Power Simon: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12279] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 In the debate on the second reading we have now had the opportunity to listen to the extensive contributions of members regarding the overall theme of the bill. It seems to me that except for Mr Keith Locke and the Green Party the House is more or less in agreement on the provisions of the bill. I particularly enjoyed the contribution of Marc Alexander who gave us a bit of an insight into what went on in the minds of the members of the Law and Order Committee during the deliberations on the bill. 
However we now turn to the more in-depth and detailed analysis of the bill which we will examine part by part. I am disappointed that the Minister in the chair Rick Barker was not prepared to go clause by clause but nevertheless we will proceed to work our way through it part by part. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. We will work our way part by part. 
We begin as it were at the beginning with some definitions. It is interesting that in this modern age the definition of “number” which we would have assumed would relate primarily to either a phone number or a letterbox number now includes an Internet address and an email address. Telecommunications companies are being required by the bill to meet certain technological standards to ensure that the interception of messages by various surveillance agencies is forthcoming. 
I am not sure whether it is easier or more difficult to intercept an email message or a telephone message and I will certainly be interested in the Minister’s view on that. I am not sure whether Ron Mark or perhaps the Hon Ken Shirley could assist on that point but I am sure the Minister will have the information at his fingertips. I do not have a clue. I am technologically inept when it comes to these things and I would appreciate the Minister giving the Committee a guide as to whether the same technologies can be used for both those mediums. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Chairman I can usually stick up for myself but if this banter is going to occur across the Chamber are we to get some order around here? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
SIMON POWER 
: Thank you. I appreciate your intervention. That was very helpful. I would like to see a very quick explanation from the Minister as to whether one technology takes care of all those matters defined as a “number” in clause 3 “Interpretation” or whether there are a variety of technologies. I simply do not know the answer to that question. I am sure that it would take the Minister only 2 minutes to advise me of that. 
However as is the custom to point out in this part of the debate the purpose and principles of the bill in clauses 5 and 6 go to the heart of the legislation. Members either hold or do not hold the view—and it really is a fundamental one—that the strategic and intelligence environment we live in has altered. On one side of that argument we have every party in the House except the Greens saying it has changed. In that camp we also have the Australians and the British who passed legislation long before this House got to the issue at hand. We have the Australians and the British both saying that we need new technologies to deal with surveillance requirements in this ever-changing world. 
It seems to me—not unsurprisingly—that the Greens are on somewhat of a limb here. I look forward to the further contribution in the Committee stage of my friend Keith Locke who will at least give the Committee an opportunity to hear the alternative view to that of Australia the UK and nine-tenths of this House. 
Actually this bill gives no further powers to surveillance agencies—