Flavell Te Ururoa: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
[Volume:630;Page:2086] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 The Maori Party is pleased to stand today in respect of the motion that refers to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We certainly support the call that has been consistently presented by Mr Keith Locke and the Green Party for a broader debate on the issue of intelligence and security matters. 
When I was not yet an MP the word was that the new anti-terrorism legislation currently going through Parliament could see protestors or activists designated as terrorists. Mr Locke argued publicly that the proposed legislation being pushed through by the Government at that time was a travesty of democracy. His concern was the obscene rush in which the strict new measures were being forced through without public consultation and it made me think at the time—and I still am considering—about why there was not a broader discussion on how this nation protects itself and who it is protecting itself from. Now that the cold war is over who is the enemy? 
It is a very appropriate time for such a debate to be generated as the State Services Commission embarks upon its recruitment period for a new Director of Security for the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. From what I understand there has always been a fascination for that particular place—the so-called “Kingdom of Secrets”—and for what consequences it has in curtailing the freedom and civil rights of citizens. Tangata whenua have consistently put forward concerns that the Security Intelligence Service has bugged decent law-abiding New Zealanders to find the dirt on individuals. 
The Maori Party had a particular involvement with the nature of the checks and protections made upon citizens in late 2004. At that time many will remember a Sunday newspaper reported that intelligence sources had revealed that the Security Intelligence Service had launched a major covert operation investigating the Maori Party—our members leaders networks and associates. The newspaper provided a detailed description of a top-secret programme called Operation Leaf which was a major Security Intelligence Service programme targeting a variety of Maori organisations and individuals over several years. At that time one of the former Security Intelligence Service agents interviewed in the article allegedly said that he quit the operation because he was disgusted at the system which was spying on decent law-abiding New Zealanders. 
As we considered the most appropriate action to take in that matter as a party the Prime Minister responded with reports that those allegations were “a work of fiction” and “laughable”. The party was in a quandary. Was the Prime Minister speaking in her capacity as the Prime Minister or in her role as the Minister in charge of the Security Intelligence Service—the same Minister who signs all interception warrants? Frankly we were in no position to judge. 
We decided instead to take action on behalf of everyday decent law-abiding citizens to allay any concerns that they too would run the risk of coming under Security Intelligence Service surveillance if they made the fine decision to join the mighty Maori Party. We therefore called on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security retired judge Justice Paul Neazor to initiate an inquiry into the allegations made about the activities of the Security Intelligence Service. 
The motions we are discussing today are focused on the special parliamentary committee charged with the oversight of the intelligence agencies. The Intelligence and Security Committee was set up under 1996 legislation to increase the level of oversight and review of the Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau. Yet no matter how effective the committee’s members might be—and we know full well that ACT leader Rodney Hide will do his utmost to apply rigor and reason to his role in that forum—it is still somewhat hampered in its coverage. I say that because my understanding is that although the committee can examine policies administration and spending it is barred by law from delving into operationally sensitive matters including any that relate to intelligence collection. 
Returning to the time when our party was under the spotlight for security issues there was unprecedented support across all parties—National ACT New Zealand First United Future the Greens and the Maori Party—for some kind of inquiry into the allegations published in the media. As any member of this House will know achieving a collective voice on any issue on any one day is extremely improbable. That widespread support to uncover who spies on the spies is clearly an issue that we are all keen to explore further. 
As I understand it Dr Brash—himself a member of the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee that oversees the Security Intelligence Service—stated that he thought the allegations were too serious to ignore and that only an independent inquiry could clear up the issue. Indeed he believed that the claims had the potential to put the public confidence in the Security Intelligence Service at risk. Our now Minister of Foreign Affairs said then he thought that the allegations were disquieting and that a ministerial inquiry would work only if the person had the public’s confidence and was independent of the Government. ACT leader Rodney Hide said that the only way to deal with such serious allegations was to initiate an independent inquiry by a judicial officer with the powers to ensure that the Security Intelligence Service cooperated. 
I will not go on but I think it is noticeable that such widespread cross-party support is rare and it reminds us all of the need to stay vigilant. The perception of bias and dirt gathering accurate or otherwise by politicians and the public must be investigated if we are ever to develop trust in our existing systems of freedom and justice. The security and intelligence systems operating in this land must be subject to the scrutiny of public debate and official inquiry. New Zealanders take for granted that our freedom to live in an open democracy is a basic standard of living for our nation. But we also recognise the significance of every country having a right to security and a right to be secure from its neighbours. No country should ever be in a position of being threatened in the way that we have seen with nations around the globe. We have an expression in te reo Maori: “Me te kahu e topaana ki te kiore.”—like the hawk swooping down on the rat. By this we consider the taua the war party who may attack another without warning. Essentially it refers to the need to be aware of the unseen enemy. But we also need to be open to exploring this new concept of protection security and being threatened. We need to think carefully about how we agree on those we think will be like the kahu swooping down on us and on those who are the unseen enemy. 
The Maori Party is aware of the double-edged sword that comes with any debate on intelligence and security matters. There is no argument that we must ensure individual liberties and also ensure that people are able to have a voice whether it be by ministerial letter submission appeal to the court talkback radio liberation movements or mass protest. We also agree that there are mechanisms for responding to crimes of terrorism through the criminal law system. We must have the right to have our rangatiratanga protected as we affirm the right to the rangatiratanga of any other people—the right to maintain our and their sense of being.