Hudson Brett: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHudson Brett: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in opposition to this bill. I thank the member who has just taken his seat Phil Goff. I do not think in my life I have witnessed someone be so wrong in such an impassioned way. I am going to speak to this bill in a moment as a member who worked in the very telecommunications industry that he is trying to tell this House works a certain way—I can assure the House that it does not.But let us look at what Ms Curran’s bill is looking to do. The idea has some theoretical merit—the idea is that you get some technical experts to advise so a Minister can make a better decision. That is a smart thing. However you do not necessarily need to have a board if instead you have some very sound business processes that achieve the same outcome without one.I chose to look at the process for procurement of telecommunications equipment that could have some implication for national security. There are about eight steps—eight very clear milestones and decision points in that process. Every one of them offers an opportunity for technical input either from the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) or even more important from industry. So there is not a technical advisory board but there is absolutely opportunity for technical experts both within the bureau and from without to have their input.Let us look at why we did not make a board. Well it was reflected upon by a select committee. Submitters might have said one thing but it is the committee that decides.The committee decided that the board would have to make decisions that would have to consider matters that involved classified information. So you are not just talking about representatives from Spark or Vodafone; you are talking about people who have to have requisite security clearance. So the committee felt that the board even with the best intentions would simply be ineffective in most of its decisions. This would relate to both commercially sensitive decisions it could not make and also to potentially classified information that it should not be party to.So on the basis that the bill was considered and this particular board was seen as unnecessary the process already permits for the technical expertise to be rendered to first the GCSB director and later to the Minister in that decision-making process.The third and perhaps most important test would be to reflect now that the legislation has been in place for 18 months. So let us count the number of complaints or issues that have been raised since this legislation has been in place.Simon O’Connor: How many?BRETT HUDSON: Zero. So what we see in practice is that the model that has been adopted offers both the input from industry as well as from other experts within the bureau. It has been in place for 18 months and there have been no issues. It was a sound decision by the House in the first place and there is no need to change it. I oppose this bill.