PART ONE grossly expanded the POWERS OF THE GCSB without adequate oversight mechanisms and in a way that many New Zealander's are uncomfortable with.
What PART TWO does is make some changes and improvements to the ‘oversight’ of the GCSB and for that we are grateful.
If we look at the NEW 629, the new clause 5.We say straight away where some of the problem starts.
5 (2) The Inspector-General and deputy Inspector-General must be appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister following consultation with the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Once again, we want to recap where we have the Prime Minister and the different roles that the Prime Minister has in relation to the GCSB.
We have the Prime Minister appointing the Director of the GCSB and we’ve already seen with the appointment of IAN FLETCHER how the Prime Minister’s role in that process can be abused, when the Prime Minister cuts across a process that’s already in place. Calls his friend up, tells his friend to speak to the Chief Executive from the Prime Minister’s Department who is on the appointment panel and ONLY ONE PERSON GETS INTERVIEWED FOR THAT ROLE and that is the Prime Minister’s friend [IAN FLETCHER], and then that person gets appointed.
[interruption by Annette King Labour MP]
Grant Robertson: Yes, that’s right the HEAD of the PRIME MINISTER’S DEPARTMENT, as Annette King reminds me, met with that person [Fletcher], while the process was underway. So, that’s our concern about that.
The Prime Minister appointing the Head of the GCSB. The Prime Minister is chairing the Oversight Committee for the GCSB and here now, this clause here, we have the Prime Minister Responsible for ensuring, for appointing the Inspector-General and the deputy Inspector-General.
What we’re saying on this side of the HOUSE, Mr. CHAIR, is that we look at the way in which the Inspector-General’s function is setup and we need to move with the times.
This legislation was created in 1996, and we fast-forward to 2013.
People’s concerns about the role of security and intelligence agencies, the kind of information that’s being collected, means that this WATCHDOG ROLE that we’re talking about in PART TWO, is more important than ever. And we actually do have to recognise that things are different then they were in 1996.
The public have a higher expectation of the kind of ‘oversight’ ‘watchdog’ role that will be in place.
Now Mr Robertson, this is the part of your speech that pushed my memory rewind button.
And what I want to mention and suggest Mr. CHAIR is what should be here in this PART, is the ROLE of PARLIAMENT in this, the role of parliament Now we do have some change to that. That a member of parliament can under the new section or the amended section 11, can initiate inquiry, but the whole process of the appointment of the Inspector-General is actually one that I would venture to suggest, should end up being an Officer of Parliament, time-role in the long-term.
It would be the kind of issue that would be raised in the ‘Review’ that the Labour Party has been proposing but my personal view is, we should be moving that role towards an Officer of Parliament position and I think that’s an important step we could take to restore confidence in this role of Inspector-General. That’s not what’s here. So we have some improvements here in clause 5, to create a deputy-Inspector-General role. But we, on this side of the HOUSE, believe that this role, Inspector-General should be considered for being a role for an Officer of Parliament.
We know from the role from the other Offices of Parliament play, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Auditor-General, Ombudsman, that those roles are one-step removed from the day-to-day process of government and that is what will restore confidence in the GCSB and the Inspector-General’s role if New Zealander's know that person is effectively working on behalf of parliamentarians who work on behalf of them. So that is the direction the Labour Party would like to see considered and unfortunately this section does not go that far. And while we would like to support all of these changes that are in this Bill, in the end when a Bill does not give the ‘oversight’ and the ‘watchdog’ role, the power we believe it has then we will not be able to support that aspect of the Bill.
I read an article by Elizabeth McLeay, titled 'Scrutiny and Capacity: An evaluation
of the parliamentary committees in the New Zealand Parliament', sometime ago and I am of the opinion that it was written especially for you.
Here's the PDF Link: http://aspg.org.au/journal/2006autumn_21_1/5-0%20McLeayApril.2006rev2.pdf
I have learnt so much about Parliamentary process but there is so much more to learn and as time never stands still, so must our political processes as you so eloquently put it, "we need to move with the times".
But for me, I need to venture back into the past, so that I can see the position I am in today and it's quite a fascinating meandering experience.
I thoroughly enjoyed listening to your oration via Parliamentary youtube and admittedly you are the first and only MP that never bored me.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment