Browning Steffan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13975. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. This interception capability and security is again part of the same problem that we talked about in Part 1 where we have to ask where the instructions are for New Zealand to go down this track. Was it just because of the Kim Dotcom case where there was some illegal surveillance some illegal spying and we are fixing that up? Because even when the officials were looking at this bill—looking at how we compare with other countries how our legislation stacks up and what layers of interception capability were required—the places they looked at were our “Five Eyes” partners. I do not recall seeing anything else. There was the United States the United Kingdom Canada and Australia. That is where the comparisons were done. Clearly there is an international move and the Minister for Communications and Information Technology herself has said how there was nothing internationally that we were not consistent with.Well we are apparently getting less and less inconsistent with the “Five Eyes” - Echelon partnership and it would seem in fact that this is what a lot of this is about. Of course we need some capacity for natural law surveillance. We have issues of kidnapping and issues of serious crime where we expect and accept it seems as a community a certain level of surveillance. That can happen under existing legislation and clearly does. What was happening illegally but what was not meant to be happening was spying on New Zealand citizens by an internationally linked spy agency the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). I will keep on about Waihopai and the spy agency thing because that is often forgotten about when we look at where these different capabilities are in terms of access and I did touch on that earlier.In her letter to us the Minister was talking about clause 39 which is part of Part 2 and the fact that the bill currently allows the responsible Minister to direct that a network operator must not resell an overseas telecommunications service in New Zealand where the interception capability or lack of interception capability raises a “significant risk” to law enforcement or national security. Of course we have looked at some of that in the interpretation provisions but that also can be rather subjective.What is a significant risk to law enforcement? What is a “significant risk to national security”? Some of this is necessary only in a full surveillance State. It is not about dealing with organised crime in a way that the police could be managing under other law or with some other issues that might be addressed under the search and surveillance legislation. This is law that allows something much greater and as I say that is only necessary in a full surveillance State—Big Brother. There is a need for a full genuine inquiry into what we actually want as citizens in this country as a basis for surveillance law and surveillance agencies.We need that discussion because these things—the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act 2013 and this bill and the interception capability in Part 2 here—are all about trade-offs between privacy human rights and the level of access by State agencies and some are unfortunately linked with overseas agencies. So what would we do? What are we prepared to do as citizens in terms of that trade-off?There is some point at which we will say “No the risk isn’t worth it.” because the event or the concern may not happen in a matter of years—terrorism as such—or it might happen once or twice in terms of a kidnapping. We have to look at that level of risk as to how much we will give over in terms of reduction in privacy and the like. So the level of access is a big part of this.Under Part 2 of this bill the network operators as such must ensure that every public network they own control or operate has full interception capability. I think that what the Minister and the officials have achieved in terms of the bill is probably very very effective for what they are trying to achieve but it does not make it right. That is the point that the Greens are very very concerned about. We do not think it is right. There are other parts around effectiveness I must say and you would have to raise questions about the size of the operators—those with fewer than 4000 customers. The bill has got a staggered level of obligation around capability. In some respects you could say that is fair enough because maybe some do not have the economic capacity to achieve everything but they still have to be basically able to turn it on if the Minister decides it.In that different degree and also in the aspect around encryption and decryption there is some encryption that these agencies are not going to nail. We know that through the committee stage—not this Committee stage but the select committee stage—there was an acknowledgment that not everything is going to be able to besurveilled. Then you have to say that if that is not going to be that effective at that point is it fair that some operators still have to provide capability when another one has got a way through or a way out of it? So we have to ask whether there is a point where we do not do some of these things because the things that are absolutely critical and accepted by the community can be done through another method. So if it is not even going to be able to be applied fully maybe it is time for us to have a rethink. That is why we say we need to have a full independent inquiry to look at this including the interception capability aspect of it.The Law and Order Committee also recommended that proposed regulations relating to Part 2 of the bill be the subject of consultation with the telecommunications industry. Clearly the Green Party will support Clare Curran’s Supplementary Order Paper 370 on that basis because there is in it that concept of having an industry group or others where some of these issues can be considered.So the Green Party will be opposing this bill and will be looking forward to other aspects of this bill to bring up too. Thank you.