Prosser Richard: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14335. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this third and final reading of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. I am pleased but I have to say—and this is becoming something of a habit with too much of this Government’s legislation—that I am a little disappointed as well. New Zealand First is opposed to this bill. We began the process ofthis piece of lawmaking by giving it our qualified support. We supported this bill at its inception because we believed and still believe that it was a necessary act of legislation in so far as its stated intentions were concerned. But that we can no longer support its passage into law is the source of my disappointment. I am disappointed that yet again this Government this National Party Government and its associated hangers-on has managed to address a necessary and pressing issue by hitting the nail squarely on the thumb. I do not think those members lack intelligence. There are some particularly fine minds amongst the members occupying the benches opposite. Rather I think it is but another manifestation of the old-time Tory born-to-rule mentality that sees no need to consult or to listen or to think beyond its own immediate impressions and opinions. It is incapable of being wrong in its own view and thus it is unable to absorb reason if such reason is applied externally and change course in place of it. We have attempted to find a way through what has proven to be an impasse as far as the two separate agendas of this bill are concerned.New Zealand First has suggested that the bill be split into two bills in order to deal separately with the two major areas that it addresses. By way of explanation I will quote from the minority view that New Zealand First submitted to the Law and Order Committee report: “New Zealand First holds the view that the issues covered by this bill are too broad and disparate to be dealt with by a single piece of legislation. Network security is a pressing issue which requires the timely attention of the House and the expeditious passing of legislation to facilitate the protection of New Zealand’s data networks by way of the exclusion of [risk-bearing] hardware … This we regard as being a singular issue which we support. Interception capability however is both a less urgent concern and one which has generated a great deal of controversy. We note that an overwhelming majority of public and industry submissions are opposed to some or all of the proposed legislative changes. There are unresolved issues and unanswered questions surrounding the cost to network providers the exclusion of smaller providers the non-inclusion of over-the-top service providers and the commercial implications of having OTT providers subject to requirements which may limit the availability of certain products and services to the New Zealand market. In addition several submitters suggested that aspects of the proposed changes may limit innovation and expansion in some areas of information technology in New Zealand. Many submitters were of the opinion that the exclusion of small providers and of OTT services would largely negate the effectiveness of the law as proposed. While these issues remain unresolved and while existing legislation provides for an alternative framework through which the aims of the bill may be addressed we feel it is precipitous to [proceed] with this part of the bill. New Zealand First suggests that the bill be divided into two distinct bills [in order] to address these separate concerns. We may yet choose to pursue this option by way of a supplementary order paper.” That did not happen. “In the event that the bill is so separated New Zealand First will support the network security provisions as outlined. However as the bill [presently] stands we are unable to support it in its entirety due to our concerns as detailed here.”Unfortunately the Government has not seen fit to take heed of our concerns. For that reason we find ourselves in the position of having to withdraw our support for this bill. Network security is of course primarily concerned with the hardware that is proposed to be provided by one particular supplier based in Asia. The so-called “Five Eyes” partners the Anglosphere nations with whom we share much in the way of intelligence have made no secret of the fact that they do not trust the supplier and they are equally clear in their requirement for New Zealand to not expose ourselves—and by association them—to the risks involved in allowing this company to conduct espionageon behalf of their Government shareholder on our systems via bugs embedded in its commercial hardware.But there are other concerns as well. In view of recent disclosures in theGuardian and theNew York Times citing documents provided by Edward Snowden the bill raises significant issues for New Zealand businesses and individuals conducting their business online. A primary concern is retaining privacy and confidentiality between that business and the intended recipients. It would appear from the allegations raised in those newspapers that those communications may well be intercepted in whole or in part. This raises additional serious concerns regarding confidence in undertaking business with New Zealand - based companies by businesses or entities located outside the traditional five English-speaking countries with regard to the security and confidentiality of their communications to this country.There is a foreseeable adverse commercial consequence from this loss of confidence namely the substitution of New Zealand businesses with those in jurisdictions in which they may have more confidence in confidentiality of communications. This has a potential major impact particularly on rural and remote-based businesses in New Zealand where the ability for face-to-face meetings and the physical transfer of documents is far less practical. An apparent unintended consequence of this legislation is a potential detrimental reduction in the economic benefits that the internet and high-speed broadband had ostensibly offered to mitigate both rural isolation and New Zealand’s geographic isolation. One must ask how rural National Party members will justify to their rural constituents their acquiescence in enabling this legislation to pass with these foreseeable adverse economic consequences for those who elected them. This bill represents the wrong approach to a serious problem. New Zealand First cannot and does not support it. Thank you.