Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The task that we are undergoing is trying to balance the powers that the intelligence agencies need to do their work—and I think every party now acknowledges there is a role for an SIS and a Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in our country. We need legislation that enables them to do what they need to do but prescribes their powers in a way that appropriately balances the privacy and the civil liberties of New Zealanders in particular against excessive intrusion by agencies of the State. I want to give you four examples of why we need to update these laws and why I think this change to the law is necessary.The first and what I think is the most disgraceful episode is one that occurred in 2011 when Warren Tucker the then head of the GCSB colluded with the Prime Minister's department and used or misused information and misrepresented advice in relation to the Hon Phil Goff during the election campaign. The GCSB colluded in that effort. The Hon Phil Goff was besmirched he was accused of being wrong he was accused of misleading and I think some people accused him of lying. It turned out that none of those things were true and that the GCSB was part of a political attack against the Leader of the Opposition at the time during an election. It was an absolutely disgraceful episode in the history of New Zealand's intelligence agencies and of course it did not all come out. The truth did not all come out until the Nicky Hager book which disclosed various emails and it became clear through that process that the arms of State including the new head of the GCSB Rebecca Kitteridge—Hon Christopher Finlayson: SIS.Hon DAVID PARKER: The SIS sorry. It was the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security was it not? The Inspector-General Cheryl Gwyn got on top of it. There was an apology made to Phil Goff and Warren Tucker went into his retirement with a serious stain upon his reputation. That is the first example. The second example was the Dotcom fiasco really which under the pressure of litigation by Dotcom it was made clear that some of the actions of the State including via the GCSB were illegal. That led to a conclusion both that some of its actions were illegal and that it was ambiguous as to whether some of its other actions were legal as well which created problems for the GCSB to do the work that it needed to do. That showed that there was a need for a legislative upgrade. There was some interim legislation that came before the House. There was notoriety around the country—I think there were big protest meetings. I went to one of them in Auckland along with David Shearer and others where Dame Anne Salmond was speaking and they brought to light that the legislation that was then proposed did go further than was being portrayed by the Prime Minister in terms of rights of surveillance against New Zealanders. The Prime Minister at the last minute—I think in just about the third reading of the bill—acknowledged that there were rights of surveillance against New Zealanders that went further than metadata and he promised that in a substantive sense he would not allow those theoretical rights to be used in practice by the organisation. That was better than nothing but the legislation should have covered that rather than it being a ministerial promise.The third example is in respect of an example that was given to us by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn. When she submitted to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee she gave us a copy of a decision by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in the United Kingdom last year that considered what had been happening with their agencies. I was shocked—and I think other members of the committee were shocked as well—to find that in the United Kingdom their spy agencies had been gathering data including locational data about the whereabouts of people using cellphones including the residents of Great Britain without warrant and without the knowledge of Parliament and without the knowledge of the security agency oversight committee. The only person who knew was the Minister and effectively the decision said there had been active hiding of this fact from the various arms of Government—not just for 1 year but for many many years. It showed that you really do need good oversight rules in order to protect and to get this balance right.After that history that I have outlined the Prime Minister wisely appointed Chris Finlayson to sort it out. There was a report prepared by Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy which laid out the foundations for the approach that has been taken. I would have to say that Chris Finlayson has overseen a process in respect of the development of this legislation and the use of the select committee and the listening to of the concerns of civil society and I have never seen a better approach in my 15 years in Parliament. I think that the Attorney-General and his officials at DPMC have done an absolutely splendid job.They let the select committee do its job as well. We had some fantastic submissions not just from the inspector-general but also from the Privacy Commissioner from the Law Society and from civil liberty groups. All of those groups were listened to and I think the serious concerns or the serious matters that were being raised were well addressed by the select committee with the cooperation of officials and the Minister. It was so pleasing to see an example of when the select committee's skills and the select committee process was allowed to run and do its job. That happens best with competent Ministers who do not see the directive—or the approval—that they have had from the draft bill from Cabinet as meaning that there are no further decisions to be taken and who are willing to see to improvements in the bill.In the short time that I have got available I am going to address some of the important changes. I agree with the changes made to the definition of national security". National security is left undefined as it is in the UK but then to get a warrant against a New Zealander it has to fall within a series of categories all of which are serious like espionage. I have a question as to whether the example relating to serious crime is set at too low a threshold at 2 years and that is an issue that the Labour Party is in discussion with National over. Purpose warrants—it is good that they are gone. They were a back-door way of doing things in a more simple less rigorous fashion than is required in respect of other warranting routes.Business records—it is good that we have a regulated route for the obtaining of the records from banks and telecommunications companies (TELCOs). The now very public experience of Nicky Hager in respect of Westpac has meant that banks and TELCOs are becoming nervous about doing these things voluntarily and they want to have a regulated route that prescribes what it is that they should do. We now have that but we also have a requirement for records and ministerial policy statements which enables the inspector-general to keep an eye on that as well. As the Minister has said we have got ministerial oversight statements in a number of other areas that were not provided for in the bill as it came to select committee.There are a couple of other matters. The Minister has referred to the size of the committee; perhaps another of my colleagues could come back to that because I do not have time for that. We agree proportionality is important. We hear the argument that the Minister makes as to having a size of committee that is not unwieldy but we would quite like some further discussion around that. We put in protections to prevent the services being used for political purposes and there is some express recognition given to that in the form of the bill that is reported back.There are some other changes which I am sure will be detailed by other members of the committee. One of the primary concerns that was expressed by the Cullen-Reddy report is that you ought not go too far giving rights in respect of things called economic interests. These really ought to be matters relating to national security rather than economic interests because it is so hard to define and would effectively give too broad powers to the SIS or the GCSB to use their powers against New Zealanders. So the powers in respect of the economic issues are prescribed in this bill in a way that I think is appropriate and meets the concerns expressed by the reviewers.The Labour Party thinks this means that we have among the best oversight legislation of our spy agencies in the world and this legislation has our support. We think that it is very important that the main parties show that support so that we maintain public confidence that we have got this balance right."