Mark Ron: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4393] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I will pick up on the points that have been raised by the honourable member Simon Power. I ask the Government to reflect on this. I know what this bill is all about; it is about enhancing our security and protecting ourselves. In the light of September 11 and the things we have seen since then it is a very sensible bill. We might argue that it has taken too long to get here but when we look at some of the issues that face us as a nation and we reflect on a lot of the debate we have had in this House in respect of border control and immigration I have to ask what clause 14 “Interceptions not to target domestic communications” means in stating: “Neither the Director nor an employee of the Bureau ... of a person ... who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.” 
Let me use an example so that I am not accused of being xenophobic or whatever. In the Middle East I was known by a couple of names. I had the names Hernam Singh and Abdul Aziz. Let us just imagine that Abdul Aziz came to New Zealand on a tourist visa to travel around and look at our wonderful scenery then sought to change his status from that of a tourist to that of a resident or a student so as to attend university. We all know that that is possible here because the Minister has answered countless questions about that very issue and has confirmed that that indeed happens. After 2 years in New Zealand Abdul Aziz then applies to be a permanent resident. At that point none of his internal communications within New Zealand can be monitored by this bill. Is that sensible? It is not sensible. 
The one thing we have all learnt from modern terrorist operations is that to those people time is no boundary or limitation. The prospect idea or method of installing people in a country where they are sleepers and go about establishing their reputations their careers their CVs and their history alongside ordinary New Zealanders is a time-proven method of operating. It is standard operating procedure for many terrorist organisations. It is an operating procedure that has been used very effectively because they know that after a certain time an individual’s slate is cleaned and sanctified and that person can then move out on to the greater international market with a clean New Zealand passport and operate with freedom inside another country or can commence operating inside the host country. This clause prevents the Government Communications Security Bureau from monitoring the communications of such an individual. 
I ask the Government whether that is what it intended. Is that sensible? That is where the Security Intelligence Service comes in. Maybe the Minister in the chair being as learned and well-paid as he is could take a call and satisfy my concerns by explaining how our other internal security mechanisms pick up and kick back on this particular worrying anomaly just to reassure me and the Committee that such a scenario could not be played out and that such a scenario if not covered in this bill is covered in other legislation that the Security Intelligence Service acts under or that the New Zealand Police may have at its disposal. Far from having the concerns that Mr Locke has I do not see anything in clause 14 that worries me about the freedoms and rights of people who are not even citizens of this nation but are simply permanent residents. I see a threat to the New Zealand security system a failing in our internal security and a gap in that clause that would give comfort to people who might have in their intent the notion or the deliberate plan of acting against New Zealand’s interests or long term against the interests of New Zealand’s allies. I really would appreciate the Minister satisfying my concerns by taking a call and commenting on that right now.