And rather than spend time reinventing the wheel, here's what DPF says:
The GCSB law has completed its committee stage, and will pass its third reading today.
Some people would have you believe that this law is a massive change from the current GCSB law passed by Helen Clark. Well, they are partially right. It is significantly different. I’ve detailed below my analysis of some of the major differences between the 2003 Helen Clark law and the 2013 John Key law.
Helen Clark GCSB law 2003 John Key GCSB law 2013 Inspector-General sole independent oversight two person advisory panel to assist the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Inspector-General has no staff resources Inspector-General has a Deputy Inspector-General role is essentially reactive Inspector-General to proactively annually review GCSB procedures, policies and compliance and do unscheduled audits Inspector General not informed when a warrant is put on the register relating to a New Zealander Inspector General is informed when a warrant is put on the register relating to a New Zealander GCSB can’t intercept the communications of a NZ citizen or permanent resident but can assist “any public authority” on any matter relevant to their functions, and unclear if the former prevents the latter GCSB can’t intercept the communications of a NZ citizen or permanent resident but can assist (only the) Police, Defence Force or SIS even if it involves a NZer. No reporting of assistance given to other agencies GCSB will be required to report annually on the number of instances when it has provided assistance to the Police, SIS or NZ Defence Force No reporting on number of warrants and authorisations GCSB will also be required to report annually on the number of warrants and authorisations issued Intelligence and Security Committee has secret hearings to discuss the financial reviews of the performance of the GCSB and the SIS Intelligence and Security Committee will hold public hearings annually to discuss the financial reviews of the performance of the GCSB and the SIS ISC does not have to publicly report to Parliament ISC to report annually to Parliament on its activities No regular reviews of GCSB An independent review of the operations and performance the GCSB and the NZSIS and their governing legislation in 2015, and thereafter every 5-7 years GCSB has a function to protect any information that any public authority or other entity produces, sends, receives, or holds in any medium GCSB function to protect any communications that any public entity processed, stored, or communicated in or through information infrastructures No specification of limits of GCSB assistance Specifies that GCSB can assist Police, Defence Force and SIS, but only for lawful activities such as where warrants have been granted IPCA has no jurisdiction Gives the IPCA and the IGIS jurisdiction to review any assistance given to Police and SIS respectively No references to according to human rights standards Specifies all functions of GCSB must accord with NZ law, and all human rights standards recognised by NZ law. No references to not undertaking partisan activity Specifies GCSB can’t be involved in any action that helps or harms a political party No requirement to brief the Leader of the Opposition GCSB Director required to brief Leader of Opposition regularly on major activities of GCSB Requires GCSB to destroy any records not relating to GCSB objectives or functions Required GCSB to not retain any information on NZers collected incidentally as part of foreign intelligence operations unless relates to serious crime, loss of life or national security threats No special protection for legally privileged communications Legally privileged communications explicitly exempted from scope of an interception warrant No requirement to have a policy on personal information retention and use GCSB required to work with Privacy Commission to have a policy on personal information retention and use No restrictions in GCSB Act on retaining personal information GCSB can only retain personal information for a lawful purpose, and can’t keep longer than required for any lawful purpose
This is not a complete analysis. I was hoping the Government may have such a document themselves, but it seems they don’t. So I put it together last night by comparing the 2003 Act and the latest SOP from the Government. I am sure I have missed out a couple of things, and over-simplified in a couple.
The point is to point out that the 2013 law is including a huge number of protections that the 2003 law is silent or, or missing. Those demanding the law not pass would have you implicitly think the status quo is superior. They are quite wrong, and mischievously so. Recall the current law does not ban the GCSB from assisting the Police and SIS. It has merely been said by lawyers to be unclear, and in fact the Inspector-General has said the assistance has been legal.
I think the Government has bent over backwards to put protections into the law, partly as a result of their coalition partners. Have a read of the existing law, and decide for yourself.
So my question to all the people demanding National MPs cross the floor and vote against the bill, is where were you in 2003? Where were the protests against the 2003 law? Where were the demands Labour MPs in 2003 voted down Helen Clark’s law?
Also I ask how many media stories have focused on an actual side by side analysis of the old and laws, detailing all the changes? Or have they just live-streamed protest meetings?
It is unfortunate that amongst all the media coverage of the GCSB Bill, there has been little if any informed comment from our media as to just what the GCSB will and will not be permitted to do once the new law passes today. There has been an abundance of emotion and scaremongering, with phrases like "mass surveillance", "spying on your e-mails" and Godwin-like comparisons of the GCSB and the Government to the Gestapo.
Instead a blogger has taken the time and trouble to compare the 2003 and 2013 legislation in a reasoned an unemotional manner. A comparison such as this would have been helpful much earlier in the debate.
There will doubtless be plenty of hot air unleashed as the Third Reading debate takes place this afternoon. But when the sun rises tomorrow life will go on, and in due course the GCSB will know exactly what it is permitted to do, and what it is especially prohibited from doing. That level of certainty will help to ensure that a situation such as the Kim Dotcom one is not repeated.
