Cunliffe DavidHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a pleasure to make a speech in this third reading debate and to echo my colleagues' support for the bill. This is a very important bill and I want to echo my colleagues' commendation of the approach of the Attorney-General and Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service the Hon Chris Finlayson. He has been open in his consultation and he has been determined to forge a multipartisan consensus as far as possible—it is not quite complete—in this House. That is entirely appropriate in legislation of this nature which must stand the test of time and must by definition—as it requires and empowers the intrusive role of the State—have support broadly around this House and it does.This bill seeks to achieve two things. It seeks to modernise and make more effective the legislative framework that empowers the operations of our security services and in particular the GCSB—the Government Communications Security Bureau; the computer spies as it were. Secondly it seeks to reinforce and rebuild public confidence by ensuring that there is a strong and watertight set of protections around privacy around human rights around the rule of law and around the constitutionality of the exercise of those powers. Although I was not present on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for all of the bill's consideration for that which I have seen I want to add my thanks to that of my colleagues for the officials who worked so diligently and robustly on the bill. I think it largely achieves those things.Let me note on the effectiveness side several matters that the bill sets precedents on which I described in the second reading as crossings of Rubicons. The first is that historically New Zealand law has always kept separate the domestic and human intelligence role of the Security Intelligence Service from the very largely international and cyber role of the Government Communications Security Bureau. This bill brings both together for the first time in a single coherent legislative framework as was recommended in the Reddy-Cullen review. That is something that provided the protections are robust we feel is appropriate. It will make the agencies more able to work sensibly together.Secondly the bill codifies for the first time a broader set of ways in which the security agencies might work directly with our police and with other relevant Government agencies like Customs or Immigration. That is also appropriate because the right hand must know what the left hand is doing and there must be codification of what is permissible and not permissible in terms of those agencies' interactions. But it is vital as we saw from the much-contested fiasco around the early interdiction of Kim Dotcom that the mechanisms for that interaction are robust that they are clear that they are within the rule of law and that they are strictly monitored—and the bill provides for that.A third and very important Rubicon that is crossed here for the first time is that there is an explicit ability for the New Zealand GCSB to carry out an intercept without a warrant on a New Zealand citizen. That is something that was technically possible under the previous law changes but for which the former Prime Minister Mr Key gave a blanket assurance that no action would be taken—that it would not be used. It was something contained in the information infrastructure provisions. Well in this bill that ability is written in explicitly for the first time. It is absolutely appropriate therefore that that happens only with sufficient protections. It can happen only if there is no other way in respect of a great harm—and the types of harms like a terrorist attack are listed explicitly—and if the normal processes could not be achieved because there would not be time to get a warrant. And if the special urgent or very urgent processes are used then they must be notified to and checked by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who has the ability to nullify the action and nullify any information gained. If it is not a properly sanctioned operation then those protections exist.I would say this to Minister Finlayson: that was not necessarily an easy position for this side of the House to come to. We were necessarily reassured by the protections in the bill and we will want the cooperation of the Government which I am sure you would want to see to see that it is effectively and thoroughly monitored going forward.There are a number of matters in the bill that the select committee made further amendments on and I just want to touch on a couple of those as I have a little time. The details of the two-part test for the issues of type 1 intelligence warrants I have touched on but it is going to be very clear that the authorising Minister and the Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants must be satisfied that a proposed otherwise unlawful activity by an agency—an intercept for example—would be necessary to contribute to the protection of national security as defined in the bill. Secondly the agency's action would be necessary to identify enable the assessment of or protect against one or more of a limited and specific set of harms like a proximate threat of sabotage or a terrorist incident. These are not general sweeping powers to the extent that it is a blanket catch-all authorisation.There was significant debate in the Committee of the whole House stage and in the select committee about which Minister should be the one to issue those warrants alongside the Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. There was a debate as to whether it should be the Attorney-General who holds a special and independent role as a law officer or whether it should be the operational Minister of intelligence and security. Currently the Hon Chris Finlayson wears both hats but it is unlikely that that will necessarily remain in future—for example after 23 September who knows? But we must allow in the law for all sorts of possibilities. Mr Finlayson told the House that as a law officer he felt that it was more important that the Attorney-General stood back from the day-to-day operations and that operationally it is better for the Minister directly involved to be the one issuing the warrants.Our side of the House was persuaded by that on balance but it is an on-balance call and is one that will require ongoing monitoring because the risk that we are all aware of is that the Minister concerned becomes operationally too close to his or her department and lacks—or could lack in future; not currently—the objectivity of judgment to draw a line at exactly the right place where an intercept would not be justified because there were other lawful means for example of preventing the harm. I do want to note that that is a debate that has been had. We have reached a point of balance that allows the operational Minister to be one of the signatories but that will continue to be monitored.There is a lot of debate about third-party intercepts. I am pleased to see that this bill makes explicit that it is not possible for our intelligence agencies to request or receive blanket surveillance on New Zealand citizens from a third party as a way of contravening or getting around prescriptions that would otherwise be in the New Zealand domestic law. That is welcome because of course many of today's IT infrastructure providers are global in nature and located in the home jurisdiction of friendly countries which may well be partners of our agencies.I want to stress the importance of those agencies always and without fail operating within the law as put in the bill and as stressed by both the inspector-general and the Ministers. Public confidence is slowly built and can be destroyed with a single incident. My colleagues have mentioned the Warren Tucker - Phil Goff interchange. That was a low point. I am happy to say that the current director of the SIS enjoys the confidence of the Labour Opposition and we would not expect to see that recur.We think this bill is a step forward in terms of enshrining the protections that New Zealanders hold dear. We will be vigilant. We will monitor this most important piece of legislation. I want to join with my colleagues in extending commendation across the House to all members of the select committee to the officials and to the Ministers who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the House. Thus we support it in its passage.