Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Firstly could I please acknowledge the Attorney-General. I think it is important to do that because he sets the tone in terms of how the debate will unfold and how the work on the select committee will unfold. I know that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee worked on the first piece of legislation the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill and the Attorney-General set the tone right from the beginning—that it is very important as a Parliament that we work cross-party and that we work towards a consensus because it is a matter of national security. When we look around the world and see how rapidly the terror threat is changing and growing it is really important that we as a country remain serious that we remain focused and that we work together to make sure that we have got the best possible legislation in place to protect us as a nation. The committee has built up some real experience in the national security area over the last couple of years and I know that members are looking forward to considering this important piece of legislation.Why do we need it? As the Minister has pointed out the current legislation has passed its use-by date. National security is one of the core functions of a Government and we need our decision makers to be well informed in order to effectively advance our national security and well-being. That is why we have the New Zealand SIS and Government Communications Security Bureau. In order for them to do their work they need top-quality legislation. They do not have it at the moment. For example the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act was passed nearly 50 years ago. It has been amended but amendments cannot override the fact that it is now totally out of date. An Act passed in the same year as the first moon landing is not an Act that can operate effectively in the internet age.The Minister mentioned that one of the primary tasks that the committee is going to have to undertake is the examination of how to approach the term national security". It has already been mentioned by both the Leader of the Opposition and also my colleague David Shearer. I want to spend the rest of this speech on that topic because of how central it will be to the work of the committee and because the term is a difficult concept to define because it needs to be able to respond to different threats that may evolve or emerge over time. If we listened to the Hon Amy Adams' speech—especially in relation to cyber-security—we got a clear picture of how quickly these threats can change and evolve.The legislation includes a definition of "national security" proposed by the reviewers. It is restricted to protecting as opposed to advancing New Zealand's interests—including its economic and international security. The specific definition proposed by the reviewers and adopted in the legislation is as follows: "the protection against—(a) threats or potential threats to New Zealand's status as a free and democratic society from unlawful acts or foreign interference: (b) imminent threats to the life and safety of New Zealanders overseas: (c) threats or potential threats that may cause serious harm to the safety or quality of life of the New Zealand population: (d) unlawful acts or acts of foreign interference that may cause serious damage to New Zealand's economic security or international relations: (e) threats or potential threats to the integrity of information or infrastructure of critical importance to New Zealand: (f) threats or potential threats that may cause serious harm to the safety of a population of another country as a result of unlawful acts by a New Zealander that are ideologically religiously or politically motivated: (g) threats or potential threats to international security."The reviewers' proposed definition would provide greater clarity to the agencies and to the general public about the types of activities that the agencies are empowered to act in relation to but it includes a number of different thresholds such as serious harm critical importance and serious damage which could be confusing. I note the Minister's comments that he has received advice from the Parliamentary Counsel Office and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) that the approach could be unworkable. Other problems with the definition are a lack of clarity around the scope of the definition meaning that it would not be clear what types of activities would be covered and what would not; the number of thresholds and tests in the reviewers' definition would be difficult to apply in practice and would give rise to uncertainty in particular circumstances about whether something fell within the definition; and concerns that an attempt to define "national security" would interact with other legislation and conceptions of national security across Government.The Minister mentioned the alternative approach drafted by officials available now on the DPMC website which he stated would provide the committee with a better starting point. That approach would not define "national security" in and of itself but would instead operate as an initial threshold with a list of the types of activities and threats in respect of which the agencies can target New Zealanders. It would take a two-step approach. First the proposed activity would have to be necessary to contribute to the protection of national security. "National security" would not be formally defined and would therefore be adaptive and responsive to a dynamic security environment. It would be determined by the Attorney-General and a judicial commissioner on a case by case basis. Second the proposed activity would have to be necessary for the collection of intelligence relating to one or more of the following activities in New Zealand or overseas: terrorism or violent extremism; espionage or other foreign intelligence activity; sabotage proliferation of chemical nuclear or biological weapons; various activities that may be relevant to serious crime and involve threats to or interference with information or information infrastructure of importance to the Government of New Zealand; threats to international security; threats to New Zealand Government operations in New Zealand or abroad; threats to New Zealand sovereignty including its territorial or border integrity and system of government; threats to the lives or safety of New Zealanders.This type of approach would provide greater clarity and transparency as it sets out clearly the situations when the agencies can target New Zealanders rather than taking the complex approach recommended by the reviewers. It would leave it to the Attorney-General and the judicial commissioner to determine whether a proposed warrant is necessary to protect New Zealand's national security. This is a better fit with the reality that national security is not a static concept and that it is appropriate for the Attorney-General and a commissioner to determine the limb of the test through the warranting process with New Zealanders protected by the triple-lock protection that the Attorney-General referred to in his speech. I have taken the House through this matter in detail because it is important to the legislation and the work the committee will have to do on it. I hope we will receive some good submissions that we can take into account which was very prominent in the first process on the first piece of legislation and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to consider the legislation. I commend it to the House. Thank you."