Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4401] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has an amendment to clause 30 in this part. We want to add a new clause 30A “Amendment to Privacy Act 1993”. We want to add the following subsection to section 57 of the Privacy Act: “(2) Despite subsection (1) principle 9 applies to the Government Communications Security Bureau.” I should explain here that principle 9 is a principle in section 6 of the Privacy Act and all Government departments are supposed to abide by it—that is the agency is not to keep personal information longer than necessary. Principle 9 states: “An agency that holds personal information shall not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may be lawfully used.” This again comes from the Privacy Commissioner. That was one of his suggestions. He thinks that the general principle should apply to all Government agencies including the Government Communications Security Bureau. He says in his submission to the Intelligence and Security Committee that he talked to the Government Communications Security Bureau about the issue and it did not object to that change so I cannot quite understand why the report back from the committee did not include it. The Government should address the matter. The Government has set up a Privacy Commissioner but it not only ignores his substantial submission in the report back—as the committee has done—but when the bill comes before the House and an MP puts forward amendments based on the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner the Government does not even bother engaging with that debate. That is being very disrespectful to the Privacy Commissioner. 
This part has amendments to a lot of different sections. One of the amendments under clause 28 is the amendment to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act. I think the role of the Inspector-General is quite controversial. The Inspector-General has quite a few powers to investigate complaints to review the Government Communications Security Bureau and report annually to Parliament. In the past his reports to Parliament have not been of much use. He says that he has not had many complaints. He does not get many complaints with electronic interception because people do not know that they are being intercepted—that is the nature of the interception. I think he has to go further than that. Today when I asked a question in Parliament about the powers of the Inspector-General of Intelligence with regard to the use of Waihopai for the war in Iraq Dr Cullen on behalf of the Prime Minister replied that the Inspector-General had said that our sovereignty was being upheld by Waihopai. I raise the same point that I raised before: given the nature of the technology of stations like Waihopai it is very hard to guarantee that our sovereignty is being upheld when there are interceptions using key words. 
Under this section we should consider the role of the Inspector-General. I do not think that his role has been very successful. He has tended to side with the intelligence agencies in the two cases that have arisen—not specifically in respect of the Government Communications Security Bureau but on the other side of his reporting in respect of the SIS. He did say that there was nothing wrong with the intrusion into Aziz Choudry’s place. I see that Aziz Choudry later won a court case against the SIS but his position had to be taken in the face of opposition from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. There is a problem here of accountability that applies to the whole bill and it would be better in my opinion—and this is the position of the Green Party—if we did not have the Government Communications Security Bureau. It has some positive functions in this bill.