5.
KEITH LOCKE (Green)
to the
Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service
: How many current members of Parliament does the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service maintain personal files on?
Hon JOHN KEY (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service)
:
In accordance with longstanding practice, I decline to provide details on the work of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. This matter will undoubtedly be considered as part of the review that I have asked the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to undertake.
Keith Locke
: Does the Prime Minister favour the Security Intelligence Service relooking at existing personal files and, as the legislation requires, closing all of those that do not involve sabotage, subversion, espionage, or terrorism, and for a start closing my SIS file, which has been running without any ethical or legal basis for over 50 years?
Hon JOHN KEY
: The methods and information collection priorities of the SIS have altered over the years as the nature and perception of threats to security have changed. The practices of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service that are reflected in some of the personal files are of a different era from today’s. They were meticulous in detail and often included material that would not be collected today. It is my understanding that the member’s file was closed in 2006 and there is not a new file.
Jeanette Fitzsimons
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that the information on my colleague’s SIS file and on other recently released files shows that over the years many of the targets of SIS surveillance have been legitimate critics of Government policy; if so, what will he, as the responsible Minister, do to ensure that the service properly targets its activities at those who genuinely present a risk to New Zealand’s security?
Hon JOHN KEY
: It is very clear and important that there should be a delineation between political activism and genuine security risks. I am concerned enough about that to have asked the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to undertake an investigation. He has assured me that he should be able to report back within 2 to 3 weeks. I am happy to table this afternoon the letter sent to Paul Neazor, if the member wants that to be done. For the member’s benefit, I can tell her that included in the terms of reference are the following: the adequacy and suitability of the service’s policies relating to the creation, maintenance, and closure of files on New Zealand persons in light of the service’s functions under the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969, and the adequacy and suitability of the service’s compliance with such policies in light of the matters raised in the public domain.
Dr Kennedy Graham
: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Intelligence and Security Committee Act will be amended to ensure that the relevant committee that has oversight of the SIS is transformed into a proper select committee that includes members of all political parties represented in the forty-ninth Parliament, thereby ensuring broader accountability to the public?
Hon JOHN KEY
: No, I cannot confirm that the committee will be widened to include all parties, but I point out to the member that there are currently five independent bodies, which are officers of Parliament that are separate from the executive, who have some responsibility for overseeing the activities of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. They include the Privacy Commissioner, the Chief Ombudsman, the Controller and Auditor-General, the Commissioner of Security Warrants, and the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence.
Keith Locke
: Will those New Zealanders who have recently received their files from the Security Intelligence Service—files that show a gross abuse of their privacy—be given an opportunity to make submissions to Justice Neazor, particularly in light of the broad range of his mandate, as the Minister has just expressed it; and will he recommend that perhaps the inquiry could take longer that the 2 to 3 weeks he mentioned in his previous answer?
Hon JOHN KEY
: I am not proposing that Paul Neazor undertakes a broader consultation process. But obviously the member feels strongly about his own personal file and the collection of that file. There would be nothing to stop the member from writing to Justice Neazor, and I am sure he would take correspondence such as that into consideration in his findings.
Dr Kennedy Graham
: I seek leave to table the current list of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Mr SPEAKER
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The member will table it before the end of today’s sitting.
- Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Dr Kennedy Graham
: May I just add—
Mr SPEAKER
: The member cannot add to that unless he is raising another point of order. If he wishes to raise another point of order to table another document, then that is fine; the member may do that.
Keith Locke
: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hate to cut across my colleague, but there is a slight problem with that document in that it seems to include the Rt Hon Winston Peters in the list, and I was of the understanding that he is not represented in this Parliament.
Mr SPEAKER
: The member knows that that is not a point of order.
Hon John Key
: I seek leave to table the letter I wrote yesterday to the Hon Paul Neazor in relation to the terms of reference that I have asked him to look at or take into consideration in his investigation of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.
Mr SPEAKER
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
- Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.