Shearer David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shearer David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16022] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. I will speak on the bill in detail because it is an extremely important bill for New Zealand as many of the speakers on this side of the House and from the Greens and the Maori Party have suggested. 
We are sitting under urgency to look at this bill. Two weeks ago we were told by the Leader of the House that the House would not need to go into urgency because the legislative planning was well under control. We would not need to sit here until probably the weekend. None of us on this side of the House have any problem with being here until the weekend but what I do have a problem with is that while we are sitting here under urgency listening to speeches on highly important legislation for New Zealand such as this bill the Government member Louise Upston stood up to take a 2-second call on something that will affect and impinge upon the human rights of every New Zealander in this country. She took a 2-second call. How cynical is that? The Government is putting this bill through the House under urgency yet one of its members stood up to take a 2-second call. And then the Government has insisted on hearing submissions on this bill in secret. How cynical is that? 
This bill is very important. It updates the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. It brings it in line with changes in modern technology. It amends the principal Act the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act to take account of technological changes developments in human rights and case law and the modern requirements of intelligence acquisition. Those have all changed in the last 41 years since the principal Act was put in place. The objectives of the bill are to maintain the SIS’s effectiveness by updating warrants to clarify that modern technical methods of surveillance can be used now. The Internet cellphones and a whole range of different methods are available now that were not even dreamt about 41 years ago. The second objective is to maintain protections of those acting under warrant including exercising entry powers. The third is to improve operational efficiency by allowing a more flexible process for people assisting under warrant. 
That is all very good but there are some fundamental issues with the bill. As my colleague from the Maori Party Hone Harawira just pointed out we need to weigh up matters of national security with issues of human rights and the protection of human rights which we in this modern democracy grow up with and probably take for granted. We need to weigh up national security with human rights. A citizen’s right to privacy and to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure are fundamental rights that we take for granted in this country; we have grown up with them and they are part of our whole being as New Zealanders. We must take care when defining State powers that impact upon those rights. 
Secondly the task of balancing the State’s surveillance powers with the protection of human rights is complex. It is not an easy thing. It comes into conflict often with many many different operational situations. We need therefore the widest range of opinion and advice in hearing this legislation. So I think the input of the Privacy Commissioner the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the development of policy in the committee process will be extremely extremely important. 
Labour as earlier speakers have said will support this bill being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The principal Act is now as I said before 41 years old. It was brought in in 1969 the year we landed on the moon for the first time. The issues that are raised in the bill are important because they involve as I said before balancing privacy and property rights with national security. 
The principal Act contains a range of safeguards in both procedure and oversight. For example the current warrant requires evidence that an interception is necessary to detect activities prejudicial to security that the value of the information justifies any seizure or any sort of activity along those lines that the information is not likely to be obtained by any other less obtrusive or less extreme means and finally that the information is not privileged. We have oversight by the Commissioner of Security Warrants who is a retired High Court judge and the Prime Minister. So this legislation is at the highest levels of our Government system. Therefore it needs and demands to be treated seriously with the respect it deserves. I do not believe that that is the case with regard to the way it is being rammed through the House under urgency and to the trivial call of 1½ seconds from a member on the Government side. 
I will mention a couple of things the bill addresses. When I refer to updating the technology I mean tracking devices and global positioning systems which did not exist 41 years’ ago. The New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs have already had the law defining their activities changed but the SIS has yet to be properly reviewed. As I have said we have the Internet cellphones satellite telephones and a whole range of different technologies that demand that the legislation is brought into the 21st century. But we must ensure that the legislation has the right checks and balances and that as it goes forward it is heard in a public forum. Many members speaking on this bill—those who have deigned to speak for more than 1½ seconds—have spoken about the need for the hearings to be held in public. The Prime Minister came out and said they would be held in private. The Labour Party has said that the hearings need to be held in open session. Lo and behold just yesterday the Prime Minister came out and said he will have a rethink on this policy. That attitude is the Government’s plan and strategy for the future: kick the tyres check the pulse do the polling and change one’s mind. That is what the Prime Minister did. He went away checked the polling and felt that maybe he had overextended the secrecy element and needed to make the hearings more open. 
His predecessor Jenny Shipley had already done that. She said that Security Intelligence Service legislation needs to be heard in secret only where that is warranted; other than that we should hear it in public. This bill is of such importance that it definitely needs to be heard in public. It needs to have a good hearing. It should be talked about and discussed openly right across the country. People should realise that the technological changes which are needed must be balanced with and matched by the ability to protect our human rights and our right not to have our privacy transgressed. 
The Labour Party will support the bill being referred to the committee but we will be listening very carefully to the submissions. I say finally that it would be a really good idea for members of the Government to stand up take a decent call and attribute to the bill the importance that it deserves. The Government is being cynical in rushing the bill through the House under urgency.