Dean Jacqui: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13846. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I rise with great pleasure in the second reading of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. This bill repeals and replaces the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004. It is probably good to remind the House and for the House to remember that that was in fact a bill that was brought in by the previous Labour Government. So it does seem a little unnatural does it not for the Labour Government to have brought in the original Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act and for the Labour members now—perhaps it is matter of convenience—to not support this bill before the House.I think it would be a great idea for this House to remember what this bill is for and what this bill is intended to do. So there are two parts to this bill. The first part is to clarify interception obligations for telecommunications companies recognising that time has passed since 2004 when the then Labour Government brought in the original Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004. The second part introduces a transparent network security regime for network operators and for the Government to work together on matters of national security. That is what the bill is for—for telecommunications companies and the Government to work together on matters of national security. To believe otherwise I think that one would have to live in some kindof parallel universe where it was not believed that there was a necessity for police and security agencies to have the ability to solve crime. That is what this bill empowers our security agencies and our police on receipt of a warrant to do—to get in and to solve crime. So interception of telecommunications and intercepting telecommunications in real time play an absolutely vital role in investigating crime in disrupting crime in prosecuting crime in detecting and prosecuting international and domestic cyber-crime in combating threats to national security and in responding to emergencies such as kidnappings which happen in our society.If the Labour members want to turn a blind eye to national security then on their heads be it because in opposing this bill that is exactly what Labour is doing. What Labour is saying to the people of New Zealand is that it does not believe there is any serious crime in New Zealand that it does not believe that methamphetamine is a problem that it does not believe that there are cyber-crime issues or that there are issues relating to overseas companies’ investment into New Zealand and our global reputation as a good place to do business. Labour does not buy into any of those issues in opposing this bill. Well I can tell Labour that that is exactly what this telecommunications bill does.I just want to go over a couple of case studies. One relates to the solving of crime to do with methamphetamine. The New Zealand Police were advised by an overseas police force about an organised crime group that was smuggling drugs and precursors to drugs into New Zealand so the New Zealand Police—and of course they were acting under the 2004 Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act which was brought in by the previous Labour Government—were able to intercept communications and bring about a successful prosecution. I think they realised something like 150 kilograms of pseudoephedrine which otherwise had it not been intercepted would have ended up on the streets of New Zealand in the communities that Labour professes to care so much about. It would have caused untold misery to the very people whom Labour professes to really care about because of the interception capability under the previous telecommunications Act which is being brought up to date with this bill. That crime would have gone unsolved and untold misery would have been brought about for the New Zealand public.Another case study I just want to talk about is to identify and rule out innocent people. A child was murdered again under the time of the previous telecommunications Act which was brought in by the previous Labour Government—you see Labour liked national security when it was in Government so why is it that it does not like national security any more? Perhaps the next speaker from Labour might explain to the House how not supporting this bill would have helped this child who was kidnapped where the police regarded the child’s own family as being responsible? How much heartache would there be around circumstances like that? Through the telecommunications of the day the police were able to determine that the child’s own family were not responsible for this crime and indeed the police were able to detect who the perpetrators of the crime were. Well Labour needs to tell the House how without the kind of provision that is being brought in by this bill we are going to solve crimes like that. How are the police and our security agencies going to protect New Zealanders if it were not for this bill? That is what this legislation is all about and I commend it to the House.