Shearer David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Shearer David: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:673;Page:19747] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this legislation. As I said in the Committee stage this legislation is extremely important. It balances the needs and the interests of the State with the interests and the freedoms that we take for granted in New Zealand—our individual and personal freedoms. I would like to comment in passing on Keith Locke’s contribution. There is no doubt that a lot of the security issues that we face in the world are very much seen through a political lens. They may not necessarily be security issues as such but more of a political nature. I commend the Gwynne Dyer article in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 
where he looks at the various permutations that have taken place in the investigation of the killing of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri which was first pinned on the Syrian regime and now has been put on Hezbollah. But the fact that the blame has moved is more about where international politics was standing at the time rather than as he points out the real issue of blame and proof. It is something that we have to take considerable care in addressing when looking at the powers of our security agencies and the way that those powers are manifest here in New Zealand. 
We are very lucky in New Zealand because we are geographically isolated. We do have in a sense that geographic security blanket if you like that comes from being at the bottom of the Pacific. It is more difficult to launch an attack on New Zealand it is more forewarned although I have to say that as cyber and internet threats increase we cannot take that security for granted. A part of that security and again Keith Locke touched on this as well is the fact that we do not have necessarily natural enemies. We have been known for our rather independent stance in the world and that has undoubtedly contributed to New Zealand’s security in the world. 
I was struck by the comments about the recent role of the SAS in Afghanistan. Comments were made about the fact that when SAS soldiers walked out of the operation that they carried out with the Afghan Crisis Response Unit—and this drew criticism from the Prime Minister as well—photographs had been taken and published in our newspapers. The  
New Zealand Herald  
printed them. The television stations on the other hand chose to blank out the various soldiers’ faces. I think this is a little bit like looking at our role there after the horse has bolted in a sense. We know and everybody knows that the New Zealand SAS are in Afghanistan. We know that they are training the Crisis Response Unit. We know they take an active role in operations. When they move around with a Kiwi emblem on their arms we know that those people in uniform are New Zealand soldiers. So when we are taking a photograph of them coming out of an operation it is a little bit late in the piece to say that we should blank out their faces because showing their faces could constitute some sort of security risk. Everybody in Kabul will know who those people are and certainly every journalist and every photographer will know exactly who those people are. I can say that the Taleban are not worried about whether photographs are up on New Zealand television screens or whether the soldiers’ faces have been blanked out in the  
New Zealand Herald  
article in terms of whether they will become a threat. We are somewhat naive in our portrayal of the way we try to protect our soldiers when we put them in that sort of situation when we put them in the situation when they are training and working in an operational way alongside the Crisis Response Unit. 
There have been a number of criticisms about the Crisis Response Unit by Jon Stephenson in terms of the way it handles prisoners and our relationship with the unit. That does not help our independent stance in the world. It creates and propagates the possibility that New Zealand is seen as a threat and therefore a target. 
I come back to the legislation. As other speakers have mentioned the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill is updating the 1969 legislation. It is 42 years old now and of course technology has changed dramatically in that time with the introduction of cellphones the internet data storage and global positioning. A whole range of different electronic techniques have come into being that were not in any way foreseen in 1969. Now of course we are looking to update that. 
But like my colleagues I want to touch on the process by which this legislation has been examined and looked into. As I said at the beginning this is extraordinarily important legislation. It should have generated in my view a great deal more scrutiny and interest from the New Zealand public. Part of the reason it did not get that scrutiny and did not generate that interest was the way that it was handled. First off the first reading which in many ways is the most important reading because it lays out the context in which the legislation is brought into the Parliament was heard under urgency. This is not legislation that I maintain should be considered under urgency. 
Secondly the select committee process was heard in secrecy. That does nothing in any way to alleviate the fears of New Zealanders in terms of whether the provisions contained in this bill can be accepted with a degree of confidence and comfort. Instead it generates the perception out there that this is secret and that it will affect them; it generates a sort of suspicion which we have heard about outside this House. So we have fed those suspicions and those misperceptions rather than allayed them. John Key said he was going to hear it in secret and then he said he was having second thoughts. We were flip-flopping all over the place. Jenny Shipley when she was looking at amending the Act in 1999 maintained that she would hear submissions on that amendment bill in public and that was very much the stance from this side of the House. 
As other people have mentioned it is the time of the Rugby World Cup. I regret the timing in that we are pushing this legislation through in time for that. I would have thought that we had sufficient safeguards in the current operations of both the Security Intelligence Service and our police network to make sure that we had pretty much all of that covered. Nevertheless we will be pushing it through in time for that. I hope as Mr Locke mentioned as well that we will be able to have the time to go back next year to examine the legislation in a great deal more detail and hopefully under a great deal more public scrutiny. 
The bill was amended as it went through Parliament. I just want to make a specific note of some of those amendments that I thought were very positive. Clause 5A inserts new section 4AAA which looks at the “Principles underpinning performance of functions”. This amendment was recommended by the Human Rights Commission. Some people say it does not have teeth but I believe it lays out the real principles on which the Security Intelligence Service should operate and I think those principles are very welcome. The legislation also makes provision for instances of mistaken identity the destruction of irrelevant records and some reporting requirements as well which are all welcome.