Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19624] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I understand that there might not be any standard over and above what is set out in those laws that has to be recognised or complied with by the Security Intelligence Service when it performs its functions under this Act but I do not think we need subsection (2) to state that. That would be the law anyway. All that subsection (1) states is that unless there is some modification in relation to national security by some other enactment then those other enactments apply anyway. So I do not understand why we need subsection (2) and therefore I am confused by what it means. Does it mean that no duties arise under that Act? I thought that was one way we might read it. I find it a surprising and confusing subsection which I think makes this legislation harder to interpret rather than easier.  
I suggest to the Minister that he seek advice from officials as to whether we are making things worse by that rather than better. If particular duties arise under those statutes well they are not abrogated anyway. I presume that they are not intended to be abrogated by new subsection (2). I am left confused as to what that subsection means. I do not think it adds anything to the meaning of the statute but rather it confuses things.  
I would be grateful if the Minister in the chair addresses that issue when he has a chance to consider it. It may well be that the officials under their invisibility cloaks are considering this in some other part of the precinct and maybe they need to come back to him— 
Grant Robertson 
: Send a pigeon. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not think many pigeons are left in the Security Intelligence Service— 
Grant Robertson 
: I thought Mr Finlayson kept pigeons. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am sure he has a cloth cap but I do not know whether he keeps pigeons. But it is a serious issue. I agree that we should insert those principles but I do not understand what subsection (2) does. If it does not impose particular duties does that imply that subsection (1) implies general duties? If it applies general duties rather than particular duties what are they? I do not know. Again I say to the Minister that if it does not require particular duties does it propose general duties and if they are general duties what are they? That seems to me to be undesirable.  
I would have thought we wanted just the obligation for them to act in accordance with New Zealand law except to the extent that they are modified by another enactment. That is all it should say. Otherwise we are left with an uncertainty as to what particular duties under those Acts do or do not apply. Even if that is not a proper concern do general duties arise from these preceding clauses that are broader than statutory duties that arise under the New Zealand laws to which subsection (1)(c)(i) refers to?  
In general Labour members are convinced that the other changes made by Part 1 to the powers of the Security Intelligence Service are necessary. It was pointed out to the committee that various powers are held by other arms of the State like the police relating to newer technologies that have been developed since the original Act was passed some 40 years ago—the 1969 Act—and that technological advances since that date needed to be properly regulated. Indeed if it is a bit like the police then some powers of the Security Intelligence Service would be unregulated because they were not included in the Act and therefore they were not prohibited from being used but under this legislation they will now be regulated. I think that regulation is appropriate. I am sure that other members on behalf of Labour will have some other questions relating to the wording of that provision. I would not mind clarifying it for myself.