Mallard Trevor: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13979. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I would like to make a contribution on Part 2 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill and I would say that this is one of the two really substantive parts of this bill. This is a bill that is exceptionally controversial. It is one that divides the country it is one that divides the House and it is one where I think it is important to have a full debate. I know I am not meant to draw attention to the absence of members in the Chamber but I think I can say that I was away for about a quarter of an hour of this debate and in allthe time that I have been here I have heard only one substantive call from the Government. I think it is important that Ministers do make proper contributions and respond in the Committee stage.To really emphasise the importance of this part I want to indicate to you Mr Chair—as I am sure you are aware from looking at all the clauses—that this Part 2 between clauses 9 and 42 sets out the interception capability duties that apply to network and service providers under the bill. There is a primary duty that sits here that is very similar—substantially the same—to what has been in place under the current Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act from 2004. What Subpart 2—that is between clauses 11 and 20—does is provide for a reduction of the full interception capability by introducing lesser duties which will apply to certain classes of network operators. I do want to give notice to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. I am going to come back to those schools in west Auckland that are providing network services to parents in their particular area and ask whether in fact they will have a duty to comply with clauses 9 and 10. I am sort of gathering from the way the Minister’s head shook earlier and one could almost hear the rattles from back here that that would not apply. But then the question is whether they have an obligation to be intercept-ready or whether they have a duty to be intercept-accessible. My understanding is that they will end up having to be intercept-accessible.Then you ask the question: if an organisation has to be internet-accessible and it is something like a school board is it in fact appropriate for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) or the SIS or for that matter the police if it is a police matter—there has been quite a lot of discussion here about the intelligence agencies and their surveillance but not a lot of discussion about the surveillance on the part of the police. My question to the Minister is whether this duty to be intercept-accessible will apply to schools that are providing internet service provision to their communities. There might be only a thousand of them. I understand that if they do not go over 4000 they do not have the full requirements. But if there are only a few hundred parents what is the requirement there?The question then is that if the level of interception capability that is required from that school operator—my understanding is that there is a provision in the bill for the level of that to be increased not by legislation but by a decision by a Minister about a particular provider. One of the very serious questions I have got is whether it is appropriate that just at the whim of a Minister—not in the case of a proper warranted arrangement and all the things that are meant to happen under the GCSB and SIS legislation but just at the whim of a Minister—the entire organisation has to provide an increased level of interception capability. I accept that there is an ability for the affected network operator to make submissions to a Minister. There has got to be certain consultation and the applicable criteria have to be taken—