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:13987. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to start off by picking up a point that was referred to by my colleague Grant Robertson in his speech. That is the what I consider particularly offensive comments by the Minister for Communications and Information Technology that if people are opposed to parts of this Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill or part of the direction then they are effectively supporting terrorism.I am I think one of the few members in the House and only by virtue of being a duty Minister who has been involved in what was a very serious threat to New Zealand. I only as a result of that have some knowledge of the systems that work. It was not part of my regular responsibilities but I happened to be on duty when what was potentially a massive incident or series of incidents occurred. I with my colleagues moved heaven and earth in order to mitigate that threat. The security agencies had a wide range of tools which they worked on and they used in order to mitigate that threat.I find it absolutely repugnant that this Minister in the chair the Minister for Communications and Information Technology who almost certainly has had no experience in that area at all would reflect in that way on Labour members who think there should be some balance between privacy the rights of companies and security. Of course there should be some balance. Otherwise we have the Orwellian the authoritarian the Nazi the Stalinist approach to security and that is something that New Zealand absolutely rejects. This party believes that there should be balance. Thisparty believes that if a case can be made by a security agency then our party will take it seriously and if necessary make amendments to the law. But what we have here is a relatively junior Minister who is telling us that we do not care about the security of New Zealand. Well I say to that Minister: shame on you. What that Minister wants is the sort of blank-cheque approach the sort of ministerial power to do anything to New Zealanders that she wants or that her colleague the Prime Minister wants in a way that is unacceptable in a democracy.Look I think my colleagues know and I certainly know that my Green friends feel that I am no bleeding heart liberal. I am not a bleeding heart liberal but I do know that when authorities are being granted powers they should make the case. The Minister responsible for the GCSB John Key refused to let his schoolboy friend come to the Intelligence and Security Committee and justify what is in this legislation. I know that David Shearer David Cunliffe Phil Goff Clare Curran and other members of the committee would have listened carefully. In fact almost certainly they would have agreed to have a secret session of the committee in order to be properly briefed so that they could understand. But what one suspects—what one suspects—is that no case can be made.Certainly I have doubts about whether the case can be made for the powers under Part 3 of this bill which are essentially on the part of the Minister unmitigated. What has to happen? What has to happen? The Prime Minister’s friend whom he appointed without proper process comes to him with a request. There is some doubt about it. The Prime Minister has to refer it to the commissioner. But who appoints the commissioner? Who oversees the commissioner? Whose responsibility is the commissioner? It is the Prime Minister. There is no check there is no balance in this system and therefore it is bad law.Quite a few years ago—quite a few years ago and the members who would remember it are certainly well gone from this House—in 1977 a relatively young protester was arrested upstairs because he thought that the powers that Sir Robert Muldoon was taking at the time under the SIS legislation in 1977 were unreasonable. That was me. In the end—[Interruption] What?Andrew Little: There was the punk in Wanganui but he blew himself up.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well I had a ponytail at the time and Muldoon remembered it. But the point that I am making is that the powers that Muldoon was taking at that point had absolutely nothing on this: the ability to go into companies and require them to spend millions of dollars or even tens of millions of dollars in order to satisfy unproven—absolutely unproven—and unjustified arrangements that are required by a person who was appointed by the Prime Minister.It is just wrong. It is just wrong that this Committee is passing this legislation and Government members are absolutely mute. They are absolutely mute. Not one single member of the Government benches has had the fortitude to stand up and support the Minister. Not one member of the Government thinks that this legislation is right and proper to the extent that they are prepared to stand up and say what they think and what they believe. Look at their heads go down. Look at their heads go down. They are ashamed. They are embarrassed because they know that the National Party of Jack Marshall the National Party of Keith Holyoake even the National Party of James Brendan Bolger would never pass this sort of illiberal attack on companies that want to work in New Zealand.And what is worse it is an uneven attack. If you happen to have a base in New Zealand and you provide services in New Zealand you are punished but if you are based offshore and you package something up and you sell it through NoelLeeming orThe Warehouse then you are not punished. The same requirements do not apply. Well the Minister says no but the legislation says yes. I do not—Hon Amy Adams: No it doesn’t.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well maybe I do not know the Minister well enough. I actually used to have a high opinion of her. I thought when Hekia Parata was appointed to Cabinet that Hekia got there only because of her ethnicity and that if it was done on talent then Amy Adams would have got there. Now I have got my doubts. Now I have got my doubts. This Minister is not showing any indication at all—not showing any indication at all—of actually reading her legislation and explaining it enough to any one of the mutes opposite to the extent that they could support her.And what are we saying there? We have got a number of members—there is one called McKelvie there is one from Hamilton East there is one from Marlborough there is one from Rotorua there is one from Botany or some area Craig Foss Tony Ryall—but none of them understand the legislation well enough to take a call on it. You know actually it is not that complicated legislation. It has got some weight to it but it is pretty easy to read and it is pretty easy to understand. Anyone who has had a bit of experience in Parliament—