Carter DavidWEDNESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.SPEAKER'S STATEMENTSParliamentary ICT System—SEEMail Email SecurityMr SPEAKER: Honourable members yesterday Chris Hipkins raised in the House the blocking of an email he wished to send to a journalist. I undertook to look into the matter and come back to the House. The secure encrypted email system known as SEEMail exists primarily to encrypt emails exchanged between State sector organisations. SEEMail also prevents classified information being inadvertently sent outside participating organisations. SEEMail has been in use in Parliament since 2007. Mail filters look for the words SEEMail" "restricted" "sensitive" or "in confidence" which are attached to emails and documents at the choice of the sender. It then applies encryption to the email and attachments before sending them. It does not otherwise scan or store the content of emails. I have been given an absolute assurance that the Parliamentary Service email system does not scan members' emails other than for spam filtering viruses and SEEMail classifications.SEEMail is primarily used by Ministers and their departments who need secure encrypted communication but it currently applies to everyone with an @parliament.govt.nz email address. It blocks any email with a SEEMail security classification from being sent to someone without that classification. The concern raised yesterday was that SEEMail's system could hinder a member from carrying out his or her duties. Members must be free to send and receive information as they see fit. No other agency should be involved in determining how members deal with the information they hold. That approach is consistent with the findings of the Privileges Committee when it reported on the use of intrusive powers within the parliamentary precinct. Equally it is important that members are able to communicate securely safe from external cyber-threats.I have identified five possible solutions to the conflict between information security and the undoubted right of members to freely use information: (1) a member may remove the SEEMail classification from an email or document they have received. This can then be sent anywhere the member wishes. Although this would have solved Mr Hipkins' immediate problem it does not address the wider issue. (2) Ministers could instruct departments not to apply SEEMail security to information being sent to members who are not Ministers. Official Information Act responses should never be so classified in the first place. (3) If members are not satisfied with these two solutions Ministers could be given a separate email domain so that email as SEEMail applied only to them. That would require further discussion. (4) Parliament could opt out of the system entirely. However that carries with it considerable cyber-security risks. A fifth possible solution which does require further testing is for SEEMail to be applied only to communications with participating SEEMail organisations then members' emails to journalists and the public would be sent freely and without scanning or encryption.The matter is a fairly complex one and it cannot be resolved today on the floor of the House. It is however essential that it is resolved to the satisfaction of members and that their ability to send and receive information is not in any way hindered. I will distribute this ruling to all members immediately. I intend to discuss it further with the Parliamentary Service Commission at its next meeting and I would welcome representation from any members who wish to discuss this matter with me."