Government Communications Security Bureau Bill

When I left off, I was questioning Keith Locke’s attitude in opposing this bill. I want him to stand up in this House and explain why he opposes it. Here is a member who has supported some of the most repressive regimes that the 20th century ever saw. He supported Soviet troops going into Afghanistan. Those troops inflicted a terrible toll on the Afghani people Here is a man who supported the Soviet Union’s expansionist policies abroad, and its policies at home. He has the audacity—

💬 Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have never supported Soviet domestic policies in my life.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

At least we have cleared up one thing. He supported Soviet policies abroad. Mr Locke, by his own admission, has supported the Soviet Union in the past. Even the Communists do not now agree with the terrible range of terror they inflicted on people around the world.

💬 Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have said in this House that I no longer support the policies that Mr Hide is alluding to, in terms of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which was 23 years ago. He is implying that I still do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, that is not a point of order.

Here is a man who, by his own admission, in the past supported the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, where people like Mr Locke would have no rights, whatsoever, to speak their minds or their views, or to stand for election—indeed, to be in Parliament. It is hard to imagine that a person could support such a tyrannical regime.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask the speaker what bill we are discussing.

We are discussing the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill. I would have thought that all members, whatever our political differences, would have come to the House anxious to secure our people’s freedom, our rights to political office, and our rights to free speech. That is what this bill does, but Mr Locke—and that is what I want him to explain to the House—says that somehow, our rights are being infringed. I understand that, because the price of freedom is that one has to give a little bit away. How much did they give away in Afghanistan? How much did they have to give away in the Soviet Union? How come the Green Party and Mr Keith Locke oppose this measure to protect New Zealanders, while, some years ago, they ticked the tyrannical measures of Soviet expansionism? They were wrong, years ago, about the Soviet policy, and they are wrong about the threat that terrorism poses to the free world today.

That is what I want Mr Locke to reflect on. He admits that he was wrong then; could he have the good grace to admit that he might be wrong now, and to actually understand that it is a bit of a “thin blue line”, to coin a phrase, that protects our people, our democracy, and our freedom—the very things that Mr Locke says he is in favour of, and the very things that have been crushed abroad by tinpot dictators? I say to Mr Locke that I am happy to hear his views, but that I wish that people in other countries could have the rights he enjoys. As a citizen and a parliamentarian, why does he not support them rather than opposing us here?

The Government Communications Security Bureau Bill is an important bill, and it needs a considered and careful debate. The aim of the bill—certainly as stated by Labour members—is to define the objectives and functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau, while, at the same time, increasing its ability to undertake its operational activities. This bill will place the Government Communications Security Bureau on a similar footing to that of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, following the amendments that were made to that organisation’s legislation in 1999.

We are all aware of the great tragedy that occurred on September 11, after this bill was introduced in May 2001. This bill is timely, because it responds to issues that New Zealand itself needs to respond to, but I am also pleased to say that it provides important safeguards to ensure that the privacy of New Zealanders continues to be protected. The Government Communications Security Bureau Bill as amended creates a legal structure that will permit the bureau to adapt quickly and effectively to the highly dynamic global communications environment, and I am pleased to support it.

The Green Party will be opposing the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill. The bill is very relevant today, in the light of the revelations in the Observer a couple of days ago that the National Security Agency of the United States is spying extensively and intensively on UN delegates. A National Security Agency section head, Frank Koza, was quoted in the Observer as sending a memo advising senior National Security Agency officials that the agency is “mounting a surge” against Security Council members to try to get their votes for a UN resolution giving authorisation for an invasion of Iraq. That is relevant to us because the main asset of the Government Communications Security Bureau is the Waihopai satellite communications interception station, which is part of the National Security Agency – run Echelon network. That involves Waihopai drawing down all the faxes, phone calls, and emails from two communications satellites in the Pacific over the equator.

All the data drawn down is available to the National Security Agency, using keyword filters, key phone recipients, or destination phone numbers or email addresses that are put into the system by the five Echelon partners, which are the Government Communications Security Bureau, the National Security Agency, and the other three partners in Australia, Canada, and Britain, including the Defence Signals Directorate in Australia.

There is no way that the Government Communications Security Bureau can check the rationale for all those key-word filters and phone numbers. So there could easily be a situation whereby the Governments of countries like Chile and Pakistan—Security Council members whose communications the National Security Agency has declared it is trying to spy on—communicate from their countries to their UN delegations in New York over those two Pacific satellites. It could be over the two Pacific satellites because the Echelon system spies on satellites right around the equator. We could be complicit in helping the Bush administration get the information to be able to twist the arms of those Security Council delegates, particularly in the case of poorer countries that are subject to pressures, like Pakistan, Angola, or Guinea, and thereby serve its interests, which would make a mockery of our anti-war stand. That is the problem with the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Waihopai system.

It is clear from other examples that the Echelon system, and our participation in it, undermines our relations with Governments around the world. They know that Echelon is spying on them, their citizens, and their companies, and they do not like it. There have been critical news reports in European and Japanese newspapers, and the European Parliament has conducted its own inquiry into Echelon. There have been several incidents where American companies such as Raytheon have been accused of undercutting their Japanese or European rivals for contracts, because those American companies use the information coming to them through the Echelon system, which involves Waihopai.

Within the Echelon network, as Nicky Hager’s book Secret Power points out, the Government Communications Security Bureau has been assigned the task of analysing intercepted communications from Japanese diplomatic posts. That is not going to endear us to the Japanese Government and people. Likewise, Pacific leaders have expressed concern about Echelon, including the Waihopai station spying on them. New Zealand is a small country—a trading nation whose interests lie in having good relations with all countries, particularly our Asia-Pacific neighbours. Our reputation suffers by being part of the five-power Anglo network spying on the electronic communications of the rest of the world.

We are not at war with any country in our region. We do not have enemies here. We do not need to invade the privacy of Governments and countries in that way. Sure we want to be well-informed about our region, but we would get much more useful information from a single competent journalist specialising in the Pacific—like the New Zealand journalist, Michael Field, arrested in Fiji yesterday—than from a battalion of Government Communications Security Bureau analysts poring over intercepted conversations between politicians in Samoa or Tahiti.

We are against this bill. Of course, one might say that the bill has a positive function, and that is putting the Government Communications Security Bureau on a statutory foundation, but it is damning that that secret agency has operated for 26 years—since 1977—without a statutory basis. For many years it operated in the dark without the public being told even of its existence. It was a secret agency of the State spying on citizens without their permission and without any accountability to them. Under this bill, people will find out a little bit more about the Government Communications Security Bureau, but not very much. It will still be largely unaccountable.

Of course, any intelligence agency operates with a certain degree of confidentiality, but secrecy surrounding the operations and targets of the Government Communications Security Bureau goes well beyond any reasonable secrecy. The reason for that is that if New Zealanders really knew what the Government Communications Security Bureau was doing and who it was targeting, they might well be upset. This bill claims that the Government Communications Security Bureau is gathering intelligence on foreign organisations, but the Government Communications Security Bureau itself is primarily a foreign organisation operating primarily at the behest of the National Security Agency. Of course, that does not mean that it may not secondarily collect some information of genuine use to New Zealand.

The Government Communications Security Bureau is also a subversive organisation, acting today primarily for the signals intelligence agency of a foreign power, namely, the US National Security Agency, and undermining both the sovereignty of New Zealand and our national interests. In signals intelligence matters, successive New Zealand Governments have had a colonial mindset that somehow New Zealand gains something from being an American intelligence dependency, even though they have never advanced any real evidence to prove it.

There is also a problem in that the Government Communications Security Bureau intrudes into the privacy of New Zealanders. One might say: “Hold on a minute, the Government specifically prevents—”

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Read the legislation—clause 14.

There is an interjection there, and it is true that the bill supposedly specifically prevents the Government Communications Security Bureau from spying on New Zealanders. But that does not work, for several reasons. The first is that electronic communications, particularly those intercepted wholesale through Waihopai, do not have passport details attached. Often it will be only after the communications are transcribed and followed up that analysts will be able to work out whether it was a New Zealander or a foreigner at the New Zealand end, or even the overseas end, of the communication. There is also an out, in that the Prime Minister can authorise his or her officials to survey the communications of New Zealanders in special circumstances.

The second problem is that tens of thousands of New Zealanders are part of foreign organisations or international organisations, as defined by the bill, and the Government Communications Security Bureau is authorised to spy on such organisations. The number of those organisations increases as foreign firms take over more and more of the New Zealand economy. If a New Zealander acts as a representative of a foreign multinational or an international organisation like Greenpeace, Oxfam, or the Red Cross, under this bill he or she can be spied upon. In fact, there is evidence that Greenpeace has been targeted by the Echelon network overseas. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing who has been targeted by the Government Communications Security Bureau, and whether the targets include legitimate political dissenters like Greenpeace anti – genetic engineering (GE) campaigners who may indulge in some non-violent civil disobedience.

The Government Communications Security Bureau is authorised to spy on those who are deemed to undermine “New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being”, which would authorise spying on either anti-GE protesters or biotech multinationals, depending on one’s political stance, and how one defines “international well-being” or “economic well-being”. We do not know who the targets are, because the Government will not tell us. The oversight Intelligence and Security Committee will not tell us, and is not allowed even to give operational details from the Government Communications Security Bureau. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will not tell us. The electronic spying is of such a nature that it is very difficult for any New Zealander targeted to spot it, let alone question whether it is misdirected. The annual report of the Government Communications Security Bureau under this bill needs only to state whether there have been interception warrants or computer access authorisations, without any further elaboration.

Also, under the bill interceptions, and computer access can take place without a warrant. It is all rather confusing, because under clause 16 the Government Communications Security Bureau has to have a warrant to “install an interception device”, but clause 17 authorises interception without warrant on foreign communications, through an interception device. The only difference seems to be that one device is installed to spy at a particular location, and the other is not.

I defend the right of the speaker who has just resumed his seat to express the views that he has expressed. As another member has commented, that is the fruit of living in a democracy. But democracy has to be protected, and I have a newsflash for the Green Party: security agencies do work in secret to achieve their aim. That is the whole point of having them. If they did not work in secret, they would not need to be secret agencies.

💬 Rodney Hide: What’s wrong with the secret police that Stalin had?

Well, there we are—the born-again liberal, Mr Hide, is piping up.

💬 Rodney Hide: Classical liberal, not born-again.

The member has not been born again? He should try that in the next life!

The aim of this bill is to define the objective and functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau, while, at the same time increasing its ability to respond to the dynamic and changing international environment. Sadly, that environment is forever etched in our memories, with the destruction of the twin towers on 11 September 2001. It is regrettable that the events that those terrorist attacks set in motion are still with us, even today.

But I wish to offer some reassurance to members of the New Zealand public, in case they are rushing to their phones on the basis of the previous speech, thinking that the Government Communications Security Bureau will be tapping those phones in search of anti – genetic modification protesters or people protesting at Mr Howard’s visit. The point is that one needs a warrant or an authorisation to invade the privacy of New Zealanders, and those warrant processes are answerable to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and to other members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. There are safeguards; this remains a democracy.

The previous speaker for the Government defended the right of Green Party members to make their point of view, and of course he is right. Naturally they are entitled to make their point of view. I am waiting in this Parliament for the Green Party to defend the right of the Prime Minister of Australia to come to New Zealand and explain the Australian position. We have heard from the Green Party that it would deny him that freedom of speech. Mr Locke cannot have it both ways. If the Greens truly believe in freedom of speech—and let us, for instance, take them at their word about that—then they must be prepared to hear all points of view. The point has been well made in this House, in any event, of why on earth we would be so rude to our closest friends that we would deny ourselves—

💬 Rodney Hide: Anzacs!

Anzacs—the ability to talk to them of issues of mutual interest.

The Greens have a vision of our country. From what I can see, it is a vision of a kind of completely isolated country, with no real contact with any other country. That country has no relationships or agreements; it is just stuck down here in the South Pacific. Perhaps approved anti – genetic engineering tourists will be able to come here, maybe approved products will be able to be exported, and we will all live a life of bucolic delight. Well, I say to the Green Party that that is not the world as we know it, and neither is it a world that we want. New Zealand must be connected to the wider world, and that means having relationships with other countries.

I have also heard Green Party members say in this House that they are opposed to terrorism. I guess I would have to take them at their word about that; I do not doubt it, as such. I want to hear, however, just one statement from them in this House that actually has a practical plan of action—not some sort of theoretical dialogue from a seminar—to defeat terrorism, and to defeat the people who plot and plan to blow up airliners and buildings, and who post things through the mail. Mr Locke has to deal with the real world on those issues. Those are—

💬 Rodney Hide: No, he doesn’t. He’s a Green.

Well, he does not do that; that is actually correct. I guess that that is the point about the Greens: they do not live in the real world.

I want to turn to some particular parts of the bill. It is noted in the bill—and a number of people have said that this is a good thing—that the Government Communications Security Bureau can only intercept foreign communications—for the purposes of protecting the security and defence of New Zealand, of international relations, or of New Zealand’s well-being, generally. People see that as a reassurance, but I have to ask a fundamental question: is that the right way to protect our security? I believe—and I have noted this in the House before—that there is a major gap in our legislation in this area. That gap exists both with the Security Intelligence Service and in this bill. I believe that the relevant committee—either the Intelligence and Security Committee or the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—needs to do an overview, in order to determine what we need to do.

What could happen is that an international terrorist organisation could establish a cell in New Zealand, and the people in that cell could get permanent residence. They could be communicating between themselves and across the ocean, so to speak. Yet, under clause 14 of this bill, those communications could not be intercepted. A number of the people involved in the World Trade Center bombings had permanent residency in the United States. Are we so naive as to suggest that the communications of people like that should not be intercepted? That is how I read clause 14, and I believe that that is a very serious gap. Perhaps in practice the bureau essentially says that if one is communicating with a foreign organisation it intercepts those communications, rather than communications with a New Zealand citizen. But that is a serious matter, and I believe that issue needs to be looked at.

Mr Locke referred to the fact that clause 17 seems to allow the Minister a wider power. If that is the correct interpretation, I say that that is a good thing. Surely we cannot have the situation of a terrorist cell in New Zealand being beyond the reach of either the Security Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Security Bureau. The Government might well say, of course, that the police can handle that situation, but their scope and powers are simply not extensive enough. We need to take one step back here, and to think about how terrorist organisations and the security services work. The security services often intercept communications and undertake surveillance in the belief that a crime could occur in the future, not necessarily on the basis of a proven case at the time. The police’s powers are necessarily more limited to the actual apprehension of a criminal, but under this provision groups and organisations will be under surveillance in the belief that they may be planning a crime—a test that probably could not be satisfied in front of a District Court judge. That is why we have the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service: to give slightly more extensive powers than the police have, related to the security and defence of the nation. They are limited to those things.

I believe the proper course would be to have a broader inquiry, in order to knit together the legislation that exists in New Zealand regarding security. It is now spread across a number of pieces of legislation, each of which has been considered separately by select committees, but none of which has had that overview. Surely, in a time of international terrorism when we are facing very clear dangers, it is time for this Parliament, through the select committees, to take a broad overview and to make sure that the gaps in the legislation are adequately filled. I believe we need a principled clause that is not excessive in scope—I understand the concerns about that—but that nevertheless gives sufficient clarity of powers to ensure that the fundamental freedoms of New Zealanders are protected. That is the real issue.

This legislation—and the Security Intelligence Service—is about defending the freedoms of New Zealanders, and, unless we are vigilant in doing so, then terrorism will defeat those very freedoms. I say to members of this House that when we are looking to defend freedoms, we have to take a prudent and reasonable course. If we are not willing to do so, then we will lose the very freedoms that we have in this House and this country to express our points of view.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill. It is about security and safety for all New Zealanders, and it also provides important safeguards to ensure that New Zealanders’ privacy continues to be protected.

This is a very important bill. It is not one that should be dusted over lightly by the House. Quite clearly, some people do object to the Government agencies having a greater degree of authority to intercept communications or to carry out surveillance when matters that might be of harm to New Zealanders come to their consideration, and there are other people who say that such organisations should not be given any greater authority than is given to any other person who claims to be a citizen of this country. Quite clearly, that is inappropriate.

New Zealanders should not imagine that because we are so far from the rest of the world we are in any way immune to the events that have, in many ways, overtaken the world since September 11. After all, in our living history we can recall the terrorist activity that took place in Auckland harbour when the Rainbow Warrior was sunk. Interestingly, we are one of the few countries in the Western World that can say it has been attacked by the French, whose Government’s view of the Iraqi situation now seems to be forming the basis of New Zealand’s current foreign policy. It is quite interesting that we should now be chasing after a country that has attacked us on our soil, and be saying that France’s view of Saddam Hussein is the official New Zealand view of him and his regime. That is very disappointing to members on the Opposition side of the House, but it does not stop us from supporting this bill quite fulsomely.

My colleague Dr Mapp has outlined all the reasons that this bill should be supported, and he spoke particularly about clauses 14 and 17. I make the point that clauses 15 and 16 deal with the right of interception—in other words, whether an agent of the Government Communications Security Bureau needs to have a warrant or an authorisation if he or she is engaged in some sort of surveillance. It seems to me that the suggestion that an agent does need that runs almost counter to the idea of catching some people. The moment that we start looking for a court to issue a warrant, we are setting up a paper trail. The people whom we are looking at, or whom we want this agency to look at—the people who would come under the scrutiny of that agency—do not have high levels of integrity. I do not doubt at all that they would have mechanisms to find out that someone was on their trail. I am not at all sure that it is necessary for some of the provisions to be in this bill, requiring the Government Communications Security Bureau to have a warrant in every case.

Nor do I think it necessary that the Government Communications Security Bureau has access or authorisation from a court to intercept transmissions that occur via the computer networks that operate throughout the country. The fact is that crime—not only domestic crime but also international crime—has become much more sophisticated these days, and we are not immune to that. It is important that we have as flexible an arrangement as we can for an agency that is supposed to be acting on our behalf, and that does act on our behalf, in all those matters.

However, I would like to raise one small matter: the working hours of the Government Communications Security Bureau. I understand that it closes down on public holidays.

💬 John Carter: Huh?

Yes, that is right. If we pick up the phone and ring the Security Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Security Bureau on a public holiday, the staff of those organisations do not answer the phone.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not mean to interrupt the member on his feet, but I guess I am. I am not sure whether he wants to be passing out that information. I ask him to consider whether that is in the best interests of New Zealand.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that matter. It is not a point of order.

I thank Mr Hide. He has stopped me mid-revelation, and I will take that matter no further. But I do want to say—[Interruption] Well, it is their fault. I have only had two occasions on which to ring one of those bureaus, and it was appropriate that I did so. But I got a person on the end of the phone who was clearly there to empty the rubbish bins or clean the floor, because that person had absolutely no idea of what was going on. I think, frankly, the organisation was plainly disrespectful of a citizen who had phoned up with a concern. I would like to think that, given these extra powers, the organisation is about to sharpen up its operation quite considerably. There have been two occasions when I have had to call on the bureau; the other occasion was on Anzac Day.

Why should a member of Parliament who receives a communication from someone who might be a nutter, but who feels an obligation to pass on that information, end up being given the run-around by a cleaner or a general office flunkey in one of those organisations? That is quite unacceptable. I have no doubt that had an incident resulted, some terribly plausible reason would have been given for that particular response. I can only assume that as a Government agency, that bureau is very much tied into the employment policies promoted by the Government, and therefore it does not have staff working on public holidays—or at the weekends, for that matter. If some of my colleagues find it strange that I have revealed that, I think I have done the nation a favour.

This bill is about empowering those people. I do not want my comments to demean them in any way; it is just that that has been their general modus operandi when it comes to dealing with me. I say respect is a two-way street.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Wanting to intercept your communications.

I have no doubt that they are, and I welcome that because if they were doing their job that would clear out some of those African banking scams that seem to land on MPs’ computers about every 2 seconds of the day. But clearly the security organisations do not seem to be very interested in those sorts of things, and neither should they. They have more important things to be dealing with.

I think most members would be aware of occasions where these organisations have undertaken some interception work and have ended up with good intelligence that we have been able to pass on to our allies. Of course, just who our allies are at the moment is an open question. This House has not had the opportunity to discuss our international relations in the current unstable environment because the Government is very, very uncertain about what it is going to do. The Prime Minister, it would seem, is on an extended job interview for a high position with the United Nations. She does not want this Parliament to offend some of our so-called friends around the world. I state again that France, the only country that has ever attacked us and perpetrated a terrorist activity on our soil, is now the country that appears to be dictating our foreign policy. I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade is very uncomfortable with that, but unfortunately he does not have sufficient sway inside the Government to be able to require the Prime Minister to let the Parliament have its voice on these important issues. In fact, an opportunity that was given to the Government today to have a debate on Thursday was met with a blanket no from the Government.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: What about Wednesday?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who is making a rare appearance in the House on one of the days when he does not get a stamp on his passport, asks about Wednesday. Wednesday is members’ day, the day when the Opposition puts forward bills to tidy up the mess that the Government finds itself in. The Government has most of the parliamentary time at its disposal, and members have only about 6 hours every 2 weeks for their work. Yet the Government is saying that it would be appropriate for members to give up their time for such a debate, because the Government is too busy passing wine bills, racing bills, shop trading bills, and various other bits and pieces on the Order Paper. It would seem that the Government is terribly frightened of getting into a debate on an important issue like New Zealand’s foreign relations.

The National Party is delighted to support this bill. It is necessary. We will be casting our votes accordingly at the end of the debate.