Power Simon: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12267] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I was not a member of what at first glance appears to be a reasonably high-powered group on the Law and Order Committee this evening I have found myself taking an urgent interest in this bill. I wish to raise two or three matters with the House and with the Minister in his interpretation of the bill. The Minister moved quickly through his recital of officials’ notes and perhaps did not spend sufficient time explaining to the House the fact that this bill does not change or extend existing powers. That is quite an important issue. The bill does ensure that certain technicalities by the telecommunications industry are able to be met in order to carry out the interception as opposed to creating a whole new raft of legislative measures so that that interception may occur. 
It is an important point to make because on the one hand issues like this always balance finely issues of privacy for individuals using telecommunications devices with on the other hand the greater public good in respect of security issues. I have to say concerning the explanatory note to this bill referring to national security—and the Minister himself raised the issue of national security—that it is worth reading from the background commentary this point: “This legislation is necessary to prevent law enforcement and national security capability being seriously eroded because of technical issues related to telecommunications networks.” 
I am sure when various officials appeared before this high-powered Law and Order Committee the first question on the minds of those members of the select committee would have been to ask those officials: “Whatever happened to the incredibly benign strategic environment?”. No doubt given the calibre of those members who make up this committee there was sufficient cross-examination of those officials to simply get to the bottom of the issue. If indeed this country still exists in what the Prime Minister has termed an incredibly benign strategic environment then why is legislation like this necessary? I would be interested in hearing from those members of the Law and Order Committee as to what response they received from officials when they raised that issue. 
The Government cannot have it both ways. The Government either believes that we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment as the Prime Minister has stated on many occasions or the Government believes that legislation is necessary to be brought into this House to literally twist the arm of telecommunications providers to ensure national security objectives are met. Now we in the National Party will be supporting the passage of this bill because we do believe that these measures are essential for national security objectives to be met and in particular for telecommunications providers of both landlines as they are so-called and cellphones to have the technical equipment in order that the necessary surveillance is carried out. 
But the question must be asked that if the Government’s stated foreign policy position in respect of the post - September 11 environment is still that this country is in an incredibly benign strategic environment then how does this legislation fit into that paradigm? I do not think it is an unreasonable question for members of this House to ask particularly when this party and to be fair the ACT party have consistently supported the view that changes to our foreign policy and defence arrangements must reflect the fact that our strategic environment has altered substantially since September 11 since Bali since Jakarta since Madrid and since Baghdad. 
It is simply not good enough for the Government to say on the one hand“Well no that is just not the case we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment but at the same time we’re going to pass new legislation for national security measures.” I would be interested in hearing from Marc Alexander and others who sat on the select committee as to how those two objectives were met by the select committee when considering the policy statements of the Government about the strategic environment that we exist in and how that was measured against the legislation that now appears before this House for its second reading. 
Interestingly and I have to say that this is a point that leapt out of the commentary at me as I was sitting here earlier this evening reading this bill the fact that Australia and the United Kingdom passed this type of legislation into law—in the case of the United Kingdom 4 years ago and in the case of Australia 7 years ago—that goes to the heart of the issue being raised by members on this side of the House which is this. Australia and the United Kingdom took these issues seriously long before this Government did. And it is simply not good enough to have a last-minute run at this issue when we have seen world terrorism on the global stage operating at a level that simply denies the Government its fundamental foreign policy position that we live in a benign strategic environment—because the evidence simply does not point in that direction at all. 
Keith Locke 
: It does. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well I am looking forward to hearing what the Green Party and I presume Keith Locke has to say about this. I know that the Green Party will be concerned about privacy issues and I will be interested to hear from them as to how those issues fit in with their view of how benign or otherwise the current strategic environment is. 
I do want to raise one further point and that is that the Government rightly will pay the costs relating to the provision of the particular interception capability and so it should and National supports that measure in particular as well as supporting the wider implications of this bill. If indeed this bill is as the Minister says an issue of national security then it is incumbent on the Government to meet those technical capabilities by way of cost to those telecommunication providers in a way that makes us a responsible international player in an environment that we believe on this side of the House has never been incredibly benign let alone since September 11 Bali Jakarta Madrid and Baghdad. 
It is worth noting though—and I did raise this while the Minister was making his contribution—that although the Minister estimates costs to be borne by the telecommunications companies were estimated to be $12 million in fact the submissions made to the select committee according to the commentary put those figures well out of line with the $23.5 million or if one likes $43.5 million based on all network elements that that interception capability would cost. I think the Government needs to assure the public of New Zealand that the moneys committed by the Government to ensure these interception capabilities are going to work are sufficient to ensure national security will be preserved. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes. 
SIMON POWER 
: While the Minister says “Yes” I hope he is right. As I said earlier in my contribution the National Party will be supporting the passage of this bill through the House primarily because our view that we do not live in a benign strategic environment has not altered at all in the time that I have been in this House. I look forward to making further statements in respect of this bill when we enter into the Committee stage later this evening.