New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill

It falls to me to close off this debate on behalf of the Government. I want to acknowledge the excellent speeches that have been given in the debate before. I think, in some ways, it has been Parliament at its best. I want to acknowledge the Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, for his contribution to the debate, and also the remarks of my good colleague Mark Mitchell, the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—very apposite remarks. I also want to acknowledge the very generous-spirited speech by Annette King that we have just heard in the House as well—remarks, I think, that the Government and the committee considering this bill will be reflecting on.

It was the first Chief Justice of the United States—one of the founding fathers of the United States—John Jay, who said that among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. Throughout history, free and democratic societies have grappled with the appropriate balance between national security and civil liberties. It is with that in mind that I want to briefly reflect on some of the contributions we have heard in the debate so far today.

Kennedy Graham from the Greens gave an interesting speech, which purported to be a case against sending this bill to a select committee and a first reading. It was an interesting speech. It did not really make the case for not voting for the bill. Mr Graham said that this was a bill of a constitutional nature and deserved the most serious respect and scrutiny, and I agree, and the Government agrees, and that is why it will go to a committee. It is why the Government has introduced this bill after a thorough and conscientious independent review of the intelligence agencies, carried out by Dame Patsy Reddy and Michael Cullen. I do find it interesting, because in 2013 the Greens called for a full and independent review, which has been carried out, and this legislation is the response to it.

Mr Graham talked about the two extremes that one could see in the debate around civil liberties and national security. The one extreme of an overly burdensome State that allowed no liberty, that was solely focused on its own survival and its protection and the security of its citizens, and the other extreme, which was a no-holds-barred, untrammelled situation in which the Government had no intrusion into the lives of people in order to protect them—a scenario in which there was no national security apparatus. Mr Kennedy Graham asserted that the independent report I have just mentioned talked about mortgaging the centre ground by assertion, in trying to draw a distinction between those two extremes.

I put it to the House that of course liberty and security must conflict in some ways—of course that is true to a certain extent. But we have section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and every constitution allows the balancing of rights and the intrusion upon particular rights in a free and democratic society, where that can be demonstrably justified. I say that the intrusion into civil liberties for the protection of the collective is one of those circumstances. I will come to the exact balance in a moment.

The other point I want to make to the House very strongly is that, although there is a trade-off in some degrees between liberty and security, it must also be true, I think, that liberty and security are complementary. It is very hard to have a freedom-loving people and it is very hard to have the rights that are in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or in constitutions around the world, without security to exercise those liberties. It is very hard to live in a society and assemble freely, to exercise free speech, or to gather with one another in a public sphere—or even in a private sphere—when you live in a society that lives under the threat of terrorism, or where there is no national security apparatus that can protect you carrying out those lawful activities in a free society; where you are living in fear of the risk of attacks, even in an electronic sense, and even when carrying out things on the internet, when there are threats on the internet that would deprive you of the ability to carry out those things that are lawful. So liberty and security, I think, must be regarded as complementary. That is why the middle ground that Kennedy Graham said does not exist, I think does exist.

Of course, the real question is finding where that middle ground is, and finding the appropriate balance. That is why the Government has conducted this independent review; that is why we have the bill before us. It has been asserted that no case was made through that independent review for this legislation. That is not true. If one goes and reads that very comprehensive report—and speakers from all sides, actually, have paid tribute to the very diligent and thorough nature of the report—one will find a case made for the important provisions in this bill. The Government’s objective has been to produce effective, clear, and easy-to-understand legislation that both keeps New Zealanders safe and is accountable to them.

I have to say, I am a bit disappointed in the Hon Peter Dunne, who has come out in opposition to this legislation. I think he seemed to ignore the supportive comments of the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. Some of the things he has claimed about the legislation in recent days are not correct. He said, for example, that there is no definition of national security. Well, there is a definition of national security in the legislation. There will no doubt be a debate about that—the Government has well signalled that—but to say there is not a definition is not correct, and so it is a little bit disappointing.

Our intelligence agencies identify and help protect New Zealand against threats to our security, and they collect intelligence to advance our international interests and enhance our well-being. As my good colleague Mark Mitchell said in his contribution to the debate, we are relatively insulated from some of the challenges faced by some countries, but we are by no means immune. The Hon Amy Adams put on the record for the House the risks and dangers that exist in cyber-crime and electronic security, for example, and that they are the quid pro quo of having an open and free internet where free speech and commerce can flourish.

I do want to briefly mention the triple-lock system that is implemented by this legislation. The bill actually proposes a world-leading system of oversight where warrants directed at New Zealanders will be authorised by the Attorney-General and an independent judicial commissioner. The implementation of the warrant is then subject to review by the Attorney-General. This has been described as the triple lock, which will ensure that the agencies’ powers will be authorised only when necessary and proportionate, and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will ensure the agencies comply with the warrant when it is executed.

As my colleague Mark Mitchell has pointed out, and as I have just mentioned, the bill defines national security in a way that defines the circumstances when the agencies may direct their powers towards New Zealanders. The Government has included in the bill the definition provided by the independent reviewers. I think it is well understood now that there is going to be a debate about this, and perhaps there are some shortcomings to the definition—the scope is potentially unclear and unnecessarily complex—but we are going to have a debate about that, and that is absolutely appropriate because it is very important that we get it right.

This is the most significant reform of our intelligence agencies in our country’s history. I think it is appropriate that we have broad parliamentary cross-party support for sending this bill to a select committee. This is a good piece of legislation. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will now carefully examine it, and I look forward to seeing it return to the House in the near future.