Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4391] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has several amendments under this part three of which are along the lines suggested by the Privacy Commissioner who made a very intelligent submission to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I will move these motions which are amendments he suggested. The Committee and Parliament as a whole should take them on board. For a start clause 15(1) would add paragraph (c) “otherwise intercept any private communication.” The aim of this is to guard against the situation where the permission of a person alone is sufficient for an interception. The commissioner wants warrants to be obtained. If one gets a householder’s permission to intercept a communication and from that household one looks at the communications of someone in the next-door property the fact that permission has been given to the Government Communications Security Bureau should not avoid the need for a warrant. That is a very good suggestion made by the Privacy Commissioner and it is now put down in an amendment. 
The idea in clause 16(1) is to omit the words “or by any other enactment” which is a very general term. In this part we are talking about warrantless communications and there is a particular problem with warrantless communications. If we just have any other enactment to allow this without specifying those particular Acts we could get into a lot of trouble. On behalf of the Green Party I suggest that in clause 23(1) we change the period of the warrants from 12 months to 6 months. The Privacy Commissioner argued that 6 months is quite a long time and there should be some sort of review. It does not mean to say the interception could not continue beyond that time but there would have to be a review process and an additional application in order to achieve that extension of the warrant. That would be more in line with warrants in other agencies that do not go for 12 months. My amendment to clause 24A adds after the words “whose communications are to be intercepted” the words “and also to take reasonable steps to avoid damage to computer and communications equipment accessed in the interception process.” This last amendment is not a suggestion of the Privacy Commissioner but it would be a useful addition to the bill. 
Part 3 “Interception of communications” is very important. It is a considerable invasion of our privacy when an agency like the Government Communications Security Bureau is given the right to intercept electronic communications which we use so much these days and in tandem with the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill the powers to intercept electronic communications of all types plus the right to hack into people’s computers—that is to access people’s computers remotely without them even knowing that that is happening. Under clause 16 which refers to unwarranted interceptions it will be done only to foreign communications. As I said earlier the term “foreign” is so wide that it can include a lot of foreign non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace Amnesty International etc. or subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Also any New Zealander in communication with a foreigner could be intercepted. Most electronic communications do not carry passport details with them so none of the intercepting agencies really knows whether they are intercepting a New Zealander or a foreigner. New Zealanders can be caught up in this system which is why it is very important to have all the proper qualifications here in terms of warrants and proper authorisation. There should not be any looseness in the system. 
Clause 20 “Authorisation to access computer system” contains a very broad power. I am sure that most people like myself keep a lot of back-files on their computers for years. A lot of our personal lives—all our thoughts and everything—are on our computers.