Goff Phil: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14067. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): You know it is interesting that for a bill that has such fundamental implications for the privacy of New Zealanders and the right of private companies to be protected from intrusive powers by the State the National Government members even those on the Law and Order Committee only take a call that the motion be now put. They do not want this legislation with all its inadequacies exposed to the public of New Zealand.I want to talk to clause 2 “Commencement” of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. This bill is not ready to come into force. It is not ready to be implemented. It has been rushed. It has been subjected to inadequate consultation. It is technically error-ridden—technically error-ridden to the extent that as late as the second reading of this bill the Minister brought in Supplementary Order Paper 366 which is on the Table of this House and says that a major clause should be struck from the bill.That major clause clause 39 which is about the Government being able to stop telecommunications companies working in New Zealand if they do not have interception capability was defended to the death by Jacqui Dean and the other members of the select committee. They supported that clause all the way through only to have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the Minister for Communications and Information Technology who finally recognised that yet another central aspect of her bill was technically and in terms of principle inappropriate and unworkable. That is an example of why this bill should not come into force.I support Supplementary Order Paper 370 moved by my colleague Clare Curran which makes the point that Royal assent should be given only to a bill that has been subject to a full and independent public inquiry. That point and the need for a full and independent public inquiry was recognised in Australian legislation dealing with Australia’s security services. It was recognised by a member of the Prime Minister’s staff who came to talk to me about this bill. The Australians did it the right way. They did an independent inquiry they found out what powers were justified they found out what safeguards were needed to prevent the abuse of those powers and then they passed the legislation. This Government has not had the conviction or the intestinal fortitude to actually do that.This bill is a companion piece to the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act. It facilitates technically the implementation of that. But the first thing that you would ask about legislation that gives enormously intrusive powers to a Government is whether there is a justification for those powers. Jacqui Dean in a rare call asked why the Labour Party is opposing this bill when we passed the original Act in 2003. It is for the reason that in that original Act the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) was not allowed to spy on New Zealanders—not allowed to spy on New Zealanders. It intercepted foreign intelligence dealing with foreign persons.Now we have a bill that gives enormously intrusive powers and it has not been justified. It has not been justified to the extent that when we on the select committee and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee asked for the police the Security Intelligence Service and the GCSB to come before the committee to justify why there should be these powers—we did that with an open mind—the Government refused to allow those agencies to give evidence to the select committee. It refused toallow them to give it in public in private or even in secret. We have an outrage in that we have a bill that gives enormously intrusive powers and that will be utilised in secret and without accountability and no justification was given or even attempted to be given to the select committee as to why those powers should exist.The second concern we have is that if you are going to give those sorts of powers to agencies you want to be sure that there are adequate safeguards in place to stop those agencies abusing the powers. Why is this in this GCSB legislation before this Parliament? Because of the very fact that the GCSB did abuse its powers in relation to Kim Dotcom and the fact that theKitteridge report found that it potentially did that on 88 different occasions. So we have new legislation when we have had abuse of powers—