Power Simon: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4371] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I will make a quick contribution to this debate on the title of the bill. Since I came to the Committee at the start of the debate I have been listening to the opposing views as to the process this bill has gone through. I have listened carefully to the Greens’ views about the bill not having gone to a select committee. Mr Prebble then put the view that a parliamentary committee set up by statute has enabled parliamentary scrutiny to occur on this bill. 
If we go back to first principles we should ask whether the title of the bill reflects its background and key features which are set out on the commentary. It states that the key features of the bill include: “The establishment of the Government Communications Security Bureau as a department of State”. We heard my colleague Richard Worth moot that the title might be made more descriptive in nature by an amendment reflecting that that department of State is to be established. We will have to wait until the part-by-part voting to see whether Mr Worth puts forward an amendment to that effect. 
Another key feature of this bill is to make sure that the title accurately reflects the objectives and functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau. I am not exactly sure how a title could do that in itself but interestingly the next key feature is the regulation of the bureau’s functions with respect to the interception of communications. I jotted down some of Rod Donald’s alternative bill titles. He argued that it should be amended to read the “Mandated by Statutory Select Committee Not Parliamentary Select Committee Bill”. 
Rod Donald 
: Did I? 
SIMON POWER 
: I think the member may have suggested that. The point is that the bill has been subject to the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee—and that is an important point to make. Mr Donald also offered the “Secret Spying on Pacific Island and Trading Partners Bill”—or words to that effect—as an alternative title. 
Mr Prebble has quite rightly made the point that it cuts both ways with legislation like this; that yes some interference in privacy issues relating to domestic communications does occur—I will come back to that—but more important there is some regulation around the ability of sovereign foreign bodies to draw information out of the domestic communications market as it were. I worry that Mr Donald views another proposed amendment to the title to be the “Extension of Surveillance Bill” or the “Insult to the Privacy of New Zealand Citizens Bill”. 
Interestingly that does raise an interesting point. In effect the bill tries to draw out the argument that in this instance issues relating to the public good and in particular those matters that Mr Prebble raised—essentially the security of the New Zealand people—actually outweigh the rights of those individuals in our society to privacy in certain matters. There is no doubt that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act confers privacy on individuals and their communications and that is a view that should be respected across the board in New Zealand society. But every now and again issues of greater good that are bigger than any privacy issues surrounding any one individual will occur and this is one of those issues. That is why the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill is essential why its title reflects the establishment of the bureau as a department of State and why in this case that balance tips firmly in the favour of the public good and in fact of the security interests of New Zealanders given these uncertain times that we live in. While we are dealing with the title I also think it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to the commentary on the bill. 
Clause 1 agreed to.