Speaking factually

Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson is one of Parliament's best debaters. And he delivered an excellent speech in the House yesterday in moving the Second Reading of the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. Here's Finlayson's speech, courtesy of In the House:

There has been much rhetoric around this Bill. Opposition parties, especially the Greens and Labour and their activists have indulged in what Finlayson described as "uninformed commentary" and "ill-founded scaremongering" and the Minister said early in his speech:

So, at the outset, let me make it quite clear: this legislation is not a revolution in the way New Zealand conducts its intelligence operations and national security. It is not a case of expanding the borders of some intelligence empire. This is about fixing legislation that at its best is not fit for purpose and, at worst, is broken. Under this bill, New Zealanders can be confident that our intelligence agencies are acting in accordance with the rule of law. The bill sets out definitively what it is our intelligence agency can and cannot do under the law. There are no grey areas. There are no loopholes. This is very important because of the status of national security in a democratic society. National security is vital for maintaining the freedoms and the way of life that we hold dear. It is vital for keeping us safe and free from harm. But national security tools, if turned inwards and not subject to strict controls, can erode that way of life and threaten the freedom of individuals. National security legislation must not have loopholes that can be exploited by those who would threaten our security, who would threaten loss of life through terrorism or criminal activity. But, equally, national security legislation must not have grey areas of uncertainty or doubtful interpretation that allow the State gradually to extend its activities and creep into ordinary people’s private lives like some kind of growing shadow. The bill strikes the right balance.

The 2003 Act empowering the GCSB clearly DID have loopholes, and the Government is acting to close those loopholes, which is what any government should do when loopholes become apparent. Critics of the bill bandy around the phrase "mass surveillance", but that is not the intent of the Bill.

Parliament's Debating Chamber is often a place of theatre and theatrics, but Christopher Finlayson's speech yesterday was a masterclass in factual simplicity. Here's how he closed:

This bill takes into account national security and privacy. The issue is not national security or privacy; it is both. National security is about protecting our citizens and the rights and the freedoms we value. The legislation is sensitive to those rights and freedoms. In conclusion, the bill has been subject to extensive discussion and debate, which on occasion have obscured this very important issue. The bill before us today incorporates 19 recommendations endorsed by the Intelligence and Security Committee—and it is important to say that they reflect public submissions—and there will be further changes, which have been flagged publicly, in a Supplementary Order Paper. As I say, this bill does not represent an extension of powers but a clarification. I commend the bill to the House.

It is a shame that Labour is more interested in playing politics than in acknowledging that its 2003 legislation had flaws, which have been magnified by advances in technology. We would never expect the Greens or Mana to support anything to do with the GCSB or other security services; Russel Norman wants the GCSB disbanded. 

And it will be interesting to see whether the "further changes" flagged by Christopher Finlayson will be sufficient to win New Zealand First's support at the Third Reading. We don't believe that at the moment there is too much of a gap between the NZF and National's positions on the Bill.

Security and privacy are vital issues. We believe that the revised GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that the balance between privacy and national security is maintained.