Curran Clare: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionCurran Clare: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14060. Text is subject to correction.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): We come to the part of this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill that gets down to the real nuts and bolts of what the serious problems are with this piece of legislation. We have had a long-running debate in this Committee—well certainly on this side of the Chamber right across this side of the Chamber; that side of the Chamber has barely contributed to the debate on this extremely important piece of legislation. But now we get to the part of the bill the title and commencement clauses where we really consider what the serious issues are with this piece of legislation.Labour has two amendments to this part of the bill. One of those amendments concerns the rights of New Zealanders and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting process for legislation which Labour contends with regard particularly to this bill has been very flawed and very cursory. I do ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Police and also the relevant Minister associated with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting process to pay particular interest to this part of the discussion on this bill. I want to return us to the Human Rights Commission and what the commission said around both the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation and the “TICS” bill as it is called in this House the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill which we are discussing today.The commission said in its extraordinary report to the Prime Minister that it considered that what was proposed by both the GCSB legislation and this bill was “too wide-reaching. It does not provide adequate oversight and makes inadequate provision for ensuring appropriate transparency and accountability of those who administer the legislation. It does not provide for a legal regime containing sufficient safeguards against abuse of power and to facilitate a proportional approach.” The commission said that it “recognises that some level of surveillance is inevitable and can be justified in contemporary democratic society.”Labour would agree with that statement absolutely. There is no doubt—and there has never been any contention during the debate on this bill—that there is a need for legislation for oversight in surveillance in a democratic society. But it is a question of balance and it is a question of tipping the balance which is what this legislation does and what the Human Rights Commission—which that Minister should be taking account of—has warned of in a very serious warning to the Prime Minister and to this Parliament about the implications of that. We should all be taking account of that.The commission went on to say that there was “nothing to suggest that surveillance in a democratic society such as New Zealand cannot be subject to human rights principles and consistent with an approach that protects human rights by limiting rights in a manner which is proportionate and justified in accordance with law.” This legislation before us today does not do that.InternetNZ’s submission called for this bill to undergo a thorough test against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Law Society in its submission on the GCSB legislation called for the same—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is supposed to be a very tight debate on the schedules and title etc. That speech is certainly straying very wide of that. I appreciate that the Chair is the only judge of relevance but it does not prevent—does not prevent—anywhere in the Standing Orders any member raising the issue of relevance with the Chair.CLARE CURRAN: Speaking to the point of order if that member had been listening to the debate he would have known that I was referring to one of the amendments that Labour has put up on this part of the bill the title and commencement clauses that is about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I cannot find it now but can I just remind members that there was a review of the Standing Orders in I think 2008 or 2011. What actually happened was that we said that debate on these particular clauses would be wide ranging. I cannot find it but I know that it is there.CLARE CURRAN: Thank you Mr Chair. I will continue where I left off and perhaps the member could pay more attention.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No I’m going to leave the House.Hon Phil Goff: There won’t be any loss by the House.CLARE CURRAN: There will not be any loss. As the submissions byInternetNZ the New Zealand Law Society and the Human Rights Commission have all said thesebills fail to provide adequate safeguards for people’s privacy and to balance the intrusive power of the State to collect the private information of New Zealanders. We also contend that the issue particularly with this bill is the curtailing of the rights of private companies and their ability to protect their information because of the lack of adequate checks and balances. So we reiterate that this bill did not receive more than a cursory vetting—a once-over-lightly—in its examination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We do not believe that that was taken seriously.Secondly we believe that the bill as amended has been substantially changed in many cases in ways that are untested and where the impact of those changes on the rights to privacy of New Zealand citizens and businesses is under question. Therefore we have put in an amendment on this part of the bill being that this bill may only be submitted for Royal assent if a select committee has reconsidered it and reported that the bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Rubbish.CLARE CURRAN: If the member over there actually has an issue with this then I invite him to get to his feet and take a call and tell this Parliament why there should not be another vetting under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and whether or not there has been a thorough vetting of the original bill in the first place. That would be a useful contribution for the Attorney-General to make to this House. We have seen a consistent pattern of rubber-stamping of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and not only on this bill. At the beginning of the previous term of this Parliament there was an indication by the Attorney-General that he would take that process seriously which is an extremely important part of our democratic process. For a few bills it seemed that this was the case but now that has all gone out the window. It is all cursory vetting rubber-stamping and unfortunately not taking account of what august organisations such as the Human Rights Commission the New Zealand Law Society andInternetNZ have said in the Law and Order Committee on this process—and they have certainly said it publicly.We contend that there should be a rights-based approach whenever there is a piece of legislation that deals with surveillance and curtailing rights. There should be a corresponding rights-based approach. It certainly does appear that there is a gap in our law around the rights of New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses in the digital environment. We think that that is worth taking seriously. The Human Rights Commission certainly believes that it is worth taking seriously. It says: “In the case of the TICS Bill the rights of concern in relation to the proposed legislation were the right to freedom of expression the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the right to natural justice … The analysis”—the cursory analysis—“concluded that all could be justified. The Commission does not agree with this conclusion.” and neither does the Labour Party agree with that conclusion.We believe that there should be a rights-based approach and that there should be—as I have repeated a number of times during the debate on this bill—along with surveillance a rights-based approach to New Zealand’s privacy. This is absolutely critical to a functioning and healthy democracy. This should include the freedom of expression of thought; freedom of conscience; freedom of religion; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of association; freedom to determine whom a person shares information with and to terminate involvement with a provider; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure where everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure whether of the person property or correspondence for example emails; the right to privacy based on the principles of the Privacy Act a comprehensive—