Ryall Tony: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4373] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call in the debate on Part 1 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill a bill that the National Party in Opposition is supporting. I think this might also be an opportune time to reflect on my experience as a member of my first dealings with the Government Communications Security Bureau. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You don’t look like a subversive. What happened? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It was in those heady days of the early 1990s when I was a member of the Government Administration Committee—which Mr Prebble as he will recall later joined. 
A series of security and intelligence-related organisations appeared before that select committee which was made up of a number of new members: Christine Fletcher myself and a few other people. Some of those groups that came before the committee had a most intriguing presence. What was interesting was that they could appear before us we could ask them questions but they would never tell us anything—very much like Government departments under this Labour Government. I recall for example that a Mr Parker from the Government Communications Security Bureau came before us. But from the Security Intelligence Service a person incredulously named Mr McIvor appeared before us. Later on another officer of the Security Intelligence Service appeared before us—a Mr Smith—and we had our doubts about these individuals. But the point I raise is I think quite valid because it reflects how the whole of Parliament has developed its scrutiny function of all these security and intelligence-related organisations. 
In the early 1990s those bodies would come before the Government Administration Committee. There would be minimal financial data; it was a very simple input-output mode. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Where is the Minister? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister is here. She has apologised. I call the Hon Tony Ryall. 
Richard Worth 
: I really think that the Hon Tony Ryall should start again because the proceedings to this point have been wholly irregular. It is just our good fortune that a Minister with significant knowledge of this bill has now joined us. What a tragedy it would be if someone who did not have that knowledge had joined us. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing that to my attention. The situation as I understand it is that as long as there is a quorum in the Chamber and a Minister is in the Chamber that is fine. The Minister has now taken her seat and there the matter ends. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Parliament has taken greater powers to itself in the ability to scrutinise those organisations. In the early 1990s there was minimal scrutiny of either their operation or their spending of public moneys. I can recall one situation where I think the Chairperson at the time Christine Fletcher sought to get an indication from one of the intelligence agencies as to some of its activities to which the presenting officer merely smiled and gave those inimitable words: “You might very well think that but I couldn’t possibly comment.” or whatever the phrase of the television programme of the day was. 
We have subsequently seen over the years Parliament form a special committee of its elders chaired by the Prime Minister which has provided much greater scrutiny than a parliamentary forum. Similarly we have seen more information provided under the normal processes of financial review and the estimates process of these agencies. This bill is a further step in that in providing departmental status for the Government Communications Security Bureau and allowing Parliament to undertake its functions to assure the people of New Zealand that the various fundings provided to this agency are well spent. 
What is most interesting to read in the commentary of the select committee is that it is quite clear that any bill of an intelligence nature attracts quite interesting submissioners—people who have quite a bent on conspiracy theories and seem to think that all the Government Communications Security Bureau ever does is listen in on New Zealanders’ telephone calls which is of course expressly prohibited. The bureau is not allowed to listen in on New Zealanders. I think that what is important is that this bill proceed and that we have greater scrutiny of this agency. As members of Parliament we rely on the Intelligence and Security Committee to examine these agencies to ensure that they are complying both legislatively and financially.