Faafoi Kris: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much Mr Chair for the chance to have a contribution to the debate on Part 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. In an effort to try to garner some kind of favour with you to get a second call I am just going to outline what I intend to talk about. I know that my colleagues have spoken about the “network operator” and the definition of that. I certainly will try to touch on that and also something that Dr David Clark mentioned—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A great man.KRIS FAAFOI: —a very good man—and that is the definition of “surveillance agency”.I did want to start with the definition of “network operator”. A number of my colleagues have spoken about the very broad nature of the definition as it stands within the bill. For the benefit of those who are listening or watching at home a network operator under this bill is “(a) a person who owns controls or operates a public telecommunications network; or (b) a person who supplies (whether by wholesale or retail) another person with the capability to provide a telecommunications service”. A little bit further on in Part 1 it does go on to define “telecommunications service” as having the meaning given to it under section 5 of the Telecommunications Act.Mr Chair I want to—because I want to stay very much on the bill and not be sidetracked by other issues—read to you what a telecommunication under the Telecommunications Act 2001 is defined as. The term “telecommunication” means “the conveyance by electromagnetic means from one device to another of any encrypted or non-encrypted sign signal impulse writing image sound instruction information or intelligence of any nature whether for the information of any person using the device or not;”. Essentially that puts within the legislation anything you do with any electronic device—it comes under this legislation. So if you run an internet website at all you will be included within this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill.A number of my colleagues have mentioned whether or not the likes of Stuff or theNew Zealand Herald website would be considered a network operator. Within the definition of “telecommunication” within the 2001 Act that certainly seems the case. Trevor Mallard—he is absent; sorry he is not with us at the moment—mentioned the instance of a school in Auckland and whether it would be considered a network operator. But we on this side of the Chamber put forward that anyone running any kind of internet service—whether it be the likes of Stuff or theNew Zealand Herald website or whether it be Facebook or whether it beSkype—any communication and any type of electronic communication that any Kiwi makes can now be intercepted by this bill. That goes to the very heart of the major concern you saw on the streets of New Zealand about 2 months ago when thousands if not tens of thousands of Kiwis who were very concerned about the likes of the definition of a network operator within this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation which is the cousin or very close cousin—Moana Mackey: Companion.KRIS FAAFOI: —the companion bill—to this piece of legislation and what this meant for their everyday communication. I want to go back to the definition of “telecommunication” within the 2001 Act. It says “the conveyance by electromagnetic means from one device to another of any encrypted or non-encrypted sign signal impulse writing image sound instruction information or intelligence of any nature”. So that means anything whether it be a text message or whether youSkype someone on the other side of the world. This legislation gives the ability to the GCSB or pretty much any other surveillance agency—Clare Curran: Without checks or balances.KRIS FAAFOI: —with no checks or balances—to intercept them. Anything that they want to do with any electronic communications can be intercepted. We have major concerns about that and we do not think that the balance is right especially around some of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applications around this bill and the GCSB legislation.Can I move on to another piece of Part 1 and that is around the definition of “surveillance agency”. As it stands in this piece of legislation at the moment “surveillance agency” means “(a) a law enforcement agency; or (b) an intelligence and security agency”. There were major concerns on this side of the House around this at the Law and Order Committee so my colleague Clare Curran has helpfully put forward Supplementary Order Paper 370 which will look to replace the definition of “surveillance agency” as it stands now.