Curran Clare: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13981. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Part 3 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is the part of the bill about which every single telecommunications company and every entity that came before the Law and Order Committee expressed grave concerns. They expressed concerns about the extent of the powers that this bill provides to both the Government Communications SecurityBureau (GCSB) and to the responsible Minister and about what the impact of the costs of that will be on the viability and the operational requirements of those entities.The Law and Order Committee was silent on that latter matter. I think it is very important that the Committee hears this. During the process of the select committee every single telecommunications company that came before the committee was specifically asked by the Labour side of the select committee to provide the committee—and this was supported by the chair—with information on the cost impact of this part of the bill on their business. A number of those companies came back to the committee with substantive supplementary submissions. They included Telecom Vodafone Chorus Enable Networks and a number of other telecommunications companies that are deemed to be network operators under this bill. They provided a sobering picture for the committee from hundreds of thousands of dollars just to set up administrative requirements to the up to $50 million that the submission of Enable Networks I think suggested could be the impost on the company should it be required to change a key arrangement that it has with a provider in rolling out its part of the ultra-fast broadband programme.Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of who those partners were and whether those decisions should or should not be made those cost impacts are not insubstantial. In fact they are very substantial for our telecommunications industry and for our technology industry. However during the discussion on this bill subsequent to receiving those supplementary submissions the committee was not allowed to discuss them. We were not allowed to ask officials about those cost impacts because it was ruled out of order. Taking into account the redacted regulatory impact statements held up in the Chamber before dinner which showed great pages that were empty because they had been redacted when it came to providing the select committee with information about any economic analysis that had been done I would just like the Committee to know that we were not allowed to discuss the economic impact submissions that had been provided to us by those telecommunications companies. This is just simply not acceptable.This legislation is being rushed through the Committee stage tonight and the Government is trying to push through the third reading this week so that it can get it off its plate and so that the country can move on and the Minister can pretend that everything is all right. Every single telecommunications company every single network operator that submitted to us said that there was a significant cost impact on their company in implementing this bill. The National Government people on the other side of the Chamber seem to think that that is just fine.So who when we are discussing this bill is sticking up for the industry? Who is listening to the industry whether it is the local tech companies or the bigger companies that are saying that there is a serious conflict with international law with this piece of legislation? Who is sticking up for them? Well it is certainly not the Government of the day.Instead the Government talks to us about this security issue that again we were not allowed to hear evidence on. We were not allowed to hear any evidence from the surveillance authorities.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Can I just pause the member because I want to make a correction. The vote on the question that Part 2 as amended stand part was incorrectly announced as Ayes 61 Noes 57. After reviewing the record the correct result should have been Ayes 61 Noes 58. The record will be corrected accordingly. A second call goes to Clare Curran.CLARE CURRAN: Thank you. Just coming back to the specifics in its submission to the select committee Telecom which is one of New Zealand’s major telecommunications companies referred to one of the issues that it had with the bill. Itopposed the onerous provisions in Part 3 which it felt would have a significant impact on how it went about its business as did the other telecommunications companies. It also referred to one of the problems it had. It felt that there was not a level playing field for what we call the traditional telecommunications companies—the network operators—and those service providers that are the over-the-top providers so say for comparison purposes the likes of Telecom versus Microsoft.Telecom told us that if it wanted to sell to a customer in New Zealand a bundled product that included your internet connection your telephone line and also another package which might be a Microsoft Office - based product so that you could have that all at once then it had a problem in that you could also go to NoelLeeming or another outfit to buy the Microsoft Office - based product over the counter. If you wanted to buy that in a bundled way from Telecom and get it for a bit of a cheaper price Telecom may have to provide an intercept-capable capacity on that Microsoft Office product whereas if you went to NoelLeeming and bought it over the counter that would not be required. Telecom had a point that there was a discrepancy in the law.Clause 39 of the bill which the Minister has gotten rid of in Supplementary Order Paper 366 actually on the face of it appeared to be addressing that issue for Telecom but there is a question. Because Telecom is a network operator and because it falls within that definition of “network operator” Part 3 applies directly to it. Part 3 of the bill provides the onerous requirements on a network operator that it has to basically be at the bidding of the GCSB which can now go inside the organisation and can determine what it can and cannot do. If that telecommunications company decides that it does not like that then the GCSB has the remedy of going straight to the Minister and the Minister can make the decision. There really are no checks and balances around that.Despite the fact that clause 39 has now been deleted from the bill the question remains and this is a question directly for the Minister and it would be good if she could answer it in the Committee tonight: do the likes of Telecom have to come and ask for an exemption if they want to sell a bundled product and not provide an intercept capability over that product? Do they have to Minister? Do they have to? They do have to come—Hon Amy Adams: I heard you. I’ll answer shortly.CLARE CURRAN: So was that a yes?Hon Amy Adams: I’ll answer shortly when I take a call.CLARE CURRAN: Oh thank you. That would be good if you could get to your feet and answer it because it is actually a very significant question.The reason it is a significant question is that this Government is a Government that trumpets its ultra-fast broadband scheme as something that is going to—even though hardly anyone is taking it up at the moment—kick-start the economy. And yet this legislation is actually making it harder for the network operators the retail service providers and the internet service providers to actually provide bundled products that are actually going to drive the uptake of ultra-fast broadband.So on the one hand the Government is saying it is all great and everything is going to be wonderful in this new fibre world but on the other hand it has got legislation that is actually making it harder for the locally based companies to actually bundle up those products and sell them to consumers. It is putting onus on them that is going to cost them money or make them go and ask for an exemption potentially—and it would be good if we could get an answer from the Minister as to whether or not they can actually sell those products with or without intercept capabilities because if—