Locke Keith: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19637] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 One of the problems with the Security Intelligence Service as I have said on a few occasions and this is reflected in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill is that it is a rather unaccountable agency—probably the least accountable in our Government system.  
One thing that is reinforced in this amendment bill is the exemption from any litigation of people helping the Security Intelligence Service in terms of warrants. It is true as in any Government agency that if one is obeying the instructions of one’s superiors in carrying out certain Government functions one should not be unnecessarily subject to litigation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Before dinner I was talking about the problem of removing from liability people who help the SIS in the execution of a warrant. I said that when someone is performing a State function for any State organisation the fact that they are obeying the dictates of their superiors must certainly be taken into consideration in most cases. But I do not think there should be a formal exclusion of liability in all circumstances. That exclusion could potentially lead to some people getting off some rather nasty and untoward behaviour.  
I think this is particularly true in the case of an agency that is so secret and that in many regards is not subject to the Official Information Act. It has a let-out clause for matters of national security under the Official Information Act. It does not really have accountability mechanisms that are up to standard. For instance the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is a body that people can appeal to if they ever find out that they are being unjustly spied upon which is often a bit difficult. But that position is essentially part-time it is not very well staffed and for all the good will in the world of the person who may be the incumbent Inspector-General it does not really act as a very good control agency for the SIS.  
Similarly we have heard earlier in the debate that the Intelligence and Security Committee meets in secret and does not meet very often. It is made up of the Prime Minister the Labour leader and their appointees but they are busy people. They have spent a bit of time on this bill which is to their credit and they have come up with some positive amendments to the bill but the Intelligence and Security Committee is not really a proper select committee of Parliament. It is not up to the standard of some of the overseas intelligence committees in Western democracies such as in Britain and elsewhere which have more teeth get more information and are more in the public domain in the sense that problems that arise are discussed openly and reports are made and discussed.  
Even if we look at the report back from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the estimates and the annual reports virtually nothing is there. There is no breakdown of expenses. In that sense the powers we are giving to the Security Intelligence Service under this bill—and I have talked about the liability clause—are not really accountable. There are no real accountability mechanisms to either Parliament or the people and that is one of the reasons why the Green Party is not for proceeding with this particular bill.  
The SIS is unlike the police which has the Independent Police Conduct Authority with very rigorous examination and a proper select committee: the Law and Order Committee. It has all sorts of accountability mechanisms built in and it has more of the public media limelight on it. But where it is necessary it acts in a secret way—if it is tracking down criminals whom it is unwise to warn that the police are giving them some attention. The police combine the necessary secretive element with the proper accountability. Unfortunately the SIS which has been given more powers under this bill does not have those particular mechanisms. 
Clause 1 agreed to.