Alexander Marc: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) —  
Alexander Marc: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) —  
[Volume:609;Page:6326] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that does not provide for computer crime. But it is about time that we saw the creation of new offences that make it illegal to intercept access use or damage data held on computers without authorisation. Our approach is at odds with our obligation to the international community the Convention on Cybercrime approved by the Council of Europe in 2001 and an APEC telecommunications document  
Cybersecurity: A Strategy for APEC 
. In other words with regard to computer offences legislatively speaking we are behind in terms of most Western countries. 
Critics argue that our domestic law should not be dictated to by international or foreign interests. Yet in the age of the Internet national boundaries mean very little in the commissioning of the sorts of offences we are currently encountering. I refer to offences such as computer hacking for delinquent and economic intelligence purposes. Frustratingly this often leaves law enforcement authorities with their hands tied unable to crack down on offences on citizens in their own jurisdiction perpetrated by individuals somewhere on the other side of the world. Among other reasons that is why our interest must be to pass this bill. By falling in line with the international community and appropriating a comparable offence regime we will be enacting provisions of an international standard. 
This bill was initially stalled following the objections of Internet service providers at what they perceived would be an onerous burden on their businesses to provide police and other intelligence agencies with the interception capabilities this bill requires of them. Yet I note the change of position of the industry from organisations such as the Information Technology Association and the reported comments of the association’s director Jim O’Neill last year that the passage of the bill was now necessary so that they could get on with implementing the full economic potential of some of the technologies they had. In other words it appears that Internet service providers have accepted the reality of the need for greater enforcement capability by authorities and are prepared to support the bill so that they can get on with their core business. 
I would also like to point out to those concerned about compliance costs that increased enforcement powers will mean that we are all served by better protection against hackers. It will mean that our computer systems will crash less often be less infected with email viruses and provide a more efficient basis for business. 
As I have said presently we have no specific computer-related offences. The courts have in turn interpreted laws covering fraud theft criminal damage and even trespass sufficiently broadly to bring activities that we need to outlaw within the ambit of present legislation. Common law has evolved to satisfy the gap. 
Critics of this bill feel that this legislation is unnecessary given the way the courts have dealt with the issue. But a lack of statutory recognition of these Internet and computer-based offences remains nevertheless problematic. The law as a whole needs to be more than piecemeal development. I do not mean to detract from the value of common or judge-made law but it is necessary in many areas of the law for an integrative scheme to be enacted. For example in 1999 in the case of  
R 
 v  
Wilkinson 
 the Court of Appeal threw out a conviction for theft in a convoluted electronic transfer of funds case. I think that well illustrates the need for more specific statutes in this area. 
I also note a paper commissioned by the policy committee of the New Zealand Computer Society in 1989. 
It was produced by a special project group under Victoria University senior law lecturer and criminal law guru John Miller. 
The paper espoused two particular principles that remain relevant today. Firstly the criminal law must remain certain. Whenever the State sanctions citizens for their actions the conditions upon which this is predicated must be certain and must be known. The alternative is that where there is any doubt about the criminal law’s application the benefit of such a doubt must be given to the accused. This is an undesired effect if hackers are resultantly left to run free. Secondly a clear signal is needed to emphasise the antisocial nature of hacking and the grave consequences that can arise from it. For example while the punishment provisions in the bill for computer offences are a range of jail terms under Missouri law victims of computer crime can recover the costs of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the owner to verify whether a computer system was damaged by the access. The intent is to encourage victims of computer crime to take action when they are victimised. 
I note the work of the select committee in examining this bill and the changes it has made as far as ensuring that members of the Government Communications Security Bureau and our other intelligence agencies will not be prosecuted under the bill for the legitimate activities they can carry out in protecting national security and similar matters. They are positive changes. One example is the recent Government Communications Security Bureau offshoot the Centre for Critical Infrastructure Protection which I am led to believe is directed to protect our critical infrastructures such as power grids water supplies and air travel from Internet-based crime. 
I understand that the paranoid party of Aotearoa—the Greens—will be concerned that this so-called expansion of State power will lead inevitably to an age of surveillance and unmitigated State intrusion into our private lives and that we are only one step down the road from a security State. As per usual if we pause to shake off our agendas the answer to that sort of rubbish is quite clear. In truth this bill places a strict limit on the organisations that can monitor Internet traffic emails and the like as well as what they can monitor and when they can monitor it. 
The police electronic crime unit is on record as stating that the police will not be trawling through emails looking for suspicious correspondence. It has further stated that it will target and name suspects’ emails only after getting a court warrant. Most of all and perhaps this is the most disconcerting even if the police wanted to they simply do not have the resources to spend hours monitoring the emails of every potential crackpot. 
I have also had it pointed out to me that those organisations that will have the authority to intercept Internet traffic are already undertaking that type of surveillance anyway. Further as our society becomes increasingly aware of the number of paedophiles who use the Internet to contact innocent children trade in images that exploit our children and that sort of monitoring the authority is absolutely necessary if we are at all serious about combating such problems. I for one am not prepared to accept the irrational fears of a few whilst those sorts of perverts are going undetected. 
Finally I note the changes the bill makes to some property offences such as the simplification of the definition of burglary. Also it is a positive move to extend the grounds on which blackmail can take place to include threats to disclose matters other than criminal and sexual behaviour. I commend the bill to the House. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Bill to proceed.