Clark David: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Part 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill really covers such a wide range of things because it speaks to the purposes and principles of the bill. As we have heard in the debate so far there have been many many different aspects of it that have been called into question. It is a piece of sloppy permissive legislation that allows surveillance seemingly endlessly and without clear definition across many aspects of our society. I think that that is what many of the objections so far have pertained to.I want to spend some time speaking about Supplementary Order Paper 370 which Clare Curran has lodged because I think it speaks directly to some of these problems. In that Supplementary Order Paper the suggestion is that we delete the definition of “national security” as it appears in clause 3 of the bill. That is a sensible thing to do because the definition as it stands refers only to economic well-being. Economic well-being itself is not defined in clause 3. We learnt from those members who were on the Law and Order Committee that in fact in the select committee no real effort was made to take into consideration what economic impact this bill will have. There were supplementary submissions to the select committee by several network operators that outlined potential significant annual operating costs and potential capital expenditure costs associated with implementing this bill.Clare Curran: $50 million.Dr DAVID CLARK: One estimate was $50 million I am told by Clare Curran who sat on that committee and who has made important contributions on this bill so far. The fact that the committee did not seek advice on these supplementary submissions suggests that we do not have a mature view as to what the economic impact is that we are taking into account. I think that that is something that this Committee might like to reflect on seriously.I would be interested in the Minister for Communications and Information Technology’s thoughts on what that economic impact would be intended to be and I think other members of this Committee would be too because we have a serious problem here. If the only definition of national security that we have in the bill is that it takes economic well-being into account—and we do not know what that economic well-being is and nor have we have defined it particularly well in the debates in this House—that opens up the Government to litigation. I think that that is not good lawmaking. I think that that needs further clarification or as Clare Curran suggests thatterm—the definition of what national security is—should be removed from the whole clause. Currently it is redundant it is confusing and it is perhaps misleading at best. In the legislation it tends to suggest that there is an economic impact to be taken into account but we have no definition of what that might be.Amending the definition of “network provider” is also a provision that Clare Curran has in her Supplementary Order Paper. The bill as drafted places onerous obligations on the network operators. We have heard a number of members of the Committee comment on those who might be captured by it such as TradeMe. Trevor Mallard was wondering whether his mobile telephone would be captured in that definition whether it is a terminal device when it can forward on information and whether indeed it is part of a network. We heard questions about whether schools are parts of networks and whether they are then open to surveillance when they set up internal networks and about newspaper websites TradeMe and the like. In Clare Curran’s Supplementary Order Paper she suggests that clause 3 should be amended to make it clear that such things are not captured and as best as you can not captured in the legislation. I think that that is a very sensible step.Amending the definition of “service provider” is another amendment put forward in the Supplementary Order Paper that Clare Curran has put before the Committee. It tries to make sure that this bill will be applicable in international law. We have a serious problem with this bill where it is not clear that the efforts made in it to define things can in fact be implemented internationally. It is not a good thing for the Parliament of New Zealand if we are in a position of passing legislation that is going to open us up to international ridicule and to scuffles and fights in the international sphere.Moana Mackey: It already has.Dr DAVID CLARK: My colleague makes it clear that in fact it already is opening us up to some level of ridicule but I think it would be far more serious if we were to pass legislation that put into law this kind of anomaly this lack of clarity and in fact the definitions that we currently have.The next part in clause 3 that calls for amendment is inserting a new definition of “surveillance agency”. It is clear that—