Beaumont Carol: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13858. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a great pleasure to rise and take the spot that has been left by the National Party which did not take one of its calls on what is a very significant piece of legislation the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. It is a bill that the Labour Party strongly opposes and my colleagues the previous Labour speakers have outlined in great detail why we oppose it starting withour leader David Cunliffe Clare Curran who has done enormous work in this area the Hon Phil Goff and most recently Maryan Street. I want to follow those Labour speakers and just put on record again our concerns about both the content of this Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill and the process around this bill.First of all this bill is problematic because it has added to the previous legislation the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004 a significant new component to the title and that relates to security. What this bill is doing is facilitating the changes that the Government pushed through under the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill. That bill failed to provide enough protections for New Zealanders and many people listening have followed both that bill and this bill very closely. As my colleague the Hon Maryan Street has said the people who care about democracy and the people who actually care about civil liberties and about privacy have been following these bills very closely. So this bill also fails in that regard.It involves a major expansion of the Government’s powers over network providers and the information provided through them. As the Hon Maryan Street has said of course we are concerned like other people about security but it has to be balanced and this bill is not balanced and it does not balance protections for people’s privacy. That is what is so concerning. It is also concerning that the bill gives Ministers extraordinary powers. Given the behaviour of a number of Ministers—and the Hon Maryan Street referred to the behaviour of the Hon Paula Bennett but there are other examples that have taken place of bullying by Government Ministers—we would be very concerned about Ministers opposite having these extraordinary powers. So these powers are likely to increase the risk of incursions. It significantly increases the role of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) overall and its role in decisions by network providers and the information that must be provided to it. Telecommunications companies are being required to make their networksinterceptable and to consult with the GCSB on upgrades and technology suppliers.Again the Hon Maryan Street in her recent contribution has talked about this Government’s dependence on big business and its continued cronyism and its continued selling of legislation. This one has actually been quite interesting because this bill was strongly opposed by the major telecommunications companies in terms of the risks that it places on their being able to continue to provide services in New Zealand. Of course as we just heard last night the Minister for Communications and Information Technology actually backed down and issued Supplementary Order Paper 366 to remove clause 39 which required overseas companies to comply. Again the Government has been putting issues on to big business that we do not necessarily agree with and it is yet another example of the Government complying with the demands of business. But does this Government actually listen to the concerns of individual New Zealanders as opposed to big business? We think not. There are so many examples of that. This is a Government that is completely out of touch with the concerns of New Zealanders. The National-led Government is not concerned about New Zealanders’ very rightful fear of incursions into their privacy into their being spied upon.Of course we also know that the bill is shoddy. It is poorly drafted and the Law and Order Committee is dealing with this. I want to acknowledge and commend to people the Labour minority report which covers a lot of these issues but powers and provisions were in the Law and Order Committee’s words “not clear or are too broad.” This is very important in a bill that actually has so much ability to undermine people’s privacy. To have a select committee saying that the powers that were being given were not clear or too broad is extremely concerning. So the select committee has made changes to try to limit and clarify powers and processes but will there be further rushedchanges from the Minister? Obviously there has been really poor drafting pushing through legislation again. This is not a good way to make law. It is particularly not a good way to make law of such significance.So just to really summarise I guess we are concerned that the balance between privacy and security has not been met in this legislation that there is a significant expansion of powers and that that is always something that should be very very carefully dealt with. It is a companion measure to the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill. This is something as I have said earlier that New Zealanders are worried about that a lot of people are following. I think that National underestimates that level of concern.We agreed withInternetNZ’s submission for example that the challenge was to strike “the appropriate balance between addressing national security concerns without introducing a permission-seeking process that is too involved and uncertain to incentivise network operators to [innovate] and to support a competitive telecommunications market.”Other concerns that we have raised are the cost implications. That is referring to submissions by several network operators. The case for expansion of powers has not been made. During the hearing of submissions Labour members consistently asked submitters whether they considered there was a case for the expansion of powers in this bill to the GCSB and to Ministers. Not one submitter agreed that there had been a case for the expansion of those powers. The committee was not allowed to hear submissions from any of the surveillance agencies—including the GCSB the SIS or the New Zealand Police—outlining the case for increased interception powers or expanded powers in network design and build. I think that is something that is also extremely troubling. Supposedly those agencies have reasons for wanting this expansions of powers. Surely to goodness that should be on record and surely to goodness the select committee should be able to hear from them and question those agencies. The fact that the committee was not able to is I think very concerning for our democracy. As Maryan Street also said there are a number of pieces of legislation and Acts of this Government that when you put them together show a complete and utter disregard for our democracy.Just to finalise I am standing here along with my four former speakers to say that the Labour Party strongly opposes this bill and it will continue to do so.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to.