Coleman Jonathan: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeColeman Jonathan: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12712. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment BillInspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment BillHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence):That contribution from the Green member—Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether you could indicate whether you had given sufficient consideration to Standing Order 103.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Business Committee determines the business under Standing Order 77. It has not allocated any time to you to speak in this debate and I have called the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman.Brendan Horan: Point of order. Yes Standing Order 77 does give—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have ruled and that is the end of the matter. I am calling Dr Jonathan Coleman.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just noticed that we are very close to the dinner break and I am just wondering whether the clock will be restarted at the start of my 10 minutes because—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No you will start—Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well I did not even get my mouth open.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): You will start now.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: OK. Well listening to that Green contribution shows you what a threat that party would be if it ever secures the Treasury benches because Steffan Browning quite clearly does not believe that there is a need for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in New Zealand. That is what you would expect from the lunatic Green fringe but I expected much more from the Labour Party and it is very disappointing that through this debate the Labour Party with the notable exception of David Parker has failed to—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I was saying this is vital legislation which needs to be passed. It is in the very best interests of the nation’s security it is in the very best interests of the New Zealand people and it is legislation that I am not surprised that the Green Party is not supporting although I am very very disappointed with the comments of Labour members here tonight. Those members over there should know better and they do know better but they have chosen to play politics with this issue right throughout this debate. What they realise and Grant Robertson fully understands it is that the Government is just tidying up the flawed legislation of 2003—legislation that the Labour Government brought into being. There was an inherent contradiction in that law. It allowed the GCSB to act on behalf of Government agencies that had a lawful basis for carrying out surveillance activities but at the same time that legislation stipulated that the GCSB could not spy on New Zealanders.This legislation that the House is going to pass tonight provides a clear and consistent statutory framework for the GCSB as well as greater oversight. It is absolutely important that the public understands that because this does not widen the powers of the GCSB—Andrew Little: Yes it does.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —as the angry man from the Koru Club is claiming. What it is actually doing is narrowing the powers of the GCSB and providing greater oversight. I can tell you that as technology moves forward the nature of the national security threats that we face will continue to evolve.The new section 8 as set out in clause 6 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill sets out and confirms that the GCSB has three functions. Chris Finlayson covered those very well in his speech but just to reiterate they are foreign intelligence; cyber-security; and assistance to police the New Zealand Defence Force and the SIS. In light of the modern threats to New Zealand’s physical and economic security each and every one of those functions is vital. I think it is disappointing that no one from the Labour side has actually discussed the substance of the bill apart from a little bit there from David Parker. There needs to be a far greater contribution from Labour members. But the time has passed. The debate is virtually over.It is also critical that the GCSB has proper oversight and operates pursuant to very clear legislation. This bill achieves all of those critical requirements. On the matter of foreign intelligence the function of the GCSB is largely unchanged but the law is made clear and simplified and it adds protection for New Zealanders inadvertently caught up in incidentally obtained intelligence. That is a very important point.In regard to the cyber-security function the bill gives the GCSB a clearly defined and limited role. As we know cyber-attacks are a growing and ever-changing threat and this law needs to be updated in response. For that reason the bill sets out a veryclear mandate for the GCSB to help Government organisations and private companies prevent cyber-attacks thereby protecting our economic well-being and our intellectual property. The threat from those cyber-attacks is very real. The damage that they can inflict from theft of intellectual property through to damage of critical infrastructure is a threat that New Zealand faces on an almost daily basis. Those who suggest that New Zealand should not empower our security agency to protect the country from those types of threats are frankly being both very reckless and extremely naive.Left-wing critics of this bill are effectively saying that New Zealand should refuse to provide cyber-security protection to New Zealand citizens and businesses. Doing so would not be a grand act of principle; it would be the single most reckless security decision that any New Zealand Government has ever taken. No serious political party would ever consider abolishing the police and leaving New Zealanders vulnerable to internal criminal threats. No serious party would consider abolishing the New Zealand Defence Force and leaving New Zealand unable to protect itself from external threats or to pursue our interests overseas. So no serious political party could seriously suggest kneecapping theGCSB’s cyber-security function—New Zealand’s single biggest defence against a new and insidious form of attack that is more than doubling every year. But Russel Norman explicitly spoke out against the GCSB. He spoke about a global surveillance State. He called New Zealand under the National Government an authoritarian State. I believe that is misleading and untruthful. But what it does show is that the Greens do not believe that the GCSB has a function in New Zealand and quite frankly that is reckless and irresponsible and just demonstrates that they are unfit to ever be part of a Government. I think the Labour Party should bear that in mind.The bill also provides the GCSB with the legal framework needed to ensure that it can provide a vital level of protection to New Zealand and the oversight to make sure that it does so lawfully. In terms of its assistance function this bill makes it clear that when the GCSB assists another agency it is subject to the same limitations oversight and restrictions that the requesting agency is subject to. As Minister of Defence I am directly aware of just how important the assistance of the GCSB is for keeping our people safe when they are overseas on deployment. Although we cannot talk about the operational details it has to be put on record that the work of the GCSB saves New Zealand lives when our people are on deployment in theatre. There is no question that that has happened. So I am very disappointed actually that Phil Goff has not shared some of the knowledge that he has from his time as Minister of Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and instead has decided to play petty party politics.It is also true that theGCSB’s resources are absolutely vital for assisting the SIS and police. It would be beyond stupid to try to replicate those functions independently across all three agencies. That would drastically increase costs and decrease effectiveness. Of course there has been a lot of talk during this debate about oversight of the GCSB but increased oversight is exactly what this legislation enables. It provides a clear and consistent statutory framework under which the GCSB will operate.The Labour Party has done a good job of pretending to be constructive during the debate but its demands for safeguards have pretty much been hollow political posturing. The safeguards are already there in the legislation. They are probably the most extensive safeguards that exist in any New Zealand legislation. Labour has called for limits onwarrantless powers. Thewarrantless powers in its 2003 legislation are severely restricted by this legislation which will pass tonight.Labour has also called for the inspector-general to be given more powers. That has already happened. The inspector-general will now be one of the most powerful independent officials in New Zealand and further they will have an advisory panel to back them up. Under the old legislation the Inspector-General of Intelligence andSecurity was a one-person band with limited powers. Under this new legislation the inspector-general will be supported by staffing resources a deputy and a two-person panel. The inspector-general will also be able to undertake on-the-spot surprise audits.Labour has called for a review of the legislation. This legislation requires not only that an independent review occur before 30 June 2015 but that subsequent reviews be held every 5 to 7 years. It is already there in the legislation.So for all the hyperbole the debate has boiled down to the simple question of whether new sections 8 to 8D represent an expansion of theGCSB’s powers. Everything else has been noise. This bill provides a vast array of further checks and balances. New limitations have been added such as the requirement that warrants must be issued jointly by the Minister responsible for the GCSB and the Commissioner of Security Warrants and that privileged communications cannot be targeted. The GCSB will have to report annually on the number of warrants and authorisations issued and the number of instances where it provided assistance to the three agencies. Further public hearings will be held and there will be an independent review of the operations and performance of the GCSB and the New Zealand SIS in 2015 and then every 5 to 7 years afterwards. Those changes have improved the legislation enabling greater transparency and stronger independent oversight.There has also been plenty of scrutiny and debate around process. There were 122 submissions. The Prime Minister chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee which considered those submissions and I would ask the public to consider this: in what other country in the world could someone like Kim Dotcom come into Parliament and harangue a Prime Minister? That is exactly what happened there. So to say that we have not been upfront and open about the legislation is totally misleading. Anyway I think we have outlined comprehensively the case for the GCSB. We have described the three functions. This is vital legislation for New Zealand. It is intrinsically tied up with our security. It is good legislation. It should pass. I commend this legislation to the House.