Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chairperson Tolley. It's with great pleasure I stand to support this very substantial bill. I must say it's a much-needed bill because the law prior to this was very confusing and had layer upon layer of reforms. So this consolidation of all of those reforms and a re-expression is indeed welcome.It does give significant powers to the Customs Service and for good reason. On the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee we've had occasion to look at what customs does and they face an extremely onerous challenge of protecting our borders. It is I think we must recognise a battle that is fought not necessarily simply with boats and with border controls and the like but also with data. So I can see the enhanced powers in respect of the searching of electronic devices—and it is worth querying the Minister on some of those powers. They are powers that are indeed much needed because obviously in battling against the evils that sometimes cross our border whether they be drugs other illicit goods or even simply people avoiding duties we do need that information and that data.So clause 207 does allow the searching of electronic devices. However it's all very nice to say that customs has the right to search an electronic device but as we all know with our devices they are often locked down and asking nicely sometimes simply won't do it. So my question really is whether the powers go far enough because whilst we need to be very cautious in interrogating someone's personal device—whether it be their laptop or their mobile phone—when we must we must do it thoroughly and we must do it properly. When a phone is encrypted as indeed has been discovered in a recent case in the United States it's more or less impossible to interrogate that data without destroying it. So my question really is this: do we need to be able to compel not only the holder of that device but also the manufacturer of that device to provide access to that information? If someone won't give you their password someone won't give you their encryption key or whatever it might be the question then is: where do we go now? We have essentially a stand-off and as sure as night follows day some people in those situations simply will not be prepared to hand over—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don't like to interrupt the member but I think you're on the wrong part. We're actually on information disclosure rather than powers and obligations. [Interruption] I know it's a—Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Madam Chair there's a lot of overlap there because the real question there—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you arguing with me? We are in a themed debate so bring your discussion to the theme of information disclosure. I'm sure you can do it Dr Webb.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yes absolutely Madam Chair. Thank you for the vote of confidence. The information on that device is critical and the question is about the protection of that private information. I didn't want to overlap with the previous speaker too much but that really is the question about protecting that information and ensuring that information that is interrogated the private information the non-relevant information is protected and it is not disclosed to the wrong person—that it's not interrogated and in fact that it's put entirely to one side. As the previous speaker noted privacy is a critical concern given the extensive powers that exist here.So really in respect of this bill yes it's an absolutely necessary consolidation. But there are some residual questions there about the balance to be struck between the powers we're giving customs and their need to get that information and the privacy rights of the owners of that information—the individuals concerned. Thank you.