Cunliffe DavidHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise in support—we have a microphone problem; no we do not—of the bill but I do wish to seek some clarification from the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service of several aspects around Part 5. Part 5 opens by detailing the role of the agencies in obtaining business records particularly of telecommunications network providers and financial service providers. If you think about everything that we carry on our phones these days from our address book and our calls and emails to our banking it is pretty pervasive. This part provides for the compulsory access and acquisition of business records by those who provide those services. It is as with many other parts of the bill I think commendably balanced; however it is not without questions and not without the need for monitoring. The first thing that I think we need to note and put in lights is that the content of communications is excluded from the definition of business records of telecommunications companies. That is in order for the services to obtain the content of a communication of a New Zealand citizen they need to obtain a warrant in all but the most specific exceptional circumstances that we detailed in the previous part. So this part around obtaining business records does not include the content of communications. Having said that—and this is where balance comes in—it does include details as to the numbers called the time of the call the duration of the call where you called from and where you called to. And it will not require too much imagination for people to understand that the metadata itself—the information about the call rather than the content of the call—is fairly far-reaching in its implications in terms of personal privacy.So I agree with my colleague Clare Curran that the role of the Privacy Commissioner needs to be clear and we as a Parliament need to maintain vigilance as to the operation. We are in that regard I think gratified that the legislation strengthens the position of the inspector-general and we have confidence in the agencies and in the inspector-general's role but none the less vigilance will be required. The second thing that I like about the way that this is drafted is that the framework is limited to individual requests for specific information rather than bulk or class-based orders. So there is no requirement as I understand it for firms to collect or retain information that they do not already collect. I think that is also useful and no doubt will come as some form of reassurance to the industry. A side point that is worth noting because it has been discussed in the public domain is the fact that of course telecommunications providers are global and that includes social media. When one puts the compulsory acquisition of telecommunications metadata together with the opportunity for services to cooperate with partner agencies from other countries of course that can include the countries that host the servers for things like Google Facebook Yahoo! America Online—I think we are closing in on a jurisdiction here—and Amazon for which it remains a domestic operation because for those things such as Facebook Twitter etc. it is a domestic operation for them to intercept servers that are located on their soil. Therefore a Five Eyes partner of ours can as a matter of domestic practice intercept potentially the content of communications from New Zealanders. That is a very important side issue alongside the restrictions that we have in this bill around the content of communications because it places the emphasis on the need for protocols around the exchange of information of New Zealand citizens with friendly countries. Clause 118B is the clause that defines business records" as meaning "all information in the possession or under the control of the telecommunications network operator and all information in the possession or under the control of the financial service provider." It is germane to this that that is an entirely pervasive broad definition and it is in the exceptions to that universal power of access that we see the protections around the content of communications information around the employees or the directors of the TELCOs or the financial service providers and certain other carve-outs from that general definition. So it is important that we as a Parliament and it is important that the New Zealand public understand the way this law is written which is that the agencies can by compulsion have access to everything that is in the possession of a telecommunications provider or a financial service provider except for certain exceptions. I would ask the Minister to clarify for us the extent of the exception around customer data held by a financial institution. It is clear on a plain reading that the content of a phone call or an email should be excluded notwithstanding the possible exception around third-country exchange that I mentioned but it is less clear to me—and I may have missed it; I probably have missed it so if the Minister could clarify—the clauses that protect individual financial data. You know anybody who could read everybody else's bank statements or credit card records would have a pretty good idea about where they were when they were there what they were doing and what they were consuming and I would hope that there would be a high level of equivalent privacy protection around that. The balance this bill seeks to strike is that it is to enable the agencies to do the work they have to do on behalf of all of us to catch the baddies before havoc is wreaked potentially. But in doing so we have to do it in a way that protects the freedoms and the rule of law that our country holds dear otherwise we have already lost—otherwise we have already lost. The act of protecting our physical security would be such as to diminish our democracy and I am not sure which would be worse. So I do want to commend the select committee and the Minister for the balance that they have sought to strike. I believe that they have on all sides of the House foremost in their mind the need for that appropriate balance between effectiveness and appropriateness. The fact that we are debating it—and again I want to thank the Minister. He has consulted in such an open way and I understand from my colleagues who have spent longer on the bill than I have that his consultation has been thorough and open throughout this bill and that the officials have done an excellent and conscientious job. I think all New Zealanders can take comfort in that and can know that our Parliament is working as it should and that there is actually unity of purpose around this House. Different parties will see that balance in a different position potentially and our Green colleagues whom we respect highly see the balance being at a different point overall on this bill. We respect the way they got to that conclusion even though we differ from them in substance and I think they would join with us in saying that notwithstanding their reservations the process has been of a high quality and that the points of difference are known and understood. As my good colleague David Parker said yesterday when those all around us seem to be losing their heads it is good to know that the New Zealand political system has retained its common sense. So with those few words of commendation and a couple of open questions—particularly around financial records which I would seek the Minister's clarification on—I end this short contribution on Part 5. Thank you."