Mapp Wayne: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3937] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 The previous speaker for the Government defended the right of Green Party members to make their point of view and of course he is right. Naturally they are entitled to make their point of view. I am waiting in this Parliament for the Green Party to defend the right of the Prime Minister of Australia to come to New Zealand and explain the Australian position. We have heard from the Green Party that it would deny him that freedom of speech. Mr Locke cannot have it both ways. If the Greens truly believe in freedom of speech—and let us for instance take them at their word about that—then they must be prepared to hear all points of view. The point has been well made in this House in any event of why on earth we would be so rude to our closest friends that we would deny ourselves— 
Rodney Hide 
: Anzacs! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Anzacs—the ability to talk to them of issues of mutual interest. 
The Greens have a vision of our country. From what I can see it is a vision of a kind of completely isolated country with no real contact with any other country. That country has no relationships or agreements; it is just stuck down here in the South Pacific. Perhaps approved anti – genetic engineering tourists will be able to come here maybe approved products will be able to be exported and we will all live a life of bucolic delight. Well I say to the Green Party that that is not the world as we know it and neither is it a world that we want. New Zealand must be connected to the wider world and that means having relationships with other countries. 
I have also heard Green Party members say in this House that they are opposed to terrorism. I guess I would have to take them at their word about that; I do not doubt it as such. I want to hear however just one statement from them in this House that actually has a practical plan of action—not some sort of theoretical dialogue from a seminar—to defeat terrorism and to defeat the people who plot and plan to blow up airliners and buildings and who post things through the mail. Mr Locke has to deal with the real world on those issues. Those are— 
Rodney Hide 
: No he doesn’t. He’s a Green. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well he does not do that; that is actually correct. I guess that that is the point about the Greens: they do not live in the real world. 
I want to turn to some particular parts of the bill. It is noted in the bill—and a number of people have said that this is a good thing—that the Government Communications Security Bureau can only intercept foreign communications—for the purposes of protecting the security and defence of New Zealand of international relations or of New Zealand’s well-being generally. People see that as a reassurance but I have to ask a fundamental question: is that the right way to protect our security? I believe—and I have noted this in the House before—that there is a major gap in our legislation in this area. That gap exists both with the Security Intelligence Service and in this bill. I believe that the relevant committee—either the Intelligence and Security Committee or the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—needs to do an overview in order to determine what we need to do. 
What could happen is that an international terrorist organisation could establish a cell in New Zealand and the people in that cell could get permanent residence. They could be communicating between themselves and across the ocean so to speak. Yet under clause 14 of this bill those communications could not be intercepted. A number of the people involved in the World Trade Center bombings had permanent residency in the United States. Are we so naive as to suggest that the communications of people like that should not be intercepted? That is how I read clause 14 and I believe that that is a very serious gap. Perhaps in practice the bureau essentially says that if one is communicating with a foreign organisation it intercepts those communications rather than communications with a New Zealand citizen. But that is a serious matter and I believe that issue needs to be looked at. 
Mr Locke referred to the fact that clause 17 seems to allow the Minister a wider power. If that is the correct interpretation I say that that is a good thing. Surely we cannot have the situation of a terrorist cell in New Zealand being beyond the reach of either the Security Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Security Bureau. The Government might well say of course that the police can handle that situation but their scope and powers are simply not extensive enough. We need to take one step back here and to think about how terrorist organisations and the security services work. The security services often intercept communications and undertake surveillance in the belief that a crime could occur in the future not necessarily on the basis of a proven case at the time. The police’s powers are necessarily more limited to the actual apprehension of a criminal but under this provision groups and organisations will be under surveillance in the belief that they may be planning a crime—a test that probably could not be satisfied in front of a District Court judge. That is why we have the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service: to give slightly more extensive powers than the police have related to the security and defence of the nation. They are limited to those things. 
I believe the proper course would be to have a broader inquiry in order to knit together the legislation that exists in New Zealand regarding security. It is now spread across a number of pieces of legislation each of which has been considered separately by select committees but none of which has had that overview. Surely in a time of international terrorism when we are facing very clear dangers it is time for this Parliament through the select committees to take a broad overview and to make sure that the gaps in the legislation are adequately filled. I believe we need a principled clause that is not excessive in scope—I understand the concerns about that—but that nevertheless gives sufficient clarity of powers to ensure that the fundamental freedoms of New Zealanders are protected. That is the real issue. 
This legislation—and the Security Intelligence Service—is about defending the freedoms of New Zealanders and unless we are vigilant in doing so then terrorism will defeat those very freedoms. I say to members of this House that when we are looking to defend freedoms we have to take a prudent and reasonable course. If we are not willing to do so then we will lose the very freedoms that we have in this House and this country to express our points of view.