Smith Lockwood: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3527] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 There are times when Ministers come into this House to introduce a bill when I wish they at least sounded like they believed in it. Having listened to the Hon Rick Barker I am not sure whether he even understood what he was reading. It is not his bill but the bill of the Hon Lianne Dalziel so I guess we cannot expect Rick Barker to know much about it. However he should at least pretend that he knows something about it instead of just sounding as bored as he did when he read that introductory speech.  
This is important. I know David Benson-Pope might not think it is important but it is. It is important because in the gathering of intelligence information in this country at present we have some significant loopholes that have to be fixed if we want to have an effective intelligence system. Following 11 September the Bali bombings and the growth of terrorism threats around the world I think most New Zealanders realise that this is an important issue even though Labour’s senior whip David Benson-Pope does not.  
We have a problem in that at present some digital phone and Internet technologies do not permit the monitoring of communications and information where necessary via interception technology. Those are major loopholes. A lot of organisations and people in this country now use digital phones. If there is a serious threat to our security that cannot be monitored this country has a serious problem. If members listened carefully to what Rick Barker was saying they might have discerned from his gabble that what the bill actually does is require telecommunications businesses to be able to intercept communications where authorised by one of New Zealand’s authorised surveillance agencies. Those telecommunications businesses must be able to intercept communications that have been lawfully authorised for interception. That is the fundamental principle of the bill and currently we cannot do that. Of course there is nothing wrong with that—it is a vitally important principle.  
There are two further measures in the bill that I think are also important and which I agree with the Government about. The first is this: where a surveillance agency is obtaining assistance for the interception of telecommunications from a telecommunications provider the surveillance agency must not create barriers to the introduction of new or innovative telecommunications technologies. That is a sensible thing to have in this legislation. 
There is a third element that I also think is sensible—that is where the surveillance agencies require the monitoring of certain telecommunications they cannot spell out to the telecommunications providers the technologies the design features or the specifications they are to use in carrying out that monitoring or surveillance. That is also important. It means that we minimise the risks of these new monitoring provisions from if one likes acting against innovation in communications in this country. This proposed legislation puts a lawful requirement on telecommunication providers to be able to monitor telecommunications when authorised by an appropriate authorisation agency—namely Police the Security Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Security Bureau. The onus then goes on the telecommunications provider to do it in a way that does not in any way hamper innovation in telecommunications. The Government has got the balance of that about right.  
The National Party will support the first reading of this bill. We think it is important legislation. As I said a moment ago most New Zealanders think it is important following the tragedy of 11 September with the World Trade Center and the horrific Bali bombings. We know of course that not all Government members support this legislation. We know that some Cabinet Ministers probably do not support it. 
Darren Hughes 
: Name one! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I can name two or three Ministers who do not support this legislation. Jim Anderton is ranked third in this coalition Government. Jim Anderton the third most senior Minister in this Government believes that the Security Intelligence Service “are paranoid spooks hammering down the doors of protesters.” He believes that the Security Intelligence Service is useless. Did Jim Anderton say that way back in the 1960s when he might have been a long-haired protester? No he did not! The third-ranking Cabinet Minister in this Labour-led Government said that in 1998—just over 4 years ago when he was a senior member in the Opposition. He said: “I can’t personally see why we have the Security Intelligence Service at all.”  
We know that not all Ministers in this Government support this legislation. We know all about the Associate Minister for Biosecurity Marian Hobbs’ view of security matters. She was the one who sneaked around the Waihopai base protesting—not way back in the 1960s when she might have been a long-haired protester—but as recently as 1997. She said that spending money on the Waihopai base was a waste of money and that the Government Communications Security Bureau which runs it was unaccountable to Parliament and taxpayers. We have another Government Minister who does not support this legislation. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I do support the legislation. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: She has changed her mind. We now know that Marian Hobbs has changed her mind from someone who used to protest in 1997 which is not that long ago. Just a bit over 5 years ago she reckoned that the Government Communications Security Bureau was useless. She has changed her mind.  
We know what those who support this Labour-led Government the Greens think of this legislation. Rod Donald believes that the money we spend on that kind of monitoring of intelligence information—$20 million he reckons—should be given to taxi-drivers. That is what he said just a couple of years ago. He reckoned that they would do a better job.  
All I can say is that when it comes to serious legislation that is important for New Zealand’s security it is just as well that we have a responsible Opposition like the National Party that is prepared to support it. Most New Zealanders know that it is important to protect New Zealand’s security interests in a way that does not constrain the freedoms of New Zealanders going about their lawful interests but protects them from the ever-growing threat of terrorism. We know that some members of this Government are not supportive of this important legislation. It is just as well that we have a responsible Opposition to make sure that the Government can pass it.