Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6)

I would like to address clause 16B, which gives exemption to the Government Communications Security Bureau from the prohibitions in the bill against intercepting electronic communications. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but members are well aware that it is not permissible to have cellphones ringing in this Chamber. I ask the member whose cellphone was on to please stand and apologise to the Committee.

💬 Ron Mark: I apologise to the Committee. My cellphone is now on silent.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member very much. I appreciate that.

I was speaking about the exemption being granted to the Government Communications Security Bureau under this bill, from the general prohibition about intercepting electronic communications. The bill states that the communications that will be intercepted by the bureau will include foreign intelligence, and, in section 216A(1) in clause 16A(1), it defines “foreign intelligence” as being intelligence to or from foreign organisations. We see from the definition of “foreign organisation”, that that can include, for example, the subsidiary of an overseas-owned company. We know that in our society a large proportion of our economy is now overseas owned, so even though the Government has often claimed that the only targets of the Government Communications Security Bureau will be overseas people, in fact when we look at the definition, we see that a large proportion of people in New Zealand would be subject to interception because they work for subsidiaries of foreign companies.

This bill could give a bit of an impetus to the Taranaki savings bank.The rest of our banking system is made up of subsidiaries of foreign companies. If one sends an email to one’s bank, under this legislation one’s communication could be intercepted by the Government Communications Security Bureau, because all those overseas banks are included in the definition of a foreign organisation.

The other question, and it comes up in the report back from the Law and Order Committee, is the extent to which electronic interceptions by the Government Communications Security Bureau and other agencies will go into the area of key word searches. I shall quickly read out a couple of sentences from the report relevant to this: “Key word searching is where the person undertaking the interception or search uses a computer programme to help find or monitor information by searching for particular target words. Key word searching is viewed as being more invasive than other methods used to monitor postal mail or phone calls. It is seen as a gross invasion of privacy, as it is indiscriminate as to the context in which the words are used, leading to the scrutiny of many innocent emails, and the potential threat to the safety of political dissidents in countries where political opposition is not tolerated.” The report then goes on: “The committee considered the safeguards in the bill are adequate to ensure that personal privacy is balanced appropriately with the rights of the State to protect its citizens.”

That conclusion from the committee is not correct. When one looks at the Waihopai satellite communications interception station, which does intercept millions over a year of communications that pass through to Pacific satellites that its dishes are focused on, many of us may have our international communications—fax, phone, or email—intercepted by that system, and that system is a key word system. It is not a system that is fixed on particular lines, as envisaged, say, in the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill now before the Law and Order Committee. The Waihopai system is a key word interception system. In regard to the bit I quoted from the bill, it could lead to the scrutiny of many innocent emails of New Zealanders, and that is very bad.

There has been a concern around the world about key word searching. Under the bill the Government Communications Security Bureau is granted the power to intercept communications, and where does it end? It can extend into key word searching, or there can be other developments that people are worried about internationally.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 19 be agreed to:

to omit new sections 254 and 255.

The next amendments are also in the name of the honourable member Keith Locke.

💬 Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. These other amendments are amendments to the next part, as I understand it?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, Part 1 is clauses 2 to 24. The amendments in the member’s name range from 21A through to 21J, so they are covered in that part. I shall put the question now.

💬 Keith Locke: In the bill, the bolded section Part 1—the amendments 21A etc.—are under the bolded section headed Part 10.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is part of this part of the bill; the part that will be inserted into the Act.

💬 Keith Locke: Surely, if sections—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I think the member is confused. The amendments he is putting forward are part of Part 1.

💬 Keith Locke: If you look at the title page of the bill, pages 1 and 2, the amendments to the principal Act, 20-24, are under the bolded “Part 10”, and not under the bolded “Part 1”. I bring up this point, because I was assuming that my amendments would come up under that bolded “Part 10”, and I was going to address them to the Committee under that. There is no indication from that table of contents that they come under Part 1. They are at the end of the bill. If you look at the order of them as they are described in the bill, they are at the end of the bill, that is after the other—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to the fact that a new part is to be inserted into the Act. However, it is being inserted by this part of the bill. I now wish to put the question.