Sio William: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 08 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12557. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):This is my first call on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. It has been suggested that the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General has attempted to try to give assurances to this Committee on Part 2 but I would like to say to this Committee that if Part 1 and Part 3 are the bad parts of this legislation and if Part 2 is supposedly good then what kind of law do we then have? I am reminded that if you put a two-thirds part of dirty water into a glass of a one-third part that is clean what you end up with is a murky glass of water—a dirty stinky murky glass of water. The point is that irrespective of the assurances that the Minister has attempted to try to provide in Part 2 the overall bill is bad law. I think that is the message that New Zealanders have received from this particular Government: the result of this bill is one full dirty stinky glass of water—or bad law. So even though Part 2 might be considered as having some merits small as they may be the fact remains that overall this is bad law.I think that the protests in the last week or so up and down this country surely should give some indication to this Government about the strong views that New Zealanders have. I think that the question that most New Zealanders will be asking about as a result of the way this Government is rushing this piece of legislation through is the question of trust: can the people of New Zealand trust the way this Government is dealing with this by legislation? Can the people of New Zealand trust this Government—period?I say that this is bad law because New Zealanders know that this Government is introducing new and intrusive powers that enable a spy agency to apply intrusive State powers into the privacy of New Zealanders. That is the question that causes people to question the trust factor of this particular Government. Consider the significance of the personalities who have come out publicly and openly in opposition to the way this Government has dealt with this. From Ninety Mile Beach up north to Invercargill—Dr David Clark: The Mayor of Dunedin.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: The Mayor of Dunedin—Simon O’Connor: How does that member have this information?Su’aWILLIAM SIO: Look it is easy. Read it in the papers. It has been up and down on the front pages of the newspapers about how significantly New Zealanders feel about this Government and the way that it has handled “spy-gate” or “Key-gate”.Part 2 new section 5 in clause 29 talks about the appointment of the Inspector-General and the Deputy Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Again the question of trust arises because if the Prime Minister is the one who is now charged with the appointment of the inspector-general and the deputy inspector-general and we are expected to put our trust and faith in a Prime Minister who circumvented the normal processes of appointment and appointed his mate by abusing the appointment process that calls into question the trust factor of this Government and the way that it has dealt with this issue.My colleague Phil Goff talked about Part 2 moving cautiously and marginally. The reality is that Part 2 does not provide any oversight or guarantee of protection from the abuse of power. There is no trust established by simply saying that the inspector-general is going to be appointed by the Prime Minister. What Part 2 of the bill does is create an environment that will allow the abuse of powers and most New Zealanders now see how the rushing of this legislation is more about hiding and protecting the wrongs that this Government has done rather than attempting to protect the rights—