Locke Keith: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12287] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was very interested in Simon Power’s comments because he was concerned about such extensive powers being granted to one person to grant exemptions under this legislation. It just reverberated in my mind that in another very current case that ofthe Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security one person is given extensive powers operating with secret powers that generally we do not know about and also getting it wrong. It was only after that person had expressed some apparent bias—on three counts in the court decision—that he could be taken off that case. Now he has resigned as inspector-general. But it just shows the danger of relying on individuals to get it right particularly in the areas we are talking about of interceptions and intelligence. So I share some common ground with my colleague Simon Power on that question. I hope he will support the moves of the Green Party to have a greater level of accountability surveillance and parliamentary accountability of our intelligence services the inspector-general interceptions warrant exemptions and all the rest of it. 
I hope we can work together on that to move beyond the present situation where we have only this Intelligence and Security Committee which is made up of the Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition and their appointees. So it is not an MMP committee. It does not have any real powers. It has not had any demonstrable successes. We have the particularly bad situation in respect of the appointment of a new Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security because it is a matter of the Prime Minister getting her head together with Don Brash to make the decision. Other parties such as New Zealand First ACT United Future and the Greens are left out in the cold on this.So I do agree with Simon Power on that matter. 
Referring back to the requirements put on network operators in this bill any operators—be they Internet service providers be they telecommunications companies—there is a concern amongst some of them particularly Internet service providers that they will be required to cooperate with this and that not only will it cost them time and money to cooperate with the agencies in this interception but they will be in some way compromised by this particularly with their clients. That is a bad situation to put operators in. There are some operators—in relation to the previous debate around the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) as well—such as PlaNet Internet in Auckland or Plain Communications in Christchurch—that were worried about being drawn into this surveillance net. 
In fact one of the things that has come out of the discussion with Internet service providers is that there is some advantage in New Zealand electronic communications as being seen as surveillance-free—that is police and intelligence agencies do not get into them. It could be an international business advantage for New Zealand communications to be seen in that light. Of course it would not stop them from being intercepted when they depart our shores by the CIA FBI National Security Agency of America or whoever. But it would be a business advantage for the Internet service providers and telecommunications people for New Zealand to be surveillance-free and not have this sort of legislation going through. 
The bill actually goes beyond the Internet service providers and telecommunications companies and does cover for instance hotels with their communications networks. Hotels are for example required to cooperate in the interception of particular customers going through their PABX phone system etc. So it is drawing a lot of people into the net and I image that a lot of hotel owners do not understand they will be drawn into this. 
There is some advantage in the way the encryption provision is written—that is there is no obligation on the Internet server provider or the telecommunications provider to decrypt messages unless they have provided the encryption devices specifically to their customers. It is good that that exists but we have to realise that this bill is not just giving powers to the intelligence services and the police but also incorporating a lot of other people in the net and unnecessarily intruding on the privacy of the customers of Internet service providers and it could lead to a lot of problems.