Beaumont Carol: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13989. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):Fakalofalahi atu. I want to pick up from that very good contribution made by my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. I think that people listening to this debate will hopefully have got the seriousness of what we are talking about here tonight. We are speaking at the moment about Part 3 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. This part clauses 43 to 54A relates to network security. It is supposedly around preventing mitigating or removing security risks arising from public telecommunications networks and interconnections between those networks.As many of my colleagues have said our concern is not that we do not deal with potential security risks. We know that we need to do that and we know that that legislation does need to be updated particularly to take account of the changing nature of technology. We understand all of that and we are not opposed as some have been trying to say including the Minister in the chair the Minister for Communications and Information Technology to being aware of security risks. What we want though is to ensure that that is balanced with the rights of New Zealanders to privacy and that there are controls on the power that is being given to the Minister in particular under this legislation. We believe absolutely that this bill does not provide that balance and that this Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is the bill that effectively implements the provisions of the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation. That is something that New Zealanders are deeply troubled about and they should be.In Part 3 we basically have a situation where in the description itself from the Law and Order Committee we have got it noted that as introduced aspects of this part were not clear or were too broad. That is what it says. There have been some changes made clearly as it has been reported back from the select committee but the question I ask myself having not been involved in that select committee is how confident we can be that those changes have actually addressed all of the areas that are not clear or are too broad. Well I have to say that I think that the select committee cannot have done that. When you look at the powers of the Minister responsible for the GCSB to make directions under clause 54 of the bill and when you look at the fact that there is provision for continuing regulations to add to the lists of areas of specified security interests which are listed in clause 46 then you have to ask yourself whether there is sufficient protection here.I want to commend my colleague Clare Curran who has done enormous work on this bill and who has got Supplementary Order Paper 370 on the Table around clauses 46 47 and 48. Basically the Supplementary Order Paper that she has put up would limit the network operators to which these sections apply to a class of network operators positively identified rather than have blanket coverage of all network providers from which exemptions may be sought. That then leads to clause 48 being deleted as it relates to exemptions and is redundant as the presumption with the amendments to clauses 46 and 47 I have just referred is for a specific inclusion rather than blanket coverage. I think that that Supplementary Order Paper is very worthy and should be considered.I do find it fascinating that we have members opposite all sitting there talking to each other reading something heads down doing whatever it is they are doing across the Chamber and not engaging with this legislation. Why is it that those members opposite are not addressing the concerns that we are raising? These are significant questions in a democracy and you would expect that members of Parliament who are here to serve democracy would want to comment on these things. If you disagree—sorry if members opposite disagree because I know that the Chair is deeply troubled by this as well—if members opposite are concerned about this democracy and concerned about the issues that we are raising then get to your feet and tell us what you think about this legislation and why the issues we are raising are incorrect. I think that you actually cannot do that. I think that what you are doing is allowing—