Browning Steffan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13992. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to Part 3 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. Part 3 is on network security. Of course in this modern age we are all very very aware of the need for good network security. If this bill had that in it in what we might say is a fair manner we would probably be supporting that aspect of it. We cannot. As I have said many times we still need that full and thorough investigation that independent investigation and the Greens will push for that consistently until it happens.With the Supplementary Order Paper 366 from the Minister for Communications and Information Technology as well which is addressing part of the network security the officials and also the Minister said there was an intention to refine the matters that must be notified to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GSCB) reducing compliance requirements for network operators. When I look at it all I can see is that it actually broadens it. I think the refinement is in making sure that there is nothing missing that there is no way that anything would be missed. Sure it might reduce some compliance requirements but they have broadened it in some respects as well.I asked them and I asked the Minister about clause 47 and her amendment replacing the old clause 47(1)(a) with a new bit. There is some wording that relates to architecture. Proposed new clause 47(1) states: “(b) any change—(i) to the architecture of any equipment system or service that falls within an area of specified security interest;”. What I would like to know is what the definition of “architecture” is. I can look it up. I can look it up in any dictionary onWikipedia or somewhere and of course we have got the standard definitions around building or whatever but basically it is about systems or whatever. I am assuming that is what they mean—that is it is the systems the structure of how a network might work. But I think they have been remiss in not spelling that out—talking of refinement—and getting it properly refined and not giving us that definition and being absolutely confident about what is intended in that change. Maybe the Minister still wants to sort that out because the Minister still has the capability to do that.Under Part 3 of the bill a network operator must engage with the GCSB as soon as practicable after becoming aware of a proposed decision course of action or change not necessarily related to their own network or service that if implemented may raise a network security risk. That is pretty broad. We have all suffered some levels of risk through hacking or viruses and sometimes we just think Government spam might be part of the problem too. We accept that there is that element of risk and we would like to see this tuned in an appropriate way.But I share and the Green Party shares the concerns that our fellows in Labour have expressed in the powers in here. Who has got the power? Well we know who has got the power: the Minister responsible for the GCSB—generally the Prime Minister. I will talk about that once again in a moment. But as part of this network security there is a fair bit of scope in the areas of specified security interest which can be expanded by Order in Council and by regulation subject to consultations with registered network operators and some limitations I must say relating to changes in the technology.