Goff Phil: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12364. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I want to first refer back to the speech of Peter Dunne because I went back and checked what Peter Dunne said 3 weeks ago on Radio New Zealand. This is what he said: under no circumstances should the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) be able to spy on New Zealanders—under no circumstances should the GCSB be able to spy on New Zealanders. Then Jane Patterson said: “Not even with a warrant?”. Peter Dunne said no not even with a warrant. On the integrity of this man rests the Government’s ability to pass this legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. Peter Dunne has not simply refined his position he has totally contradicted the position he took before. When asked why he said that there was a willing buyer and a willing seller. Well he sold his soul. That was the sale price. What did the buyer give him for that? Some people would be tempted to say 30 pieces of silver. I think it was probably more likely a nice ambassadorial position somewhere. But I have got to say to Peter Dunne that his position makes a mockery of his outrage and indignation that emails phone records and swipe card records are being spied upon because he is facilitating a piece of legislation that does not have adequate oversight to stop that very sort of abuse.I want to come to Mr Coleman and Ms Tolley. They presume to speak on behalf of former Prime Minister Helen Clark. They do not know Helen Clark. On this side of the Chamber we know Helen Clark and we know those members and I can tell Jonathan Coleman that Helen Clark’s values have nothing in common with anything he stands for and that applies to Anne Tolley as well—absolutely nothing in common. So do not come into this Chamber and pretend to speak for Helen Clark which actually in terms of diplomatic protocol is quite out of order because she is an international official and those members should not breach that protocol anyway. Then Anne Tolley comes in and says that the Opposition is politicking with the bill and that normally you would get bipartisan support. I want to say to Ms Tolley that we tried and I was part of it—Hon Anne Tolley: Mrs.Hon PHIL GOFF: —Mrs if you like. She misses the point every bloody time. I want to say to Anne Tolley that we worked really hard to try to find common ground that would balance the need to have security agencies with proper oversight over those agencies to ensure that the rights and the freedoms of New Zealanders to not improperly have their privacy breached were protected. We tried really hard. New Zealand First tried.As soon as John Key knew that he had his one vote majority relying on John Banks the man who could not remember Kim Dotcom the man who lied about the donation and the discredited Peter Dunne whom Mr Key sacked for leaking that Cabinet paper—that is the sort of bipartisanship Mrs Tolley that you are after. Once you knew that you had two disgraced members of Parliament that this Government could rely on no effortwas made to get consensus. This party has always supported the need for security agencies but under proper controls.Then we had the Orwellian Mr Coleman talking about how this bill does not widen powers; it narrows them. That is straight out ofNineteen Eighty-Four . Well Mr Coleman it seems that the New Zealand Law Society does not agree with you. What does it say in its submission? Point 15 states: “It seems that the underlying objective of the legislation is to give the GCSB powers it lacked previously: the power to conduct surveillance on New Zealand citizens and residents. No explanation or justification for the conferral of this power is given.” That Mr Finlayson is what your union the New Zealand Law Society told the Intelligence and Security Committee.I want to speak in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 305 which is in the name of David Shearer. It proposes that there should be a full and independent public inquiry. But in an endeavour to actually find common ground with the Government it says that if you could show us that there is an urgent reason why you need this legislation put a sunset clause in and have an inquiry that will report at the time the sunset clause runs out. That is a real effort to compromise to find common ground to get broad support and to get the best possible piece of legislation.Anybody who is rational would say that what you do before you decide to make ad hoc changes to the SIS legislation the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill and the Government Communications Security Bureau Act is you actually have a full and independent inquiry that would look at a number of things. It would look at why wider powers are being sought. If you are going to broaden the power to allow the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders for heaven’s sake justify it. Mr Coleman talked about process. There is nothing wrong with process. I am on the committee with Clare Curran that is looking at the telecommunications bill. David Shearer was on the Intelligence and Security Committee. We both wanted the same thing. We wanted the GCSB the SIS the New Zealand Police and the Defence Force to come before the committees and justify the extension of powers. Would the National Government allow that to happen with the critical agencies? No. John Key vetoed the critical agencies being able to even present evidence in private before those committees. This bill is meant to be about openness and transparency if we are to rebuild the confidence in our security agencies yet those critical agencies were not allowed by the Prime Minister to present evidence or to answer questions. What has that man got to hide that he would not allow that to happen?We want to know in the broad inquiry whether the agencies are competent and effective. I have worked with those agencies for 9 years. I have got to say that I think that a lot could be done to improve the competency and the efficiency of those agencies. With 9 years of working with them I think I have got the right to make that sort of judgment.The third thing that the inquiry would look at is what sorts of safeguards are required so that the agencies could do a proper job in looking after New Zealand’s security but not be at risk of breaching those powers. When you have got two insiders including MarieShroff who was Secretary of the Cabinet for well over a decade saying as Privacy Commissioner that this legislation should not proceed without a broader inquiry then I say to the Government and I say to the Attorney-General that they should listen to MarieShroff. She knows how the system works. When David McDowell the former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet says that this bill does not have enough safeguards and that even if we had a Prime Minister who was interested in exercising scrutiny over the GCSB you could not guarantee that that Prime Minister would be getting the information that he or she needs you should be listeningto those people. They are not wild-eyed radicals; they are people who know the system know how the system has been abused and they say that this bill is not good enough.Mr Coleman nods his head. His New Zealand Defence Force had on record—he did not know about it; nor did I—that you are subversive if you bring the Government into disrepute. Stand up all the subversives on this side of the Chamber! That is our job. We hold the Government to account. And worse than that that Defence Force security manual said that investigative journalists were within the category of being subversive. Investigative journalists were defined as subversive. Mr Coleman the Defence Force never told you that that was in its manual yet you come to this Chamber and say that we should give the power under this clause and this section to the Defence Force to be able to get information from the GCSB—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. [Interruption ]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption ] Order! When I am on my feet there will be silence.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Just for the record it was the Labour Government that started—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no—[Interruption ] Order! No. Order! Be quiet. That is not helpful because that is not a point of order; that is a debating point.Hon PHIL GOFF: I would be well compensated by receiving a third call on this bill for that unwarranted interruption.Hon Member: Unwarranted?Hon PHIL GOFF: Unwarranted absolutely—no pun intended. The full and independent inquiry is patently necessary when 40 percent of New Zealanders Mrs Tolley say that they have no trust or confidence in the GCSB—40 percent of New Zealanders. That does not allow that agency to operate right now with the confidence of New Zealanders and even less so when it has a further extension—