representatives. That will show that person's independence in that role. The inspector-general's functions in clause 121 provide a pretty comprehensive set of review powers that I think will give New Zealanders great confidence that he will be effective in that role. He also has the ability to conduct unscheduled audits of procedures and compliance and I am glad to see that. There is also a complaints procedure of an independent nature to the inspector-general and that is good.Reporting is to the Minister responsible the Prime Minister the director-general of the appropriate agency and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. That also is good to see.Finally it is good to see that the bill also offers some protection to whistleblowers and will bring the agencies within the ambit of the normal State sector arrangements. However the restriction to inform only the inspector-general is something that we will need to consider at the select committee. Whether that is satisfactory or whether there should be a wider ability for people to blow the whistle to other people is something that we need to look at more closely.Finally New Zealand First does welcome this bill—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. His time has expired."