Mallard Trevor: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9674. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think I would start my point by noting the fact that the Government decided to put up Todd McClay on intelligence legislation—a contradiction in terms to start with.I think most people are aware of the fact—although some of the new members might not be—that I have had a mixed history in this House to do with security legislation. I was arrested in the House opposing the 1977 legislation and the core reason that I was opposing it and why many many New Zealanders marched on this Parliament was because we did not think the Prime Minister of the day deserved the trust that was being given to him as part of that legislation. I think we have come full circle. I certainly trusted Jim Bolger with the legislation. Jenny Shipley I did not know well enough to know how she acted in this area. Helen Clark and David Lange certainly took thislegislation very very seriously across security areas. But times have changed. I have no doubt that we need changes in our security legislation not only to do with this agency but also to do with the SIS. In fact I have been part of consultations on changes to the SIS legislation and it just seems to me unbelievable that the Prime Minister is trying to do a patch job on this bit of the legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill without having a proper look across all of the agencies as to what needs to happen.And I will say something else. There are considerable infringements of personal liberties that flow from this legislation—considerable. What this Parliament does when it is doing its work well is it comes together and works out what is fair and what is reasonable. I am just going to say this a little bit carefully to the people who I hope will be supporting a Labour Government later on: we do not always get everyone on board but I think it is important in order for legislation to be seen as reasonable for it to be at least bipartisan. I think that that is a minimum for this sort of legislation which infringes so badly on the liberties of individuals.I think something else is important and that is oversight. I want to say that there are two levels of oversight that I am worried about here. There is the oversight of the legislation—and we will get back to that later on as to which committee it is going to go to and for what period—but there is also the question of the oversight of the agency itself. I think we should soon be at a point where we can have someone whom we trust to oversee it—someone who cares about the governance someone who gets regular briefings on matters that are important and someone who does not appoint his boyhood friend as a director and does not suggest to him that he should apply for the job. We want to have a group in charge of this that is going to haul the director over the coals. It is important when so many rights are being taken away that the individuals who are making those decisions are properly accountable and this legislation does not get anywhere near that at all.That is why in my opinion there needs to be a proper review—a proper inquiry. I would suggest that it would be a good idea to involve people from offshore as well as from New Zealand—Australia has done it twice in recent memory—to have a really good look at our mosaic of security arrangements because I do agree with the Prime Minister that they are out of date. The legislation is out of date. I think the pattern of arrangements is out of date. The fact that it appears that our information is sent almost automatically to the United States from this organisation is out of date. It has got to change and this legislation does not do it.