Alexander Marc: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12277] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to talk about the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill. But before I go to some of the substance of it I would like to address some of the concerns raised yesterday by the honourable Simon Power who questioned the duplicity of this Government for arguing about the requirement for such a bill given Labour’s insistence on New Zealand’s benign strategic environment. 
Simon Power 
: That’s right. Good point. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: It is a very good point. To partly address it I would like to say that although we were given advice that yes New Zealand is still in a benign strategic environment underlying that is a sense of unease about the way the world is progressing. Whether we like it or not we will be dragged into the net of worldwide terrorism. If we look at it it is no coincidence that it came up recently in the news media that the second most powerful member of al-Qaeda might have slipped into New Zealand on two occasions. So for whatever reason we are caught up in the net of international terrorism. We have not yet been attacked but I do not share the optimism of the Green spokesperson Keith Locke that we are living in a benign strategic environment. All I say to him is simply that we have a troubled world and Keith Locke is probably the most appropriate person to talk about that point. In my opinion and given his views he is a troubled man speaking out in a troubled world. 
Speaking to the substance of the bill the bill is necessary—in fact it is essential if we are to ensure that law enforcement and our national security capability will not be compromised due to changes in technology. The bill places a legislative obligation on all telecommunications network operators to intercept communications when authorised to do so by a warrant from a lawful authority. The bill also imposes—in concert with the technological regime of interception—reasonable assistance to police the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS. It should be noted that although the bill gives those operators the capacity to intercept communications it does not expand the powers of the respective agencies that can make use of it. I think that is a vital point. It should also be pointed out that this legislation is not unique but puts us on a par with other nations such as the UK Germany our cousins the Australians across the ditch and the US. 
A question debated at some length during the Law and Order Committee process—a high-powered select committee process I might add under the sterling leadership of Martin Gallagher who with his razor mind corralled us into really understanding this bill—was who will pay? Although there was some debate regarding the amount and about how the apportionment was to be considered it will be the Government—or should I say the taxpayer—who will pay for the technological requirements imposed by the bill for existing fixed and mobile phone networks. There will be a phased implementation process to provide the industry with the opportunity to put in place the necessary changes. 
I suppose the real conundrum of the bill is the inevitable clash between the issues of law enforcement and the right to individual privacy. Somewhere somehow a balance must be struck and I believe that the bill in light of the very real threat to our security since 9/11 achieves that. The simple truth is that the right to individual privacy can only be guaranteed by having the ability to enforce our security and this bill is the means to do it. The rights to privacy that we in New Zealand value so highly should not be unduly threatened or compromised by this bill. At the same time we must not romanticise our privacy to the detriment of legitimate security concerns. 
I make mention of the other point not yet raised and it is that putting aside the international threats to our security one of the prime reasons that this bill is being put before us is to also combat the internal threat—the threat to security and safety posed by criminal organisations. A fundamental part of this bill now gives the technological advantage to police and security agencies so that they can access information against for example gangs and drug barons who use New Zealand as a way to profit from the P epidemic at the expense of the public and against the relationship those criminals have overseas in bringing these drugs into the country and organising criminal activities. United Future supports this bill as it properly balances the needs of internal security with our right to privacy. 
My last comment at this point is simply to suggest to those people who do not see a need for such a bill that they reflect on the fact that they now have the freedom to voice their concerns about so-called intrusions into their rights to privacy because we have put in place security measures to ensure that freedom in the first place. I find it very odd that individuals are against legislation of this sort. What would they replace it with? I am left only with the conclusion that they would replace the ability to guarantee our safety with such technological innovation with measures such as throwing psychiatrists at the terrorists and criminal organisers and looking upon them as simply misguided individuals. 
That is not the way forward. This bill addresses some of the legitimate concerns we have in this country about threats of both an external and internal nature. It would be good to see all parties of this House send the very same message. Sadly that does not seem to be the case because the Greens have romanticised their freedom and clearly do not see that freedom as having been hard won by innovations such as the ones that this legislation proposes.