Goff Phil: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9704. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Once again we have an important piece of legislation coming into the House that may be necessary but the case has not been made out for it; that is certainly intrusive on the privacy and individual rights of New Zealand citizens but again fails to indicate the checks and balances that might exist to prevent those powers being abused. The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is a piece of legislation that was brought in under urgency yet National speaker after National speaker instead of making out the case for why this legislation is necessary and what protections there might be to stop its powers being abused stands up utters and mumbles a few inane sentences and sits down. There is a responsibility on the Government of this country when in the night and under urgency it tries to rush a piece of legislation through to actually justify to the country what it is doing.You know there has been a tradition in this House that where a Government acts reasonably there is an effort to achieve a bipartisan consensus to get intrusive legislation through the House. In this legislation there has been no such effort. It was not tabled until today and when the Minister for Communications and Information Technology brought the bill in the bill in its printed form made a comment about the release of the regulatory impact statements. There are wide-ranging powers in this bill and we need to know what Treasury and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment say the implications of this legislation are. But what do we read in the bill? That “These regulatory impact statements have yet to be publicly released on the Ministry’s website …”.I want to ask the Government why it is good enough for it to bring in a bill that gives unprecedented powers over telecommunications companies to the Government to intrude into the lives of private New Zealand citizens yet the Government does not deem it necessary to table the regulatory impact statements so that the whole House can be informed about what this bill means for New Zealanders. That is a breach of process. That is utter arrogance matching the arrogance of National members who stand up and speak three sentences and then jeer from their seats when other people are criticising the way this bill has been put together.I want to make a point about the bill. This bill is going to the Law and Order Committee. I sit on that select committee. Interestingly our select committee had before it the Corrections Amendment Bill. Members of the committee are in the House right now and they can confirm that. This submission is from three telecommunications companies: 2degrees Vodafone and Telecom. This is evidence that the Government never learns from its failures; it never learns from the fiascos and the botch-ups that ithas already made. This is what the companies said: “It is unfortunate that we were not consulted on the Bill before this process began.” This was about a bill in the corrections context giving power over telecommunications companies—a parallel to this legislation before us—and the telecommunications companies came to the committee and said that they did not know about it before the Government introduced it.My challenge to the National Government is this: did it consult with the telecommunications companies? Did it ask whether the measures were effective were able to be implemented and were necessary? Whether there were better ways of doing it? Whether it unnecessarily intruded on privacy? Silence. You know the answer Mr Assistant Speaker. The answer is that it did not consult with the companies that are dramatically affected by these legislative powers.What do we find about the Government’s last effort to do this that went to the Law and Order Committee? We found that the bill would have had unintended consequences; that the telecommunications providers actually did not have the capability to do what the Government was demanding of them. We found that it gave the department search and surveillance powers over and above any others that existed for Government agencies that it failed to take into account better ways of doing it that it set out costs that ran into millions of dollars and that it was an unjustified intrusion into the privacy rights of individuals. Do you know what the result of that submission was? Everything the telecommunications companies said about that intrusion and those powers was absolutely correct and the Government slunk off with its tail between its legs. It withdrew the provisions in the legislation and it put into effect provisions that the telecommunications companies said were necessary useful pragmatic and had proper checks and balances.This Government learns nothing from its experience. It brings into the House this bill with unprecedented powers. It has not consulted the Opposition parties. It has not consulted the telecommunications companies. My fear is that our committee will find exactly what it found last time the Government tried to implement something like this: that what the Government was recommending would not work could not be done was expensive abused the rights of ordinary New Zealanders and failed to protect where it was necessary to do so the privacy of individuals.You know I wonder what this legislation is about. Some time ago I was talking to people representing the Australian Government and the United States Government. They asked me this question saying: “You know you’re worried about cyber-security. Why is it that the National Government has agreed to allow Huawei to set up communications networks in New Zealand that we in Australia and we in the United States wouldn’t allow because of the fundamental impact that would have on undermining cyber-security in our countries?” So on the one hand the Government has gone out and it has agreed to something that its closest friends and allies apparently thought was stupid and then on the other hand it brings this legislation in. Maybe it is bringing this legislation in because in retrospect it realises it has done the wrong thing and it has opened New Zealand up to the sort of cyber-attacks through foreign-owned companies that other countries with similar democracies have not opened themselves up to.I ask the next Government speaker not to mutter something inane when they get up and then sit down again but to answer that question. Answer all of those questions. Is this about Huawei? Why is it that there has been no communication with the telecommunications companies? Why is it that we found out about this legislation only when it was tabled and that there was no effort as you would normally expect to give a briefing to the Opposition on legislation that provides for a massive expansion of Government powers?I want to give an indication of what that massive expansion is. Network operators will have to notify the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau of “any proposed decision course of action or change [to] procurement of any equipment system or service …” any change to those or any change of ownership of any of them. What remarkable powers—remarkable powers that the Government Communications Security Bureau will have over communications companies. Why is this deemed to be necessary at this time? Is it about Huawei? Or is it because the Government just thinks that it should be able to go in and direct anything that the private communications companies are doing.The bill says that the telecommunications companies must notify the Government Communications Security Bureau before they go out to the market for any new equipment. That is a huge intrusion on what the telecommunications companies are doing. It has not been necessary in the past. Why is it necessary now? The Government Communications Security Bureau is to have a veto power over network operators upgrading and introducing new network equipment if in the director’s opinion they pose a security risk. What is the criteria he follows in that? Why is that not spelt out in the legislation? Is this a total unbridled power?If the director is not satisfied with the proposal then they can refer it to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister can direct that they stop a particular activity—enormous powers placed in the hands of the Prime Minister to be directive. Where is the check and balance on that? It may be that they are concerned for example about the economic well-being of the country. Every day the National Party stands up in the House and argues that every party in Opposition is undermining the economic well-being of the country. Is this a cause that would allow the Government to spy on the political parties’ decision-making process because of that? You would say that is silly really is it not? Is it not silly? The Government would not do that would it? John Key or actually Bill English would not suppress the fact that the Government had acted illegally in another area. John Key would not lie about his involvement in the appointment of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s director. No they would not do those things!This is bad legislation—poorly introduced inadequately explained with no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act veto and no checks and balances. The Labour Opposition will be opposing this bill.