Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill today. I did not however have the pleasure of being on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee during its deliberations but from what my colleague the Hon David Parker has said and indeed what other members have said it was quite clearly a process that went I guess a bit above and beyond what some other select committees have done in terms of ensuring that there was a thorough examination and that alternative ideas were listened to. That is very important so I congratulate the committee and obviously the Minister Chris Finlayson who had to leave the Chamber. He was so overexcited by the support that he received from David Parker.Hon Simon Bridges: He's not used to it.GRANT ROBERTSON: He is certainly not used to it from Simon Bridges. David Parker was certainly expressing I think what a lot of people here believe—that Mr Finlayson has done a very good job of ensuring that all voices have been heard on this legislation.In terms of the wider context of this bill I just want to take the time to talk about why we have ended up in this position with this legislation. The first thing is that the Labour Party certainly accepts that this legislation needed to happen. The time had come with a series of incredibly unfortunate incidents that highlighted the discrepancies in our legislation the weaknesses in the operation of the GCSB in particular but also the SIS the contradictions and the gaps. Something needed to be done and this legislation built as it is off the review done by Dame Patsy Reddy and by Michael Cullen was important and was necessary.But I think we have also got to talk about where New Zealanders are today in terms of their view of the security agencies what went on in New Zealand and what was revealed in New Zealand in the 2011 2012 and 2013 periods. My colleague David Parker outlined some of the concerns about that including the Phil Goff and Warren Tucker situation which he mentioned; the complete shambles around the Dotcom case; and the really quite outside of norms" appointment of Ian Fletcher as the head of the GCSB and all that followed from that. That contributed to quite a significant reduction in the confidence of New Zealanders in our security agencies. That is a very serious development. What these security agencies are responsible for are activities that make New Zealanders uncomfortable. They are necessary activities but they make New Zealanders uncomfortable because they infringe upon our privacy. They infringe upon values that New Zealanders hold dear about our privacy. The agencies that have it in their power to spy on people to intrude into people's lives must have the confidence of the New Zealand public. The issue that the country got itself to by the end of 2013 was that they did not trust the GCSB and the SIS; they certainly did not trust the then Prime Minister on that issue. We really did need to rebuild that. That is why this bill mattered and that is why this exercise needed to be done in the way it was.These agencies are necessary. I put myself in the category of New Zealanders who would rather we did not need them. They would rather that we did not have them. But the truth is that in the world we live in we do need these agencies. It is that balance in the minds of New Zealanders that I think this bill has sought to strike. Globally as we moved through that period in 2011 and 2012 greater concerns were being expressed about the intrusion of security agencies into private lives. I think what had happened was a form of mission creep—that over the years the powers that had been given to security and intelligence agencies around the world had been expanded a little and a little more and a little more but always under the cloak of secrecy. Therefore when it was finally exposed in New Zealand as a result of those shambolic actions I mentioned before many New Zealanders were appalled at the state of the security intelligence apparatus—just how far it could go and just how weak the oversight of it was. We have to acknowledge that position and that view in the minds of many New Zealanders. Equally in the minds of many New Zealanders are the threats they see around the world—the growth in global terrorism and the notion as Minister Bridges just mentioned that terrorism can now come down the wire to you in your computer. So New Zealanders know that there are these two competing things that they have heard about—the expansion of the powers that they were uncomfortable with or the unaccountable powers they were uncomfortable with and the growing threat. This bill and the Labour Party seek to find a better balance in those two things between the security that New Zealanders hold dear and the rights to privacy that they hold dear. We sought in going into this process to ensure that we had as our driving force that balance. I believe that at the end of this process we appear to have got largely to that place.We did have serious concerns about the definition of national security being too broad and that it did not focus on the actual threats to security and Government. The new definition is far better. The idea of a closed list a narrower list actually helps New Zealanders to understand what kinds of matters are genuine threats to national security—terrorism violent extremism espionage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.As my colleague David Parker said the question of the definition of serious crime we do still have some concerns about and there is some ongoing dialogue on that matter. But we are comfortable that we now have a definition of national security that is actually one that New Zealanders can look at and say: "Those are the threats that worry me. Those are the threats that New Zealand must take seriously and have the apparatus in place to deal with." Both the Minister and David Parker have gone through a number of the other changes particularly around the types of warrants. I do think that the purpose-based warrant was going to cause some problems for New Zealanders in terms of what those definitions of national security actually meant in practice in terms of the way the security agencies do their work. So I am pleased that they are not going to be used certainly in the case of New Zealanders and that we are moving back to a class-based warrant system in that regard. The triple-lock practice is one that is starting to give people a bit more confidence.I do think the rebuilding of confidence—and I will acknowledge this today in the House—has been helped by a much stronger Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's office. The slightly sad sight before the law was changed the last time in 2013 of the former inspector-general the somewhat bewildered retired judge being pursued down the road by TV cameras having very little idea of what it was he was even meant to be doing was sad slightly comic but actually very bad for New Zealand. Through Cheryl Gwyn and Ben Keith and the people involved in the inspector-general's office we are now starting to see the kind of robust oversight that I think New Zealanders want inside our system.The other change and the one that my colleague David Parker mentioned that the Labour Party does continue to have concerns about is around the committee the scope of the committee and the representation in this Parliament. Of course a committee like this needs some level of proportionality—we absolutely accept that—but to build the confidence that we want from New Zealanders in this legislation we need to ensure that Opposition parties of a reasonable size and scale are represented. I want to say that we should not be afraid in this House to include in that committee parties that may not fully support all the activities of those agencies. That is actually a good thing. If those parties abide by the rules of the committee then their voices are important voices to hear in this debate.My view is actually a personal view—that the oversight arrangements from a parliamentary point of view could be even more robust than what we have in this bill. I know that Andrew Little the Labour leader intends to table a Supplementary Order Paper around the membership of the committee. I think it is an ongoing debate. I looked in 2013 when we last looked at this matter for some other examples around the world—in Australia in Norway where you have much wider oversight. I believe we should continue to consider that—ensuring that there are obligations upon the people who are on the committee to abide by the important secrecy provisions as they would no doubt need to but equally to hear their voice and have their voice heard. I urge the Government to consider supporting the Supplementary Order Paper when it is tabled at the Committee stage and also to consider how we can continue to strengthen those accountability arrangements.The Labour Party will be supporting this bill. We think it is important that there is a bipartisan approach around this new legislation. It goes a very long way towards addressing the concerns that we had at the first reading around strengthening accountability and around narrowing the definition of "national security" and ensuring that we rebuild confidence. I look forward to the further progress of this legislation."