Dowie Sarah: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDowie Sarah: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7941. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise in opposition to this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill 2015. As we have heard from the member opposite the sponsor of this bill Ms Clare Curran this bill seeks to set up a technical advisory board to advise the Minister of increasing expertise in network security and to consider proposed mitigations. What she did not mention or failed to mention was that on the back of the chronology of events that she had mentioned the parent Act the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013 went through a robust consideration process here in this House including at the Law and Order Committee and that advisory board was denied. As part of that parent Act it set up a new framework for the Government Communications Security Bureau for network operators and Government to work together in respect of matters of network security where it has bearing on national security and the country’s economic well-being. But also as part of that it set up a comprehensive enforcement and compliance regime—one that we believe on this side of the House has sufficient checks and balances in respect of governing the Minister’s duties in relation to his or her decision making.What this bill seeks to do is add in another level of bureaucracy; that any time when the Minister wishes to use his or her discretion in respect of interception obligations this process would need to be put to the so-called technical board. I see that the board under this bill would comprise equal representatives from Government and from industry with an independent chair but it is hard to see how a board could necessarily have all of the expertise under that umbrella when we are talking about a technology that is advancing at a rapid rate innovation competition and of course looking at compliance costs. As part of those mechanisms when the Minister and the Government talk to network operators the Minister is required to consult with affected parties as to the effect of any decision made with them. Again I note that that includes the implementation the cost of that implementation innovation and competition. Those affected parties have the opportunity to speak directly to that decision maker.I have worked in law I have worked in business and I have worked for the Government. When you have policy that affects people when you make decisions that affect people they wish to speak to the decision maker. They do not want to speak to some middleman who would sit there in the middle and muddy the waters. They want to make sure that they have a fair hearing and that they speak to the decision maker to have their case heard. That is the appropriate mechanism for that. As part of this Act the 2013 Act all processes are still subject to judicial review and that is the same for any other legislation. It is working well. We have not heard of any complaints so far. All this does is add another level of complexity and it would also add to the cost of the process.So look—to end with—our way of life here in New Zealand does not happen by accident. We have a range of various agencies that look after us. We have liberties and freedoms here that we enjoy which other people round the world do not enjoy but again that does not happen by accident. What come with freedom and liberties are obligation and responsibility. With some of the threats out there such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the way that these terror groups are evolving we need to keep ahead of them to protect our way of life. The 2013 Act does that. There are appropriate checks and balances but we do need to protect our freedoms. As such I think the 2013 Act is working well and I oppose this bill.