Clark David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 08 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12558. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):It is indeed a pleasure to rise to speak to this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. It is my first opportunity to speak at all on this bill. The piece that I am speaking to is Part 2 and I am glad that I have the opportunity to speak to this part because it really does cut to the core of the issue about trust. My colleagueSu’a William Sio has pointed out that if this is the best part of the bill and the other parts—Part 1 and Part 3—are the worst that is not a good way to make law. But I wish to focus on Part 2.We are told in the explanatory note of the bill: “The purposes of the Bill are to—provide for a clearly formulated and consistent statutory framework governing the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau …”. The second of the three purposes is to “update that framework to respond to the changing security environment (particularly in relation tocybersecurity and information security) and to changes in the public law environment since the GCSB Act was passed in 2003 …” and the third is to “enhance the external oversight mechanisms that apply to the intelligence agencies by strengthening the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and by improving the operation of the Intelligence and Security Committee.”All of these things go to trust and to how the public can be assured that this is enhanced. When we talk about enhancing the external oversight mechanisms we are talking about not only having a proper oversight but also being seen to have a proper oversight. In some senses they are one and the same thing because that role must be performed by people whom New Zealanders trust. It is likely that New Zealanders will trust this agency and these persons only when they understand what has gone wrong in the past and what could go wrong in the future.Were it not a serious matter we would call it a comedy of errors in relation to our spy agencies in recent months. The Labour Party absolutely supports the best possible security arrangements and the best possible guarantees that New Zealanders’ interests—economic personal and otherwise—are being protected but it does that wanting also to know that the best possible guarantees are being given to New Zealanders that the powers of our intelligence agencies are not being exercised in poor ways misused or are exposing people in ways that are inappropriate.That brings me to the Supplementary Order Paper 305 in name of David Shearer the leader of the Labour Party. David Shearer has lodged Supplementary Order Paper 305 which seeks to have an investigation into the way that the agencies are run. His amendment to clause 25 states that “Within 1 month of the commencement of this Part”—were the bill to pass—“the Minister must determine with the agreement of the leaders of each political party for the time being recognised for parliamentary purposes under the Standing Orders …” and so on and so forth—Grant Robertson: Not Peter Dunne.Dr DAVID CLARK: Not Peter Dunne my colleague says. It means that a series of agreed leaders around Parliament who can then represent the interests of different parts of society will meet and determine who should be on an inquiry. The leaders will establish a terms of reference for an independent inquiry into the purposes and functions of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies and they will set up the membership for that inquiry.This is something that is very difficult to disagree with I think on a logical basis. Having a good look at the many things that have gone wrong in the past months seems like a very sensible idea not only to this side of the House but to many New Zealanders. I want to put on record that I noted when I was out doorknocking a couple of weeks ago that mainstream New Zealanders New Zealanders whom I would not necessarily have expected to be concerned about our spy agencies are concerned. I spoke to one man a mechanic perhaps of a similar age to the Chair—a young man still but probably older and potentially wiser than myself. This man was very concerned about the oversight of these agencies and whether they were interfering with ordinary folks’ rights in New Zealand.He was also concerned that his children are on the internet and so forth. Today many of our conversations happen on the internet. We now have those conversations that we once had in private over the internet. We do not expect—