Curran Clare: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7939. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I move That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. The year 2013 was a tumultuous year for New Zealanders as we faced the realisation that the interception and electronic surveillance capacities of our secret service agencies had expanded enormously. It was the year that Edward Snowden revealed to the world just what the US was capable of and was actually doing and it was the year that the “Five Eyes” relationship came under intense scrutiny. It was the year that this Government introduced two pieces of law to give the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and Ministers expanded powers and it was the year that civil society including the Human Rights Commission spoke up loudly about the importance of privacy and balance in our security laws. Labour strongly opposed both those laws; we did so for many reasons.During the debate around the introduction of the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill otherwise known as “TICS” in 2013 there were numerous submissions from civil society the legal profession and the telecommunications and internet sectors calling for there to be greater independent oversight of the new powers being provided for in both pieces of legislation. During the debate on the “TICS” bill a number of submitters urged the Government to include a technical advisory board to act as an accountability buffer for the GCSB and the Government Minister exercising powers over the commercial decisions by our telecommunications networks with no independent oversight. In clause 48 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill which is now an Act these powers include any decisions by a network to buy or acquire “any equipment system or service that falls within an area of specified security interest; or (b) any change—(i) to the architecture”—or design ownership control oversight or supervision—“of any equipment system or service that falls within an area of specified security interest;”.These are enormous powers. If the GCSB decides to intervene and the network challenges that decision the issue goes to the Minister responsible for the GCSB. There is no other check or balance in the system.After the Act was passed without the inclusion of any independent oversight mechanism I placed a bill into the members’ ballot to rectify this. After more than 2 years my bill has been drawn. This proposed amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act establishes a technical advisory board to which matters must be referred in instances where the Minister will be required to exercise his or her discretion or to prescribe an additional area of specified security interest. One of the serious concerns around “TICS” is that it will create a chilling effect on New Zealand technology companies as the powers for surveillance agencies to interfere in business decisions are too broad and the compliance regime too rigid and secretive—it created broad sweeping powers likely to result in an increased risk of invasive surveillance on a mass scale—and that it failed to provide sufficient oversight or checks and balances on the new powers granted to Ministers. We considered that the bill was poorly drafted with the Law and Order Committee finding that the powers were not clear or were too broad.My bill cannot and will not address all of those issues but what it does is establish a mechanism for there to be expertise to assist the Minister and to assure New Zealanders that relevant information is being considered when critical decisions are being made about network security and consideration of proposed mitigations. The bill will require that any matter—any matter—where a Minister exercises their discretion or recommends prescribing an additional area of specified security interest be first referred to the technical advisory board for analysis and recommendations. That board will comprise equal representation from Government and the industry with an independent chair. Why is it needed? Because there are things that the network or telecommunications companies get asked to do by the GCSB that are either technically unfeasible or expensive. The GCSB does not have the capacity to understand the rapidly changing technology and the impact on wider industry. If it is delaying decisions being made by our industry to become more agile and responsive to the needs of customers and businesses then this has an economic impact.I want to refer specifically to the submission to the 2013 bill made by the Telecommunications Carriers Forum otherwise known as the “TCF” which is a respected body that represents most of the telecommunications networks in New Zealand. It said that it recommended “that additional protections are put in place relating to the issuing of Directives. We consider that an additional step in the process between the security agency and the Minister should be inserted into the consideration process to appropriately address these concerns.” They considered that the UK approach on which their submission was based achieves this well. They went on to say that an independent expert panel should consider any directive proposal from a security agency and submissions from impacted parties before providing its recommendation to the Minister. That panel would be balanced by an equal number of security-cleared security specialists from telecommunications providers and representatives from security agencies with an independent chair. All participants would have secret-level Government-sponsored security clearance. This is eminently sensible. It is measured. It was supported in the select committee by all of the other major telecommunications companies in New Zealand including Chorus; Enable Networks which is rolling out our ultra-fast broadband networks; Telecom as it was then which has now been divided into Chorus and Spark; Ultrafast Fibre another infrastructure company rolling out fibre; Vodafone; and also Google.In summary what this bill does is set up a technical advisory board. It will improve relationships between the security agencies and the telecommunications companies. It will ensure that businesses are not burdened with unnecessary costs. It will reduce the likelihood of mistakes by all of those involved parties such as the GCSB the Minister and the telecommunications companies. It is not going to impede security. All of the panel must have top-level security clearance and they are advisory only—they do not have ultimate decision-making power; the Minister would still make the final decision if necessary. There is no harm in ensuring that the Minister making these decisions is as fully informed as possible before they make a decision and this has an overseas precedent. It is based on an existing UK model that has had no issues.The underlying principle is that New Zealanders must be reassured that measures to ensure the security of our public and our private sector entities are balanced by measures to protect their privacy. The creation of this independent board with technical knowledge and expertise is widely supported by the industry and internet and civil-society organisations. Since 2013 I have been advised that this existing Act has caused significant costs and delays for companies making business changes and entering into new contractual arrangements. Surely if there is a low-cost simple and effective measure that can be put in place to mitigate this why not do it? It is a sensible bill. It is aimed at making our surveillance laws more efficient and effective. It has got a wider set of principles around mitigation against the economic impact of tightening our security laws while ensuring the best possible advice is being given to the decision makers whether that is the GCSB or a Minister. I ask the House to support this bill to the select committee.