Mapp Wayne: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3536] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 As my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has said National supports this bill but we want to make it very clear why we are doing so. The reality is we are living in an age of international terrorism. The threat is real is substantial and has affected New Zealanders directly. There are New Zealand families around today who have within the last 12 months lost family members to terrorism. That is the real issue that we are debating. When one hears the member for the Green Party one realises he dresses the issue up out of some kind of naivety and the Government gives a certain level of credit to that. But that is not true. Fundamentally Mr Locke does not accept that we have to struggle against the real threat of international terrorism and that the enemies of democracy and freedom out there would challenge our nation’s cherished freedoms. We are right in this House—and I believe the vast majority of the House recognises this—to provide the appropriate powers to protect our society.  
I want to go briefly through some of those powers but interestingly the previous Government speaker really identified the core of them. They are about keeping up with modern technology. The very core of this bill provides additional powers to network operators. Let us be clear that we are talking about TelstraClear and Telecom the sorts of companies that operate network systems. This bill gives the powers to require that there are interception capabilities in those network systems. No longer can one just put a wiretap on a person’s phone or computer. Technology simply does not work in that way. It may have in the past—and it did—but it does not now. A network is centrally driven so in order to have an interception capability particularly in terms of computer communications and emails that has to be provided for at the network level. That is what this bill does. It recognises the basic changes that have occurred in technology and gives those powers.  
I want to refer to a point that was raised by the leader of the United Future party and indeed others. A number of people have said today in this Parliament and I think they were quite well intentioned that they support the bill because it does not extend the powers of the Security Intelligence Service the police or the Government Communications Security Bureau. On the face of it that seems a reasonable proposition. But that is partly because it is not well understood that across a range of legislation—and Parliament has had to deal with quite a lot over the last 24 months—there are significant huge gaps. The ACT party also does not recognise that. The reality is that terrorist activity could occur in our country yet our authorities would not have the interception capability to deal with it. I am not talking about this bill; this bill does not fix that problem. I am talking about a situation whereby a New Zealand citizen or resident communicates with a foreign terrorist entity an embassy or something of that nature in a way that would be harmful to New Zealand’s interests. Our law does not allow for the interception of those kinds of communications. I regard that as quite a serious deficiency. The law allows interceptions between a terrorist entity in New Zealand and a terrorist entity overseas or a foreign intelligence service or between the operators and overseas entities or between two foreigners operating in New Zealand.  
That is not the only risk we face. We need only to look at what happened in the United States to see that a whole lot of foreign nationals—some of them actually had United States residency—operated surreptitiously and secretly using telephones faxes and emails and hatched a diabolical plan to crash two aircraft into the World Trade Center. The United States has the powers to make the appropriate interceptions but in New Zealand we do not. If we look at the Order Paper we see an interrupted debate on the second reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill is item No. 21. One of the things we need to do is to see whether amendments are required to that bill. We are not drawing together the range of legislation in this area consolidating it and sending it to one select committee that could do something of an overview and ensure that our law does not have gaps. This is surely a time when that kind of overview is essential. I know that the Government has been working on producing a series of Acts but I do not believe it has connected the various parts of that legislation in order to provide the range of protections and security that is necessary to protect our essential freedoms. That is a particular gap that I have identified.  
My colleague raised a question about the views and attitudes of various members of the Government. Marian Hobbs might have found it amusing to reject that issue on the basis that she has changed her point of view. But as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith pointed out it is not as though we are talking about the 1970s. We are talking about a senior Government Minister who while an Opposition member in 1997 participated in a protest against Waihopai simply disbelieving that the Government Communications Security Bureau had any role. What has changed her view? One would like to give her credit and say that maybe the responsibilities of Government have brought her to adopt a common-sense approach. Maybe the Government whip has said to Marian Hobbs that while she is in Government she must obey the Cabinet line. But this House deserves to have any Minister who has held such views in the past state directly to this Parliament why he or she has changed his or her views. Those members should take a call. That Minister was here and was able to take a call to say clearly and specifically to the New Zealand public why she has changed her view and what has brought about that conversion. She owes that to us. As I say it is one thing to talk about the views that one held one or two decades ago but it is quite another thing when people have held those views as members of Parliament. I think it is important that we receive a full explanation from those Ministers.  
I conclude on this point: right at this moment the world is on the cusp of dealing with international terrorism. There is a great challenge out there and it is Iraq. Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction and in particular biological weapons. It is specially prohibited from having such weapons. Biological weapons can only be used in terrorism. We have only to look at the use of anthrax in the United States to see the enormous scale of threat that is imposed by them. That is why we the Opposition members have been asking the Government day after day why it will not support a second resolution in the United Nations declaring Iraq to be in material breach and giving it one final chance to comply—not grudgingly but in a full and complete sense to disarm—or else it must face serious consequences.  
This type of legislation which is part of the struggle against international terrorism and threats to peace brings those questions to the fore. So far we in the Opposition are not satisfied that the Government appreciates the grave seriousness that the biological terrorism of Iraq poses to free people throughout the globe. The Government is charged to answer those questions. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Oh this bill isn’t about Iraq. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Interjections from the junior Minister on that issue are simply not constructive. These are serious matters and the Government is required to answer to them.