Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party wishes first to pay tribute to the democratic process that has resulted in the passage of this intelligence and security bill through Parliament to date. The submissions were insightful the discussion within the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was respectful and informative and the officials were most professional and creative in their response to our concerns.We welcome moreover the improvements in the final draft of the bill. We note especially a stronger obligation on the agency heads to ensure that agency activities will not promote or harm the interests of any political party or candidate; a new assurance that cooperation with foreign jurisdictions will be in accordance with New Zealand law and human rights obligations; the clear assurance that lawful acts of advocacy protest or dissent are secure from intelligence activity; a register of assumed identities and legal entities; due particularity in applications and additional criteria for the issue of the warrants; a closed list of elements related to national security; the requirement for a type 1 warrant to be jointly authorised by the Minister and the Chief Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants with a review by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; the removal of purpose-based warrants; the destruction of unauthorised information; the deletion of the provision for retention of incidentally obtained intelligence; the destruction of irrelevant information; and the deletion of ministerial empowerment to amend suspend or override primary legislation. The Green Party also acknowledges the increased professionalism and integrity of the New Zealand intelligence services in recent years. It views this however as a rectification of unacceptable shortcomings in the past not as a justification for new and intrusive powers by the State.Notwithstanding the legislative improvements identified above the Green Party continues to oppose the bill because it believes that the underlying political judgment on which the bill rests is flawed. The bill rests on an erroneous view of counter-terrorism policy. The stated purpose of the bill is to protect New Zealand as a free open and democratic society". To that end it gives our intelligence agencies adequate and appropriate powers to contribute to the protection of national security international relations and well-being and economic well-being. This is to be done with due regard to New Zealand law integrity and professionalism and democratic oversight. In order to do that the bill enhances the espionage capacity of the State with the effect of eroding the freedom and openness of the society in the name of security. It is acknowledged by both those for and against the bill that intrusive powers of espionage by the State axiomatically erode individual human rights. The argument for greater intrusive powers advanced in the Cullen-Reddy report and in ministerial speeches is that a balance between national security and individual rights needs to be struck. In today's world of terrorism and radical extremism it is argued the responsibility of the State to undertake espionage on its own citizens as well as foreigners has increased and this unavoidably alters the balance. This justifies the argument goes a single legislative framework in the interests of efficiency and expanded intrusive powers in the interests of effectiveness. The explanatory note does not elaborate on the bill's purpose but senior Ministers have done so. The former Prime Minister stated in August 2016: "it is vital our agencies operate under legislation which enables them to be effective in an increasingly complex security environment where we are confronted by growing numbers of cyber threats and the rise of [terrorists] such as ISIL …". The Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke to the UN Security Council along similar lines in May of that year. As a result of these political perceptions the national terrorist threat assessment was raised in 2014 from "very low not expected" to "low possible but not expected". This the Government concludes justifies a single legislative framework more intrusive State powers and this bill.The Green Party with respect views it differently. It does not agree that a threat that is not expected to occur justifies these changes. Terrorism is but one of seven harms associated with national security most of which are not germane to that threat assessment. The Green Party views terrorism as a criminal offence rather than a national security threat. It regards national security as a political goal not an individual inherent human right. There are also difficulties regarding the statement of purpose. Although there is now greater provision relating to national security in the bill the other purposes remain vague legally undefined and politically unfocused. New Zealand's well-being is not defined in the bill and can mean virtually anything. Adding a subset of that economic well-being as a separate and discrete purpose is conceptually confusing for legislation.There are also difficulties regarding cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies. The balance of information and opinion advanced in the select committee hearings confirms the Green Party's view that the bill would be detrimental to the national interest. It would undermine New Zealand's domestic integrity and diminish its international reputation. Close cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies such as those operating under current US policy will prove highly problematic if not impossible to meeting the standards of integrity professionalism and respect for human rights established in the bill. How are New Zealand intelligence and security agency heads to collaborate with the "Five Eyes" over the US presidential travel ban against Muslims thereby discriminating against persons on the basis of religion? On what basis of law and political integrity does the New Zealand intelligence community collaborate with the Central Intelligence Agency in light of today's revelations about the manner in which that agency hoovers up data from individuals' cellphones and smart TVs?The underlying political point is this: while terrorism has become a fact of contemporary global life its perception is distorted among Western Governments. Most terrorist acts actually occur in non-Western countries. The phenomenon of terrorism in Western counties is correlated with the extent of their engagement in military action in crisis situations that lack a clear UN mandate.All members in this House live and work in the real world. Green MPs know at least as acutely as anyone else in this House about strife and strategic scheming around the world. We know about the threat of terrorism. But there are different more effective and more insightful ways of plying this trade than what we have before us. We shall be continuing to oppose the bill."