Standing Orders — Sessional

on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the following rules relating to the Intelligence and Security Committee be adopted as a sessional order:

INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE

1 Definitions

For the purposes of these rules,—

Intelligence and Security Committee means the Intelligence and Security Committee that is continued by the Intelligence and Security Act 2017

intelligence and security agency means—

(a) the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service:

(b) the Government Communications Security Bureau.

2 Conduct of committee’s proceedings

Subject to the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, the proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee are conducted in accordance with the rules and practice of the House.

3 Referral of bill or other matter to committee

(1) The House may refer to the Intelligence and Security Committee any bill or other matter relating to an intelligence and security agency.

(2) Standing Orders 287 to 296, 298, 300, 318(3), and 329(1) apply and are to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

(3) The Clerk may allocate to the Intelligence and Security Committee a paper presented under Standing Order 265 concerning the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

4 Referral of petition to committee

Despite Standing Order 370, every petition relating to an intelligence and security agency stands referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration and report.

5 Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for intelligence and security agencies

(1) Despite Standing Orders 337(2) and 342(1), the Finance and Expenditure Committee must refer to the Intelligence and Security Committee the Votes or appropriations contained in the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for each intelligence and security agency.

(2) Standing Orders 330(1), 338, 340, 342(2), and 343(3)(b) apply and are to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

6 Annual reviews of intelligence and security agencies

(1) Despite Standing Order 345, the Finance and Expenditure Committee must allocate to the Intelligence and Security Committee the annual review of each intelligence and security agency.

(2) Standing Orders 346(2), 348(1)(b) and (3), and 349 apply and are to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

7 Examination of policy, administration, and expenditure of intelligence and security agency

In addition to its consideration of Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and annual reviews, the Intelligence and Security Committee may, at any time, examine the policy, administration, and expenditure of an intelligence and security agency, and may report to the House on such an examination.

8 Reports of Intelligence and Security Committee

(1) In addition to its reports on business considered under Rules 3 to 7, the Intelligence and Security Committee—

(a) presents an annual report to the House on the activities of the committee:

(b) may report at any time on a matter relating to intelligence and security that it wishes to draw to the attention of the House.

(2) Subject to the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, Standing Orders 243 to 252 apply to reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee and are to be read as if they were reports of a select committee.

9 Confidential proceedings of Intelligence and Security Committee

Standing Orders 114, 380(4), and 386(3), which relate to references to committee proceedings in debate, questions and replies, apply to proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee as if it were a select committee.

10 Restriction of select committee briefings and inquiries relating to intelligence and security matters

Despite Standing Order 189(2), no select committee may receive a briefing on, or initiate an inquiry into, matters related to an intelligence and security agency, unless the House approves that briefing or inquiry.

11 Copies of records of Intelligence and Security Committee

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Intelligence and Security Committee must provide to the House a copy of all records held by the committee in relation to the performance of its functions under section 193(1)(a) to (d) of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017.

(2) A copy of a record provided under paragraph (1) must be provided only after protected information is removed in accordance with the Intelligence and Security Act 2017.

(3) A copy of a record provided under this rule is maintained in the custody of the Clerk as a record belonging to the House. Standing Orders 10 and 11 apply and are to be read accordingly.

I further move, That under section 196 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, this House endorse the following as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee: Hon Amy Adams and Hon Christopher Finlayson, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 194(2)(c) of the Act; and Rt Hon Winston Peters, Hon Andrew Little, and Hon James Shaw, nominated by the Prime Minister under section 194(2)(d) of the Act.

Through the Intelligence and Security Committee, the House exercises oversight and review of the intelligence and security departments—namely, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau. Motions similar to these are brought to the House in the early months of every new Government, but this is the first time that they have been under the authority of the new Intelligence and Security Act, which was enacted last year.

The Intelligence and Security Committee is created by statute, rather than by the House itself. It is not a select committee, but the first motion now before the House establishes procedures that allow it to act, in most respects, as if it were a select committee. It creates a sessional order that allows the Intelligence and Security Committee to consider bills and petitions, to conduct estimates and annual review examinations, and to carry out other security functions that are usually within the remit of select committees. The proceedings of the committee are largely conducted in accordance with the rules and practice of the House. An Office of the Clerk staff member acts as clerk of the committee.

The second motion before the House today concerns the membership of the committee. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are automatically members appointed by section 194 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017. That Act has introduced flexibility around the total membership of the committee, which can now consist of five to seven members. This allows the membership to better represent our MMP Parliament.

After the process of consultation set out in the Act, the Prime Minister has nominated the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Hon Andrew Little, and the Hon James Shaw. The Leader of the Opposition has nominated the Hon Amy Adams and the Hon Chris Finlayson. Thus, the committee will have a great depth of experience on which to draw and will represent the full range of views on intelligence and security issues from across the House. I recommend that the House endorse these nominations.

Mr Speaker, I thank you. I rise to speak in support of Government motion No. 1 and look forward to serving again on this committee. The Intelligence and Security Committee has become a critical part of the oversight and checking of a core part of our democracy, and that is the operation of the intelligence and security community, of course. As a result of the review carried out by the last Government in 2013, the operation of both the committee that we’re discussing today and the wider oversight framework that that committee plays a part of has become significantly strengthened.

It is not an exaggeration to say that we live in a world, unfortunately, of increasingly diverse and complex threats to our economy, to our people, and to society, and we live in a world where intelligence and security agencies like the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau are a very necessary part of our society and they have the privilege of having unique and potentially very intrusive powers. Now, while those powers are absolutely necessary and warranted, it’s equally important for the confidence of society in those organisations that there is proper accountability to this House and to the public more widely.

The committee sits, of course, as part, as I said, of that oversight framework, making up the committee, the inspector-general, and the Commissioner of Security Warrants. I have been fortunate to sit on the committee for some years in the previous Parliament along with the Hon Christopher Finlayson, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the Hon Andrew Little, and it will be enjoyable to have the opportunity to work with them again. The committee in my experience has always worked carefully and constructively and with the best interests of New Zealand in mind, and we look forward to welcoming the Hon James Shaw and, of course, the Rt Hon Bill English and the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, as Mr Robertson has said, in their roles, of course, as automatic appointees as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.

This is an important motion. I appreciate it won’t be one that is of particular interest to the media or perhaps the public at home, but this committee does have that critical role of carrying out oversight, often in secret. And while that secrecy is necessary and warranted, it does mean that there is an extraordinary level of confidence that needs to be placed both in the protocols of the committee and the selection of the membership to it. It is important that you have members with experience, with integrity, and with a working knowledge of the legal systems and the operation of our Intelligence and Security Committee. In my experience, as I’ve said, the committee functions very well. It is an incredibly important committee. I would want to take the opportunity to repeat my desire that the committee does look to operate in public and to disseminate as much of its findings and conclusions as it can so that the public can learn more about the ways in which our intelligence and security community works.

I would like to commend the two agencies that make up the intelligence community for what I’ve seen is their very genuine desire in recent years to be more open with the public about the nature of the work and the extent of the threat. I think that sort of openness has helped New Zealanders to better understand the threats that we face and the way in which we respond to them. I think that has been helpful and I certainly hope that that openness and transparency continues in so far as is sensible, in light, of course, of their ultimate objective, which is the protection of New Zealand and New Zealanders. With those words, I am pleased to support the motion.

In our country’s democratic system, one of Parliament’s most important functions is to serve as a check and balance on the actions and behaviour of the executive. This debate is not meant to be a backslapping exercise but to deal with the realities of the truth. There is no area of greater sensitivity or secrecy within the executive’s various operations than intelligence and security matters. The Intelligence and Security Committee serves therefore as a crucial guardian of the guardians of New Zealand security.

Too long under the last Government the guardian was sidelined—not asleep but just left out. The committee barely met, even as more intelligence-related issues raised massive concerns about the conduct of those core institutions. Once secrecy becomes sacrosanct in this respect it invites abuse. That laissez-faire approach will end, and it needs to, and it will, under the new membership, no longer continue. New Zealanders need to know that their parliamentarians are keeping a check on the policies, administration, and expenditure of the intelligence agencies. The leadership of the newly constituted committee will ensure this function is performed diligently.

There’s an old saying that the success of democracy depends on the enlightenment of its people. The people should know what’s going on and public officials should keep the people informed in the area of intelligence and security. This concept is a most challenging one, so it’s been encouraging to see, for example, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security exhibit leadership over some of the conduct of our intelligence agencies and their policy interpretations or misinterpretations. The Intelligence and Security Committee will offer strong support to the Inspector-General in her role. In the famous words of John Philpot Curran, “The condition [in] which God [gives] liberty to man is eternal vigilance;”, and that’s what we’re going to do.

It’s no secret that the Green Party has had a complicated relationship with the Intelligence and Security Committee. For almost 20 years, Green Party MPs have been calling in this House for this committee to be reformed; for it to much more closely reflect other select committees in Parliament, in transparency, accountability, and membership; for it to move away from operating as a secret meeting, reflecting the old days of first past the post; and for it to much more represent and honour the realities and intentions of MMP. That is why we’re endorsing the membership of the committee before the House today. We’re really pleased that the Prime Minister has chosen to include representatives from every party on this side of the House. It is unfortunate that National has chosen not to include ACT Party leader David Seymour so that every party in Parliament could be represented.

Despite that, the make-up of the committee being endorsed today is a victory for us. There are representatives from every parliamentary party with more than one MP, and it’s roughly in proportion to the number of MPs each party has in the House. During the latest update of the Intelligence and Security Act last year, we got an amendment to the membership clause that requires now that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have regard to the proportionality of parties represented in Parliament. It is a joy to see that come to fruition today.

We had hoped for a bigger committee, to more closely mirror the other parliamentary committees, but we’re heartened that the current size of the committee is as big as it can be with the constraints of the Act as its stands. The Green Party believes that this is a healthier, more democratic, and more balanced representation that will, in turn, provide more robust oversight of agencies that otherwise operate under a cloak of secrecy. It means that the committee is now likely to have a broader range of views represented on it, including those who are questioning or sceptical of the methods and activities of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies.

We were last members of this committee through our then co-leader Russel Norman in 2014, during a time most New Zealanders will remember was very controversial for New Zealand’s security agencies. As a member of this committee, we did our best to ensure that the committee operated as a true watchdog. The Green Party sought, among other things, an inquiry into John Key’s appointment of Ian Fletcher as the head of the GCSB. We asked for an inquiry into the Five Eyes network, and we were the only member of the committee who asked questions about the financial reviews of the GCSB and SIS. That is what effective oversight looks like.

And there’s room for more reform. In other jurisdictions, committees like this operate with far more members, far more independence in their oversight. We’d like to see, for example, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security become an Officer of Parliament, like the Auditor-General or the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who report to this House of Representatives rather than the executive alone.

The Green Party intends to be an effective member of this committee, to do our best to give the public much better oversight of the security and services than we have seen in the past. We will bring cautious and, at times, sceptical scrutiny of the committee’s work and the spy agencies’ activities. We will also treat our responsibility on the committee with appropriate discipline and the code of conduct that is required.

We are pleased to accept the Prime Minister’s nomination onto the committee, and we will be voting for the motion.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in support of these motions. I think that we’re very lucky in New Zealand to have a pretty good solution to the problem of who watches the watchers. And, of course, it needn’t be said that various States at various times in history have fallen into tyranny due to a failure to solve that problem. I think the people on the committee will do a fine job, in the tradition of New Zealand, of being those who watch the watchers.

I can’t help but reflect on Golriz Ghahraman’s comments regarding the size of the committee, and give my thanks, ironically enough, to the Leader of the House, who very magnanimously offered to expand the committee to a membership of seven, in order that there might be an ACT Party member on the committee. I think it won’t have escaped members that, from time to time, despite its small size, ACT brings to the House a unique perspective that sometimes makes debate more interesting and, dare I say it, a little bit better. There was an opportunity for that to occur on the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well. It’s unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition decided, for reasons best known to him, that he would rather block, or veto, that expansion. If he could not have three National Party members, then he would rather have only five members on the committee overall—an odd decision for the Leader of the Opposition to make, but I’m sure that a lot of his colleagues will be reflecting on decisions like that in months to come.

So, Mr Assistant Speaker, I commend these motions to the House, and thank you very much for your time.

Motions agreed to.