Cunliffe David: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9707. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): In this Chamber we have decorating the walls the emblems of battles in which New Zealanders have fought. I am looking opposite at one named Egypt where the 28th Māori Battalion served so gallantly in the front line of the break out at El Alamein which it was my privilege once to visit. I am calling it to mind because our late colleague Parekura Horomia was a dedicated attendee at its commemorations. I have been very pleased to be at some. I recall the battalion because the principles for which it fought and for which too many died included the protection of the very freedoms which this Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill now calls into question. That is a matter of such seriousness that it behoves this House and every listener to contemplate very very carefully the freedoms which could be compromised willingly or by omission through this bill.This bill as it currently stands based on the information that we currently have appears to be a sham in the shadow of a farce. The farce is obvious on our TV screens and in the debacle of Dotcom and the unanswered questions about Huawei where our nearest allies our “Five Eyes” partners are unwilling to accept certain technology offerings that this Government appears comfortable to do. We have perhaps most important a significant issue of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s cart being before its own horse. We have the Kitteridge review which found 88 cases of illegal spying on New Zealand citizens or residents and made an extensive set of recommendations. It is absolutely proper and important that the House considers the response to that review before it extends the powers of the agency as proposed in this bill.How does it extend them? Firstly to broaden the purposes for which the Government Communications Security Bureau may act to include any economic well-being is to broaden it by as they say a country mile. Almost anything has a cost in financial terms and can be said to impact business. It is not necessarily wrong to cover that but we would want much more information about the extent the process and the accountability around that because it magnifies the scope of this agency.A colleague opposite talked about technology change. A key change has been the development of the cloud. This bill gives the obligation to our telecommunications providers to allow interception access into the cloud. You have seen the ads by one telecommunications company: “We can’t even say which Government agencies use our services.” This bill forces them to open up their clients’ accounts to the scrutiny of those agencies or so it seems. What protections I ask of the veterans of El Alamein are given to New Zealand citizens? Will a judge’s warrant be required for such intercepts? Will New Zealanders’ cloud information be deemed to be within New Zealand’s jurisdiction? Or will it be ultra vires because it is in the cloud and not tied to our domestic terrestrial communications? We look for the answer. We have none.What of the scrutiny? Currently the Intelligence and Security Committee the oversight provided by Parliament is in name only. It generally gets information after itis released to the public and it is headed up by John “Brain Fade” Key—a man who has the courage to pick up the phone and ring a schoolmate and ask him to be the head of our spy agency but does not have the courage to pick up the phone and talk to Aaron Gilmour about his antics. He cannot remember where he was last week or last month or last year or whom he spoke to or why. Are we prepared to accept that man’s assurance that all of the activities of the agency that are being broadened by this bill are subject to New Zealand law when the Kitteridge review has not yet been acted on? I think not.Our Government Communications Security Bureau has a valid and important role to play in protecting our national interests. It must have the highest trust of this House and the New Zealand people. This legislation needs a lot more clarity and a lot more information before the Labour Opposition can support it.