Robertson Grant: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14330. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Members of the public listening to that contribution from the National Party member Jacqui Dean—if they are still awake—would be forgiven for thinking that this Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill was just a small technical bill for which they should switch off get up and go make a cup of tea. Well nothing could be further from the truth.Shane Ardern: They’ve certainly done that now.GRANT ROBERTSON: I am sure Mr Ardern will take a call and give us the benefit of his wisdom and insights into telecommunications.What I can say is that members of the public need to see this bill in the context of its companion legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act. It is all very well for Government members to talk about the technical amendments and how this definition has not changed or that definition has not changed. The context for this piece of legislation was the passing of the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act. That Act widely expanded the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GSCB) and fundamentally changed its purpose from being an agency focused on looking at the activities of foreign nationals to being one that can look into the activities of New Zealand citizens.The moment that change was made the fundamental nature of the GCSB’s work changed and the implicit contract that New Zealanders have had with our security agencies changed. This bill is the legislation that operationalises those changes. They are fundamental changes to the way our security agencies work and they should be given far greater attention by the National Party.I want to say two or three introductory things about the context in which this legislation is being passed. We are in an environment where not only is technology changing rapidly but the way in which people use technology is changing. Alongside that are daily revelations from around the world about the extent of surveillance the extent of the work of intelligence agencies and the level of technological sophistication that those agencies are able to employ.That is what has changed—I say for Jacqui Dean’s benefit—in the 9 years since the legislation was passed. The world has changed. In Europe right now we have governments hugely concerned at the activities of the United States but this Government wants to bury its head in the sand. We have got congressional inquiries in America that are heading towards tightening up what intelligence agencies can do. President Obama wants to tighten up what intelligence agencies can do. The response of the National Party to that is to broaden the powers of intelligence agencies making it easier for the agencies to involve themselves as Clare Curran has pointed out in anything from the design of a network in a school library all the way through to the operations of companies in New Zealand. The National Party has buried its head in the sand to what is happening in the world. New Zealanders know that the world has changed when it comes to security but the National Government has not done that.The world has also changed in the way in which people look at privacy. The question in this digital age is what privacy means and how we balance privacy with security because both are vitally important when it comes to a democratic society. We cannot have a democratic society without privacy. We cannot have a democratic society without security. But it is not as Clare Curran said in her speech today one or the other. It is a false dichotomy that the National Party has pushed through that either you believe in security or you do not—that is it. Well it is not that simple. What New Zealanders expect is a balance between privacy and security; that our basic rights and freedoms to communicate with one another without the State interfering will be upheld alongside keeping an eye on those people who will undermine our society. It is possible to do those things and to balance those two things together but the National Party has failed to do that.This bill tips that balance. This bill pushes more power into the hands of Ministers and more power into the hands of the GCSB and takes away from New Zealanders fundamental rights and freedoms that they should be able to expect. That is the tragedy of this bill. I would have thought that the National Party would want to increase confidence in our security and intelligence agencies because the very time at which it has chosen to expand these powers is the time at which public confidence in the GCSB which plays the critical role in the implementation of this bill is at an all-time low. In the GCSB legislation we were asked by the Prime Minister to accept that the limits on surveillance of New Zealanders would come as a result of the way he would go about implementing the law—the limits would result not from putting it in the law but from his promise to the House about how he would issue warrants. Well that is not good enough.What New Zealanders need to know is that the intelligence agencies of this country are acting in a way that is in accordance with our values as New Zealanders. That is why the Labour Party has been calling for some time for an inquiry into our intelligence agencies. It is not just about the GCSB; it is also about the SIS. In the context of this bill we are seeing hugely extended powers given to agencies that the public no longer trust. The Government should have slowed down it should have listened to the concerns of New Zealanders and it should have undertaken a review and brought back to this House legislation that has the support not only of a wide range of parties in this House but of New Zealanders in general and of civil society.The Government has failed. It is out of touch with the concerns of New Zealanders on this bill. The problem specifically with this bill is that it does create broad sweeping powers. All the groups that came to the Law and Order Committee said “Don’t do this. Don’t do this for the sake of the privacy of New Zealanders. Don’t do this for the sake of innovative businesses in New Zealand being able to get on with their jobs.” Company after company came to the select committee and said “Don’t pass this legislation because it will stifle innovation.” The Government supposedly the friend of business ignores them and ploughs on no matter what saying “No we’re going to do this.” with that kind of arrogance that kind of being so out of touch that it will not listen to even the people whom traditionally it has told us it supports.One of the major concerns the Labour Party has about this bill is the broad definitions that are contained in the bill. It is actually ridiculous to hear Amy Adams get up and tell us that there is no change around national security. Well that is actually not true to begin with but also again it is in the context of what is now defined by the GCSB as what it can do for national security. We then have the question of network providers and service providers. Both of those terms are so loosely defined that we do have the situation in which it is possible that schools universities hospitals and so on end up being caught up in this. That is the kind of sloppy legislation that we have in front of us today. We also do not have adequate oversight. The Labour Party attempted to see the establishment of a technical advisory board so that at the very least there would be some kind of oversight from people outside of the Ministers’ control but again that was rejected by the Government.I want to finish my contribution on the matter with the submission of the Human Rights Commission on this bill because that highlighted two things. The first of them was the arrogance of the Prime Minister whose reaction to the submission was to tell the Human Rights Commission that he was going to cut its funding. Well he should have read the submission. He should have read it and he should have understood that the Human Rights Commission using its statutory power which it has used only a handful of times in its existence was crying out to the Government saying “You’ve got this wrong. You’ve unbalanced human rights and security.” But the Government ignored the commission.In that report from the Human Rights Commission it actually says that New Zealanders believe that they are entitled to know whether there is mass surveillance of them; that they need more clarity information and transparency; and that they believe that there should be a thorough investigation of all of the agencies before any law such as this is passed.The Human Rights Commission was calling out the Government on a piece of law that tramples over the basic rights freedoms and values of New Zealanders. Instead the Government has pushed through the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act and it has pushed through the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill against a global tidal wave of concern. The Government needs to stop. It needs to listen. Instead it has gone ahead and New Zealand now has law in this area that is outside the mainstream of world opinion. It puts at risk the privacy of New Zealanders. It puts at risk the innovation of companies in New Zealand. It is a dreadful piece of legislation that should not pass.