Peters Winston: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13851. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): When the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill came before the House in its first reading New Zealand First said that we would support it going to the Law and Order Committee and that our support was conditional on there being sufficient oversight and safeguards put in place so that the rights and freedoms of New Zealand citizens and residents are not jeopardised or disregarded in the execution of the powers that this bill encompasses.The fact is though that at the select committee it became very apparent that this bill has been watered down but that the Hon Amy Adams does not understand it or the internet or any of the technical implications of the law she is trying to pass. She has four of the largest providers of internet content and email—Google Yahoo! Microsoft and Facebook—saying that there will be legal conflicts with other countries and that this law is out of alignment with approaches taken by the UK Canada the United States and Australia. That is pretty damning when you think about it because those are the other parties to the “Five Eyes” arrangement much vaunted by the members of the National Government for a long period of time. The New Zealand Government’sapproach differed from how the United States Britain Canada and Australia had decided to tackle interception issues—so say Google Microsoft Facebook and Yahoo!. However Amy Adams rejected that saying that this bill was “not out of step”. The real question straight away becomes how she would know.The reality is that New Zealand First is concerned by the way the Government and Ministers and the Prime Minister in particular expect people to believe their assurances—assurances blandly given. You will recall that before the House rose for the adjournment we raised the issue of a raid by the SIS in July of last year on members of the Fiji Democracy and Freedom movement in this country. Here is Mr Key’s answer: “I am not in a position to comment on that.” he said. “I do not have those details but I will say that I understand that there has been a radio report—at least I have been advised that Mr Singh said that he complained to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I am advised that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has no record of a formal complaint to the inspector-general in relation to what the member is talking about. If Mr Singh feels there is a problem he should follow his legal rights and make a complaint to the inspector-general.” Well there was a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has referred that on to the inspector-general but the Prime Minister came to this House and he told everyone that there is no concern because the only example of illegality is in the case of Kim Dotcom. That was his statement.When you see a group like United Front for a Democratic Fiji put out on Thursday 10 October—just a few days ago—a statement like this you have got to be concerned. It said: “It is therefore with nothing short of horror that the council has reacted to the response by the Prime Minister to recent revelations in Parliament regarding an illegal raid carried out by the SIS in July last year upon members of the Fiji Democracy and Freedom movement in Auckland in which the Terrorism Suppression Act was invoked by way of justification.” The raid was based upon the pretext of alleged discovery of an assassination plot against the Prime Minister of Fiji Frank Bainimarama. That is the background to this. Do not forget that the Prime Minister on successive days got up in Parliament and said there was nothing to worry about.Here are the objectionable features. The raid was carried out in collusion with the Fiji military. That is abundantly clear from all the texts from the commander of the Fiji land forces back to New Zealand all on his phone showing that he had knowledge at the time the raid was being carried out of the raid itself. The second matter is this: those carrying out the raids who identified themselves as members of the SIS asserted that there was cogent evidence to support the assertion of the existence of an assassination plot yet no follow-up action or criminal proceedings were ever taken or are prospected to be taken even now. So that disposes of that humbug. Third the plot—the subject of the raids—was used as a pretext for stripping a New Zealander of his New Zealand passport whereas when he filed proceedings in the High Court to challenge that step the Minister of Internal Affairs backed down and conceded one week before the set hearing date occurred. So one week out when challenged with all this information and knowing that it now had to justify the SIS action the Government withdrew. Again the Prime Minister claims that there is nothing wrong with that—nothing untoward.This is the fourth point: no warrant was shown to justify the raids. A warrant was requested to be shown but was refused to be shown on the basis of being confidential. That is a most extraordinary claim for an SIS officer—a female in this case—to make because the reason why the warrant is in that person’s hands is that it is the legal and authoritative justification for that member to be there carrying out that raid. When requested it must be shown. In fact it should be shown voluntarily. Plus their name should be given. So on all four counts the Prime Minister’s assurance to this House isfound wanting and seriously wanting. That might be the behaviour of somebody from Merrill Lynch but it is not the behaviour of someone who seeks to lead one of the great democracies of this world one of only nine nations that can boast a long line of unbroken elections for the last 150 years. That is how much this Prime Minister misunderstands his duties and responsibilities. He is prepared to come here and say “Trust me.” Really? Why would we given that when he is asked this series of questions over 2 days he gives these bland assurances that because he is in charge he can be trusted? Everyone knows now that he cannot be.This case will not go away but it is the background to the kind of information that is being discussed in this House today and here comes the Minister for Communications and Information Technology who says “Look I’ll send somebody to brief you.” Who? Her? What is her expertise in this industry? You have got Microsoft Google Yahoo! and Facebook all of which know that their arrangements with the other “Five Eyes” countries—Australia Canada the UK and the USA—are different. But no we are expected to believe that by some giant intellectual feat this Minister and the Prime Minister can be trusted to understand the issue and ensure that the legal safeguards are in place.What the bill is basically asking for is the equivalent of getting New Zealand Post at a moment’s notice to read all incoming mail for a group of people make it contact whoever wrote the letters and demand that they cooperate with the New Zealand Government.Jacqui Dean: Not true.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know that what I have just heard from over there is rubbish but I am not dealing in the speciality of that member from the South Island; we are dealing with facts. What the bill is basically asking from us is the equivalent of getting New Zealand Post at a moment’s notice to read all incoming mail for a group of people make it contact whoever wrote the letters and demand that they cooperate with the New Zealand Government. How on earth is that responsibility one that New Zealand Post should bear? New Zealand Post is also expected to bear the cost. That is exactly what is going on here. In this case theinternet service provider—that institution—is the post office. It will pass the costs on to the consumers to pay for the privilege madam of being spied upon. Either put up somebody else to refute the argument being put up by the Opposition or kindly keep quiet because sitting there and not putting anyone up is not an adequate defence for what the Government says is a laudable needed essential bill for the security and safety of New Zealanders.That is why we have changed from supporting the bill having seen it at the select committee hearings and seen the way the Minister has treated it to now opposing it.