Connell Brian: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Consideration of Report of Law and Order Committee 
Connell Brian: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Consideration of Report of Law and Order Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6238] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I understand that this is a commentary on the report of the Law and Order Committee on this legislation so I thought I might just set the scene by walking members through some of the issues it addresses to begin with. I understand that Supplementary Order Paper 84 endeavours to strike an appropriate balance between individual privacy and the interests of the State in detecting crime and ensuring security. Of course that is always the most perplexing issue when we are trying to strike a balance between individual rights and the greater public interest. 
In particular I want to draw members’ attention to the main amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper: those to clause 19 that introduce the new computer offences of intentionally accessing a computer system without authorisation commonly known as hacking. I want to dwell for some time on that issue because I think it has extreme significance for us in our everyday lives. I do not think I need to remind members of the House of the importance of computers in everyday life. They regulate if not everything then a significant number of things that we take for granted. They probably regulate most buildings—they certainly regulate the electricity system. They regulate credit cards and they regulate security—in fact the security and regulation of the very building that we are in at the moment is probably very reliant on our computer systems. If anybody or anything got involved in hacking into those systems it could be quite disastrous. 
The other areas I want to dwell on in terms of hacking are the concerns I have that fit roughly into the categories of terrorism and theft and particularly credit card theft. The ability for someone to get into other people’s systems whether they are personal computers State systems nationally or for example airline systems could be quite disastrous. We can look at the terrible tragedy that has befallen the good folk of Christchurch and Lincoln with the plane that crashed coming into Christchurch last Friday evening and we can just imagine—and I draw no connection between that crash and this issue by the way—the consequences if it came to pass that that crash was the result of someone hacking into on-board systems. That type of exposure could run through our airline industry more broadly to the point where people felt totally unsafe to fly. 
I see by reading the commentary on the bill that the legislation was first introduced in September 1999 and I think it is incumbent on members of this House to now work towards trying to expedite its passage through the House because of the significance of this legislation. I want to make it very clear that National’s position is that we support this legislation. 
I have already dwelt on the fact that terrorism is something that can be related to computer hacking. The other thing that concerns me is theft. Members can imagine the state of our commerce if people could hack into our systems at will and pick up our credit card numbers for example. I do not have a high credit limit so I would not risk a lot of exposure but I am sure that someone like Rodney Hide or David Carter who are very wealthy individuals would feel very exposed. 
The importance of computer systems to the New Zealand economy is something that we cannot understate. In fact I do not think that we can overstate it either. It is of high importance—even extreme importance—and it is a growth area. Electronics and particularly e-commerce are critical if we are to develop and flourish as a nation. I say to members of this House that unless we put some sort of punitive measures in place to deal with people who think they can hack into computer systems at will then we will have high exposure. If we are to develop e-commerce in this country people need to feel that it is as secure as real commerce. If we cannot guarantee and demonstrate that to people who are thinking of investing in this country—companies like EDS for example—then I think we will have great difficulty in attracting those types of people to our businesses and in retaining them. I believe we need to be very cognisant of that type of foreign investment. 
The other issue I would like to raise in particular is that I notice clause 16A on Supplementary Order Paper 85 amends the definition of private communications by extending it to emails and faxes. We rely heavily now—and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of most people in this House—on emails faxes and pagers etc. in order to be able to conduct our daily business and probably our daily lives. There is a term in the industry called “freeking”—not spelt the way it might sound—which describes the ability to hack into our telephone systems and seize control. In fact it has the ability to alter control systems listen into conversations and gather data at will. Unless we make it very clear that those types of actions will not be tolerated and as I have said put some punitive penalties in place then I do not think that we will be able to conduct our business in the full knowledge that what we are doing is secure. The ability to alter telephone accounts and the ability to gather information at best could be a disturbance and at worst could be anti-competitive. Members can imagine what would occur if there is the ability to hack into a competitor’s business lines and communications systems. The damage that that would do to this country would be immense. 
So I support and recognise the good work that the people on the select committee have done. I understand that Richard Worth in particular is to be recognised as having made a very significant contribution to this select committee. I would like to think that the members of this House will work collectively in order to try to ease the passage—in fact to progress the passage—of this legislation through the House. 
One of the things that also disturbs me is an incident that happened overseas last year. Some members in the House might remember that an American spy plane went down over Chinese territory. One of the consequences of that was that emotions ran very high and it was reported that the Americans became so concerned with that occurrence that people—Americans primarily—were hacking into Chinese computer systems changing data and actually bringing down systems. 
John Carter 
: Yes? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes they were doing that. That type of action cannot be tolerated. Hacking into one another’s computer systems and sites could do immense damage. It would undermine the international confidence in computer systems and networks and that would do immense harm to the industry. 
I have touched on the dangers that hacking into on-board flight systems on aeroplanes could do. Which members would get on an aeroplane and fly if they did not have some confidence that those systems were secure? Which members would get on an aeroplane if they felt that they would fail to arrive safely at their destinations because this Parliament had not taken the opportunity to deal with those types of hackers put penalties in place and send out very clear messages that that type of activity would not be tolerated? 
I raised the fact that this bill was first introduced in 1999. The world has moved on quickly since then and moreover it moves on more quickly in the area of e-commerce and the computer world than in other areas. As a parting thought I say that this legislation which I wholeheartedly support needs to be frequently reviewed in order to keep pace with the changing nature of the industry. There is no point in dusting this legislation off and thinking that we have done our job as a Parliament if we do not continually look at it on a regular basis. My experience in the industry suggests that every 2 or 3 years it would be appropriate to do that.