Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 25 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.KEVIN HAGUE (Green) on behalf ofDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister responsible for the GCSB: Does he agree with the New Zealand Law Society when it describes outcomes in the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill as “unacceptable and inconsistent with the rule of law”; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for the GCSB):No because the bill clarifies the longstanding practices of the Government Communications Security Bureau to assist other agencies as it has under successive Governments for over a decade. The bill also significantly strengthens the oversight regime for our intelligence agencies. As I have said several times before this is not a debate about whether a particular New Zealander will have intelligence gathered about them and their activities. That will happen with the appropriate safeguards and oversight. The debate is about which agency conducts that surveillance which of course must be done under lawful authority.Kevin Hague: Is he relaxed then that as the New Zealand Law Society highlights the bill will allow New Zealanders to be spied on more extensively and never be told in a manner that is—and I quote—“unacceptable and inconsistent with the rule of law.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have just answered that question in my answer to the primary question. I do not agree with the Law Society.Kevin Hague: Does he agree with the Law Society that the bill transforms the Government Communications Security Bureau from an agency focused on foreign threats to an agency focused on New Zealanders—and again I quote—“in a way not previously contemplated and that is inconsistent with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and with privacy interests recognised by New Zealand law.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. Other than actually strengthening the oversight regime and some work around support for private companies in relation to cyber-security nothing actually changes from what the Government Communications Security Bureau has been doing under the Labour Government with the legislation introduced by Labour in 2003 supported by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen and half the travellers sitting on the other side of the House.Kevin Hague: Does he stand then by his claim that this bill is simply a matter of clarification when in fact as the Law Society has spelt out the bill completely transforms the Government Communications Security Bureau and gives it expanded powers and functions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I completely stand by my statement. It is worth recalling if we go back let us say to 2006 a period when Helen Clark was the Prime Minister. I am sure that if we looked through the records it is eminently possible that the Government Communications Security Bureau provided assistance to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service the New Zealand Defence Force or the Police. That will be the situation when the law is changed and that is because there are currently difficulties of interpretation and we therefore ceased that assistance. I would also point out that that assistance is very important for New Zealanders and it provides security and safety for New Zealanders. Members who do not want to provide that security and safety for New Zealanders should make that clear to the New Zealand public next time there is a problem.Kevin Hague: Is it the Government’s intention as is currently in the bill to allow the Government Communications Security Bureau—and again I quote the Law Society—to “under a cloak of co-operation with some other specified agency perform any activities that it chooses.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That just shows you what is wrong with the Law Society. It is not under a cloak; it is under a warrant.Kevin Hague: Is the Law Society incorrect when it says that safeguards provided in the bill are—again I quote—“entirely inadequate” to protect New Zealanders’ freedom of expression and freedom from invasive search?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I believe they are incorrect. I think it is also worth pointing out that if we look at the legislation these are the sorts of things that it is doing in terms of enhancing oversight of the intelligence agencies. We are changing and removing the requirement that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security be a retired High Court judge. This will increase the pool of people who can do the job. Secondly we are making the Inspector-General’s office more proactive by increasing the requirements on the office and moving it a step forward from existing review-focused work programmes. Thirdly we will be increasing the resourcing and staffing of the Inspector-General’s office including creating a new role of Deputy Inspector-General—Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we have all read the explanatory note. I do not think we need—Mr SPEAKER: If the member is satisfied with the answer then has he further supplementary questions?Kevin Hague: Does the Minister have a genuinely open mind when it comes to the submission from the Law Society and will he ensure that the bill is amended so that it complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and international human rights standards?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course we will be listening to submissions as they are presented to the Intelligence and Security Committee but of course if the majority of Parliament does not agree with them then no amendments will be made on the back of their recommendations.