Tisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3538] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to look very closely at what the bill is about. I have always tempered the view that the primary role of a Government is the protection of its citizens whether it be at home on the street or at work where we rely on the police or whether it be on the national scene where we rely on our defence forces. This bill is about giving an extra tool to our national security to allow us to intercept messages and communications between countries between individuals and between an individual and a country. It is like an insurance policy. 
Clause 7 in my view is the main part of the bill; it is what the bill is about. It identifies that network operators must ensure that public telecommunications networks and telecommunications services have interception capability. That is in essence what the bill is about. The Government is bringing forward legislation that requires that telecommunication operators companies like Telecom Clear Communications and Telstra have interception capability. Clause 7(1) goes on to state: “ … every public telecommunications network that the operator owns controls or operates and every telecommunications service that the operator provides in New Zealand has an interception capability.” That is fine. We support that. 
However there is a provision that does concern me—and we are supporting this bill going to the Law and Order Committee. The explanatory note states: “ … the interception capability requirements specifically refer to privacy—they include the ability to exclude telecommunications that are not authorised to be intercepted.” This will be a very grey area. What is paramount? Is it security? What is the price of security? What is the price if there are interceptions that were not authorised? I guess that is covered in clause 8 “When duty to have interception capability is complied with” or further on in clause 11 “Minister may grant exemptions”. The questions I ask are why we would want to have exemptions and what the price of our national security is. When the bill goes to the select committee those will be the questions we put forward because we want to know exactly what is required there—what actually is that provision. 
We also note that in clause 15 in Part 3 there is a lead-in time. Because of changes to technology there is provision to have a quite substantial lead-in time. Clause 15(1)(a) states: “in the case of a public switched telephone network or a telecommunications service on 1 October 2004;”. Clause 15(1)(b) states: “in the case of a public data network on 1 April 2008.” So there is a huge lead-in time for this. We know that technology changes and that companies will have to spend a lot of money to be able to adapt to the requirements of this bill. We support that. 
We need to be vigilant we need to be ready and we need to play our part in the world security scene. This bill provides for that. That is the reason we will be supporting it going to the select committee. Although we may be geographically isolated we are not immune to what is happening. We saw that with the terrorism in Bali. We need to be prepared. This bill is a step along that way. It is a tool a provision that we can support and we look forward to further debate at the select committee.