Street Maryan: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Referral to Government Administration Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 08 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):Kia orana. Before I was so rudely interrupted in my speech on this Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill by the House inconsiderately rising at 10 p.m. on Tuesday I was wanting to speak to clause 6 in Part 1 of this bill and speak particularly to the new section 8C and the amendment put forward by the Hon Peter Dunne in Supplementary Order Paper 308. At that time I said it is clear we are meant to be eternally grateful for this amendment but I want to introduce some material to the Committee this afternoon that goes to the point that that is the very least that should be changed about the bill so to be grateful to Peter Dunne for his Supplementary Order Paper is somewhat stretching credibility.New section 8C was the bit that contained the part that said that the function of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) was “to co-operate with and provide advice and assistance to” basically any department—any Government department. It included and specified the New Zealand Police the Defence Force the Security Intelligence Service and any department made within the meaning of the Public Finance Act.I want to labour this for a moment because the point about that is that it has to be one of the most offensive clauses in this piece of legislation. Yes Peter Dunne’s amendment deletes the last part of that section. But the reason it is offensive is that it allows by an Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister responsible for the GCSB—so not by any legislative prescription not by listing here in the legislation which departments might be affected. Was it going to be the Ministry of Health? Was it going to be the Ministry of Social Development? Was it going to include Work and Income? Instead of listing those things it simply said that the Minister by an Order in Council would be able to name any department at all that the GCSB could come in and assist—any department at all.The Regulations Review Committee applied itself to this particular part. Later after my speech I intend to table the advice of the Regulations Review Committee which has just been made public this morning but will not have gone up on the parliamentary website yet I do not think.The point about this is that it is an extreme version of a “Henry VIII” power. It does not matter what the history of that is although people can probably work it out. Henry VIII did not just have trouble with his wives or with the Pope; he also had trouble with Parliament. The point is that it gives the Minister the right to nominate a department without any check or balance from Parliament at all and gives the GCSB the right to go in and give its assistance to anybody. This on the advice of the Regulations Review Committee should have been deleted anyway. At the very least the statutory committeeconsidering this bill should have gone back because there was no requirement for the Minister to consult appropriately prior to making an Order in Council. There were no objective tests set down to specify the criteria of which the Minister must be satisfied prior to recommending the making of an Order in Council. There was no reference to other pieces of legislation such as section 50 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 which provided some objective tests against which their abilities and their functions may be discharged.The point about this is that it was the worst of all of the bad parts of this bill. This was something that put no prohibition on the Minister or the Government telling the GCSB to exercise its functions on any department at any time for any purpose. They did not have to meet criteria. There was nothing that had to be consulted on. Peter Dunne wants us to believe that he has done us a favour with his Supplementary Order Paper 308 with his amendment that deletes that. I would say to that member that I would be grateful if it were not for the next bit in the legislation.The next bit in clause 6 is new section 8C(2) which says this: “To avoid doubt the Bureau may perform its function under subsection (1) …”—if Peter Dunne’s amendment is passed and we will support it because this was a reprehensible piece of the legislation to start with—“even though the advice and assistance might involve the exercise of powers by or the sharing of the capabilities of the Bureau that the Bureau is not or could not be authorised to exercise or share in the performance of its other functions.” In other words it is going to have the ability to do what it wants anyway so all of Mr Dunne’s amendment goes up in a puff of smoke. He has not seen it through to new section 8C(2)(c) and realised that the GCSB can give its advice and assistance even though that might involve the exercising of powers that it is not authorised to have.The members opposite have made a huge song and dance about what oversight there is going to be of the GCSB. This gives the lie to that assertion. There is no oversight. There is no check and balance on the GCSB. I would say to the Hon Peter Dunne who probably would have wanted his political epitaph to be “Minister of Common Sense” that it is now likely that his political epitaph when it comes—either voluntarily or by force—will be “Willing Buyer Willing Seller”. As soon as that man uttered those words he gave up the right to strut around this Parliament as some kind of conscience and gatekeeper for this Parliament. The self-righteous prancing of this man knows no bounds. Yet when it comes down to the words on the page he trips at the last hurdle. He trips at the last hurdle because he is not prepared to see it through.What he did was the bleeding obvious. All his amendment does is provide what should have happened anyway and what would have happened if the advice of the Regulations Review Committee had been taken into account. So he does it by amendment but does not look ahead. He thinks about how he can persuade people that he is still this man of common sense and utmost integrity which has allowed him for years to stride the middle way in this Parliament. There is another word for people who stride a middle way—“fence-sitter” is one of them. He has made a virtue of his ability to work with anybody who wants to work with him. On this occasion his epitaph will be “Willing Buyer Willing Seller” and that is the end of that man’s reputation.There have been a number of biblical allusions referred to in the course of this debate. There has been some reference to Judas Iscariot and 30 pieces of silver. I would like to make another biblical allusion and that is that I wonder whether the deal that Peter Dunne has got is Katrina Shanks’ head on a platter.