Faafoi Kris: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13976. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the chance to speak to Part 2 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. On this side of the Chamber we would like to thank the Minister for Communications and Information Technology for standing up and taking a call on this part of the bill because there is no better advertisement for the reasons why this legislation ought not to pass than when the Minister is talking about it. That is because everything she has said does not marry up with what the reality is.The Minister said that nothing has changed in Part 2 of this bill about the reach or the powers that the Government has to surveil via telecommunications companies. That could not be any further from the truth. It is clear from the Minister saying that that those things have not changed and that her ignorance of the concerns around the industry has not changed. The Government’s arrogance around this bill and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation has not changed. The Government’s attitude towards New Zealand Bill of Rights Act considerations around privacy has not changed. The Government’s inability to find some kind of balance between the need to surveil and the rights of the individual citizens has not changed because it has rammed through this piece of legislation in haste and it hasgiven huge powers to the Minister in the chair who has taken only one call to completely and utterly deny the concerns that the industry has around this bill.One of the assertions made by the Minister in the chair was that the industry was quite happy with the level of consultation and with the costs that it will be facing if it is compelled by this bill to do what it needs to do. That could not be any further from the truth. In a submission to the Law and Order Committee Vodafone—one of the largest telecommunications companies if not now the largest—said that “The burden continues to fall disproportionately on existing large telecommunications providers ignoring the significant interception gaps created by the proposed regime inadequately covering OTT and smaller providers;”. So there you have it. Vodafone is saying that there are going to be huge cost implications to the company and the Minister completely and utterly denied that.Later on in its submission to the select committee Vodafone also went on to make a point around network security saying that “The proposed approval process does represent a significant compliance cost to network operators in order to further government objectives. Network operators should be fully compensated for these additional costs.” So there will be costs to the network operators in this bill. Vodafone has said that within its submission to the select committee. But you did not hear that from the Minister during her contribution on Part 2.There were also concerns from the industry around the lack of consultation on this piece of legislation and my colleague Clare Curran has brought in Supplementary Order Paper 370 to bring in a measure for that. I will come to that later but I do want to show or read out to those at home the part of the regulatory impact statement that pertains to industry consultation. It says: “In developing the above proposals [information withheld] telecommunication industry representatives were consulted.” There is a very small gap there where it says “information withheld” so it seems like there were not many consulted. Then the next point goes on: “Wider consultation with industry was not undertaken given the technical and sensitive nature of the subject-matter”. That is borne out in the submissions to the select committee and that was certainly borne out in the submission by Vodafone. It wants to have more consultation with the Government and with those intelligence agencies so that if there is going to be any major change to its network or any major cost implications to it it has the ability to talk that through with the Government or with the surveillance agencies before that is imposed upon it. I think that is a reasonably sensible thing to do and that is why we have got this Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Clare Curran which will look to establish a technical advisory board so that those kinds of issues can be worked through before they are imposed on telecommunications companies at potentially huge expense to them and without the technical discussions around what kinds of implications that will have for their networks.Can I just move to clause 10 of the bill which is also around the interception capabilities of this piece of legislation and move towards a submission that was made by Microsoft. In her contribution earlier the Minister said that this bill does not change anything and that things have not changed but can I take the opportunity to read a section of the submission from Microsoft a huge software company operating right around the globe. Microsoft is realistic. In its submission it said: “Every day the New Zealand Government and millions of Kiwis are using technology to get things done securely and privately over a diversity of data connections.” We all know that. “Of course one side effect of this” it said “is that it is no longer possible to tap into a phone line and interpret every signal that is communicated over that line. The world has changed”—we can tick that off; everyone can agree with that—“and it can’t be assumed that the same approach that worked for a phone conversation can simply be applied toevery service that happens now to be delivered over that same network. Yet the proposed law will include powers to extend telecommunications interception capability obligations to every provider of any good or service that enables or facilitates virtually any conveyance of any information from one device to another.” It then asks us to look at the definitions of telecommunications service under the Telecommunications Act.The damning sentence here which the Minister in the chair completely ignored or was ignorant of is as it goes on to say: “That would be a dramatic change to the law and it is far from clear why this is necessary.” I will just repeat that for those who might be listening at home: “That would be a dramatic change to the law and it is far from clear why this is necessary.” So we have actually got an opportunity now because the Minister is in the chair to answer that question from Microsoft as to why that expansion of powers which she says does not exist in this bill is necessary when the Minister says that nothing has changed in terms of what the surveillance agencies can access and the types of telecommunications they can access. The Minister said in her contribution that nothing has changed. Microsoft which is not a little company in a back shed in Hokitika—sorry Mr Damien O’Connor—is saying that this is a huge change in the law. Microsoft is asking a question and saying that it is far from clear why this change is necessary. So maybe the Minister in the chair who said in her speech that nothing has changed would like to stand up and answer that question which I am putting to the Minister in the chair for Microsoft. Why is it necessary for you to change the law which you said is not being changed? The Minister has said that nothing is changing.Hon Amy Adams: No I didn’t.KRIS FAAFOI: The industry disagrees. She is exasperated. She has taken one call. Tell us why you needed to change this thing which you said is not changing. Why are you ignoring the likes of Vodafone? Why are you ignoring the likes ofInternetNZ? Why is the Minister ignoring the likes of Microsoft? The Minister is changing a piece of legislation which Microsoft says goes well beyond what she said she was doing. What is the rationale for that? Hopefully the Minister in the chair can take another call. As I say we do enjoy it when she does. I am sure that the answer will not answer the question I have asked but if the Minister could take an opportunity to address that question from the Labour Party and also from Microsoft we would be very happy.Maybe she would like to look at the technical advisory board that could be set up under Clare Curran’s Supplementary Order Paper and that could answer that kind of question but unfortunately I do not think the Government is going to take up that very sensible proposal from this side of the Chamber. It is another indication that this Minister’s attitude towards and ignorance of the concerns about this bill have not changed. The Government’s arrogance around this bill and the GCSB has not changed and the Government’s arrogance around balancing the rights of private citizens andsurveilling them for security reasons has not changed either. It has rammed this piece of legislation through.Part 2 compels network operators to do something that they agree they should do but it puts massive costs on to them. They are worried about the lack of consultation leading up to this bill and also about the lack of consultation that might happen when this legislation is enforced. That is why the Government should seriously think about looking at this Supplementary Order Paper 370 which contains the—