Huo Raymond: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHuo Raymond: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13978. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to take a call on Part 2. Before I start I would like to reiterate the reasons why we are so strongly opposed to this particular bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. We have primarily three main reasons why we are so strongly opposed to this bill. The first one is that this bill seeks to facilitate the implementation of its companion legislation the GovernmentCommunications and Security Bureau Amendment Act which fundamentally reduces the rights and freedom of New Zealanders to communicate with each other by failing to provide sufficient protection against the spying on New Zealand citizens by State agencies. The second reason is that the bill in its current form is poorly and broadly drafted. Thirdly it is unacceptable that such concessions have been made to the global majors such as Google Facebook etc. but not to the citizens of New Zealand.Part 2 provides interception duties. Part 2 from clause 9 through to clause 42 sets out the interception capability duties that apply to network operators and service providers. The primary duty which as the Minister in the chair the Minister for Communications and Information Technology has acknowledged is the duty to have full interception capability remains substantially the same as in the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act of 2004—namely the current Act. Despite the fact that the primary duty remains largely the same the problem is that under the current bill the definitions provided in Part 1 are either inaccurate or too broad. The bill as drafted places onerous obligations upon network operators and may capture many whom it may not have been intended to. So without clarifying the definition blog sites such as news sites like theNew Zealand Heraldor Scoop and other—Hon Simon Bridges: What about sites that Shane Jones looks at?RAYMOND HUO: Well what about Mr John Banks? Also other service-oriented websites such as TradeMe are likely to be captured by this legislation as well.Hon Simon Bridges: What’s he got to do with it?Kris Faafoi: He’s all over the websites.RAYMOND HUO: Ha ha! Subpart 1 “Duty to have full interception capability”—namely in clauses 9 and 10—sets out the primary duty that applies to network operators which is a duty to have full interception capability in respect of every public telecommunications network that the network operator owns and every telecommunications service that the operator provides in New Zealand.But what are we talking about here and what do all transmissions and information infrastructure mean in terms of ordinary life in New Zealand? We are not talking about rocket science we are not talking about somebody else’s business; we are talking about emails we are talking about telephone calls messages history or records left on for instance Facebook or Google or any website we have just visited. They are all potentially accessible without a warrant by spy and other agencies.So all internet service providers as a starting proposition are covered by the impact of this bill. Any internet service providers even smaller ones must at the very least be intercept-ready and substantial ones must actually be intercepted. This is a huge cost and it is a huge broadening of the powers of the State to access the private information of New Zealanders. Subpart 2 is “Reduced duties” and I would like to touch on that later on. The so-called GCSB amendment Act which this bill seeks to implement provides for the ability to intercept all transmissions that apply to information infrastructure for any purpose to do—