Prebble Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4387] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I hope the Minister has listened to what Mr Ron Mark said because I think he is right. It does appear to me that this bill has been overtaken by another bill which we have just passed. The Minister may not be interested but I see that the director is here. If he wants to be paid it would be a really good idea to make an amendment to this clause. Otherwise the director who does deserve to get paid will not be paid. So I compliment Mr Ron Mark on discovering that matter and I am sure the Minister would be rather pleased if we carried on discussing it for a while but I turn to another point. 
Some members were asking whether any members of the committee could explain why there was an amendment to clause 8(1)(d). I have had a look at that and I think the reason is apparent on the face of it. This is the clause that states: “to provide reports on foreign intelligence to the Minister and any person or office holder” and the addition states: “whether in New Zealand or abroad”. If it were not for that amendment one could say that the provision related only to foreign intelligence from overseas but of course there can in fact be foreign intelligence—as within our definition; to do with foreigners—within New Zealand and indeed quite often it may be. That is my memory of why that amendment is there but if the Minister—who is now I hope taking an interest—would also like to look at clause 9(2) she could confirm whether the answer I am giving is correct. 
I say again when I look at this bill that the Green Party in my view has a duty when looking at legislation to move beyond just making meaningless slogans and look at the reality. We are passing laws; those members sought to be members of Parliament. If they sought to be MPs then they have a duty to this House to debate in an intelligent and rational way. The sorts of things that we have been hearing from the Green Party are complete nonsense. The first example of that is the suggestion this bill has been put together in order to find work for the Government Communications Security Bureau. Where have the Greens been? The idea that there are now no threats to New Zealand is as silly as the proposal which I heard from a very senior member of this House that we live in a benign environment. We actually face more security threats today than we have faced for many years and they come from terrorists. If the Green Party is not prepared to use this type of intelligence to combat terrorists how does it propose we do it? Are they just proposing that somehow or other we can just say that we are so supportive? I listened to a suggestion made by Mr Donald—which I thought was greatly offensive—that terrorism against the West was the result of George Bush. He suggested Mr Bush was somehow responsible for the events of 11 September. That type of conspiracy nonsense does no credit to the Green Party whatsoever. Does Mr Donald think we are supposed to take seriously his suggestion that it is George Bush who is somehow responsible for those actions of terrorism? Are we supposed to believe that the Green Party actually believes that? The alternative is that the Greens do not believe it. Well if they are members of this Parliament they ought to be telling us what they really believe rather than things they think will make good rhetoric and will persuade some flaky members of the community to give them their vote. 
The reality is we all know we need the Government Communications Security Bureau. We also know there are people engaged in such things as economic espionage. We do hold commercial secrets in this country. There was a well-known example of a particular individual from China who had in his possession a number of cuttings—I think it happened in the apple industry—that had cost New Zealand millions of dollars to collect. The Green Party would have us believe we should rely purely on the police to protect us from that type of economic sabotage. That is nonsense. This legislation is the only way that we will have protection but I say to Government members that they ought to be debating the matter. The reason Government members are not debating this legislation is I think that there is a contrast between the reality of this bill—an alliance between the United States Britain and New Zealand; that is what the Government is creating under this bill—and the Government’s public rhetoric to the opposite.