Little Andrew: Intelligence and Security Committee — MembershipText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership[Sitting date: 13 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11141. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I take a call on this very important issue. In a liberal democracy such as we have and such as we aspire to we seek to ensure that the freedom of the citizen is maximised. As part of maximising every citizen’s freedom we accept that there is a divergence of views and we accept that everybody is entitled to express their views and take actions to express their views even if sometimes those views are repugnant and sometimes they cause revulsion within the community. That is the nature of a free and democratic society. That is the nature of a truly democratic country.Alongside that we also seek to preserve the nation State and the institutions that make it up. What goes to the heart of this issue is these very important principles that underpin our constitution such as it is. Some in the pursuit of their freedom of expression may act in ways to bring down the institutions of the State if indeed not the State itself and they may seek to undermine the accepted mores and the ways that we choose to live. Some of those are up for negotiation. They are matters of cultural values. They are matters of the way that as humanity we change we evolve and we develop.As social democrats as we are in the Labour Party we typically see the institutions of this State as offering protection to citizens and above all protecting the weak against the strong. The threats that the State sometimes faces can be internal and they can be external. But we strive to uphold the State because we think it delivers—has the potential to deliver—the best in terms of benefits for the community at large and for every citizen.The price for preservation of the liberal State is appropriate security—appropriate security measures. This of course is not new. Those of you who know our history or know the history at least of the Westminster system know that this does not go back to Queen Elizabeth II; it goes back to Queen Elizabeth I. The first attempt of the Crown to ensure the security of the State was her attempt to set up a small group which became known as “the cabal” or a cabal of the various lords and dukes who made it up: Clifford Arlington Buckingham Ashley and Lauderdale. Unfortunately that fell apart because of the anti-Catholicism of the day reflected in the Bill of Rights 1688. But in any event it was an attempt by the Crown of the day to ensure that there was some sense of security about the State at least and the monarch. This goes back well before then of course to the nation States upon which we now base our democracy: the Greeks and the Romans. The Romans had their praetorian guard and all those attempts to shore up the State of the day.There is always a tension between a free State and the apparatus needed to protect and preserve that State which can interfere with people interfere with their freedoms pry into their privacy and defeat their rights. But against that we accept the need for security. Although we do that the oversight that we then have for our security apparatus is absolutely crucial absolutely essential. In a free and democratic country such as we aspire to be that oversight must then rest with the duly elected representatives of the State and they are the members of this House. So the Intelligence and Security Committee Act under which this appointment is being made has been conceived to achieve that purpose.The Intelligence and Security Committee is part of the apparatus that we have to provide that oversight. It is a bulwark against excess and the abuse of power by our security agencies which must act if they are to act effectively often in darkness—if I could use that metaphor—and out of sight of the general public. But I have to say thatwhen we look at the legislation governing this committee—at section 6 in particular—the oversight it provides of the committee to which we are now making an appointment is the barest oversight possible and that must cause us some concern.The truth is that the public—every citizen of New Zealand today as always—must have the highest degree of trust and confidence not only in our security apparatus but also in the oversight bodies we have to ensure that it does not stray too far. We must have public confidence—that is a bottom line. The tragedy about this and the reason why this is the source of debate today is that every aspect every historical act in the lead-up to this appointment today has undermined the public’s confidence in our security apparatus and in our oversight.We can go back to the Kim Dotcom fiasco where the security agencies particularly the Government Communications Security Bureau clearly acted without authority. The bureau acted outside its own laws it acted outside its own rules and worse the role that is meant to provide the most effective oversight of that body the Inspector-General was found wanting—was found wanting. That may be a resource issue or it may be a question about the powers that the Inspector-General has although I do not accept that. The powers of the Inspector-General under that role’s legislation are extensive. The Inspector-General can stop unlawful activity as indeed they must do and as indeed they are charged with doing. But even at that level our system has been found wanting and failing.The consequence of all that was that it led to reviews and ultimately to the Kitteridge review and then of course it is around there that we have seen that even those elected representatives who are charged with an oversight role and with providing confidence to the public have been found wanting. They have failed in their duty. That is a great pity because if there is one group in whom we must have confidence because we entrust to them a very important role it is the elected representatives on this committee the Intelligence and Security Committee. We require them to act as our conscience and voice if things are going wrong.So from Kim Dotcom to the Government Communications Security Bureau review and the fiasco around that to the leak of the report—and of course since the report has been leaked we have had this from the Prime Minister who is really the one where the buck stops. He is the one who chairs the committee. He is the one who has ministerial responsibility for the security agencies. When pressed for an answer about how the leak could have happened he repeatedly and adamantly averred that it could not have been a Minister in his Cabinet—it could not have been a Minister—and yet now it turns out that it was a Minister. When that was disclosed we have very quickly seen a further fudging and nudging to say: “Nothing to see here. We’ll make an other appointment and life will carry on.”So then we look at the appointee and we ask whether this is enough to give renewed trust and confidence in this committee in the oversight of our security agencies and in the security agencies themselves. Mr Ryall is a staunch loyalist to this Prime Minister and to this Government and I think that we the public of New Zealand must say of this Government—5 years into its life having shown a shabby and tawdry regard for its responsibilities towards the security agencies—that it is impossible to have confidence in this appointment.As the deputy leader of the Labour Party Grant Robertson said nothing less than a full-blown proper open inquiry into all the matters that have led to this appointment—into the issues about Kim Dotcom into the issues about the Government Communications Security Bureau—is required. Nothing less than a full-blown inquiry that can expose the truth and enlighten the public and assure every citizen is required. That is what is needed to restore public confidence and we need to see that. Simplymaking an appointment of a prime ministerial loyalist of a Cabinet and National Party loyalist is not enough. I repeat the call: we need an inquiry we need the truth we need honesty.