Dunne Peter: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3529] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to assure the member who has just resumed his seat that I do not believe that the Security Intelligence Service should be turned into taxi-drivers. I have never been a protester longhaired or otherwise at Waihopai. Although I do confess that in 1977 which is a wee bit outside his time frame to going to a public meeting at the Wellington Town Hall as part of opposition to changes that a then National Government was proposing to the Security Intelligence Service legislation. That may damn what I am about to say but I wanted to put it on record in case scurrilous accusations were made subsequently. I know that it has rocked the House and I apologise for the shock. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: I went to a peace demonstration. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Mr Ian Ewen-Street has admitted that he went to a peace demonstration—it gets worse! Did I inhale?  
This legislation has two important elements to it and I want to deal with both of them. The first is rightly as both the member who preceded me and the Minister in his introductory speech indicated the need to ensure that our surveillance capabilities are able to keep pace with technological change particularly given international terrorism and the international climate we face at the moment and the certainty that whatever else may happen things will become worse before they get a great deal better.  
There can be no real objection to this legislation on the grounds of its stated intent of ensuring that the interception capability is there regardless of improvements in technology. I do not think that any responsible person can object to that. It is a truism to some extent but it is also an important element of ensuring that our law enforcement agencies our surveillance agencies and others have the capability to actually do the job we require of them.  
But having said that there is an important other side to this legislation and it is the conundrum we face every time we deal with issues that relate to law enforcement and private individual rights. The explanatory note states: “The Bill does not change or extend in any way the existing powers of the New Zealand Police the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau (the surveillance agencies) to intercept telecommunications.”  
On the face of it that is a very reassuring statement. When the Minister spoke he paid great attention to the fact that there are various protections contained in the bill in clauses 5 6 7 and beyond and particularly in clause 8 in respect of the restrictions that are placed on agencies in terms of the changes that are proposed here and any conflict with individual human rights. On the face of it my colleagues in United Future and I are satisfied that the balance has been struck properly. For that reason we will support the bill going to a select committee. But I want to make the point very clear that our support is conditional at this stage not because we disagree with the fundamental principle that is being sought to be addressed here—I think that is unarguable—but because we want to be absolutely clear that the stated intent of the bill and the explanatory note of not conferring any greater powers on the surveillance agencies than currently exist is in fact carried through into law.  
I am not suggesting any deliberate intent on the part of the drafters of this bill to surreptitiously extend the powers of those agencies but I am conscious that in legislation of this type so often these things happen either by omission or by accident. It is important both in terms of the public interest and also the ultimate integrity of this legislation that those matters be very carefully addressed at the select committee.  
Let me give the House a parallel; it does not relate to security issues but it does relate to the sort of difficulty we can get into when we start to set up complex procedures to regulate a particular provision. Last year this House dealt with legislation regarding the Kyoto Protocol and a whole range of issues about how the Government’s commitments under that Protocol might be enforced. When it came to the select committee we discovered a number of things—even opponents of the bill would have agreed—that went far beyond what the stated intent was. We have given more power to the enforcement agencies established under that legislation than the police have or even the courts in some circumstances. The select committee was able to amend that to say: well that is clearly not what was intended but it is not an acceptable position. It is the sort of parallel we might find here.  
I accept the word of the Minister and the bill that the changes simply bring into line current telecommunications regulatory provisions and technology changes with what our expectations are. It is important that telecommunications providers the Privacy Commission and others with an interest in this area have the opportunity to run the rule over the legislation to make sure firstly that that is actually true and secondly that there are not unintended consequences as a result of the quite clearly specified procedures set out here.  
It is absolutely clear to me that this type of legislation and the companion piece that the Minister referred to in his address—which is still somewhere in the parliamentary process—are critical. We do need to have them. We cannot stay still for ever. But we have also to make sure that as we make those changes they both meet the objectives we set for them and do not compromise however accidentally a whole range of other things at the same time. It is easy in the current environment to say: “Look the risk of Bali or associated activities or threats is such that we cannot afford to be overly protective of individual rights that the greater good outweighs a lot of those concerns.” I do not think that is necessarily so. I have no truck with terrorism. I am as strongly resolved as any member of this House to ensure that terrorism is stamped out and that we do what we can in this country to create an environment that makes that unpalatable unattractive and unable to proceed. But I am also determined that in the process we do not restrict unduly the rights of our citizens to go about their normal lives and normal activities in the way that they might deem appropriate.  
Yes there is a balance to be struck and it is important that we get that right. All I am saying is that when this bill goes to a select committee we need to be able to look at it in such a way that when it comes back to the House we can say this bill has achieved that objective of ensuring that our national security capability is not seriously eroded by changes in technology and that no additional powers have been extended by this legislation beyond those already in place for our surveillance agencies.  
The ultimate test will be this: we live in a time when international pressures and other issues make this sort of thing highly topical but if we were to come into a more benign era we would still want the types of provisions that are contained in this legislation to have integrity and credibility. My point is that they will do so if people feel that their rights are not unduly compromised that our national security capability is not weakened and that we are able to proceed in pace with technological change.  
United Future members give conditional support to the bill we look forward to the select committee examining these questions in careful detail and we hope that the bill that emerges is one that can gain widespread support in the House and can quickly find its way on to the statute book.