Adams Amy: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAdams Amy: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13971. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): I am very happy to take a call on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. I have been waiting all evening for something to come up in debate that was worth responding to and was not more of the misinformation the scaremongering and the beat-up rhetoric that we have heard from Opposition parties all through this debate. I have waited and I have waited and we have not heard anything—to the point where I had to wonder whether we were in here debating the same bill—because almost all of what I have heard is simply not correct.Let us run through what this part of the bill actually does. For a start this part of the bill Part 2 deals with interception capabilities. What it does is it rewrites and replaces the 2004 law put in place by the Labour Government. I was very pleased to hear the member Clare Curran say that she has no problem with any of the provisions in the current law. That is great because the provisions that Labour members spent an hour and a half before dinner complaining about are ones that are copied directly from the 2004 Act. Given that Labour members have just said they have no problem with—Grant Robertson: No they’re not. That’s not right. The definitions have changed.Hon AMY ADAMS: Look back at theHansard Mr Robertson. Look back at theHansard. Read the bill. The definitions of network operators telecommunications servers and public telecommunications networks are word for word what Labour wrote in 2004. None of that has changed. The duty to assist on service providers has not changed. The fact that it applies to overseas service providers has not changed. The encryption requirements have not changed. The privacy protections—and we have heard ad nauseam from Labour that somehow this bill is going to destroy the privacy protections—have not changed. In fact we worked very hard with the Privacy Commissioner on putting this bill together to the point where she indicated that she wasvery happy with it. So for all the rhetoric for all the scaremongering we have a Privacy Commissioner who confirmed that the bill worked well privacy protections that are carried over from 2004 and definitions that are carried over from 2004.If parties want to know whether they are covered under the obligation of being network operators there is a very simple test—a very simple test. The test is that if they were not a network operator for the last 9 years under the provision that Labour has just told us it was very happy with then they are not one now. The definition is the same. Nothing has changed. If members have read the bill they will know that.So let us talk about the effect on service providers because again we have had all of this rhetoric—some of it quite misinformed—about how it applies to service providers in this section. What happens is that at the moment if you provide a telecommunications service in New Zealand you are subject to our law. Frankly my view is that if you are providing telecommunications services to New Zealanders you should be subject to our law no matter where you are residing. Is it Labour’s position that New Zealand companies should be bound but that anyone else should get off scot-free? Well that is not my position. They have always been bound in New Zealand and they will continue to be. The concern about conflict of laws in my view was never an issue and that is very clear under common law. Recognising that there was a concern we have made it clear through Supplementary Order Paper 366 that there is an absolute defence if there is a conflict of laws issue arising in our duty to assist. So there simply is no basis for concern in that regard.Equally we have heard comments that somehow this is new and it puts us out of step with the rest of the world which again is not true. Just recently we have had the Australian Parliament confirm that its service providers are already regarded as being within the full interception capabilities in Australia. So we have not even gone that far. That is the case in Australia.Can I also confirm that as I said with the service providers their obligations have not changed. They have protection from conflict of laws. It is not internationally inconsistent. The interesting thing for me is that the New Zealand telecommunications companies put in submissions asking why the service providers were not subject to full obligations straight away. So if Labour’s position is right and we are being far too hard on these poor overseas multinationals then they would be taking the opposite position to what New Zealand companies want which is full extension of powers to service providers right now. That is what the New Zealand telecommunications companies want so Labour has to decide whether it is backing the overseas mega-multinationals or whether it is backing New Zealand companies. Our view is that at the moment we are in the right space. We have the duty to assist and for now that is sufficient. If in the future there needs to be a greater level of obligation bringing us into line with what New Zealand companies want and what overseas jurisdictions already do then we have a process to do it.It is completely wrong to say that there are no checks and balances on that process. The process is very clearly set out in legislation. It is akin to what Ministers do under any number of pieces of legislation for granting exemptions or putting restrictions in place. It is subject to the review of a specifically and highly qualified review panel and of course it is subject to judicial review. It would make no sense to have a standing panel sitting around waiting for the odd situation where this would occur. I know Labour loves to set up committees and panels and put all its mates on them. But having a panel sitting there doing nothing for the odd occasion that this might happen—Hon Trevor Mallard: Or their sisters-in-law.Hon AMY ADAMS: —oh you want to talk about Mike Williams—then it can do that. But in our world you do not do that. You have an appointed ad hoc panel that can have the skills and expertise needed in that case.Clare Curran: Appointed by the Minister?Hon AMY ADAMS: Yes appointed by the Minister Ms Curran—very well spotted. You can read. It is an ad hoc panel appointed to serve the needs of that provision. It is an independent panel and it reports back on how that works so that if people have concerns there are of course other processes they can follow to review that as well.Let us be very clear. This provision does not in any way change the power of these agencies. We have heard from Mr Horan from the Greens and from New Zealand First that somehow this is open slather for people to access our networks. Anyone who says that frankly is being absolutely duplicitous and giving quite false information. It is clear from the most basic reading of this bill that nothing in this changes what can be accessed or by whom. The warranting powers are in other legislation. They determine what can be looked at. This is simply the mechanism by which that warrant is given effect to. Nothing in this bill changes the warranting powers and nothing extends the warranting powers. All this bill talks to is the extent to which they can be given effect to.Let us be very clear. The reason for this bill and this part of the bill is that it reduces the cost of compliance and the compliance time and commitment for companies in carrying out interceptions. Under the law that Labour wrote there was the requirement for full standing intercept capability on every provider of any size at every level. That is not necessary. It was hugely burdensome and it did not work for industry. This bill reduces that cost. It reduces it by tens of millions of dollars potentially and it reduces the compliance time and cost on those companies. Anybody can see that to have a much more tiered proportionate sophisticated response targeted to where we need it is better than having a blank “everyone invest fully in areas where it is simply not needed”. This bill simply modernises that part of the framework where the warrants are granted under other legislation and given effect to. It is business-friendly. It strikes the right balance between need andfutureproofing. It maintains all the privacy protections and it does not extend the reach any further.