Intelligence and Security Bill

I will make a couple of comments about Part 5, because the select committee has, helpfully, done a lot of work on what now appears as Subpart 4, which deals with obtaining the business records of telecommunication network operators and financial service providers.

What is the point of Part 5? Part 5 deals with the access that security and intelligence agencies need for the purpose of carrying out their functions. Much of their work depends on the access to information held by other Government agencies and the private sector. What we now have in Part 5 is four subparts. The first reflects the existing ability of the intelligence and security agencies to request information from other public and private sector agencies and individuals, and the ability of those people and agencies to disclose information to the intelligence and security agencies. I simply note, in passing, while we are dealing with Subpart 1, clause 101A, which sets out the register of certificates. Following on from the commentary I had on another part, an hour or so ago, when dealing with a different type of register, the register may be accessed at any time by the Minister responsible for the agency or by the inspector-general.

The second subpart provides for direct access by the intelligence and security agencies to databases holding certain specified Government information. The third subpart provides—and this is very important—for the case by case access to restricted information, pursuant to a warrant-like application process. So that is a case by case disclosure. The main change here is set out in clause 111(ba)—information relating to adoptions. The addition of adoption information to the restricted information scheme is very important. It was previously included in the direct access scheme but it has been moved to the restricted information list because of, obviously, the sensitivity of information being held about adoptions being more akin to the other categories of information.

The final subpart, which we will want to spend a little bit of time on—because I think the committee, with respect, has got it entirely right—is the scheme for providing for compulsory disclosure of certain business record information held by telecommunications network operators and financial service providers to the intelligence agencies. The term “business record” is defined in clause 118B.

I think I will leave it there, because members may want to tease out the rationale for Subpart 4 and ask me some questions later on.

I am taking my first call on this bill, in the Committee stage. Can I, first of all, acknowledge the willingness of the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, to engage in real debate in the Committee stage of this bill. It is a rare thing.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: A demonstration of competence.

Well, a demonstration of competence, but it actually feels as though Parliament is doing its proper job by actually having a real discussion about the rationale, given that not all of us can sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and hear the submissions and the debate that goes on. We actually do get the opportunity in the Committee of the whole House, in these rare moments, to have a real discussion, so I really welcome that.

Can I refer my comments to clauses 101, 102, 105, 108, and, if I have time, touch on 118, Subpart 4, which the Minister just referred to as he sat down. First of all, I say that the protections for privacy in this—

I apologise for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair and report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Intelligence and Security Bill, no progress on the Māori Purposes Bill, and no progress on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.